The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The Hajj: from pilgrimage to holiday > Comments

The Hajj: from pilgrimage to holiday : Comments

By Bashir Goth, published 13/2/2006

The rise of affluence in Muslim cultures has impacted on the Islamic ritual of hajj during Ramadan.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. Page 7
  9. 8
  10. All
Nonsense. Pericles.

Fair dinkum.

Jesus was the Son of God, he rose from dead three days after being crucified. This is either true or false.

That is.

Absolutely true or absolutely false. You think the latter I think the former. So let us put forward our reasons and argue which is true.

This is the same position every person has been in for 5000 years. Why do you want to change the ordinary rules of language they have served us so well.

It seems there is some confusion. I'd insist it be worked out in case others contract this disease.
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Monday, 20 February 2006 1:03:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not quite sure which bit you were taking aim at, Martin.

Having previously stated that "painting the Church and history as black and white missing all nuance is what holds us all back", you now assert that "Jesus was the Son of God, he rose from dead three days after being crucified. This is either true or false."

If that isn't a case of either black or white, I don't know what is.

So what else do you have to offer?

"You think the latter I think the former. So let us put forward our reasons and argue which is true."

So we are agreed at least that we cannot possibly share the same frame of reference, yes?

Regrettably, it is not possible to adduce concrete facts from the evidence, for or against i) the existence of a person called Jesus Christ, ii) whether or not he was the Son of God, iii) whether or not he was crucified and iv) whether or not he rose from the dead three days later. What are available are elements of historical record that strengthen or weaken one case or the other.

At some point, we have to insert an additional factor - faith, belief, wishful thinking or whatever - in order to come to a conclusion. You choose faith, and conclude for the positive, I see the lack of convincing evidence and elect to reserve my judgement.

But the key point is that if we start in different frameworks, you with your truths and me with my relativities, they can only be measured against each other in a relative way - the strengths and weakness of one set of conclusions against the strengths and weaknesses of the other.

An alarming conclusion, Martin, is that you are a relativist too.

What would the Pope say?
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 20 February 2006 4:43:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For cryin out loud - did Wellington defeat Napolean at Waterloo?

There is nothing relative about my frame of reference when I say Jesus rose from the dead, either this happened or it did not.

No nuance can be entertained here with these two historical truths.

The nuance comes in when ppl who post paint all of Church history over 20 centuries as all wonderful or all horrific.

Do you see the difference?

One is a statement about a particular the other about a universal historic phenomenon.

Don't share the same frame of reference? Pericles you're sounding like a post modernist feminist anti-hetero normative academic or something. hehe

Einstein confuses people. For example time is relative to a person's frame of reference but physical laws still apply absolutely in whatever frame of reference you're in.

Pericles we share the same language, inhabit the same world, the same universe, understand the same rules of grammar, no the objective world from the subjective (I hope) and we have the standard of reason. I think we can communicate. Stop reading whatever books put this kind of thing into your head.

As for weight of evidence - now we're getting somewhere. I think you're wrong. But I have posted about this earlier in the 'Aslan and Jesus' thread.

If you care http://www.tektonics.org/

The Pope would think he needs to pray more for you, given how often instead of standing for something people fall for anything.
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Monday, 20 February 2006 5:45:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For Pericles.

I must confess, I love your style. If you are not already a Journalist, you should consider it if your present occupation experiences demise !

Now.. to the point in question. Christ.

The documents which are our sources, the Gospels, and the tradition surrounding them and their inclusion in the canon and the rejection of other supposed gospels (Thomas, Barnabus) is quite solid I feel.
Ultimately, an evaluation at the personal level will be subjective rather than objective, due to the fact that 'the' Gospel presents life changing challenges on our lives of eternal dimensions.

It doesn't take a reader long to realize this, and this is when the 'bargaining' for the soul begins. The "If....then's" if you will.
The greater degree of conflict between 'now' and the "...then" the higher the probability that ones own 'subjective filtering' will influence our conclusions.

Mark 1:1 is instructive

"The 'beginning' of the 'euangelion'Gospel about Jesus Christ, Son of God."...... as it is found in Isaiah the prophet.

And so the gospel begins there, rooted in the old Testament.

The beginning.....
Euangelion........ An announcement of historic importance made by a crier on behalf of the Emperor.

about............. its subject matter.

Jesus............. the man, son of Mary, of the line of David

Christ............ Kristus-Hebrew meaning=Messiah "Annointed"

"Son of God"........ There is the first point where most people will encounter eternal reality.

John instructed his disciples to ask

"Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?"

Jesus response:

"Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy[b] are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor."

A Question asked by Jesus:

"who do men say that I am" ?

The disciples gave different opinions: John the Baptist, Elijah, one of the Prophets....

Finally He asks "But who do you....say that I am" ?
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 21 February 2006 8:41:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Martin, an exceedingly good question, and an even better example of what we have been discussing.

>>For cryin out loud - did Wellington defeat Napolean at Waterloo?<<

Naturally, if you were to ask Wellington, in his frame of reference there was no shadow of doubt. At twenty past four, he told Lieutenant-Colonel Stanhope, "The battle is mine; and if the Prussians arrive soon, there will be an end of the war."

Napoleon's view was that "The Prussians under Bulow, came up at half past 4; but the issue remained doubtful until half past 7. A Prussian charge decided the business."

So was it Wellington, or Bulow? The answer is, “that depends upon your frame of reference.”

Was it important to Wellington to stamp his mark on the battle - which after all, assisted his subsequent political career substantially?

Or do we believe someone who had less reason to add to Wellington's glory, and more reason to attribute his defeat to overwhelming enemy numbers, the arrival of fresh troops against him etc. etc.

What you and I do, of course, is to add our own slant to the discussion. If I were Irish, and determined not to admit that any Englishmen in history is worth a pan of praties, I'd side with Napoleon. But I'm English by birth, so I tend to see Wellington's point.

The fact that for every ten Wellington boosters there is only one Boney fan is irrelevant. The truth is independent of any of them, but there isn't any way to gather sufficient evidence that will, ever, utterly destroy the other's argument.

Relatively speaking, that is.

Boaz, thanks for the kind words, I can see that we are in agreement over this.

“Ultimately, an evaluation at the personal level will be subjective rather than objective.”

Once it moves into the sphere of human thought, it is essential to take into account the context in which the Gospels were written, as well as our own frame of reference.

And when we do that, we are stuck with relativism.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 21 February 2006 1:12:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The better put question wld've been did Napolean lose.

Of course history is not science, you can't fight the battle of Waterloo in lab and control all the variables. Events containing human beings have subjective components of course. Just because individuals dispute emphases or give different weight to different evidence

It does not follow that because history will never be as objective as science there are no facts of the matter.

It does not follow that because humans are subjects there are no objects.

There ARE facts of the matter, we work our whole lives to get as fuller picture as possible. (This is where other people come in, often who disagree)

Relativism urges us to ditch the questions entirely and go and build a tree house or plant some corn. Not that these things aren't good but its a lie to say life is better lived without asking ultimate questions. In fact its a trap, its a trick.

I say ditch eptistemological relativism, for realism. Otherwise I don't know what we can say to each other Pericles.
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Tuesday, 21 February 2006 5:21:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. Page 7
  9. 8
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy