Comments by Goldy

Comment #423805 by Goldy on October 15, 2009 at 12:34 am

Many Syrians I worked with were cultural Muslims. Just that. Many didn't, as far as I could tell, believe - they went through the motions like many Europeans do.
Muslims are labelled people, just like us. I know I am one of the 2.x billion Christians I read about. That article regarding the number of Muslims was the same (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6275406/Muslim-population-worldwide-grows-nearly-1-in-4-people-practise-Islam-study-says.html). 1 in 4 people are labelled Muslim, they are not Muslim.
It's all a crock, a game of religo-political Top Trumps.

2. A universe that follows 'laws' implies a 'law giver'

Comment #423449 by Goldy on October 13, 2009 at 2:11 am

162. Comment #423441 by root2squared
They're all stories. The scary part is when they're elevated to reality...
;-)

3. A universe that follows 'laws' implies a 'law giver'

Comment #423432 by Goldy on October 13, 2009 at 12:31 am

Do you know of any debates between evolutionists and religions besides christianity on youtube or anywhere?

Well, there's Islamic creationism...and there's those hindus that said the link between Sri Lanka and the Indian mainland was actually made by Rama's monkeys...which is pretty close
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/space/2007/09/bridge-built-by-monkeys.html

yes, if they were right, I'd still be wrong, but if I am to believe the most vocal religions, I'd still be wrong. Yet the vocal religions tell me the Hindus are wrong and they are in fact correct.
They can't all be right but they can all be wrong ;-)

4. You can't prove that you love someone, so don't expect proof of God

Comment #423193 by Goldy on October 12, 2009 at 3:40 am

Tom, let's not be too hard on the man (I'm assuming). He doesn't have to prove that gods exist, not even his pet one.
He does, however, probably need to use some form of argument other than "This god is sooooooo out of our mental league we can never understand him"
Keeo the arguments at our level and we can slowly demolis....errr, work up to higher levels :-)

5. A universe that follows 'laws' implies a 'law giver'

Comment #423187 by Goldy on October 12, 2009 at 2:37 am

The bible actually has probably the most logical way to describe God's being, (there are many ways to define Him morally, but we're not talking about that are we?) "I am that I am."

Depends on translation, I thought.
Ideally, God is "I am what you say I am"

Or, indeed, as Bonzai said, God is Popeye....

6. A universe that follows 'laws' implies a 'law giver'

Comment #423186 by Goldy on October 12, 2009 at 2:31 am

Goldy as in metal, not Godly as in Sky Daddy ;-)

Gravy, eh? Dunno - too much randomness to show their are there for a reason...to me at least. Things work so much better for me without a god in the picture.

And why is this god God? Millenia worshipping the wrong ones and now, all of a sudden, it's this god. What if the Hindus are right in terms of deities? What if the Greeks were right? As I recall, their gods were bound by the laws too....

7. A universe that follows 'laws' implies a 'law giver'

Comment #423171 by Goldy on October 12, 2009 at 1:35 am

Truth, you might be interested in this.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6274502/God-is-not-the-Creator-claims-academic.html

Posted on another thread, my apologies...

Not answering your question directly but I have to ask - why Earth? If God is responsible for, well, everything, why is life only possible on Earth in this solar system? Why the other planets? Why the stars? Why everything around us in space? Why comets, why dust, why radiation, why...well, why all the other things which don't make sense wrt to our existance and indeed our continued existance?
I know, I know - because we can't understand God's reasoning....

8. You can't prove that you love someone, so don't expect proof of God

Comment #423168 by Goldy on October 12, 2009 at 1:28 am

1truth55

How could there be evidence within the universe for something that is outside the universe? Do you want God to leave a footprint in some mud somewhere?
But what about miracles? Is it a problem for me that I think God can do miracles? Not in my thoughts, but tell me if you think that is a problem. But how do you explain miracles?

If you blow a soap bubble does that mean there is no evidence of you in that bubble?
Miracles - give me one example, please. A real miracle, inexplicable and verifiable. Are miracles real? Or are they merely things needing someone to believe in?

9. My Argument With God

Comment #423163 by Goldy on October 12, 2009 at 12:44 am

Ooooh, an IDiot here? Cool ;-)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6274502/God-is-not-the-Creator-claims-academic.html

10. Why I Won't Debate Creationists

Comment #422819 by Goldy on October 10, 2009 at 7:17 am

Comment #422789 by Jekamixwa2212
Evolution is not a belief system, it is a theory, backed by evidence, of how things have become what they are today from earlier forms.
Religion is a method of extracting money in vast quantities from gullible people.
See the difference?

11. A universe that follows 'laws' implies a 'law giver'

Comment #422818 by Goldy on October 10, 2009 at 7:13 am

1truth55
No. Evolution doesn't have to explain logic nor does it need to have an explanation for it - it is logical that evolution is right and cretinism (sic) is wrong because evidence points to evolution being the better explanation of how things are as they are now.
Do you know what evolution is?

12. You can't prove that you love someone, so don't expect proof of God

Comment #422817 by Goldy on October 10, 2009 at 7:10 am

OK, 1truth55, I'll bite. What exactly do you mean by this cryptical comment?
God either exists or God doesn't. Gods either exist or gods don't. So far there isn't any real evidence that gods are not a figment of man's imagination.

13. Happy Blasphemy Day

Comment #420581 by Goldy on September 30, 2009 at 10:56 pm

40. Comment #420538 by epeeist on September
Gin comes from Islay???

;-)

I tried to be blasphemous on the day....but no one noticed.

14. New research shows water present across the moon's surface - It turns out the moon is a lot wetter than we ever thought

Comment #418800 by Goldy on September 25, 2009 at 9:26 am

I dare say the moon would be a great dress rehearsal (again) for further exploration.

I have to ask - who will get there first (Mars, I mean). For the last few decades, everything suggested it was mainly Americans. Will the first Martian in fact be a Mandarin speaker, I wonder...

Not that it matters - once out of the bounds of Earth, it is humanity, not nationality, that is travelling out there... :-) I hope this would in some small way break down the nationality mentality that even I sometimes find myslef afflicted with...much to my shame...

15. People with 'no religion' gaining on major denominations

Comment #418797 by Goldy on September 25, 2009 at 9:21 am

I tried to be friendly to that lying sack of shit once.

Once bitten, twice shy.

I shall not try again.

He is shunned...if I may use a small religious sect's method ;-)

16. Woman Details Dramatic Encounter with Radical Islam

Comment #418741 by Goldy on September 25, 2009 at 4:14 am

You'll like this
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/columnists/03-nadeem-f-paracha-the-great-caving-in-ss-03
This is interesting too...mostly for me :-)
http://blog.dawn.com:91/dblog/2009/09/24/from-lashes-to-strokes/

17. Woman Details Dramatic Encounter with Radical Islam

Comment #418704 by Goldy on September 24, 2009 at 10:42 pm

139. Comment #418601 by Layla Nasreddin

Ah, well...I hope you're right that a backlash is in the offing, though it doesn't always happen, alas.

I've read grumblings about the Arabisation of Islam from some SE Asian writers. Recently Dawn contributers wrote a few pieces describing the taleban version of Islam as alien.
People are proud of their cultures everywhere :-)
You might remember this

In September 2005, Saudi Foreign Minister Saud Al Faisal warned that a civil war in Iraq would destabilize the entire region and complained that the Americans had handed Iraq over to Iran. In response, Iraqi Interior Minister Bayan Jabr called the Saudi foreign minister a “Bedouin riding a camel” and described Saudi Arabia as a one-family dictatorship. Jabr, who had commanded the Badr corps, also condemned Saudi human-rights abuses—particularly the repression of Saudi Arabia’s approximately two million Shias—and he mocked Saudi Arabia’s treatment of its women.

This is an Iraqi commenting on a Saudi :-)
From http://bostonreview.net/BR31.2/rosen.php

18. Woman Details Dramatic Encounter with Radical Islam

Comment #418526 by Goldy on September 24, 2009 at 8:09 am

Layla, not to worry. Islam could not kill Nowruz and I dare say there will be a form of backlash against the puritans...

OK, wife and child calling, guess it's time for bath, bed and story.

Night all!

19. Woman Details Dramatic Encounter with Radical Islam

Comment #418501 by Goldy on September 24, 2009 at 4:43 am

I sort of tend to agree with Steve...with modifications. As Layla said

Of course, the Sufism that is presented to the West is often shorn of most of the specifically Islamic content, but this was also the case in Southeast Asia, where for centuries those who converted because of the Sufi missionaries simply melded their own religions and animist beliefs with Islam. (They've become more rigid in later decades as they've become more aware of the rest of the Islamic world, alas.)

It's not the moderates smoothing the way for fanatics. Fanatics smooth the way for moderates, it seems, by altering the perception of what their religion is and how it should be practised. See how fanatics in Germany altered views of Jews - the same happens with religious thought. Anyone wanting to be a good Muslim will tune in to Meccan thought - that's where Islam is from, after all. Meccan thought is dictated to by the House of Saud which rides on the back of Wahab doctrine.
A quick google will show that many many Muslim societies do not recognise the Islam being promoted today - read editorials in Dawn and the like. Quite a while ago I linked a site that described how Muslim children in Eurrope were more fundamentalist than their parents. It recorded their views of going back to their parents' countries and being surprised at how unIslamic it was there, according to them. The Islam of their parents was not the same as the one taught to them in Europe - that Islam was taught to them as being the pure form, all others were corrupt.

20. New Drake Equation To Quantify Habitability?

Comment #418273 by Goldy on September 23, 2009 at 10:15 am

Did I not read that all the components needed for life as we know it are found in bodies such as comets?

Interesting subject, better than what constitutes a national dish :-) But it's time for me to hit the hay.

Night all

21. People with 'no religion' gaining on major denominations

Comment #418271 by Goldy on September 23, 2009 at 10:12 am

69. Comment #418270 by russkid
So, what do you consider classifies a "none"?

And as fish and chips contains South American ingredients, it cannot be English :-) So that's that argument shut down. I'd also go so far to say cod isn't really English either....

22. People with 'no religion' gaining on major denominations

Comment #418264 by Goldy on September 23, 2009 at 9:54 am

64. Comment #418263 by russkid
No, it's the hamburger. In your words "I wasnt making any assumptions. I was stating what is taught in culinary school."

23. People with 'no religion' gaining on major denominations

Comment #418260 by Goldy on September 23, 2009 at 9:43 am

CTM, well it is a curry. Spices like cumin/corriander, ginger, cardamom, tumeric, garam masala, chili's ... these are not English ingredients, they are indian.

Just because you happen to really like it does not make it English.

Aaah, so where do we draw the line? Is English white only? Sort of 1940, Blitz spirit post Dunkirk? Maybe it's pre-American discovery, devoid of potatoes and tomatoes (well, that fucks the Irish, then). Technically, fish and chips cannot be English either as 50% of that dish is composed of deep fried South American root vegetables...
I dare say some English people would be surprised at their non-acceptance as a nationality because of their ancestry...

24. People with 'no religion' gaining on major denominations

Comment #418259 by Goldy on September 23, 2009 at 9:38 am

57. Comment #418240 by russkid
Ooooh, gonna sic Rick Stein on you too! You burger munching fatty ;-) (hey, if we're pandering to stereotypes, I can play too...)

I suppose, after planting your flag in India for so long, that you feel comfortable hijacking a dish that uses ingredients and cooking methods from their culture and calling it your national dish simply because it is currently and incidentally one of the more popular dishes sold in restaurants. In that case tomorrow your national dish could be anything.

in short, yep. Hey, you'd understand, being, I'd guess, a descendant of European stock living in a recently occupied (as in taken over from the aboriginal population) country whose national dish is named after a German town....
:-D
Have to laugh at your provincialism. Reminds me of this
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/world/europe/17julia.html?_r=1&ref=europe

Julia Child may have been America’s best-known “French chef,” but here in Paris few know her fabled cookbooks, let alone her name.

25. New Drake Equation To Quantify Habitability?

Comment #418257 by Goldy on September 23, 2009 at 9:26 am

17. Comment #418252 by mmurray
So far we've been to the Moon,sent a probe or two to planets (and moons) in our solar system and only peeked from a rather large distance at other planets....some of which I believe we can only see by the effect they have on their stars.
I think we can be a little more confident of life ;-)

26. Woman Details Dramatic Encounter with Radical Islam

Comment #418256 by Goldy on September 23, 2009 at 9:22 am

I'm a white middle aged atheist....oh, bugger, never mind... ;-)

On the other hand, I still feel a bit bad for peaceful, apolitical Muslims who just want to get along and make a decent life for themselves but being tarred as potential terrorists and the like.

I've met so many of them - that's why I'm always coming across as an apologist :-). Their love of alcohol, good food that includes pork, sex and pretty women.... Of course, there are those that say they are not real Muslims, but try telling them that :-) One imagines their religious fervour is more an example of the following than a real love of gods and prophets... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8270034.stm

27. Woman Details Dramatic Encounter with Radical Islam

Comment #418205 by Goldy on September 23, 2009 at 3:30 am

123. Comment #418202 by Layla Nasreddin
Strewth, lass, I'm only 41 ;-) And my tweed jacket was bought in Tripoli - cut and sewed bu Italians using 100% British tweed, according to the label. I am a globalisation sort of person...like my atheism as I am married to a Chinese wife who is atheist, like her family, all atheist and most of her friends...all atheist...and Chinese :-)

Regarding the wearing of the hijab and the like, I think it is fine as long as the wearer does so willingly (and by that I mean really willingly - no pressure whatsoever on her by society, members of the same faith or family and friends). Of course, she should also then be willing to admit is is more a political or cultural symbol than a purely religious symbol as many of her co-religionists do not see the need for a distinctive dress. Most of the Muslim women I know personally do not wear any covering. It also seems to me that most of the Muslim women at uni who do wear some form of head covering wear clothes that appear to have been sprayed on. It is the rare Muslim woman (mostly SE Asian) that dresses in the most unflattering way possible.
As for one's religious beliefs and the respect they should be given - if one religion demands and gets a certain degree of respect, all should be shown the same respect. Why favouritism due to the age of the religion? Should there be degrees of respect according to the religion? If so, Hinduism should be the most respected of all religions...but I can't see anyone covering McDonalds adverts in case the Big Mac offends any passing Hindu.
I have no idea why some fashions are more offensive - I guess it bears a relationship to the appeasement they receive. Certainly Islam has been getting a very bad press, what with the terrorist charges and the notion that Islam is making Muslims want to dominate all around them, either by Islamifying the society they live in or demographic change by breeding like rabbits. I don't recall reading anything about Sikhs or Hindus or any other Indian sub-continental, depsite the fact that they are to all intents and purposes identical to the Muslims of Pakistan and Bangladesh.
Islam probably has it's image because of the louder members of their religion...

28. Woman Details Dramatic Encounter with Radical Islam

Comment #418198 by Goldy on September 23, 2009 at 2:48 am

And more women climbing out of the yoke imposed on them...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/world/asia/23burqa.html?ref=world

29. Woman Details Dramatic Encounter with Radical Islam

Comment #418196 by Goldy on September 23, 2009 at 2:34 am

Opinion article in Arab News
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=91664&d=2&m=2&y=2007

30. People with 'no religion' gaining on major denominations

Comment #418194 by Goldy on September 23, 2009 at 2:24 am

15. Comment #418077 by russkid

Your national dish is Fish&Chips.

I'd query that. Fish and chips might be served nationally, but then so's pub food, curry, pizza and kebabs. The countries of Britain each have their own national food and indeed withing those countries several regions have their own dish.
You are making the assumption that everyone is homogenous.

31. Woman Details Dramatic Encounter with Radical Islam

Comment #418192 by Goldy on September 23, 2009 at 2:18 am

OK, since there's no hard data to support this polygamy induced crime claim, shall we return to the topic in hand?

Funny how religion is perceived. As Richard says above

Suppose,now, that a candidate for an important and responsible job in Collins’s organization announced at his interview that he liked to put a sprig of mistletoe in his hair and dance around a fairy ring in order to appease the forest sprites. Collins would immediately show him the door with a polite “Don’t call us” and turn hastily to the next candidate. Yet what Collins himself believes—virgin mothers and the risen Jesus and frozen Trinitarian waterfalls is just as thoroughly divorced from reality and sense. The point is that Collins himself would recognize this clearly but for the subversive power of religion.

Yet recently, in the news sites I read....
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_3488295.html?menu=news.quirkies
and
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/6212923/Let-Muslims-fast-for-Ramadam-without-interference.html

One story raises an eyebrow and one immediately thinks that here's someone taking the piss...and taking it a bit far. The other does not surprise anyone.
How have some religions got this cloak of respectability intrigues me and the way people use it to lure in converts should be looked at more closely.

32. Woman Details Dramatic Encounter with Radical Islam

Comment #418184 by Goldy on September 23, 2009 at 1:20 am

Are traditional Mormons more crime prone? Can one include mistresses in the polygamy mix (after all, it is a form of polygamy) - are countries with more relaxed views of mistresses more crime prone?

33. People with 'no religion' gaining on major denominations

Comment #418180 by Goldy on September 23, 2009 at 1:15 am

If Americans rejected their vile religions as readily as the British reject their vile cuisine, the world would be a better place.

Careful...someone might send Rick Stein your way... ;-)

34. People with 'no religion' gaining on major denominations

Comment #418167 by Goldy on September 23, 2009 at 12:12 am

36. Comment #418123 by MelM
If you decrease the numbers of churches, then the attendance figures can be made to go up...I think ;-)

35. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #418165 by Goldy on September 23, 2009 at 12:07 am

Scnative

Goldy, unfortunately I had a long reply and I accidentally erased it :( But basically I was trying to make the point that, fundamentalist excluded, normal people (people who's minds can be changed with proper presentation of the argument) are often given unconvincing arguments and, instead of returning to the drawing board to rethink the argument and present it in a clearer and more convincing way, many people resort to ridicule, as demonstrated in this forum. And this happens on both sides of the aisle to be sure. Needless to say this attitude only serves to further drive the wedge between the two groups.

I would like to know how much more simply evolution can be presented and what more is needed to convince people. There is more evidence for evolution than there is for creation - DNA, fossils, physiological structures, microbiology...in fact, the whole gammut of biological sciences just seems to indicate that there is a relationship between all organisms and that some are more closely related to each other than others are. Creationism is what is written in Genesis and more specifically the Christian version (for I sure as hell haven't heard any of the other myths being peddled recently...it's like the rest of the world's religions don't count). If one's only recourse is to point to a book of mythology of course there will be ridicule - it has no basis in real life.

But like I said, what confuses me is the evolution of things like the eye or simply a 1 celled bacteria becoming a multi celled organism. I mean, have you ever heard of a 2 celled organism?? That seems like the next logical step to me. And also, like I said, micro evolution by way of natural selection is a pretty solid concept in my mind, but only on a superficial level. for example I can grasp the concept of a finch evolving into an eagle but not tree into a worm.

All your cells are 2 celled organisms :-) The mitochondria have their own DNA...
If you can grasp microevolution and you are comfortable with the age of the earth, why is evolution (for there is no micro or macro prefix to it) a difficulty? A finch can evolve into an eagle, or even a lizard like creature. Give it a few million years, who knows what it can evolve into.
You also have to try and think of points of no return, as it were. Trees and worms have a common ancestor but at this stage, they now occupy different niches and it is unlikely they will ever find themselves in competition for a niche. Now, given their mutual dependence, one may find a tree-worm...two organisms in a symbiotic relationship... :-) There are creatures that show both plant and animal characteristics. Here's one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euglena
And why is the "natural" progression of single cell organism to multicellular have to go through two cells? Why not colonies of single celled organisms that then become so intrinsically linked as to, to all intents and purposes, form an organism...such as a multicellular organism that is you?

36. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #417873 by Goldy on September 22, 2009 at 4:25 am

705. Comment #417857 by scnative02
I think the debate between people who see evolution as how things are as they are today and creationists is a bit more than demantics. Creationism is mainly a Christian thing (and Muslim too...but one could argue, just as bonobos and humans are close cousins, so Islam and Christianity are too) - the whole Cretinist (sic) "theory" is basically a plagiarism of Genesis with all the contradictory bits removed or whitewashed.
Many cretins seem to not like the idea that things were not made as described in the Bible. I don't know why - seems silly if everything was made as they are now and cannot change given the stories we read of species dying out - the end rsult is a rather monochrome planet, don't you think? Having the ability to adapt to different conditions and those adaptations further developing until a new species is formed is rather exciting, I think.

Of course, there is one area where things get hazy. Species are just a characterisation humans make to categorise animals. Lions and tigers are different species...but if you categorise them differently, they could be the same "species" but different looking (of course, there is more to the differences than that...but I hope you get my drift...)

37. Woman Details Dramatic Encounter with Radical Islam

Comment #417872 by Goldy on September 22, 2009 at 4:10 am

Quite a story there, Layla.

T'Other Layla, yes, I think RE should be taught in schools too. With all the religious drama cut out. Teach it as one would teach Latin.

Misyar weddings - go to Arabnews.com and type that in the search box :-) Not exactly flavour of the month even in Muslim societies...

38. Unbelievable: From Atheism to Christian Faith

Comment #416621 by Goldy on September 18, 2009 at 4:05 am

Why not just get your food fresh from nature where it came from in the first place

Because the damn critturs run faster than me ;-)

And with that, it's good night from me! HAve a great weekend, all!

39. The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins

Comment #416619 by Goldy on September 18, 2009 at 4:03 am

"Autocatalytic molecules" sounds to me like a fancy way of saying that these molecules have a mind of their own. They propose and perform their own changes.

Sounds to me like you didn't do too well at chemistry in school...

Matter cannot explain how DNA molecules can change with the mood of a person when they are 50 miles away from the person, or how the words spoken to a drop of water can change its aspect.

Eh? Re DNA - they don't. Trust me, I have DNA stroed here. They don't change with the mood or even the death of the person. Words spoken to a drop of water change it's aspect?? What kind of homeopathic nonsense is that? Unless you mean Brownian motion of the exhaled air carrying the words causing molecules to collide....no, thought you didn't.

You've just put up two posts of sheer inanity. Absolute basic stuff.

40. Unbelievable: From Atheism to Christian Faith

Comment #416597 by Goldy on September 18, 2009 at 1:47 am

Goldy - You cannot say that the New Testament isn't really pertinent, since that is the section of the Bible that Christians most identify with.

Funnily enough, I can as it is merely the Christian manifesto and so not really anything to do with what some would refer to as the Bible.

Whether or not the Bible was of it's time doesn't detract that morals do not come from the Bible. Moral are put in the Bible, not plucked from the Bible.

41. Unbelievable: From Atheism to Christian Faith

Comment #416594 by Goldy on September 18, 2009 at 1:44 am

well, I did it. One example of where you lied, David? OK here
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,3574,Jerry-Coynes-Seeing-and-Believing-with-responses,Jerry-Coyne-Lawrence-Krauss-Daniel-Dennett-Sam-Harris-Steven-Pinker,page5#333985

I shall let you get to the point where I called you what you said I did. As I recall, you even went so far as to lie about the whole incident on your blog.

You are a liar.

42. Unbelievable: From Atheism to Christian Faith

Comment #416591 by Goldy on September 18, 2009 at 1:28 am

328. Comment #416590 by Frankus1122
Frankus, no need to bother. DAR is to Christianity what herpes is to sex.
I'd go back and bring up comments showing his lying nature, his twisted bending of truth but, as he is aware, that is a sad and onerous task to score a small point, a point quickly buried under more comments and a point to be repeated again and again, after a strategic wait, in order to gain a small victory of sorts.

A loathsome and unlikeable man is how he comes across here and I dare say a loathsome and unlikeable man is how he is in reality.

43. Unbelievable: From Atheism to Christian Faith

Comment #416588 by Goldy on September 18, 2009 at 1:22 am

Anna, no worries ;-)

And further East, we have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilization - just a short sail away from the Persian Gulf. From there, ideas found in the Sanskrit religions could come to the Middle East and thence to us.

Further to what I said above....
http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/southasia/g/Dilmun.htm

Got this from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/world/middleeast/18bahrain.html?ref=global-home
I seem to recall visiting similar sites in Abu Dhabi many years ago, when I were a child...

44. Unbelievable: From Atheism to Christian Faith

Comment #416583 by Goldy on September 18, 2009 at 1:00 am

324. Comment #416575 by Rob Janzen
Brilliant! :-D

Tom
The Bible is in two parts - OT and NT. NT could be said to be a Christian addendum to the Bible and therefore not really pertinent. The Koran is the Islamic addendum - don't forget, Arabia, apart from being animist and polytheist, was also awash with Christians and Jews. Mo would have been well acquainted with the Bible and Torah.

The Koran does have Jesus doing a Rapture - maybe it just seemed better than having him crucified, maybe Jesus just vanished (I know of a few pop groups like that). Who knows. The Koran was closer in time to the original sources and maybe just used one of the other gospels.

In any case, using the modern bits (NT and Koran) merely shows that doctrinal differences arose and those that followed those different ideas had to justify them...hence the addenda.

45. Unbelievable: From Atheism to Christian Faith

Comment #416560 by Goldy on September 17, 2009 at 11:49 pm

321. Comment #416556 by Ballardian
If you have read the Bible, then you know the Torah and the Koran in principle - these are all distantly related sects (aking to hippopotamuses and whales, if one uses evolutionary analogies). All owe a great deal to the Epics of Sumer and Babylon and Egypt (and other geo-related cultures).
Hammurabi wrote a set of rules when God was a lad.
http://www.phillipmartin.info/hammurabi/hammurabi_codeindex.htm
Egyptians were skilled physicians and would have been able to pass on dietary considerations for those living in a desert environment (and when did Deuteronomy get done?).
And further East, we have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilization - just a short sail away from the Persian Gulf. From there, ideas found in the Sanskrit religions could come to the Middle East and thence to us.

To merely state the Bible as a source does a great disservice to the history behind it. We can't even be sure the Bible was written down correctly...

46. Kirk Cameron has gone too far! But we can stop him.

Comment #416558 by Goldy on September 17, 2009 at 11:40 pm

156. Comment #416554 by Lyonel.Nichols
Hitler wrote Mein Kampf...

Education levels are seriously slipping here!

47. Unbelievable: From Atheism to Christian Faith

Comment #416550 by Goldy on September 17, 2009 at 11:26 pm

Aha, now it is back to normal...

48. Unbelievable: From Atheism to Christian Faith

Comment #416549 by Goldy on September 17, 2009 at 11:25 pm

314. Comment #416543 by Ballardian
Rig Veda, Koran, Analects of...insert mystic here, other "holy" book that gives guidelines on morality...

You mention the Bible only. Why?

Mark - what can they have against a Cancer Society hat?

And my writing has become ensmalled...

49. Unbelievable: From Atheism to Christian Faith

Comment #416530 by Goldy on September 17, 2009 at 10:51 pm

Mark

This is not a Christian site where you would expect Christian values to be displayed resulting in more uniformity of approach

Given a large proportion of the Christians appearing here show a condescending and arrogant view, along with a tenuous grasp of truth and posts dripping in vitriol and spite, not to mantion ill disguised hatred, can I suggest we do, in fact, show a very Christian attitude in our posts?

At least, that has been my experience of Christians posting here....

50. Unbelievable: From Atheism to Christian Faith

Comment #416525 by Goldy on September 17, 2009 at 10:40 pm

303. Comment #416524 by Ballardian
Why do you just focus on the Bible? Other books not worthy of the same respect?