Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Unicef picture of the year 2007

2»

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,264 ✭✭✭✭Hobbes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Depends on whether you would allow similar questioning of the Qur'an in this forum.

    Your more then welcome to ask them. At the end of the day the objective is to get answers. You may or may not like the answers but you get them.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    Is the photo supposed to be real or an example of a couple?

    Just Ghulam looks pretty white


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,731 ✭✭✭jam_mac_jam


    Is the photo supposed to be real or an example of a couple?

    Just Ghulam looks pretty white

    There are many Afghan people who are quite white, there is a very famous photo of a girl with green eyes taken in a refugee camp. The whiteness is something to do with Alexander and his men passing that way. Sorry to go off topic.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 840 ✭✭✭the_new_mr


    PDN wrote:
    That probably is one for the Christianity forum - but suffice to say that Christian scholars harmonise alleged contradictions in the Bible in pretty much the same way as Muslim scholars harmonise alleged contradictions in the Quran (appeal to context etc.)

    Just google "contradictions Quran" and then "contradictions Bible" and keep following the links, if you're interested. The results and responses are fascinatingly similar.
    I had a quick google session (spent about an hour and a half reading) and they do seem very similar which is quite fascinating.

    The main thing I was curious about was how you believe the Bible to be 100% correct when even most Bible scholars themselves admit that the Bible is not 100% correct, that it does contain some flaws and contradictions and that these are acknowledged. I also noticed how most of the alleged contradictions brought against the Quran are due to a misunderstanding of context (textual or historical) and while some of the charges of contradictions in the Bible are also due to a lack of understanding of textual or historical context, some of them (as far as I can see anyway) are plain factual contradictions and can't be both logically true (such as who is the father of Joseph? Jacob [Matthew 1:16] or Heli [Luke 3:23-24])

    Think I'm getting way too off topic now.


  • Registered Users Posts: 380 ✭✭MeditationMom


    Very lively thread! My overall impression is that everyone is in agreement that intercourse with children is an unjust violation and exploitation of the weak and innocent. And, everyone is quite defensive that their - oh so holy scriptures - may or may not be suggesting it is an OK thing to do.

    It doesn't matter what the holiest of holiest of scriptures of any religion says, if it gives permission to exploit for pleasure or profit or "tradition", the weaker of any society. A Buddhist would even apply this to the exploitation of animals. Any such statements would be highly suspect, and surely written by those who would benefit from such "holy" statements.

    Exploitation of children for work and pleasure is a worldwide practice even today. Could it at some point have been "incorporated" into holy scripture for the upper layers of religious leader's benefit? Quite possibly. The exploitation of children is heartbreaking and stinks all the way to heaven and could never have been sanctioned by God or anyone in true communion with God. As far as all of our oh so holy scriptures go - none of them are 100%, or we wouldn't be arguing about them. God's guidance is still, and always will be with us, and we should rely on it far, far more than any scriptures.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,835 ✭✭✭Schuhart


    A Buddhist would even apply this to the exploitation of animals.
    Good post, but I found this statement jarred with me just a little. (Apologies on having to quibble with you again so soon.)

    Surely an appeal to the inherited tradition of Buddhism in a context where it seems to be claiming authority is also suspect. Can we say anything more than many who practice Buddhism report the experience to be positive in promoting enlightenment - which is what many practitioners of Islam/Christianity/everything else would say?

    In the absence of any authority, where's the ground to say exploitation of anything or anyone is wrong, other than our collective will that this should not be?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    As far as all of our oh so holy scriptures go - none of them are 100%, or we wouldn't be arguing about them.

    So if someone argues against something that proves it isn't correct? This makes no sense whatsoever. You could use the same logic to argue it is not 100% definite that the Holocaust occurred or else people wouldn't argue about it. :confused:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,835 ✭✭✭Schuhart


    PDN wrote: »
    So if someone argues against something that proves it isn't correct? This makes no sense whatsoever. You could use the same logic to argue it is not 100% definite that the Holocaust occurred or else people wouldn't argue about it. :confused:
    Strictly speaking, you are right. But I'd suggest in this context that the fact of argument does reflect that the source material isn't exactly that solid.

    Why scratch our heads about the virgin birth - which both Quran and New Testament hold to be true - if the ultimate source of the idea was misreading the word 'maiden' to mean 'virgin' in the Old Testament prophecy? Is it not pretty obvious that none of the scriptures coherently communicate whatever it is God is supposed to want us to do? To quote Homer Simpson, I know that God is omniverous. But are any of those books really how you'd expect the eternal law of the universe to be communicated to the target audience? Really?

    As William of Ockham might say, there's hardly a need to multiply entities beyond necessity. If we find that the Torah, Bible and Quran all look like books written by people at various times over a thousand years ago, then that's probably an adequate explanation for them.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,302 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    the_new_mr wrote: »
    The main thing I was curious about was how you believe the Bible to be 100% correct when even most Bible scholars themselves admit that the Bible is not 100% correct, that it does contain some flaws and contradictions and that these are acknowledged.
    Here's something to chew on: someone points out the contradictions of the bible, life goes on. If someone of the Islamic faith pointed out the contradictions of the Quran, what would happen to them? Death? Islamic version of excommunication?

    =-=

    Also, as for the nine year old kid: back then, one way to make an alliance was to marry. To solidify the alliance, he may have had to marry someone of the family. If the only one was a 9 year old kid, I can see it happening.

    Today, though, the kid is sold off, as the parents "needed the money”, rather than gaining an alliance. Back then, it may have been to finalize an alliance.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,457 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Of course in many societies, even today, young brides were considered normal. As soon as a girl reached puberty, she was considered marriageable. However, in such societies, the is a huge onus on the husband or family to provide and care for the bride and life is much simpler than modern society.

    The extremes are situations like this. http://www.snopes.com/pregnant/medina.asp


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 380 ✭✭MeditationMom


    By Schuhart - In the absence of any authority, where's the ground to say exploitation of anything or anyone is wrong, other than our collective will that this should not be?

    I didn't mean to suggest that Buddhism has the last word on this. It rests on the idea of karma which in itself is a matter of belief, not science. And yes - kindness is the teaching of all religions. I would say the ground to say exploitation of anything or anyone is wrong is that nobody likes to be exploited. And probably most religions have some version of "don't do onto others as you wouldn't want them do onto you." Although most think of this as applying to relationships of people to each other, some - like Buddhists - also apply this to relationship with animals, or American Indians to relationship to the Earth.

    But - this is also a huge philosophical discussion I didn't mean to start here - as first exploitation would have to be defined which is difficult. So many gray areas.
    by PDN - So if someone argues against something that proves it isn't correct? This makes no sense whatsoever. You could use the same logic to argue it is not 100% definite that the Holocaust occurred or else people wouldn't argue about it.

    You are so right! :rolleyes: We may argue more about the truth than anything else, and I stand corrected. I had the boiling point of water in my mind - as that is something nobody argues about and thought if we stripped all scripture to what nobody would argue about, we'd get to the truth. Which - as far as scripture goes - may only be what Schuhart posted by good old Ockhard:
    As William of Ockham might say, there's hardly a need to multiply entities beyond necessity. If we find that the Torah, Bible and Quran all look like books written by people at various times over a thousand years ago, then that's probably an adequate explanation for them.

    Brilliant!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    I had the boiling point of water in my mind - as that is something nobody argues about

    Funny you should mention that: http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060819121912AAxQESo :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,835 ✭✭✭Schuhart


    PDN wrote: »
    So do we conclude that nothing is 100% correct?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Schuhart wrote: »
    So do we conclude that nothing is 100% correct?

    No, I would conclude that people will argue about anything - even if it is 100% correct. Therefore the mere presence of arguing is no indicator of whether something is correct or not.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,835 ✭✭✭Schuhart


    PDN wrote: »
    No, I would conclude that people will argue about anything - even if it is 100% correct. Therefore the mere presence of arguing is no indicator of whether something is correct or not.
    Is it fair to say 'no indicator' is a bit extreme. If people are arguing, presumably its suggesting something can be argued over. Admittedly, if you find that one side of the argument is made mostly by scriptural literalists pretending evolution never happened or (as a Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia contended in 1966) denying that the Earth orbits the sun, you'll more likely conclude they are trying to refute something that's 100% correct.

    But I'm not sure how someone would handle the_new_mr's question - is Matthew or Luke 100% correct about Joseph's father, seeing as how they obviously both can't be?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Schuhart wrote: »
    But I'm not sure how someone would handle the_new_mr's question - is Matthew or Luke 100% correct about Joseph's father, seeing as how they obviously both can't be?

    The most common explanation is that Luke traces Jesus' ancestry back through Mary's line rather than that of Joseph. The phrase 'son of' simply means 'a descendant of' (as in Jesus being called the Son of David). In that case Luke's genealogy reads:
    He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the descendant of Heli, the son of Matthat etc. (Luke 3:23-24)

    This would fit the purposes of each Gospel. Matthew portrays Christ as the King of the Jews, so his genealogy traces Christ's royal descent which had to be through the father (either adopted or biological - it made no difference legally). Luke portrays Christ as the Son of Man, so he traces Christ's biological ancestry through Mary all the way back to Adam. However, Luke still listed Joseph rather than Mary as the first step in the genealogy (since a woman was never listed in a Jewish genealogy). Luke does, however, emphasise that Joseph was not actually Christ's biological father. No contradiction, as far as I can see.


  • Registered Users Posts: 380 ✭✭MeditationMom


    by PDN -
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MeditationMom View Post
    I had the boiling point of water in my mind - as that is something nobody argues about
    Funny you should mention that: http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question...9121912AAxQESo
    __________________
    "By the 21st century, religious believers are likely to be found only in small sects, huddled together to resist a worldwide secular culture." (Peter Berger - 1968)

    :D I give up. People argue about everything. And often kill the smarter ones they are arguing with.

    Let's talk about consequences then of getting it wrong. There are absolute truths, and without them we can't navigate outer, or inner space.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 840 ✭✭✭the_new_mr


    PDN wrote:
    No, I would conclude that people will argue about anything - even if it is 100% correct. Therefore the mere presence of arguing is no indicator of whether something is correct or not.
    I agree with that. Just because someone disagrees with something doesn't make it any less correct. If two people, A and B, disagree about the colour of a football then there are only three possibilities:
    1.: A is correct
    2.: B is correct
    3.: Both A and B are wrong

    But that doesn't change the colour of the football... especially if B later agrees with A... regardless of whether A was right or not in the first place :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 380 ✭✭MeditationMom


    Well, now that that's settled - what color is the football? In other words - what IS the truth?

    Inquiry, not argument -

    Back to the original topic. In this thread everyone is assuming that Mohammed had sex with this nine - or other - year old. Did he? Can we know? If he didn't, isn't this discussion a whole different discussion?

    There is a possibility that he didn't. Sex may have been of very little interest to him at that point in his physical and spiritual life.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,835 ✭✭✭Schuhart


    In this thread everyone is assuming that Mohammed had sex with this nine - or other - year old. Did he? Can we know? If he didn't, isn't this discussion a whole different discussion?

    There is a possibility that he didn't. Sex may have been of very little interest to him at that point in his physical and spiritual life.
    We don’t know, in the sense that we don’t know nothing about Mohammed, Jesus or Buddha and the best we can do is try to piece together something out of the various traditional books that have survived. The question of Aisha’s age causes a great deal of discomfort and discussion because those traditional sources in Islam contain a number of quotes attributed to her where she states she her marriage was solemnised when she was six and consummated when she was nine.

    That’s not to say this actually occurred – but on the other side of the equation many Islamic scholars would feel doubting these quotes undermines other material normally taken to be sound as it has essentially the same authenticity. Bear in mind, I think we’d expect a woman would remember when she was married and when she first slept with her husband. In other contexts, Aisha is regarded as an important source of information in her own right, hence the problem.

    But, not unlike the football, the discussion just goes on and on without hope of ever achieving 'truth', whatever that is.

    http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/008.smt.html#008.3310
    Muslim Book 008, Number 3310:

    'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.
    http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/062.sbt.html#007.062.064
    Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64:
    Narrated 'Aisha:
    that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).
    http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/062.sbt.html#007.062.065
    Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65:
    Narrated 'Aisha:
    that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that 'Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death)." what you know of the Quran (by heart)'


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 840 ✭✭✭the_new_mr


    Well, my personal and humble opinion is that TQ (from the article I quoted a couple of pages ago) showed how the conflicting evidence shows that the marriage was not consummated at such a young age.

    As for the question of the hadith etc. I think that although it's fair to say that a lot of the hadith that are narrated by Aisha are considered authentic, not all of them are. The chain of narration if paramount and I'm sure you can find false hadith attributed to any of the Prophet's companions. Unfortunately, the chain of narration is often ignored. Sometimes, in Islamic books, hadith are followed by their respective strength in brackets. I'd like a book of hadith where this is done for all the hadith. I think a guy on the net is planning to do something like this where all the strongest narrations are compiled together.


Advertisement