Why shouldn't superstition be ridiculed?

[Lucia39]

In answer to the OP regarding the 'chattering classes' who 'sneer at Christianity' I would answer thusly.

If people living in the 21st century and who depend upon the advances made in science and technology to benefit their lives still desire to cling on to infantile beliefs that a big daddy in the sky is really running the show and one day he is going to make it all better for them, then they deserve everything they get.

Why can't these people put away such childish things and just grow up?

T&P "I am not targetting you Lucia"
I never thought you were - that was Peachy's idea.

"you started a thhread asking for the opinions of RE teachers and I responded. I did not realise that you were starting a thread for opinions from RE teachers but did not want any to actually reply."

Fair enough, given that you've decided to raise the issue, let's look back at your replies to that thread.

Your first reply stated, "I might do a news articles on Jesus's crucifixion and would mention the role of the Jewish people and the Romans) but would also look at the bias of the Gospels and the anti semitism that came from the Gospel accounts". However, you failed to mention what particular sources you would use in order to "look at the bias". You then wrote that; "We look at contemporary evidence and at the background to Jesus, Messiahs were ten a penny at the time!" That last statement is somewhat overexaggerated [but this appears to be a general tendency].

I then asked; "How does one look at the 'real' Jesus of Nazareth when there are no contemporary accounts of the man?" In other words I was questioning your use of the word "contemporary" but you seem to have missed that.

Your next reply suggested amusement at receiving "the Bible study lecture" and contained a link to a Christian apologist website as well as some personal opinions on the personalities of the various gospel writers and their "target" audiences. Your next reply included the statement that, "We use lots of other evidence" but you failed to cite any examples of what this "other evidence" might be!

I then posted a reply suggesting possible comparisons that pupils could make between some of the imagery and ideas contained in Christianity and other ancient religions/mythologies. Your next post was a defence of RE as a subject to which I replied with the following, "no one has so far commented on the inaccuracies of the gospel texts as historical sources. This begs the question why are teachers using these texts and for what purpose? So once again I ask is RE to reinforce and support existing beliefs or is it supposed to provide a critical analysis of various belief systems?"

In reply to this you suggested I was "really [...] annoyed" and then stated that "We have actually referred to innacuracies on Gospel texts" and "I have said we use them , evaluate them, ask what they mean and what the implications of a text are"; but again you failed to explain precisely how you go about evaluating those texts or what these other sources might be. You then remarked on your amusement that "a history teacher by the power of google" was "telling me to go look at the Greek" and continued by referring to your "years reading Scritpures in Greek and Hebrew". [sic]

Your next post contained a defence of your earlier post and a claim that I "seem to know a few things but have no background or understanding." You also seemed to think that I was attacking you personally by "attempting to mount a devastating crituque on my classroom practice without ever having seen me teach." [sic]

My next reply made it quite clear that "I've made absolutely no comment on your classroom practice" and that "I've asked how this topic would be covered and you have responded with some general points." I also remarked that the conclusion you had arrived at regarding my understanding or background was somewhat lacking in substance and suggested that "if you want to engage in a more "in-depth" discussion I would be happy to oblige you!" You obviously didn't wish to do so as you never responded!

I also remarked on your earlier statement wherein you wrote that you "use lots of other evidence" and I asked "merely out of curiosity, what is it?" To wit you later replied, "Sometimes we look at archaelogical or historical evidence and ask what conclusions we can draw." However, once again you didn't specify what particular archaelogical or historical evidence this might be! [just some sources, names, or reference works would have been enough I didn't require an entire SoW]

So overall I think I can say with some confidence that I posted a thread that asked the question "Does RE teach Religious EDUCATION or Theological dogma?" and received some vague opinons and, for want of a better term, "flannel" but no hard evidence of any other source material used to teach Christianity in RE classes other than the NT.

I realise this is a rather long post but the scholar in me does like to get things straight!

"Glory to Allah, Who created in pairs all things that the earth produces." (Quran 36:36)

Allah didn't know about ameoba.

Mixing of the River and Sea Waters
"It is He (Allah) Who has let loose the two bodies of flowing waters, one palatable and sweet, and the other saltish and bitter; yet He has made a barrier between them, and this is an insurmountable barrier." (Quran 25:53)

Not insurmountable at all. I live by a river and there are varying degrees of salinity as it approaches the estuary and depending on tidal movement

T&P "I do agree though on your point about a Jewish prophet/preacher gradually being seen as the leasder of a new faith called Christianity."

I think you've misunderstood me again. The traditional view assumes that Jesus of Nazareth founded Christianity and that Paul was the most prominent proselytising envoy of the new faith. This however was not the case. Jesus was a Palestinian Jew who did not in fact start any new religion, but merely sought to play an accepted role within contemporary Judaism.

As I wrote earlier on this thread it was Paul who created Christianity as a separate cult.

No i thought Lucia was targetting T&P. Quite ther everse indeed.

I also hope anyone concerned will read that link as IIRC 'You'd get mainly 'This is what X believes'along with enough info on background eg the difference between evangelical and liberal viewpoints, the lack of historical data in the texts, the idea of 'story of a people not history of a people' IYKWIM'

which isn't that much flannel is it?

Well there we disagree Lucia, you are taking the A N Wilson line, I do agree that Paul was very very important for the development of Christianity and perhaps it may not have been as successful without him.

Peachy: "which isn't that much flannel is it?"

If you consider that a brief exchange on whether Mathew was Jewish or not, the citing of the names of a handful of christian scholars and some mutual back-slapping constitutes "the difference between evangelical and liberal viewpoints" well good luck to you!

From my perspective there appeared to be a distinct reluctance to cite specific sources or explain how such "evaluations" of the texts were conducted.

Claims were made for "lots of other evidence" but when I asked what this might be I was met with a deafening silence; apart from a later brief comment about sometimes using archaeological and historical evidence, but once again no specific examples were provided.

hin onagar!
im confused by some of your statements! the evidences i gave (the quraan gave)regarding water is, every ''LIVING'' thing - u state sand is not made from water, but its not living?! lol! humans ARE composed of water, amongst other things like carbohydrates, lipids, salt, carbon etc, but water is the basic componant which we ARE made of if we remember that the cells that made up a huge percentage of us, are themselves indeed essentialy made from water.

u sed the verse regarding iron being sent down IMPLIES it was sent alongside WITH the messengers. that is a misunderstanding. the verse reads, "We have already sent Our messengers with clear evidences and sent down with them the Scripture and the balence that the people may maintain their affairs in justice. (next verse/line) AND We sent down iron......" it may have read, which is my own fault the way i wrote it, that the iron came WITH the messengers, because i cut out the end of the first verse, then moved to the next verse, which was signified by me writing --> ''......''
''its probably iron from meteorites its been known for a long time...Muhammad would have known that'' yes, i agree, iron does come from meteorites!!!we know that NOW! but!!.. if u make a statement saying ''its been known for a long time'' then ur gonna have to bring ur evidence hun, and show since, WHEN, you think the people 'knew' this or, IF, they did one thousend four hundred years ago!xx

''not sure about the separating of the heavens and earth..the earth and stars didnt exsist!'' correct! the earth and stars are a result FROM the splitting, exploding, seperating of one single mass. So science would state that the so called 'big bang theory', which lies in accordance to what has been said concerning the creation of the heavens in the Quraan, states the universe originated from the cataclysmic explosion of a small volume of matter at extreamly high density and temperature.so it creates matter (hydrogen and helium)... and through time then came gravity and electromagnetism, which is a result of matter interacting with other particles. then matter (hydrogen and helium gas) and its gravity, creates stars.
stars change hydrogen and helium into other heavier elements.

stars die and blow up, spreading those elements into a large cloud.

that cloud can make more stars, (which has also been revealed in the Quraan also!) and this time disks of more gas form around the stars as they are taking shape. that spinning disk separates into rings and the rings begin to collect into balls orbiting the star. this is how planets are formed (they can actually become stars too, but they usually don't have enough matter (gas) to work with.so now we have planets and stars and such (after 13 billion years. essentially, with respect, going by this (very poor attempt in explaining the big bang theory, which is held to be true by many peoples of sciences and te like) then the heavens and earth WERE ORIGINALLY one united piece, or entity.

onagar, me again!!! just read another post in reply to the verses!

i like your thinking hun with the amoeba!i can see where ur going with that BUT! when u quote "Glory be to Allah who created in pairs...." why do u assume that verse means everything must have a gender to come about/function/work etc?? its a well known documented fact that snails and slugs (perhaps other things, but i dont know about those) are asexual! and what about the sun? its pair is the moon, as is mentioned in the Quraan whenever the sun is. the fire? its pair is the water. i like how u were trying to evaluate the verse, but ur assumption was wrong, it does not necessarily mean that the thing which has a pair, MUST mean it has a gender. xx

T&P "Well there we disagree Lucia, you are taking the A N Wilson line,"
I would recommend some wider reading of New Testament scholars - it's not just A N Wilson's "line" as you put it!

"I do agree that Paul was very very important for the development of Christianity and perhaps it may not have been as successful without him."

Given that any writings [assuming there were any] of the men who followed the flesh and blood Galilean Jewish holy man [accepting that he probably did exist] were lost after the First Jewish-Roman War, all we have are the writings of Paul and it is Paul who created the theological construct of Christ Jesus. The term first appears in his extant writings.

But you said "Muhammad was ridiculed for these verses, seen as a mad man, for thinking sand as everything else, was made from water. we now know this to be true."

As for people being made from water. You might say that in casual conversation but it would be wrong. If you're going to put it forward as a scientific statement it won't hold up. You can't say "ok what he said was incorrect but I expect he meant so and so" and call that proof.

As for the quote I went looking for it to be sure and found this

www.submission.org/efarsi/arabic/sura57.html

57:25] We sent our messengers supported by clear proofs, and we sent down to them the scripture and the law, that the people may uphold justice. And we sent down the iron, wherein there is strength, and many benefits for the people. All this in order for GOD to distinguish those who would support Him and His messengers, on faith. GOD is Powerful, Almighty.

That sounds like they brought the iron to show they were from god. Hardly proof of the writer knowing it came from supernovae. Especially as he used "sent down" regarding the messengers too so did they come from supernovae?

Also I went here and found that now god created man from clay.
www.islamicbulletin.com/newsletters/issue_22/events.aspx

"We created man from an extract of clay. Then We placed him as a drop in a
place of rest. Then we made the drop into a leech-like structure. Then of that
leech-like structure we made a chewed lump. Then we made out of the chewed
lump, bones, and clothed the bones in flesh." (Quran 23:12-14)

Now I know you could say "oh but clay contains water" but that would be pushing it. If I said that birds come from trees I'd be told I was wrong. I could argue that if you look in a tree you will find a bird, but that's not really the point is it.

As for meteorite iron it was certainly prized from ancient times and they did know that meteorites fell, but I can't find evidence that they knew the iron was from the meteorite. I suspect they did, but that's not good enough.

The pairs thing was a quote. It's Allah who claims they come in pairs not me. It was part of the proofs of which you speak. There are lots of sites with lists of them. You can say it was a metaphor, but it proves nothing since what was said wasn't true.

If you can put words in the mouth of someone who lived long ago then you can find endless proofs. You can say "oh he meant typewriters will have ribbons" if you want, but it says nothing about the original.

Consider this. If the phrase had been "the heavens and earth are one" you could say "See he knew they were all one system held together by gravity!

If it had been "there is no connection between the heavens and hell" you could say "See he knew that space was a vacuum!"

If he had said "The heavens were created first" you could say "yes and then the earth formed! that is right"

If it had said "The earth came first" you could say "you see the earth first in importance because it was designed for man his greatest creation"

I can do this all day I'm not putting down islam especially. As I've said christianity does a similar thing and it's just as unconvincing.

Of course I have read more than one new testamant scholar but perhaps giving away my age and when I studied it is a position I link with A N Wilson as his book was big news around the time I studied for my degree.

When I said "there is no connection between the heavens and hell"

I meant to say between the heavens and earth"

no hun, with regards to ''created man from an extract of clay'' this is talking about the creation of the first human, ie Aadam. He was made from 'clay'. similarly as Allaah speaks of how He created another race, called the Jinn, which was made from ''a smokeless flame of fire''. the angels, another creation, were created from light. just as u say, we as humans ARE NOT made frm clay, but this verse refers to the original creation of the human.
**this is in brief, i am more than willing as always to bring my evidence from Quraan and sunnah, wen i say this, but im pushed for time. would u mind waiting till evening? (i shouldnt really have answered so briefly, but the temptation was just too much!)

the thing with Quraan also is that an person HAS to have what is called 'tafsir' meaning explanation of the written verses. its not enough that a person just 'grabs' from the chapters and applies it willy nilly. at home we have the translation of the quraan (2 inches thick) then, we have 9 volumes of 3 inch books which explain in detail what every verse means and why it was revealed, and how these verses should be applied, of he one Quraan! if it wasnt for this ''tafsir'' id be stumped about many things including the ''man from clay'' verses.

ahhh, so much to elaborate on, but im running outta time!(plus u must be getting fed up with me now onagar?!)
pleeeese wait til evening if u have the time to read any more of my posts.xxxx

Ummnusaybah, take your time and don't go to too much trouble. I'm always willing to talk, but not likely to be convinced in this case.

The thing with Quraan also is that an person HAS to have what is called 'tafsir' meaning explanation of the written verses. its not enough that a person just 'grabs' from the chapters and applies it willy nilly>>

That says it all really. Christianity has the same thing. A christian has to tell you what it means because if you just go by what it says you may get the wrong idea.

Btw my DP has just found something about meteorite iron which might be of interest. I had mentioned that I thought ancient man knew of meteorite iron and she found this. Not quite the same as a peer reviewed paper, but seems to be well known that iron fell from the sky before Christianity or Islam

....the ancients understood the relationship of iron to magnetisim, which is why - long before the discovery of smeltable telluric iron that led to the Iron Age - they revered hematite and ?celestial iron?, that is iron that fell in the form of meteorites from the heavens....The earliest word (Sumerian) for iron is AN.BAR, which is made up of the pictograms ?sky? and ?fire?.

If someone believes that that Earth is flat, and is campaigning to have equal time in geography lessons given over to this theory, I have no objection to people ridiculing her.

It won't change her opinion, but it is a valid tactic (as part of a strategy, which might also involve constructive dialog where that works better) to change and engage public opinion.

If someone believes that the stars and galaxies that make up the 12 constellations of the zodiac are sentient and direct the daily details of our lives, I can't disprove it - I've never left this solar system. I can show statistically that there is no need for that explanation - it doesn't add any predictive power and no scientific evidence backs it so, by Occam's Razor, we're better off favouring the simpler hypothesis.

If that astrologer-believer is harmless, then I'm happy to leave them in peace (though "respecting" their belief might be putting it a bit strongly). If they're trying to persuade the CEO of a company I work for to base the company's long term planning upon astrological predictions, damn right that's ridiculous. They DON'T have an equal right to have their view heard, because they DON'T have equal standards of evidence.

If someone believes a big sky daddy with the vindictiveness, sense of natural proportionate justice and emotional maturity of a greek deity or a 3 year old is the ultimate definition of good, and the cause of all that happens then, again, I can't actually disprove their hypothesis. But why should that stop me pouring ridicule on them IF they are using that belief as a basis for actions that cause me harm?