Castlevania Dungeon Forums
Off Topic => Off Topic => Topic started by: Mooning Freddy on February 11, 2011, 12:03:02 PM
-
Following more than two weeks of riots never before seen in Egypt, the president of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, has finally resigned from his duty after being the leading authority for 30 years.
The resignation came as a result of huge pressure by the people of Egypt, who crowded the streets to demonstrate by the millions, demanding it. The people of Egypt demand democracy, and civil freedoms, and for the first time in history, there is a chance for them to gain it.
The thing that is the most impressive about the revolution in Egypt was the spontaneity of it. Unlike other revolutions, this one happened instantly. It was organized mostly using the internet, and revealed the power which social networks like Facebook have in uniting various people for one goal. The revolution was so spontaneous that it had no leadership; No single person speaking for all; It united Muslims and secular population alike.
What will come out of it? I don't know. Being too optimistic about the middle east is being ignorant. Yet still... Observe the face of the new revolution - Sometimes all that is required for a change to occur is for people to cease being indifferent.
p.s. That sounds a little bit like a castlevania quote, doesn't it? ;D
-
Finally that Mubarak jerk stepped down after THIRTY fuckin' years of power. Hopefully there will be no more bloodshed in the streets of Egypt (did you see that 1 video of the military firing upon that one 22y/o civilian? It was sick). Praise be to Allah, God is great, etc.!
-
Being too optimistic about the middle east is being ignorant.
Throughout history the middle east had lead the world in defining modernization. It was only in the past 150 years with the brutal European intervention that split their countries apart, destroyed historic boundaries, destabilized countries, destroyed traditional orders, and lead to the desperation that allowed radical Islamists to take power. I think its about time we believe in the Arab people to take control of their own destinies again and not have it dictated to them by foreign powers. I am optimistic that the future of Egypt will be bright if the West respects their people's right to democracy. Hopefully the US wont intervene in the name of preventing Islamic radicalism. Really, if you read the Old Testament, its just as violent in its punishments as the Quran. For instance, the Torah clearly says that if a woman doesn't bleed on her wedding night that she is to be stoned to death. So why don't we have a problem with Jews stoning women to death in Israel? It will be the same with the Middle East in a matter of time. After democracy takes hold in the Middle East, they will inevitable except many western values and views on human rights. Any religion taken too literally is just as bad as Islamic radicalism.
So yeah, praise be to Allah, who's prophet even married a widowed woman! A religion founded by perhaps the most progressive man of his time can't be that bad. Perhaps in time the Middle East can once again become the bulwark of human progress. Its not ignorant at all to be optimistic.
-
For instance, the Torah clearly says that if a woman doesn't bleed on her wedding night that she is to be stoned to death.
Uh... You realize that has to do with a woman being a virgin for her husband, don't you? And we're not just talking any woman, but a woman who is an Israelite and lives amongst those who are serving Yahweh at a time when He dwelt directly with the people, who were expected to live holy (set apart from the world; devoted to God) lifestyles for God after He had delivered them from captivity in Egypt; in this context, many sins were punished in very strong manners, including death. (The chapter goes on to command the stoning to death of any man and woman involved in an adulterous union.)
You also left out the part that if a man brings his wife to her father claiming the girl to not be a virgin, and her family provides proof of her virginity prior to being with her husband by presenting to the elders of the town a cloth with a bloodstain (the cloth would be under the woman's backside to catch any blood from her hymen breaking, which she would later use to also wipe up the rest after intercourse), then the man is to be punished for slandering a virgin. The cloth idea I believe was a cultural thing, and was implemented primarily to protect the woman, so that a man couldn't marry her, claim she wasn't a virgin when they copulated, and then divorce her—essentially a means of having sex with "no strings attached" and all that, in a group of people who shunned and punished adultery, unwed fornication, and sexual promiscuity.
So...you kinda left out a lotta stuff there. Rather conveniently, eh? ;p It's easy to put down a religion's supposed extreme rules and customs when you ignore the context of what it's all about.
Anyway, back on topic, it's good that this guy has finally stepped down. I believe I heard that the military will be in control for a time, during this interim stage until a decision can be made on who is to be the next leader? Let's hope the military serves the people, instead of causing even greater problems.
-
It is confirmed that the militia has power now and even though this action has other countries worried many remain optimistic. I had absolutely no idea what kind of state Egypt was in. For me it was one of the few, if not the only country where it was the most free of all. Then this riot thing happened and I finally understood what was going on. But kudos to the people taking action (and in more peaceful way too).
-X
-
Uh... You realize that has to do with a woman being a virgin for her husband, don't you?
Uh... Yes. Of course.
And we're not just talking any woman, but a woman who is an Israelite and lives amongst those who are serving Yahweh at a time when He dwelt directly with the people, who were expected to live holy (set apart from the world; devoted to God) lifestyles for God after He had delivered them from captivity in Egypt; in this context, many sins were punished in very strong manners, including death. (The chapter goes on to command the stoning to death of any man and woman involved in an adulterous union.)
This changes nothing. It doesn't change the fact that punishing adultery with death is highly frowned upon in modern society. Also, stories about when the people who lived in a time which Yahweh was active would obviously serve as a moral foundation for future generations. And sins were punished in the same strong manners for centuries after these times.
You also left out the part that if a man brings his wife to her father claiming the girl to not be a virgin, and her family provides proof of her virginity prior to being with her husband by presenting to the elders of the town a cloth with a bloodstain (the cloth would be under the woman's backside to catch any blood from her hymen breaking, which she would later use to also wipe up the rest after intercourse), then the man is to be punished for slandering a virgin.
So what? Just because a girl lied about being a virgin, its okay for her to be put to death? It doesn't matter that a man slandering is wife would also be punished, but that there is an entire stigma against non-virgins in general. Its barbaric in this day and age. Few people actually believe in abstaining from premarital sex, it doesn't fit modern values.
The cloth idea I believe was a cultural thing, and was implemented primarily to protect the woman, so that a man couldn't marry her, claim she wasn't a virgin when they copulated, and then divorce her—essentially a means of having sex with "no strings attached" and all that, in a group of people who shunned and punished adultery, unwed fornication, and sexual promiscuity.
I understand why the cloth idea existed. I'm saying that no modern person would murder a poor girl for having premarital sex!
So...you kinda left out a lotta stuff there. Rather conveniently, eh? ;p It's easy to put down a religion's supposed extreme rules and customs when you ignore the context of what it's all about.
Conveniently you missed the whole point of what I wrote... I wasn't actually criticizing Judaism/Christianity, I was saying that traditional Islamic punishments would fall out of acceptance just like traditional Jewish/Christian punishments... I was not putting down a religion for its extreme rules and customs. I was saying that they all have them, and that religious customs are adapted to fit modern social norms. I was merely using the Old Testament as an example. The point of what I was saying is that Islam is just as capable of being the majority religion of a democratic nation as Christianity or Judaism.
Also, there are plenty of other extremes from the Old Testament I could site as well. Another example is that cursing a parent is punishable by death. Every angsty teenager in the world would be put to death if this was vigorously carried out. I just used the punishment for being a non-virgin as an example of extreme punishments in Judaism and Christianity, which were no nicer in their treatment of "sinners" than Islam. Its just that no western states actually employs biblical punishments anymore.
Anyway, back on topic, it's good that this guy has finally stepped down. I believe I heard that the military will be in control for a time, during this interim stage until a decision can be made on who is to be the next leader? Let's hope the military serves the people, instead of causing even greater problems.
The military is pretty popular. They will probably follow the example Turkey set.
-
"This day and age," "modern values," "modern society"—oh, how the current generations do think of themselves as superior.
You seem to miss the whole point of the Hebrew faith. God's character doesn't change with time; morality is not relative; old ways do not become irrelevant because people of the now feel as if they are a part of some enlightened age.
The shame regarding non-virgins is one that, frankly, I wish still existed today; and besides, I was explaining why such a thing was looked down upon in those circles at that time. I think what you're getting at is that it would be wrong to stone someone to death for being adulterous or not a virgin before marriage, and I agree: those practices were particular to those people at that time. Would it be barbaric? That would imply that the people who did it then were primitive and barbaric; unadvanced, uncivilized. (Though they were a lowly desert people.) But it doesn't matter anymore because Christ, who was prophesied about since the beginning of the Old Testament, came and took sin upon Himself; thus, doing away with the "self-cleansing" practices ordered by God at the time, including the practices of the sacrificial lamb and all that.
Not like you believe in any of that, but saying, "It shouldn't be done now; it was barbaric," is kind of irrelevant, because nobody does that now, nor is it commanded of anyone. I highly doubt even the most strict Orthodox Jews put such practices into action, as they likely see many of these ordinances being specific to the Israelites of then.
So, it's not really a thing of adapting religion and religious practices to fit modern times (though many erroneously do this), but more interpreting Scriptural passages accurately in the contexts of the times, and of God saying, "This is no longer required of you," for reasons perhaps only known to God, though others can be speculated on.
The "cursing" thing is actually a whole lot more extreme than an angsty teen cursing his or her parents. ;) We're talking extremely lavish, forever damning-type curses—not simply saying, "Fuck you, dad!" or the sort (though surely that's bad, just not something deserving of death).
Anyway, apologies for derailing the thread some. I just felt that it was an odd comment to make, and so responded; but you've elaborated upon what you meant. Still, here I am sidetracking things even further, perhaps. ;) It's just that Judeo-Christianity is a very important subject to me—a lifestyle, even (although something I've sadly strayed from in recent months).
-
So, it's not really a thing of adapting religion and religious practices to fit modern times (though many erroneously do this), but more interpreting Scriptural passages accurately in the contexts of the times...
But isn't that kind of the same thing? They're still adapting it for modern times, just by saying "Oh well now it means this, but then it meant that" when really, it was supposed to always mean the same thing.
And they still stone people to death in the middle east, it's just not mentioned as much.
-
Abnormal freak, here is another example. Christians used to burn people at the stake for blasphemy. But we don't do that anymore. What I am saying is that the more brutal Islamic punishments will fall out of favor even though the religion itself doesn't change. Thats why democracy and human rights in the middle east isn't an impossible dream like some people argue.
I don't mean to offend your Judeo-Christian beliefs. I am saying that religion (and as you more accurately pointed out, interpretation of religion) does change over time.
-
But isn't that kind of the same thing? They're still adapting it for modern times, just by saying "Oh well now it means this, but then it meant that" when really, it was supposed to always mean the same thing.
And they still stone people to death in the middle east, it's just not mentioned as much.
That's not at all what I'm saying, though. The interpretation doesn't change; it's realizing that certain things were commanded of a certain people at a certain time when understanding their circumstances. It's not saying, "It meant this then; it means this now"; it always means the same thing, it's just realizing that a lot of it doesn't particularly pertain to followers now; especially if one is a Messianic Jew who believes that Jesus is the Messiah, and understanding that He came to fulfill certain prophecies, and how much of what He did fulfilled and overruled a lot of the methods of "self-cleansing" that was required of the Hebrews in those days. (It's not really self-cleansing, since the Hebrews could not save themselves, but rather they were given commands to act out specific ways of coming to God and being cleansed.) Reading and studying these things helps Christian believers to know the Jewish roots of their faith, which can only strengthen their belief in it, and how all of those practices of cleansing and so forth were leading to Christ's act on the cross—pointing to Him as the ultimate Sacrificial Lamb, debt paid for all sin, no need for old methods of cleansing and sacrificing to God since His Son became the absolute sacrifice.
Harry: Many things are done in the name of God, and many so-called and even some actual Christians have done some horrendous things throughout history, but the Bible and the God of Abraham don't sanction such things. Surely you can understand the difference between a religion's teachings and how people can do things against such teachings and yet claim to do so in the name of the religion, can't you? Man's tainting of a religion by misinterpretation, ignorance, feigned membership and intentional malice and deceit do not alter the religion itself, though sadly it can have a huge impact on the world's perception of that religion. And as a Christian and someone who has studied the Bible, I know that there is nothing in the Old or New Testament that would sanction the burning of nonbelievers. It's simply not there; the Christian message is the exact opposite, in fact, showing the truth that we're all a wretched people who need a Savior, and commanding His followers to reach out to others in truth and love. (I'm sure you know that many men in the early Christian Church, including those who were with Jesus personally, His disciples, were martyred and went out peacefully, not attacking their assailants.) The bastardization of Christianity is a sickening thing, both to the world and Christ's followers, but one that is unavoidable due to the wickedness of men's hearts and the actions which stem from them. But as I've said, the ways which someone abuses the religion and its teachings do not alter the real faith.
Anyway, I hope the extremely harsh punishment in the Middle East can be done away with. I have Saudi Arabian friends and know at least some of the things that go on there, and it's troublesome. The crimes (sometimes "crimes" in quotations) they punish, and the ways in which they punish them—all that needs to be fixed, I believe. I agree that it doesn't belong in today's world—but it also had no place in the past. Hopefully, if the people of these countries feel that a lot of this needs to go, I hope they will rise up and take charge against those in power as well as militant individuals who want their evil way.
-
And as a Christian and someone who has studied the Bible
Just how much of the bible did you study? There are 44 volumes of the bible written by Christ's disciples that were omitted by the church before the very first publication.
-X
-
While I won't wade into the religious debate, I have an Arab friend (though not an Egyptian one) who's very happy to see Mubarak go. I hope whoever replaces him doesn't repeat his mistakes, though...
-
I too have a few Egyptian friends and they are happy as well.
-
My brother and I were planning on going to Egypt but held off for some reason. I guess it was a good thing we did. :)
-X
-
And as a Christian and someone who has studied the Bible
Just how much of the bible did you study? There are 44 volumes of the bible written by Christ's disciples that were omitted by the church before the very first publication.
-X
Not sure what you mean by your use of "volumes," since books in the New Testament are firsthand accounts concerning Jesus and the Apostles, letters to churches, and a giant prophecy book.
There are plenty of Christian-based works written around the same period in the first and second centuries, a number of them mythological, though others also firsthand accounts and the sort. However, the church in I believe the fourth century were very selective when choosing which books of the Old and New Testament are considered canon; they selected only Hebrew texts for the Old, those generally recognized and accepted by the Jewish faith and which are believed to be divinely inspired; and for the New, they selected only works written by apostles who had met and been with Christ, which are believed to be divinely inspired also; Paul had met Jesus on a road which led to his conversion to Christianity, and so had a unique encounter in that way. Many dispute that the books attributed to Paul are not really of his writing, but considering how closely related they are in terms of themes and how they're written out, how close the uncertain authorship books are to the ones we know to be written by him, I see no reason for thinking they're of someone else. Also, there are letters by Paul sent to some churches (most of his letters were for greeting churches and showing them the proper way of Christian living, teaching, admonishing) which are sadly lost, and if any of these were found that would be fantastic; but perhaps the compiling of the Scriptures is as closely guided by the hand of God as those of the faith believe, and such epistles are not necessary.
When you really study the Bible closely, you see that none of its books and writings contradict each other, despite claims to the contrary (usually by people who haven't studied the Bible carefully, or who don't understand many of the cultural and religious contexts, and so come up with their own unsound interpretations which can contradict others). Those who sought to compile the Scriptures knew this, as they carefully studied each book. Despite the Bible as a whole having been written by so many different authors across about a century and a half, there's unity in teachings, things which comply with each other; and we know many of these books to be unaltered from the first two centuries and the last few hundred years in the BC era, thanks to the Dead Sea Scrolls. There are plenty of Christian works from the same period as those books collected in the New Testament, but which (a) are not written by the disciples/apostles who knew Christ, and (b) go into territory not mentioned by the other books of the Bible, whose teachings do not gel with the truth of God, often containing strong mythology; they're more like fairy tales, really.
So, when I say I've studied the Bible, I mean the canonical Holy Bible popular amongst Protestant churches. ;p Or, was once popular; now so many churches have abandoned Scripture almost entirely that I wonder why they even bother coming together. For a Christian, the Bible is the Word of God, perfect in its teachings, though certainly it's no sin to question it unlike what the Muslims teach about their holy writings: God actually encourages questioning, as questioning and reasoning will bring out the truth ever stronger; anything untrue will fall apart under intense speculation.
Anyway... I don't know if that really answers your question or not. Guess you'd have to be a little more clear on what writings you mean and such.
-
Anyway... I don't know if that really answers your question or not. Guess you'd have to be a little more clear on what writings you mean and such.
I'll try to clarify so bare with me...here goes. Before the bible was printed in a book (300 hundred years prior), Jesus' disciples wrote everything down on scrolls (The Jesus scrolls or the Dead Sea scrolls). These scrolls contained all the scriptures that exist in the bible including passages not included in the Bible (the missing 44 volumes). These scrolls are being translated and put online even as I write this so it shouldn't be too long before we can have full access to them. The bible itself is a single book and a big one at that, but the information contained within, with the inclusion of the 44 missing volumes would've filled several books. I won't say why the Church didn't include them as I don't want to offend you (I'm adamant that way :)), but as a firm believer in your faith you might want to check this out and see for yourself.
But getting back to the crisis in Egypt, it seems that the people are on a big strike right now. I'm not sure if the military's doing anything about it or causing it.
-X
-
Jesus' disciples wrote everything down on scrolls (The Jesus scrolls or the Dead Sea scrolls). These scrolls contained all the scriptures that exist in the bible including passages not included in the Bible (the missing 44 volumes).
The Dead Sea Scrolls only include the Hebrew bible, they have nothing to do with Jesus.
Also, there are some contradictions within Christianity. Specifically, Jesus did not actually fulfill all of the prophecies in the Torah. Christians will argue that during the second coming he will complete the rest of the prophecy, while the Jews of course believe he was never the messiah. And then there is the whole question of the authenticity of any of the Gnostic gospels... If the Gospel of Judas is true, then the accepted Biblical story may be pretty far off. The origins of Christianity are so interesting.
-
The Dead Sea Scrolls only include the Hebrew bible, they have nothing to do with Jesus.
Jesus is a Hebrew. Born in Bethlehem, Jerusalem which also makes him a Jew. Jesus has everything to do with the Jesus scrolls which is why they are called as such. Also Jesus' real name; Yeshua Ben Yosef. In Hebrew, Yeshua means "Salvation".
-X
-
The dead sea scrolls according to what I know are referred to as "External books", i.e. ancient scrolls written by Jews and were not included in the Bible (the old testament).
Those who know the bible well, know that the historical documentations described in the bible end around the Period of construction of the 2nd Temple. Any further misadventures of the Jews in the Holy land were documented by different authors, some scriptures accepted by Jews as their history, while others were not.
I don't know much about the gospel of Judas, but according to what I heard, I think that Christians should accept some of it to their teaching and beliefs.
The history of violence by the Church, especially against the Jews is partly (or mainly?) because of its description of Judas Iscariot as an evil person without any morals, the greatest traitor known to mankind. The demonification of Judas and making him a metaphor for all the nations who were unwilling to accept Christianity, led to centuries of violence, something that Jesus, as you remember, was opposed to.
On the other hand, didn't the New Testament claim that Jesus loved Judas, even more than his other disciples? Didn't Jesus know that he's in grave danger, that the Jews dislike him and that the Romans want his head? Didn't he know that he's about to die at the cross?
He did, probably. Furthermore, he knew that he needed to sacrifice himself to become a martyr. So perhaps Judas' betrayal was not a betrayal altogether, but just a part of Jesus' masterplan? So if Judas was merely Jesus' tool, how does that make him evil? That is something that should be reconsidered.
How was that turned from a topic about Egypt to a topic about religion? :-X
-
Politics and religion go hand-in-hand sometimes.
-X
-
The Dead Sea Scrolls only include the Hebrew bible, they have nothing to do with Jesus.
Jesus is a Hebrew. Born in Bethlehem, Jerusalem which also makes him a Jew. Jesus has everything to do with the Jesus scrolls which is why they are called as such.
Precisely. Jesus was a Rabbi. He taught in synagogues. He had disciples. Even those who did not believe him to be who He said He was (the Messiah; the Son of God; one with the Father) called him Teacher.
The dead sea scrolls according to what I know are referred to as "External books", i.e. ancient scrolls written by Jews and were not included in the Bible (the old testament).
The Dead Sea Scrolls contain all manner of texts, biblical and nonbiblical. People have actually been able to cite the accuracy of Old Testament translations over the centuries based on copies from as far back as around 400 BC. Some translations got a little wonky from time to time, with a misread and thus miswritten word or Hebrew/Aramaic character, and there have also been many variations of Hebrew and Aramaic written form (languages change over time, after all), but with all the various written out forms of biblical passages studied, they've come out very precise with current translations; again, with some very small exceptions that don't alter the overall meaning of a passage (though have made a small handful of sentences rather unclear in their meaning which are now being understood and rectified for future translations and updated versions of current translations).
There are even Torah passages; within the Dead Sea Scrolls (which are so incredibly numerous and still many are being discovered with attempts to take care of them) lies the oldest known surviving copy of the Ten Commandments. It's not the full passage, but it dates back to around 400 BC if I'm remembering right.
I won't say why the Church didn't include them as I don't want to offend you
Please do. I mean, not the offending me part as a deliberate action :p (though you can do that if you wish), but I firmly believe in civil discourse and people making known our thoughts to one another.
There's a lot of other stuff here in these responses I could reply to, but I wonder where all exactly it would lead, and what purpose it would serve?
-
The Dead Sea Scrolls only include the Hebrew bible, they have nothing to do with Jesus.
Jesus is a Hebrew. Born in Bethlehem, Jerusalem which also makes him a Jew. Jesus has everything to do with the Jesus scrolls which is why they are called as such. Also Jesus' real name; Yeshua Ben Yosef. In Hebrew, Yeshua means "Salvation".
-X
The Dead Sea Scrolls are older than Jesus. So while there are prophecies, it obviously can't directly refer to the historical Jesus of the new testament. He wasn't born yet for another couple centuries. Thats Why I said they have nothing to do with Jesus. It obviously cannot include Jesus' newer teachings if he wasn't born yet.
Also, if the non-canonical Gnostic gospels are true, then it would suggest that the entire Hebrew bible is a lie created by the Demiurge anyway, and Jesus was resisting him and was sent by the true Supreme Being... :-\
-
Jesus is a Hebrew. Born in Bethlehem, Jerusalem which also makes him a Jew. Jesus has everything to do with the Jesus scrolls which is why they are called as such. Also Jesus' real name; Yeshua Ben Yosef. In Hebrew, Yeshua means "Salvation".
I need to take back that part of my reply now that I remember something that slipped my mind while writing it. The Dead sea scrolls and the Jesus scrolls are two different works. The Jesus scrolls are what the Disciples used to write down all the teachings of Christ including the missing volumes. The Dead sea scrolls are of a much older work and they also belong to a set which include the Copper scrolls (Just recently discovered) and the still missing, Silver scrolls. So yes Harrycombs, you're correct. Thanks for helping me remember. ;)
-X