Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.atheism > #2167371 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-09-11 12:43 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-09-15 23:22 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 180 — 35 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.atheism
Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-11 12:43 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Davej <galt_57@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-11 13:06 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft WeHang FagZ And Jews Too <macabbeus@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 13:27 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-11 23:44 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> - 2016-09-11 16:43 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 23:20 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-12 00:38 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 14:13 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Normal Human <NH@....> - 2016-09-12 08:01 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-11 15:24 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-11 16:28 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-09-12 00:06 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-12 07:31 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-12 12:57 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-12 08:57 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-12 14:26 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-12 19:18 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-12 12:37 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-12 22:43 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-12 19:14 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-12 22:18 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-13 06:45 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-12 23:56 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-13 08:16 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-13 00:07 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-13 22:00 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-13 20:53 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-14 20:15 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-15 01:34 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-15 08:23 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-15 03:33 -0400
Re: Theism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-15 11:29 -0600
Re: Theism is Witchcraft John Locke <johnnydemon666@demonmail.com> - 2016-09-15 11:14 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-15 20:44 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-16 06:34 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-15 20:02 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-15 19:05 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-16 10:25 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-15 22:11 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-15 19:25 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-16 06:20 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-15 22:57 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-17 08:16 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-17 07:01 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-17 11:54 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-18 09:55 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-17 04:18 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-17 04:18 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-17 04:19 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> - 2016-09-17 10:21 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-17 16:28 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-17 18:52 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> - 2016-09-17 13:57 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-18 09:57 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Kurt <passerby31416@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 20:19 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 15:31 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-12 19:13 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-13 07:01 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-12 22:29 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-13 08:21 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-13 00:05 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-13 07:49 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-13 18:03 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-13 21:00 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-14 06:27 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-14 02:45 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-14 11:14 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-14 06:44 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-14 12:31 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-14 07:57 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-14 15:02 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-15 03:02 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-15 15:38 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-15 03:00 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-15 15:29 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-15 02:55 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-15 14:57 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Les Hellawell <les@shant.tell> - 2016-09-15 19:37 +0100
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-14 01:34 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-14 11:16 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-14 19:45 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-14 14:43 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-16 07:01 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-15 22:58 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 23:13 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-16 03:49 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-16 08:00 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Hot-Text" <hot-text@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-16 18:57 -0500
Re: Theism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-16 22:06 -0600
"Wisely Non-Theist" "Billy_Ray_Ferrell_USA-VP_2016" <billyrferrell@minpin.mshome.net> - 2016-09-17 00:32 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> - 2016-09-12 17:55 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> - 2016-09-11 19:08 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> - 2016-09-11 15:40 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> - 2016-09-11 15:26 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft default <default@defaulter.net> - 2016-09-12 07:19 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-13 00:27 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-13 00:34 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-13 09:07 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-13 09:21 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-13 09:42 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-14 10:21 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-14 14:37 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-14 12:06 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> - 2016-09-16 22:42 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft John Locke <johnnydemon666@demonmail.com> - 2016-09-13 10:15 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-13 11:45 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> - 2016-09-16 22:57 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-14 09:10 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-13 17:21 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-13 19:59 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-14 03:15 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-13 20:33 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-13 22:09 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-13 20:55 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-14 20:47 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> - 2016-09-14 00:26 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-14 01:16 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-13 22:01 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-13 21:12 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-15 09:32 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-14 17:38 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 23:32 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-14 23:15 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-15 03:33 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 23:36 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-15 08:52 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-15 18:01 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-15 02:50 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-15 22:48 +0200
Re: Theism is Witchcraft Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-09-15 15:02 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-15 19:23 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-09-16 02:58 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-16 08:16 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-16 01:15 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> - 2016-09-16 12:50 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-17 01:38 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> - 2016-09-17 10:21 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-17 16:42 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-15 23:41 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-15 22:52 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-15 17:45 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-15 17:15 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-15 21:57 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-16 04:23 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-16 17:06 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-16 16:11 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-16 21:51 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-16 21:00 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-17 01:56 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-17 08:30 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-17 07:10 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-17 04:14 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-17 16:25 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-17 16:44 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-17 12:27 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-17 17:26 +0000
Re: Theism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-17 11:48 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-17 12:54 -0500
Re: Theism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-17 12:47 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-17 20:50 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-17 17:31 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-17 12:00 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-17 17:25 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-16 20:44 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-16 17:49 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-16 21:51 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-16 02:49 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-16 03:47 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-16 05:57 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-16 17:12 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-16 16:22 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-17 19:00 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> - 2016-09-14 00:25 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 00:28 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-14 20:08 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-14 15:13 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-14 18:10 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-14 03:58 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft tirebiter <dontspamme666@bigfoot.com> - 2016-09-14 18:51 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft hhyapster@gmail.com - 2016-09-15 23:22 -0700
Page 2 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-12 22:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nr79ke$9uc$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #2167689 |
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> writes: >'Mahmed' is actually a title and means 'the one to be praised' and was >used for Jesus. >So Jesus and Mohamed were actually the same person, only slightly >'Arabified'. And Jesus was, of course, Jewish. Wrong. Jesus (Isa ibn Maryam) is revered in Islam as a prophet, the prophet preceding Mohamed. Islam has different beliefs about Jesus, he was not God or the Son of God, he was not killed by crucifixion, but he did perform miracles. He was mentioned many times in the Quran. And the Jews did originate in the Middle East (unless you want to claim that technically they, like all humans, originated in Africa long before any civilization)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-13 06:45 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e3pej6F55tfU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #2167803 |
Am 13.09.2016 00:18, schrieb Michael Moroney: >> 'Mahmed' is actually a title and means 'the one to be praised' and was >> used for Jesus. > >> So Jesus and Mohamed were actually the same person, only slightly >> 'Arabified'. And Jesus was, of course, Jewish. > > Wrong. Jesus (Isa ibn Maryam) is revered in Islam as a prophet, the > prophet preceding Mohamed. Islam has different beliefs about Jesus, > he was not God or the Son of God, he was not killed by crucifixion, > but he did perform miracles. He was mentioned many times in the > Quran. > > And the Jews did originate in the Middle East (unless you want to > claim that technically they, like all humans, originated in Africa > long before any civilization) The early Christians had no cross as symbol and they did not believe in trinity, but only in one single god. This believe system is called 'Arianism'. Jesus was a prophet and not a god himself (for the Arians). He was also not crucified. This part (son of god, crucification, wonders, resurrection and so forth) stems from Egyptian sun-worship and had the form of 'Mitraism' in Rome. Now the Arians were prosecuted after the council of Nicea and had to flee from Syria. Much later their believe build the roots of what is today Islam. The change from Aramaic language to Arabic changed the title of Jesus (in Aramaic) 'mahmed' to the name 'Mohammed' in Arabic. But originally meant was the exact same person. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-12 23:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <gh1ftblimv9soefkv170vkril6m6m6enl5@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2167926 |
On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 06:45:21 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >The change from Aramaic language to Arabic changed the title of Jesus >(in Aramaic) 'mahmed' to the name 'Mohammed' in Arabic. What a fucking moron. And why are you posting this mindless stupidity in alt.atheism and sci.physics.relativity where it is completely off-topic?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-13 08:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e3pjt7F6b7rU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #2167928 |
Am 13.09.2016 06:56, schrieb Christopher A. Lee: >> The change from Aramaic language to Arabic changed the title of Jesus >> (in Aramaic) 'mahmed' to the name 'Mohammed' in Arabic. > > What a fucking moron. The idea stems from a German Islam scientist and historian named Karl-Heinz Ohlig. He wrote this http://inarah.de/sammelbaende-und-artikel/inarah-band-4/geschichte-rueckwaerts-gelesen/ Unfortunately this is all in German. But eventually you can get it translated into English by google.translator. > > And why are you posting this mindless stupidity in alt.atheism and > sci.physics.relativity where it is completely off-topic? Well, cross-posting is a common problem in the UseNet. Actually I read sci.physics.relativity and reply to posts, that show up there, even if they are off topic to relativity (as is this topic). But what other method would you suggest? I don not really want to extend the number of groups which I read, but have on some occasion something to say about cross-posts reaching these groups for unknown reasons. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-13 00:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <hlwdjsd2-79599C.00072513092016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #2167940 |
In article <e3pjt7F6b7rU1@mid.individual.net>, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: > Am 13.09.2016 06:56, schrieb Christopher A. Lee: > > >> The change from Aramaic language to Arabic changed the title of Jesus > >> (in Aramaic) 'mahmed' to the name 'Mohammed' in Arabic. > > > > What a fucking moron. > > The idea stems from a German Islam scientist and historian named > Karl-Heinz Ohlig. > > He wrote this > > http://inarah.de/sammelbaende-und-artikel/inarah-band-4/geschichte-rueckwaerts > -gelesen/ What evidence does he present? And has it been peer-reviewed and found valid. -- JD Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a God superior to themselves. Most Gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-13 22:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e3r46iFhtugU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #2167955 |
Am 13.09.2016 09:07, schrieb Jeanne Douglas: >>>> The change from Aramaic language to Arabic changed the title of Jesus >>>> (in Aramaic) 'mahmed' to the name 'Mohammed' in Arabic. >>> >>> What a fucking moron. >> >> The idea stems from a German Islam scientist and historian named >> Karl-Heinz Ohlig. >> >> He wrote this >> >> http://inarah.de/sammelbaende-und-artikel/inarah-band-4/geschichte-rueckwaerts >> -gelesen/ > > > What evidence does he present? And has it been peer-reviewed and found > valid. > Sorry, but I don't know. As far as I can tell he's a honourable scientist. But actually Islam studies are not really my subject. So I have read something he wrote, but I'm not able to estimate how influential he is. Certainly he is far from the mainstream. anyhow: I like his idea. Here is a link to what google.translator made out of his web-page: https://translate.google.de/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Finarah.de%2Fsammelbaende-und-artikel%2Finarah-band-4%2Fgeschichte-rueckwaerts-gelesen%2F&edit-text=&act=url a few quotes: "First was, as will be seen below, the Quranic movement a special form of Syriac Persian Christianity. She defended aggressively to the accuracy of this sectarian peculiarities, but without separating from the other Christians or to break away from Torah and Gospel." "According to the inscription in the Rock has Abd al-Malik muammad more than Christological predicate understood?. [34] This document the coinage, which he minted during his turn from east to west: point to one side of a MHMT, in the West arrived with the Arab explanation muammad, and on the other a Christian iconographic design. [35] 750 AD ago. But John of Damascus sees in his Liber de haeresibus if this passage is authentic, Mamed (Machmed) as a proper name of the herald of a graphe (writing). [36] Thus should the transition to the conception of Mohammed as a historical figure in the first half of the 8th century to be done." "Even earlier, however, about the year 77 H. (around 701 BC) Can be found far to the east, in Merv coins, bear the marking 'machmatan' one reads this word as Persian vocabulary, it means the attached syllable. means "people of ...", the whole concept it means "people (or followers) of Muhammad". Another possibility would be a Syrian reading in the has an adjective meaning, ie "to Mohammed belonging" - in two versions, consequently, the same statement. But if you also 'machmat 'only translated ( "the Promised" or "the Honorable to"), then it would be to people who belong to the Honorable to (Jesus). However, the latter possibility seems most grammatically possible, but for the intentioned situation too complicated (unless you draw a parallel to the Greek name Christianoi [Christians], which indeed literally also means "people [or trailer] the Messiah" [ Jesus]). Suppose - it is the most simple solution - that is mentioned on the coins of "people of Muhammad"." Certainly a terrible translation. But somehow it should express, that 'mahmed' was a title in Aramaic (for Jesus), which morphed to 'muhammad' (Mohamed) in Arabic. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-13 20:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <hlwdjsd2-2134B5.20531513092016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #2168116 |
In article <e3r46iFhtugU1@mid.individual.net>, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: > Am 13.09.2016 09:07, schrieb Jeanne Douglas: > > >>>> The change from Aramaic language to Arabic changed the title of Jesus > >>>> (in Aramaic) 'mahmed' to the name 'Mohammed' in Arabic. > >>> > >>> What a fucking moron. > >> > >> The idea stems from a German Islam scientist and historian named > >> Karl-Heinz Ohlig. > >> > >> He wrote this > >> > >> http://inarah.de/sammelbaende-und-artikel/inarah-band-4/geschichte-rueckwae > >> rts > >> -gelesen/ > > > > > > What evidence does he present? And has it been peer-reviewed and found > > valid. > > > Sorry, but I don't know. > > As far as I can tell he's a honourable scientist. But actually Islam > studies are not really my subject. So I have read something he wrote, > but I'm not able to estimate how influential he is. > > Certainly he is far from the mainstream. > > anyhow: I like his idea. I like the idea of the Big Bang resulting from the collision of 2 branes. Doesn't mean I give it any credence in reality. Because there's no evidence to support it. > Here is a link to what google.translator made out of his web-page: > > https://translate.google.de/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8& > u=http%3A%2F%2Finarah.de%2Fsammelbaende-und-artikel%2Finarah-band-4%2Fgeschich > te-rueckwaerts-gelesen%2F&edit-text=&act=url > > a few quotes: > > "First was, as will be seen below, the Quranic movement a special form > of Syriac Persian Christianity. She defended aggressively to the > accuracy of this sectarian peculiarities, but without separating from > the other Christians or to break away from Torah and Gospel." > > "According to the inscription in the Rock has Abd al-Malik muammad more > than Christological predicate understood?. [34] This document the > coinage, which he minted during his turn from east to west: point to one > side of a MHMT, in the West arrived with the Arab explanation muammad, > and on the other a Christian iconographic design. [35] 750 AD ago. But > John of Damascus sees in his Liber de haeresibus if this passage is > authentic, Mamed (Machmed) as a proper name of the herald of a graphe > (writing). [36] Thus should the transition to the conception of Mohammed > as a historical figure in the first half of the 8th century to be done." > > > "Even earlier, however, about the year 77 H. (around 701 BC) Can be > found far to the east, in Merv coins, bear the marking 'machmatan' one > reads this word as Persian vocabulary, it means the attached syllable. > means "people of ...", the whole concept it means "people (or > followers) of Muhammad". Another possibility would be a Syrian reading > in the has an adjective meaning, ie "to Mohammed belonging" - in two > versions, consequently, the same statement. But if you also 'machmat > 'only translated ( "the Promised" or "the Honorable to"), then it would > be to people who belong to the Honorable to (Jesus). However, the latter > possibility seems most grammatically possible, but for the intentioned > situation too complicated (unless you draw a parallel to the Greek name > Christianoi [Christians], which indeed literally also means "people [or > trailer] the Messiah" [ Jesus]). Suppose - it is the most simple > solution - that is mentioned on the coins of "people of Muhammad"." > > > Certainly a terrible translation. But somehow it should express, that > 'mahmed' was a title in Aramaic (for Jesus), which morphed to 'muhammad' > (Mohamed) in Arabic. Why, since it's nonsense? -- JD Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a God superior to themselves. Most Gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-14 20:15 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e3tiefF58puU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #2168276 |
Am 14.09.2016 05:53, schrieb Jeanne Douglas: >> Certainly a terrible translation. But somehow it should express, that >> > 'mahmed' was a title in Aramaic (for Jesus), which morphed to 'muhammad' >> > (Mohamed) in Arabic. > Why, since it's nonsense? For me the story of Karl-Heinz Ohlig does make sense! To understand the idea, you need to understand the economy of that time. most profitable was the far-East trade. Now there have been several ways, how you could get from Europe to India and China. You could sail from the Mediterranean Sea past Gibraltar and around Africa, across the Indian ocean and would reach India. But this route has a lot of disadvantages. At first it was very long and people of that time did not like to sail on the Atlantic. But most likely Phoenician and Chinese sailors went along this route. You could walk along the Silk Road and send goods with camels to China. This route was controlled by the Sassanides. The Romans controlled a route over the Nile, a little bit of desert and the Red Sea. The disadvantages of that route: the Romans wanted high taxes (about 25%). Since the goods from the East had enormous value, the Empires fought constantly over control of these trade routes. And the Romans wanted a monopoly and tried to wipe out all competitors. For this purpose they hired the Arabs as associated forces. So the Arabs went east and conquered the Empire of the Sassanides. The 'hub' of the trade along the Silk Road was the city Merv. This city was kind of metropolis, because besides trade, there was a lot of information coming from all parts of the World. Among these influences were Christian sects, like the 'Arians'. Now the Arabs conquered this city and kept most of the intellectual resources. The trade hub was relocated to the west and wisdom was taken with the occupants to the capital of the Sarazens. And once the Roman Empire had disappeared the Arabs wanted their own religion (different from the Roma Christianity). And the Arians could actually deliver. So their believes were fused with the culture of the Sarazens and out came Islam. This is roughly the concept of Karl-Heinz Ohlig and to me it makes sense. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-15 01:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e3u552F9mjmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #2168464 |
Am 14.09.2016 20:15, schrieb Thomas Heger: > The 'hub' of the trade along the Silk Road was the city Merv. > This city was kind of metropolis, because besides trade, there was a lot > of information coming from all parts of the World. > > Among these influences were Christian sects, like the 'Arians'. > > Now the Arabs conquered this city and kept most of the intellectual > resources. > > The trade hub was relocated to the west and wisdom was taken with the > occupants to the capital of the Sarazens. > > And once the Roman Empire had disappeared the Arabs wanted their own > religion (different from the Roma Christianity). > > And the Arians could actually deliver. So their believes were fused with > the culture of the Sarazens and out came Islam. > > This is roughly the concept of Karl-Heinz Ohlig and to me it makes sense. It is actually possible to prove, that this had actually happened in reality. The idea is, that the wars for control of trade routes also changed the streams of wealth associated with this trade. The wealthy cities also attracted a variety of of ancient intellectuals and among them were the people who influenced religion. If now the ruling powers changed, the predominant believe system also changed. And most likely it changes towards the culture of the then ruling powers - at the expense of former and defeated cultures. In this case we have a couple of cities involved in a complex story of the migration and changes of a certain believe system (monotheism). The believers usually do not see this long story, since they assume eternal and unaltered existence of what was there, when they were born. So the believers in the Koran assume, it is original and had no forerunners. But in fact everything is based on something older - usually. Since the Koran mentions names and stories from the bible, it is obvious to assume, that the Koran evolved from a Christian sect, which itself evolved from Judaism. Also Judaism will most likely have earlier traditions (and so forth). Now the present believers of something new do not regard believers in the earlier versions as authority, but as moronic traditionalists. And on occasion, they want to break free of such traditions and start something 'modern'. Now they would certainly not support traditionalist, who point to the earlier versions of what appears to be new. And traditionalist would get in conflict with the new ruling powers, since the earlier traditions included also other people in power than currently ruling. Depending on the political system, the heresy of accepting other rulers could eventually be punished in some societies. But historians, theologians and other scientists have other objectives and can search for traces of roots in earlier cultures. This would result in theories, which violate the demand for exclusive truth of the own interpretation of history, maintained by a certain believe systems. In other words: historians are not always welcomed and can get in trouble in some cases. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-15 08:23 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e3ut39FemcbU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #2168559 |
Am 15.09.2016 01:34, schrieb Thomas Heger: > Now the present believers of something new do not regard believers in > the earlier versions as authority, but as moronic traditionalists. > > And on occasion, they want to break free of such traditions and start > something 'modern'. > > Now they would certainly not support traditionalist, who point to the > earlier versions of what appears to be new. > > And traditionalist would get in conflict with the new ruling powers, > since the earlier traditions included also other people in power than > currently ruling. > > Depending on the political system, the heresy of accepting other rulers > could eventually be punished in some societies. > > But historians, theologians and other scientists have other objectives > and can search for traces of roots in earlier cultures. > > This would result in theories, which violate the demand for exclusive > truth of the own interpretation of history, maintained by a certain > believe systems. > > In other words: historians are not always welcomed and can get in > trouble in some cases. What historians and scientists try to deliver, should be correct in an objectives sense. This would be in many cases in conflict with propaganda of the powers in control, since those powers usually want to decide, what is correct and what is not. So science and power are acting on the same subject, but in opposite directions. Scientists want truth and rulers want (more) power. If the scientists eventually threaten current ideology, then the ruling classes regard this as heresy. We have seen this in a variety of forms in many authoritarians societies, like ancient Rome, medieval Spain or the former Soviet Union. But history is science and science tries to find true stories, whether or not the politicians like them. Power, money, influence and ideology are not scientific categories, hence usefulness of a certain finding is not the aim of science, but truth. If we apply scientific methods to the history of monotheistic religions, we would research similarities and historic developments over many millennia and over different regions, countries, cultures and languages. So Judaism, Christianity and Islam could have similarities, which were not seen as such. E.g. all three religions created a unique era, after which they number the years. But there was history before and the new era was not the beginning of the world. Only this fact is rejected, without obvious reason and against simple logic. This was done, because the people of that new era saw themselves in the centre of the universe (at least of the Earth) and this had to be always there, where they are. So further history was removed from the records and mentioning of older cultures was threatened with punishment. And this is so until the present day. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-15 03:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1cjktb1pjlt1vu94n860jiq4tmfiii8rou@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2168649 |
On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 08:23:28 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> in alt.atheism with message-id <e3ut39FemcbU1@mid.individual.net> wrote: >Am 15.09.2016 01:34, schrieb Thomas Heger: > >> Now the present believers of something new do not regard believers in >> the earlier versions as authority, but as moronic traditionalists. >> >> And on occasion, they want to break free of such traditions and start >> something 'modern'. >> >> Now they would certainly not support traditionalist, who point to the >> earlier versions of what appears to be new. >> >> And traditionalist would get in conflict with the new ruling powers, >> since the earlier traditions included also other people in power than >> currently ruling. >> >> Depending on the political system, the heresy of accepting other rulers >> could eventually be punished in some societies. >> >> But historians, theologians and other scientists have other objectives >> and can search for traces of roots in earlier cultures. >> >> This would result in theories, which violate the demand for exclusive >> truth of the own interpretation of history, maintained by a certain >> believe systems. >> >> In other words: historians are not always welcomed and can get in >> trouble in some cases. > >What historians and scientists try to deliver, should be correct in an >objectives sense. Correct and should not include any personal beliefs. > >This would be in many cases in conflict with propaganda of the powers in >control, since those powers usually want to decide, what is correct and >what is not. That is called political pressure. > >So science and power are acting on the same subject, but in opposite >directions. Not power - politics. > >Scientists want truth and rulers want (more) power. If the scientists >eventually threaten current ideology, then the ruling classes regard >this as heresy. > >We have seen this in a variety of forms in many authoritarians >societies, like ancient Rome, medieval Spain or the former Soviet Union. Political influence and pressure exists under every system. > >But history is science and science tries to find true stories, whether >or not the politicians like them. Power, money, influence and ideology >are not scientific categories, hence usefulness of a certain finding is >not the aim of science, but truth. > >If we apply scientific methods to the history of monotheistic religions, >we would research similarities and historic developments over many >millennia and over different regions, countries, cultures and languages. No such study could be made because it would be a study of belief, not fact. > >So Judaism, Christianity and Islam could have similarities, which were >not seen as such. Until one or more is validated that is irrelevant. > >E.g. all three religions created a unique era, after which they number >the years. > >But there was history before and the new era was not the beginning of >the world. > >Only this fact is rejected, without obvious reason and against simple >logic. This was done, because the people of that new era saw themselves >in the centre of the universe (at least of the Earth) and this had to be >always there, where they are. > >So further history was removed from the records and mentioning of older >cultures was threatened with punishment. > >And this is so until the present day. > > >TH -- Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent. Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying, especially those proposed by His Imperial Majesty Emperor OBastard. Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government guaranteed above average income for every person. Every illegal alien is a criminal. No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason. Deportation upon identification as the only option. If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly before you run into me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-15 11:29 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Theism is Witchcraft |
| Message-ID | <aaa-DF1254.11291115092016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #2168660 |
Theism is Witchcraft, atheism is science!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Locke <johnnydemon666@demonmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-15 11:14 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Theism is Witchcraft |
| Message-ID | <i1pltb5j0ab5te72md6ih2glbvak5shhnk@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2168790 |
On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 11:29:11 -0600, Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> wrote: >Theism is Witchcraft, atheism is science! > ...absolutely. Especially Christianity...you've got your zombie, walking on water, water to wine, possessed animals, demons, human sacrifice...the epitome of the definition of witchcraft. In fact Christianity makes those black magic dudes look like amateurs !
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-15 20:44 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e408g2Fp3v5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #2168660 |
Am 15.09.2016 09:33, schrieb Attila <: >>> In other words: historians are not always welcomed and can get in >>> trouble in some cases. >> >> What historians and scientists try to deliver, should be correct in an >> objectives sense. > > Correct and should not include any personal beliefs. Scientists can believe in whatever they like. It the scientific finding is correct, than there is no problem with religion. >> >> This would be in many cases in conflict with propaganda of the powers in >> control, since those powers usually want to decide, what is correct and >> what is not. > > That is called political pressure. > >> >> So science and power are acting on the same subject, but in opposite >> directions. > > Not power - politics. Wealth, position, personal relations, strength, knowledge, fame and a few other features could make a person influential. The set of influential people are now named 'power'. Politicians often have power, but not necessarily they alone. E.g. the Pope is not a politician, but is certainly influential. >> >> Scientists want truth and rulers want (more) power. If the scientists >> eventually threaten current ideology, then the ruling classes regard >> this as heresy. >> >> We have seen this in a variety of forms in many authoritarians >> societies, like ancient Rome, medieval Spain or the former Soviet Union. > > Political influence and pressure exists under every system. Well, no. Political pressure on science about historical questions is by no means acceptable. >> >> But history is science and science tries to find true stories, whether >> or not the politicians like them. Power, money, influence and ideology >> are not scientific categories, hence usefulness of a certain finding is >> not the aim of science, but truth. >> >> If we apply scientific methods to the history of monotheistic religions, >> we would research similarities and historic developments over many >> millennia and over different regions, countries, cultures and languages. > > No such study could be made because it would be a study of belief, not > fact. The subject in question was a hypothesis of the German Islam scientist Karl-Heinz Ohlig. He had researched history of the early Islam. He found out something interesting: that the Islam was derived from a certain form of early Christianity, which was common the region, which today is Syria. This was kind of sect, which is called now 'Arians' or 'Nestorians'. Their holy scripts were later the foundation for the Koran. They spoke Aramaic and they used the title 'mahmed' (in Aramaic) for Jesus. With translation to Arabic, this title was changed to the Arabic name 'Mohamed', but still meant Jesus. So 'Jesus' and 'Mohamed' are different names for the same person. Whether or not a real person existed, that is not really important in this context, but only the identity of the person. And THAT is a really big deal today, since in case of Ohlig is correct, then Islam and Christianity are not two different religions, but only different forms of the same believe. This has far reaching implications, since then Christians could not be treated as non-believers by Muslims. >> So Judaism, Christianity and Islam could have similarities, which were >> not seen as such. > > Until one or more is validated that is irrelevant. No. Since religion and politics are often mixed, the question of the boarders between one belief and the other has influence on politics, too. And this would influence the life of billions of people. So it is precisely not irrelevant. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 06:34 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nrf0ka$bj4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #2168815 |
On 16/09/16 04:44, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 15.09.2016 09:33, schrieb Attila <: > > This was kind of sect, which is called now 'Arians' or 'Nestorians'. > > Their holy scripts were later the foundation for the Koran. > > They spoke Aramaic and they used the title 'mahmed' (in Aramaic) for > Jesus. With translation to Arabic, this title was changed to the Arabic > name 'Mohamed', but still meant Jesus. > > So 'Jesus' and 'Mohamed' are different names for the same person. > > Whether or not a real person existed, that is not really important in > this context, but only the identity of the person. > > And THAT is a really big deal today, since in case of Ohlig is correct, > then Islam and Christianity are not two different religions, but only > different forms of the same believe. Who gives a hoot? All religions exist for one purpose. To give great power to a handful of evil people over the minds of whole populations. Until all forms of religion are seen for what they are and eradicated, there can be no civilized peace on this planet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-15 20:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <d8dmtbd3jjtaabahg86d46qb779q9i29fq@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2168815 |
On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 20:44:09 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> in alt.atheism with message-id <e408g2Fp3v5U1@mid.individual.net> wrote: >Am 15.09.2016 09:33, schrieb Attila <: > >>>> In other words: historians are not always welcomed and can get in >>>> trouble in some cases. >>> >>> What historians and scientists try to deliver, should be correct in an >>> objectives sense. >> >> Correct and should not include any personal beliefs. > >Scientists can believe in whatever they like. True. > >It the scientific finding is correct, than there is no problem with >religion. Science does not address religion. > > >>> >>> This would be in many cases in conflict with propaganda of the powers in >>> control, since those powers usually want to decide, what is correct and >>> what is not. >> >> That is called political pressure. >> >>> >>> So science and power are acting on the same subject, but in opposite >>> directions. >> >> Not power - politics. > > >Wealth, position, personal relations, strength, knowledge, fame and a >few other features could make a person influential. > >The set of influential people are now named 'power'. > >Politicians often have power, but not necessarily they alone. > >E.g. the Pope is not a politician, but is certainly influential. Within limits. For example, I could not care less what he thinks about anything. > >>> >>> Scientists want truth and rulers want (more) power. If the scientists >>> eventually threaten current ideology, then the ruling classes regard >>> this as heresy. >>> >>> We have seen this in a variety of forms in many authoritarians >>> societies, like ancient Rome, medieval Spain or the former Soviet Union. >> >> Political influence and pressure exists under every system. > > >Well, no. Well, yes. > >Political pressure on science about historical questions is by no means >acceptable. Agreed. Political pressure on science about anything is unacceptable. It is still attempted. > >>> >>> But history is science and science tries to find true stories, whether >>> or not the politicians like them. Power, money, influence and ideology >>> are not scientific categories, hence usefulness of a certain finding is >>> not the aim of science, but truth. >>> >>> If we apply scientific methods to the history of monotheistic religions, >>> we would research similarities and historic developments over many >>> millennia and over different regions, countries, cultures and languages. >> >> No such study could be made because it would be a study of belief, not >> fact. > > >The subject in question was a hypothesis of the German Islam scientist >Karl-Heinz Ohlig. > >He had researched history of the early Islam. > >He found out something interesting: that the Islam was derived from a >certain form of early Christianity, which was common the region, which >today is Syria. > >This was kind of sect, which is called now 'Arians' or 'Nestorians'. > >Their holy scripts were later the foundation for the Koran. > >They spoke Aramaic and they used the title 'mahmed' (in Aramaic) for >Jesus. With translation to Arabic, this title was changed to the Arabic >name 'Mohamed', but still meant Jesus. > >So 'Jesus' and 'Mohamed' are different names for the same person. > >Whether or not a real person existed, that is not really important in >this context, but only the identity of the person. > >And THAT is a really big deal today, since in case of Ohlig is correct, >then Islam and Christianity are not two different religions, but only >different forms of the same believe. > >This has far reaching implications, since then Christians could not be >treated as non-believers by Muslims. > >>> So Judaism, Christianity and Islam could have similarities, which were >>> not seen as such. >> >> Until one or more is validated that is irrelevant. > >No. > >Since religion and politics are often mixed, the question of the >boarders between one belief and the other has influence on politics, >too. And this would influence the life of billions of people. > >So it is precisely not irrelevant. Nothing involving religion can be part of a sane discussion. > > >TH -- Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent. Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying, especially those proposed by His Imperial Majesty Emperor OBastard. Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government guaranteed above average income for every person. Every illegal alien is a criminal. No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason. Deportation upon identification as the only option. If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly before you run into me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-15 19:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <aodmtbdcupv37l0g1eooiqukbg4594gvhd@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2168935 |
On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 20:02:45 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: >On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 20:44:09 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> in >alt.atheism with message-id <e408g2Fp3v5U1@mid.individual.net> wrote: > >>Am 15.09.2016 09:33, schrieb Attila <: >> >>>>> In other words: historians are not always welcomed and can get in >>>>> trouble in some cases. >>>> >>>> What historians and scientists try to deliver, should be correct in an >>>> objectives sense. >>> >>> Correct and should not include any personal beliefs. >> >>Scientists can believe in whatever they like. > > >True. > >> >>It the scientific finding is correct, than there is no problem with >>religion. > >Science does not address religion. Apart from cultural anthropology and psychology. Although it addresses religious claims made in the real world.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 10:25 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e40sf6FtlimU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #2168937 |
On 16/09/2016 10:05, Christopher A. Lee wrote: > On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 20:02:45 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> > wrote: > >> On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 20:44:09 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> in >> alt.atheism with message-id <e408g2Fp3v5U1@mid.individual.net> wrote: >> >>> Am 15.09.2016 09:33, schrieb Attila <: >>> >>>>>> In other words: historians are not always welcomed and can get in >>>>>> trouble in some cases. >>>>> >>>>> What historians and scientists try to deliver, should be correct in an >>>>> objectives sense. >>>> >>>> Correct and should not include any personal beliefs. >>> >>> Scientists can believe in whatever they like. >> >> >> True. >> >>> >>> It the scientific finding is correct, than there is no problem with >>> religion. >> >> Science does not address religion. > > Apart from cultural anthropology and psychology. > > Although it addresses religious claims made in the real world. > Also sociology. Neuropsychology (if that can be called a separate science). Economics, in some respects.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-15 22:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <p5lmtbp52888kulb5o6jggj67knautcssb@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2168937 |
On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 19:05:48 -0500, Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> in alt.atheism with message-id <aodmtbdcupv37l0g1eooiqukbg4594gvhd@4ax.com> wrote: >On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 20:02:45 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> >wrote: > >>On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 20:44:09 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> in >>alt.atheism with message-id <e408g2Fp3v5U1@mid.individual.net> wrote: >> >>>Am 15.09.2016 09:33, schrieb Attila <: >>> >>>>>> In other words: historians are not always welcomed and can get in >>>>>> trouble in some cases. >>>>> >>>>> What historians and scientists try to deliver, should be correct in an >>>>> objectives sense. >>>> >>>> Correct and should not include any personal beliefs. >>> >>>Scientists can believe in whatever they like. >> >> >>True. >> >>> >>>It the scientific finding is correct, than there is no problem with >>>religion. >> >>Science does not address religion. > >Apart from cultural anthropology and psychology. > >Although it addresses religious claims made in the real world. I don't consider those as sciences. -- Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent. Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying, especially those proposed by His Imperial Majesty Emperor OBastard. Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government guaranteed above average income for every person. Every illegal alien is a criminal. No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason. Deportation upon identification as the only option. If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly before you run into me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-15 19:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <hlwdjsd2-19C207.19253015092016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #2168815 |
In article <e408g2Fp3v5U1@mid.individual.net>, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: > Am 15.09.2016 09:33, schrieb Attila <: > > >>> In other words: historians are not always welcomed and can get in > >>> trouble in some cases. > >> > >> What historians and scientists try to deliver, should be correct in an > >> objectives sense. > > > > Correct and should not include any personal beliefs. > > Scientists can believe in whatever they like. > > It the scientific finding is correct, than there is no problem with > religion. > > > >> > >> This would be in many cases in conflict with propaganda of the powers in > >> control, since those powers usually want to decide, what is correct and > >> what is not. > > > > That is called political pressure. > > > >> > >> So science and power are acting on the same subject, but in opposite > >> directions. > > > > Not power - politics. > > > Wealth, position, personal relations, strength, knowledge, fame and a > few other features could make a person influential. > > The set of influential people are now named 'power'. > > Politicians often have power, but not necessarily they alone. > > E.g. the Pope is not a politician, but is certainly influential. Of course he's a politician. He's the head of state of a nation. > >> But history is science and science tries to find true stories, whether > >> or not the politicians like them. Power, money, influence and ideology > >> are not scientific categories, hence usefulness of a certain finding is > >> not the aim of science, but truth. > >> > >> If we apply scientific methods to the history of monotheistic religions, > >> we would research similarities and historic developments over many > >> millennia and over different regions, countries, cultures and languages. > > > > No such study could be made because it would be a study of belief, not > > fact. > > > The subject in question was a hypothesis of the German Islam scientist > Karl-Heinz Ohlig. > > He had researched history of the early Islam. > > He found out something interesting: that the Islam was derived from a > certain form of early Christianity, which was common the region, which > today is Syria. > > This was kind of sect, which is called now 'Arians' or 'Nestorians'. > > Their holy scripts were later the foundation for the Koran. Do you have any other source confirming this hypothesis? > They spoke Aramaic and they used the title 'mahmed' (in Aramaic) for > Jesus. With translation to Arabic, this title was changed to the Arabic > name 'Mohamed', but still meant Jesus. > > So 'Jesus' and 'Mohamed' are different names for the same person. Wrong again. -- JD Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a God superior to themselves. Most Gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.atheism
csiph-web