Rushdie attempted murder

I'm amazed an old man is still alive after being stabbed over 10 times including one in the neck. It must be God's will!
 
The way it’s being reported here I am not sure it’s attempted anymore.

Although to be clear - nothing has been confirmed.
 
The attack is disgusting. I hope Rushdie makes a full recovery and the attacker goes to prison for a long time.

The whole thinking behind The Satanic Verses (the real verses not the book which I haven’t read) also gives you an insight into the hypocrisy of religion generally but Islam in particular.

Islam was the third of the main monotheistic religions but when he was building alliances to conquer the Middle East Mohammed reached agreements with tribes that had more than one god. That went against the words of the Quran which were very clear - there was only one god. But then god spoke to Mohammed and verses were added which explained that in some situations it was possible to have more than one god. Turmoil ensued, the army was about to fall apart and Mohammed’s spin doctors came up with the explanation that these verses had been whispered to Mohammed by Satan.

Not as clever as they thought as the next question was “well which other verses might have been whispered by Satan?” The whole of the Holy Book was in doubt.

“Whoops” said the spin doctors. “Didn’t see that one coming”. Solution? A total ban on mentioning The Satanic Verses. In fact this whole post is almost certainly blasphemous.
 
Last edited:
Mexboroseasider said:
The attack is disgusting. I hope Rushdie makes a full recovery and the attacker goes to prison for a long time.

The whole thinking behind The Satanic Verses (the real verses not the book which I haven’t read) also gives you an insight into the hypocrisy of religion generally but Islam in particular.

Islam was the third of the main monotheistic religions but when he was building alliances to conquer the Middle East Mohammed reached agreements with tribes that had more than one god. That went against the words of the Quran which were very clear - there was only one god. But then god spoke to Mohammed and verses were added which explained that in some situations it was possible to have more than one god. Turmoil ensued, the army was about to fall apart and Mohammed’s spin doctors came up with the explanation that these verses had been whispered to Mohammed by Satan.

Not as clever as they thought as the next question was “well which other verses might have been whispered by Satan?” The whole of the Holy Book was in doubt.

“Whoops” said the spin doctors. “Didn’t see that one coming”. Solution? A total ban on mentioning The Satanic Verses. In fact this whole post is almost certainly blasphemous.
Click to expand...
How many of the excluded books of the Bible are you aware of? Islam has its critiques, apostles, terrorists, followers and enemies just as Christianity does.

Perhaps religion, like politics, needs its moderates more than its extremists.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
How many of the excluded books of the Bible are you aware of? Islam has its critiques, apostles, terrorists, followers and enemies just as Christianity does.

Perhaps religion, like politics, needs its moderates more than its extremists.
Click to expand...
Well I do know that c400AD the leaders of the Christian Church got together and decided which books were to be included in the Bible “as the word of God” and which were to be excluded. No I couldn’t put a figure on the number of books that were excluded but it always seemed odd to me that men (and it was exclusively men) could decide which words had come down from the heavens a few centuries before, and should be included, and which shouldn’t. And I wondered whether their personal prejudices might have been a factor in the decision making process.

Interestingly one bit that did get through is the section in Genesis invoving Lot and his daughters (although it is expurgated from some versions of the modern Bible). That’s the bit where his daughters decide to get him pissed and have sex with him “to preserve his seed”. Nice. Not least the fact that all responsibility is put on the girls.

So yes all religions have their hypocrisies. And while I accept that there is a sound ethical message behind a lot of them, I don’t think that ethical message is especially religious. Atheists and agnostics can (and do) have a moral compass as well.

Overall, at least so far as organised religion goes, I agree with Lytham’s earlier comment.
 
My poi t- and
Mexboroseasider said:
Well I do know that c400AD the leaders of the Christian Church got together and decided which books were to be included in the Bible “as the word of God” and which were to be excluded. No I couldn’t put a figure on the number of books that were excluded but it always seemed odd to me that men (and it was exclusively men) could decide which words had come down from the heavens a few centuries before, and should be included, and which shouldn’t. And I wondered whether their personal prejudices might have been a factor in the decision making process.

Interestingly one bit that did get through is the section in Genesis invoving Lot and his daughters (although it is expurgated from some versions of the modern Bible). That’s the bit where his daughters decide to get him pissed and have sex with him “to preserve his seed”. Nice. Not least the fact that all responsibility is put on the girls.

So yes all religions have their hypocrisies. And while I accept that there is a sound ethical message behind a lot of them, I don’t think that ethical message is especially religious. Atheists and agnostics can (and do) have a moral compass as well.

Overall, at least so far as organised religion goes, I agree with Lytham’s earlier comment.
Click to expand...
I'm glad you've understood my point about the rejected books of the Bible. My point is that religion is irrational. But, the books of religious texts, on the whole, preach goodness. I'm not going to start patronising or vilifying people who want to believe and, by believing, be good people. Yet, we all know that the uncertainty of the texts' positions have encouraged nasty people to be terrorists. My point is that they would be terrorists based on anything. The religious texts should not be vilified because of that.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
My poi t- and

I'm glad you've understood my point about the rejected books of the Bible. My point is that religion is irrational. But, the books of religious texts, on the whole, preach goodness. I'm not going to start patronising or vilifying people who want to believe and, by believing, be good people. Yet, we all know that the uncertainty of the texts' positions have encouraged nasty people to be terrorists. My point is that they would be terrorists based on anything. The religious texts should not be vilified because of that.
Click to expand...
I don’t think I was vilifying religious texts particularly. It was more a case of pointing out the realities of how the texts were created. Whether that’s the Satanic Verses or which books were included in the Bible and which weren’t. Seems to me that the decisions were made as a result of considered, pragmatic and political judgments by people without too much intervention by divine hands or fingers.

Which makes you wonder how “Holy” any of these books actually are. If you have people continually fiddling with what can be included or not.

My original post on this thread was about the Satanic Verses. Not surprising bearing in mind the op. But the same comments can apply to many religions.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
I don’t think I was vilifying religious texts particularly. It was more a case of pointing out the realities of how the texts were created. Whether that’s the Satanic Verses or which books were included in the Bible and which weren’t. Seems to me that the decisions were made as a result of considered, pragmatic and political judgments by people without too much intervention by divine hands or fingers.

Which makes you wonder how “Holy” any of these books actually are. If you have people continually fiddling with what can be included or not.

My original post on this thread was about the Satanic Verses. Not surprising bearing in mind the op. But the same comments can apply to many religions.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I was not taking your thread and basing my pist on it, inane critical sense. I was being genralistic.
 
Unfortunately some countries, usually with despotic regimes, don't believe in 'Freedom of Speech'.
'Freedom of Speech' is not practiced in these countries, only what those in power allow.
Whether one believes in what Rushdie said or not, is immaterial. What is tight is his freedom to say what he believes.
We are very lucky to live in a civilised country which allows 'Freedom of Speech.
 
Davepick said:
Unfortunately some countries, usually with despotic regimes, don't believe in 'Freedom of Speech'.
'Freedom of Speech' is not practiced in these countries, only what those in power allow.
Whether one believes in what Rushdie said or not, is immaterial. What is tight is his freedom to say what he believes.
We are very lucky to live in a civilised country which allows 'Freedom of Speech.
Click to expand...
But is stopping the right to protest noisily
 
Interesting debate. Theologically it is widely accepted that the bible was written by several people given knowledge /info from God. Islam claims to be the literal eternal words of God. Big difference.
One is open to debate one isn’t. One is far more subjective.
The more subjective a religion is the less freedom individuals have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top