msharrieff

Below is the info I am putting on this website: [] (religion gone wrong) - That is where my final project will be. Feel free to leave a comment on anything! :) ** Religion Gone Wrong? **

Source 1: 1) King James Bible  2) “ // And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters (Revelations).” // 3) I see a contradiction because on the second glued page of the Bible. There is a picture of Jesus with very light skin and copper colored hair. Also the New Testament was made up by a group of Christians to appeal and 'follow' the rules in the Old Testament, however that is biased and its like believing what ever one hears. People think that God is a spirit, a person, and a mythical creation, but that doesn't exclude this person from being biased. 4) Look for quotes in the Qur'an.

[]

In the King James version of the bible, there is a new testament and an old testament. The new testament consists of writings known as writings from a group of Christians who combined their views of Christianity and Jesus/God. In the new testament, which is also more biased than the scripture, it says, “And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace: and his voice as the sound of many waters (Revelations).” With this being stated in the bible, it is also contradictory that the second page of the bible is a glued picture of Jesus with pale skin and copper hair. People think that Jesus is a spirit, a person, and a mythical creation, but that doesn't exclude this person from being biased. The new testament could very well be the words of a bum on the street. There are no names sited in the back of the sacred text- therefore who is there to look upon for verification of fair opinions and thoughts on life? This bible has been altered with; texts were taken out and others were added. There facts about the bible makes it hard for a person who believes in this faith to say that they know all of it is true.

Source 2: 1) Qur'an  2) The Qur’an in Sura 4:34 says: // 4:34. ‘Men are in charge of (or overseers of - **qawwamuna**) women, as Allah has given them more (strength) than the other (sometimes translated as made them superior to the other), and because they spend of their wealth (to provide for them). Therefore women who are virtuous are obedient to God, and guard in (the husband’s) absence what God would have them guard. As for those women on whose part you fear rebellion (**nushuz**), admonish them and banish them to beds apart, (and last) beat (**adribu**) them. Then, if they obey you, seek not a way against them. For God is Most High, Great (above you all).’ // 3) I would again bring the point up about this being biased as well as the emotional abuse side to the male gender being dominant. It is the word of basically those who translated the text and it was tons of years ago. 4) Look for Karen Armstrong.

http://www.ruqaiyyah.karoo.net/articles/beating.htm

In the Qur’an, it says many things that would defeat the purpose of women’s rights, equality, and many general morals of peace (not supporting domestic violence). In the Qur’an, Sura 1:34 says, “Men are in charge of (or overseers of - **qawwamuna**) women, as Allah has given them more (strength) than the other (sometimes translated as made them superior to the other), and because they spend of their wealth (to provide for them). Therefore women who are virtuous are obedient to God, and guard in (the husband’s) absence what God would have them guard. As for those women on whose part you fear rebellion (**nushuz**), admonish them and banish them to beds apart, (and last) beat (**adribu**) them. Then, if they obey you, seek not a way against them. For God is Most High, Great (above you all).” This quote from the sacred text supports sexism by saying that ‘Men are in charge of women…’. Also the text says that ‘As for those women on whose part you fear rebellion (**nushuz**), admonish them and banish them to beds apart, (and last) beat (**adribu**) them. Then, if they obey you, seek not a way against them.’ Which means that in a sense, domestic abuse is okay as long as it is through religion. Does that make abuse right because it is in this sacred text’s religion? People could use these things in the sacred text as an excuse as to why they feel that their actions should be justified.

Source 3: 1) The Great Transformation (Karen Armstrong) 2) //"Some sages steadfastly refused even to discuss theology claiming that it was distracting and damaging. Others argued that it was immature, unrealistic, and perverse to look for the kind of absolute certainty that many people expect religion to provide… What mattered was not what you believed but how you believed (Armstrong).”//  3) This quote provides my strong points with a sort of medium and proof of people taking texts to the extreme and literal. It seems as if religious American culture is taken so serious by every word of what you believed instead of how. The Axial ages were a very important time because it shows how different these texts was used before religion was organized.  4) Look for a published (and possibly well-respected) Islamic author speaking on religion.

http://moodle.scienceleadership.org/mod/resource/view.php?id=54228

In Karen Armstrong’s, //The Great Expectations,// it explains much of ignorance within religion now that it has become organized. Armstrong proposes many interesting facts about how the world has sort of took religion and made it their own- instead of trying to find themselves within their chosen guided religion. She says that, "Some sages steadfastly refused even to discuss theology claiming that it was distracting and damaging. Others argued that it was immature, unrealistic, and perverse to look for the kind of absolute certainty that many people expect religion to provide… What mattered was not what you believed but how you believed (Armstrong)”. This quote provides my strong points with a sort of medium and proof of people taking texts to the extreme and literal. It seems as if religious American culture is taken so serious by every word of what you believed instead of //how//. The Axial ages were a very important time because it shows how different these texts was used before religion was organized- before the evil of extremism/literalism.

Source 4: 1) Martin John Mwaipopo 2) //" When I opened the Qur’an, the first verses I came across were, ‘ Say : He is Allah , The One and Only; Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begeteteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him? (Surah Ikhlas)’ ", he recalls. That was when the seeds of Islam, unknown to him, were first sown. It was then that he discovered that the Qur’an was the only scripture book that had been not been tamprered with, by human beings since its revelation. "And in concluding my doctoral thesis I said so. I didn’t care whether they give me my doctorate or not - that was the truth, and I was looking for the truth."// 3) Just because the Qur'an hasn't been 'tampered' with, doesn't mean that is biased or sexist. Some people do not realize that the text may express some things that he may disagree with in general. The text that was not tampered with means also that it was seriously used as a guide- but to find the truth, is within. Some also do not realize that the Qur'an is so old that times have changed drastically, and that the methods used then were not the same because of the circumstances and rights of people many years ago. 4) Look for a Christian author well respected person.

http://www.usislam.org/converts/martin.htm

Martin John Mwaipopo was a famous priest by the wishes of his father. He started to consider where exactly these sacred texts stand as far as authenticity and things like that. Then he became interested in the Qur’an because he says, “When I opened the Qur’an, the first verses I came across were, ‘ Say : He is Allah , The One and Only; Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begeteteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him? (Surah Ikhlas)’ ", he recalls. That was when the seeds of Islam, unknown to him, were first sown. It was then that he discovered that the Qur’an was the only scripture book that had been not been tampered with, by human beings since its revelation. "And in concluding my doctoral thesis I said so. I didn’t care whether they give me my doctorate or not - that was the truth, and I was looking for the truth." Does the truth always mean something that hasn’t been altered with? Sometimes people take sacred texts and automatically believe that everything in it is true because it’s from a long time ago. Does this make the truth right because it is old? With that opinion, there is no room for change within a system of set rules in a sacred text. That same text was used as a guide before- and most people didn’t think it was entirely true. What made these guides change to strict rules? People were in deep search of the truth as each religion became popular. However if most just thought about how this religion applies to life instead of exactly what it says about life- then things would have been easier for those who were experimenting with religion and for those who didn’t know where to turn to. Some preach the word of their God and think that they are doing everything right, when instead they should preach for what they believe in and how they believe in it. For example, the Qur’an says much about male dominance, but that would defeat the purpose of allowing women to vote and to have fair jobs/opportunities.

Source 5: 1) Beth Moore 2) “// God’s love is unfailing, so any time we perceive He does not love us, our perceptions are wrong. Anything we perceive about God that does not match up with 1) the truth of Scripture and 2) the portrayal of His character in Scripture- is a lie.” // 3) This quote says that anything that you believe that is not in the bible is a lie. How can you completely believe the bible when half of it is biased information created by a group of Christians who all believe in similar things. The old testament was used as a guide. What about the things that are not said in the bible? By default, does it make the answer a lie? The portrayal of Jesus was made up in the New testament, but on the second page, the picture of Jesus shows him with fair skin and copper colored hair. That is a contradiction within the bible, but is it still true? How do you define a truth from a lie within a contradiction? 4) Begin set up for project.

Beth Moore was born on an Army Base during a thunderstorm, says her father. She was born into a Christian family that seemed to influence her at an early age. As she got older, she grew strong on her opinion and beliefs of god. She says, “ God’s love is unfailing, so any time we perceive He does not love us, our perceptions are wrong. Anything we perceive about God that does not match up with 1) the truth of Scripture and 2) the portrayal of His character in Scripture- is a lie”. Understanding her perspective isn’t difficult- it represents her faith in God. The real question is: How reliable is the Scripture? This same scripture she is referring to is the bible. The bible has a new testament made up by a group of Christians- so how can you believe the words of just anyone? Is it still the word of God if the information not come from Him? The information in the New Testament was not around when the Old Testament was discovered/written. Does that still make everything said about Him true just because this new part is added to the original? That’s almost like saying anyone can write in the book, and whatever words written down are true.

[] []