......AFTER running an anti-Catholic ad.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ny-time ... tholic-ad/
Score one for the Islamic war on free speech.
Anyone want to defend this?
NYT Refuses To Run Anti-Islam Ad
Moderator: Moderators
- East of Eden
- Under Suspension
- Posts: 7032
- Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
- Location: Albuquerque, NM
NYT Refuses To Run Anti-Islam Ad
Post #1"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE
- East of Eden
- Under Suspension
- Posts: 7032
- Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
- Location: Albuquerque, NM
Post #11
No, much of the NT was written by eyewitnesses or those who interviewed eyewitnesses.dusk wrote:Jesus didn't write the bible. Other people did based on loads of hearsay about Jesus and they added their share of believes.
"For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty." II Peter 1:16
No thanks, I don't need a murdering and pedophile prophet. Jesus harmed nobody.A proper prophet would have made sure his words are properly written down instead of wasting all his time preaching and relying on some fools to get it right later. That is at least something on can say about Mohammed his words found their way into the Qur'an in a much more direct way.
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE
Post #12
What I have read about the subject. There is considerable dispute about how much actual eyewitnesses had any hand in writing the bible. Still the bigger part was written by people that heard the stories from others and wrote it down an awfully long time after they supposedly happened by todays standards.East of Eden wrote:No, much of the NT was written by eyewitnesses or those who interviewed eyewitnesses.
"For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty." II Peter 1:16
It still stands true that much of the stuff has been a great deal of influence from what people though at the time and not so much what Jesus actually said. Some stuff he probably would have left out had he written it himself.
It is also a bit funny that if you assume the greek gods to be real and dig up stuff about Hercules you end up with a figure that has about as much indirekt historic validity as Jesus.
That is not really an argument now, is it?East of Eden wrote: No thanks, I don't need a murdering and pedophile prophet. Jesus harmed nobody.
I don't like him so I take the other one. Mohammed still is historically the better documented person and his word is, however much you dislike him or not, more directly accessible than that of Jesus. It is possible (I don't say it was that way) Jesus was some really small insignificant little preacher or just a kind of story teller people liked to listen too. And the true masters of preaching where those that took that little seed and spread it. It seems perfectly reasonable that we would still have ended up at the same place we are now.
With Mohammed it is pretty much impossible to say he was just some little fool and the myth mostly on its own.
If both claim to be prophets and it is obviously not possible to determine if one deliberately lied, was crazy or truly inspired by some god, it stands to reason that the teaching that comes more directly from god may be the right one and less distilled. If you just believe whatever story you like more you just prove all those right that say, religion is no more but wishful thinking.
Besides all this. Jesus was probably a very nice guy but god isn't.
I think the Jews are the most advanced religion because of quite a few of their basic believes (they appear a bit more like grown ups to me instead of childlike behavior of many Muslims) but I still just don't like the OT very much.
Because of the god it depicts. Why would I prove my loyalty to a god who wants me to sacrifice my son? Goes against anything I think morally right. Such a god would not be worthy of a second though from my part. I think in many stories god looks like some really depraved ruler who needs too much attention and asks stuff from his subjects they just cannot fulfill, because he forgot to give them the right tools.
Christians are legally ridiculed because that is how it is supposed to be, with every Religion and non religious believe frameworks. The Christians specifically earned all the insults with their history and usually do not pout like little children anymore. It is one thing if a bunch of people gather in front of your church and throw insults at you, and another if a newspaper prints some funny cartoon or something else that happens in the public square.
Not everything is a personal insult and people that cannot keep one from the other and go banana over it, just need to be educated IMO.
Re: NYT Refuses To Run Anti-Islam Ad
Post #13East of Eden wrote:......AFTER running an anti-Catholic ad.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ny-time ... tholic-ad/
Score one for the Islamic war on free speech.
Anyone want to defend this?
Is there a place we can get pictures of the ads that we can actually read?
I would say the Times should create a consistent policy that avoids what looks to be an inconsistency. I can see their concern about violence, given recent events, but I do think this sort of self-restraint can be detrimental in the long term
I would also ad that Ms. Gellar deserves a certain amount of condemnation for her actions, although I will make that condemnation tentative in this case pending actually seeing what the ad says.
Gellar is well-known for distorting the truth and making outrageous and inflammatory statements about Muslims. She was one of the instigators of the anti-Park 51 project (what came to be inaccurately called the "Ground Zero Mosque").
Finally, I have to once again correct the use of the term "free speech" in the OP. Free speech is a right that cannot be infringed on by the government. The NY Times has no legal obligation to print anything they do not want to, and in not publishing the ad, while they may be guilty of hypocrisy, poor judgment or a number of other bad behaviors, this does not constitute a "war on free speech."
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn
- East of Eden
- Under Suspension
- Posts: 7032
- Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
- Location: Albuquerque, NM
Re: NYT Refuses To Run Anti-Islam Ad
Post #14I disagree, ANY pressure to stop free speech on the part of anybody is a bad thing. The fact you disagree with Ms. Geller is irrelevant, or are you saying free speech is only for those you agree with?micatala wrote:East of Eden wrote:......AFTER running an anti-Catholic ad.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ny-time ... tholic-ad/
Score one for the Islamic war on free speech.
Anyone want to defend this?
Is there a place we can get pictures of the ads that we can actually read?
I would say the Times should create a consistent policy that avoids what looks to be an inconsistency. I can see their concern about violence, given recent events, but I do think this sort of self-restraint can be detrimental in the long term
I would also ad that Ms. Gellar deserves a certain amount of condemnation for her actions, although I will make that condemnation tentative in this case pending actually seeing what the ad says.
Gellar is well-known for distorting the truth and making outrageous and inflammatory statements about Muslims. She was one of the instigators of the anti-Park 51 project (what came to be inaccurately called the "Ground Zero Mosque").
Finally, I have to once again correct the use of the term "free speech" in the OP. Free speech is a right that cannot be infringed on by the government. The NY Times has no legal obligation to print anything they do not want to, and in not publishing the ad, while they may be guilty of hypocrisy, poor judgment or a number of other bad behaviors, this does not constitute a "war on free speech."
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE
- East of Eden
- Under Suspension
- Posts: 7032
- Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
- Location: Albuquerque, NM
Post #15
Not really, parts of the Bible were written within a few decades of the events, while the eyewitnesses would have been alive to contradict it. Nobody did. It was also far to short a time for legends to develop.dusk wrote:What I have read about the subject. There is considerable dispute about how much actual eyewitnesses had any hand in writing the bible. Still the bigger part was written by people that heard the stories from others and wrote it down an awfully long time after they supposedly happened by todays standards.East of Eden wrote:No, much of the NT was written by eyewitnesses or those who interviewed eyewitnesses.
"For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty." II Peter 1:16
Being God, He did write it himself. The bible was written through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.It still stands true that much of the stuff has been a great deal of influence from what people though at the time and not so much what Jesus actually said. Some stuff he probably would have left out had he written it himself.
Where did I say anything about Greek gods? If they were real, they were demonic. Few serious historians doubt the existence of Jesus.It is also a bit funny that if you assume the greek gods to be real and dig up stuff about Hercules you end up with a figure that has about as much indirekt historic validity as Jesus.
The character of a leader certainly is.That is not really an argument now, is it?
Was Mohammed mentioned by a historian the stature of Tacitus and Josephus, who did mention Jesus?Mohammed still is historically the better documented person
The difference between the two is that Jesus fulfilled prophecy, performed miracles (as the Koran says), and rose from the dead.With Mohammed it is pretty much impossible to say he was just some little fool and the myth mostly on its own.
And some peoples wishful thinking is that there be no God to be accountable to.If both claim to be prophets and it is obviously not possible to determine if one deliberately lied, was crazy or truly inspired by some god, it stands to reason that the teaching that comes more directly from god may be the right one and less distilled. If you just believe whatever story you like more you just prove all those right that say, religion is no more but wishful thinking.
But God didn't sacrifice Isaac, he was testing Abraham. Had Abraham failed that test God would have simply used someone else to accomplish His purposes.Besides all this. Jesus was probably a very nice guy but god isn't.
I think the Jews are the most advanced religion because of quite a few of their basic believes (they appear a bit more like grown ups to me instead of childlike behavior of many Muslims) but I still just don't like the OT very much.
Because of the god it depicts. Why would I prove my loyalty to a god who wants me to sacrifice my son?
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE
Re: NYT Refuses To Run Anti-Islam Ad
Post #16I agree that pressure to stop free speech is a bad thing.East of Eden wrote:I disagree, ANY pressure to stop free speech on the part of anybody is a bad thing.micatala wrote:East of Eden wrote:......AFTER running an anti-Catholic ad.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ny-time ... tholic-ad/
Score one for the Islamic war on free speech.
Anyone want to defend this?
Is there a place we can get pictures of the ads that we can actually read?
I would say the Times should create a consistent policy that avoids what looks to be an inconsistency. I can see their concern about violence, given recent events, but I do think this sort of self-restraint can be detrimental in the long term
I would also ad that Ms. Gellar deserves a certain amount of condemnation for her actions, although I will make that condemnation tentative in this case pending actually seeing what the ad says.
Gellar is well-known for distorting the truth and making outrageous and inflammatory statements about Muslims. She was one of the instigators of the anti-Park 51 project (what came to be inaccurately called the "Ground Zero Mosque").
Finally, I have to once again correct the use of the term "free speech" in the OP. Free speech is a right that cannot be infringed on by the government. The NY Times has no legal obligation to print anything they do not want to, and in not publishing the ad, while they may be guilty of hypocrisy, poor judgment or a number of other bad behaviors, this does not constitute a "war on free speech."
That is not happening here. No one is stopping Ms. Gellar from saying anything she wants to say. The only issue here is whether she gets to have it published.
And it is still a fact that whatever the problems with the NY Times, what they are doing is not a violation of the First Amendment. You continue to conflate people opposing what someone says with violations of free speech.
Again, I would like to see the ad, but if the NY Times wants to publish it, that is there business and I support Ms. Gellar's rights to free speech and her right to seek publication for her views.
Never said any such thing.East of Eden wrote: The fact you disagree with Ms. Geller is irrelevant, or are you saying free speech is only for those you agree with?
As far as the publication of the ad, sure, my disagreements with Ms. Gellar, my objections to her lack of truthfulness, etc. are irrelevant.
But, with respect to Ms. Gellar's Freedom of Speech, your OP is also irrelevant.
To the extent that the issue is the morality or hypocrisy of the Times, or the appropriateness of either Ms. Gellar's ad or the other ad you allude to, then Ms. Gellar's truthfulness, the extent to which her view reflect bigotry, etc. are certainly relevant.
Would you object if the NY Times had refused to air the original "anti-Catholic" ad?
Would you object if they refused to run an offensive ad by white supremacists, or Taliban sympathizers?
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Post #17
From Post 8:
Does one really need to mention lopping folks' heads off, when that someone is sitting there telling folks to be hating others?East of Eden wrote:Jesus never told His followers to behead non-believers, as the 'prophet' did in word and deed.JoeyKnothead wrote: Oh please. The Christian holy text is chock full of condemnation for all who disagree.
My answer, either way, has no bearing on the Bible containing condemnation for those who disagree.East of Eden wrote: Don't you regularly condemn those who disagree with you?
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- Atrax Robustus
- Apprentice
- Posts: 160
- Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 8:47 am
- Location: Home of Atrax robustus
Post #18
Then why are the internal contradictions of the NT so problematic?East of Eden wrote:Not really, parts of the Bible were written within a few decades of the events, while the eyewitnesses would have been alive to contradict it. Nobody did. It was also far to short a time for legends to develop.dusk wrote:What I have read about the subject. There is considerable dispute about how much actual eyewitnesses had any hand in writing the bible. Still the bigger part was written by people that heard the stories from others and wrote it down an awfully long time after they supposedly happened by todays standards.East of Eden wrote:No, much of the NT was written by eyewitnesses or those who interviewed eyewitnesses.
"For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty." II Peter 1:16
You make the same assertion as someone who claims the same inspiration for the Qu'ran and Book of Mormon for example. Is the bible the only valid revealed text? If so, what evidence can you possibly bring to bear that would convince an atheist, muslim or mormon?East of Eden wrote:Being God, He did write it himself. The bible was written through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.dusk wrote:It still stands true that much of the stuff has been a great deal of influence from what people though at the time and not so much what Jesus actually said. Some stuff he probably would have left out had he written it himself.
Do you really consider that to be an argument? Seriously?East of Eden wrote:Was Mohammed mentioned by a historian the stature of Tacitus and Josephus, who did mention Jesus?dusk wrote:Mohammed still is historically the better documented person
So, if I propose to you that the stories of Jeshua were developed with the specific intent of asserting that the OT prophecies were fulfilled, on what basis would you argue against me? Same argument applies to the miracles and resurrection - Josephus and Tacitus, whom you believe to be authorative, didn't mention anything about miracles or resurrections - why would that be?East of Eden wrote:The difference between the two is that Jesus fulfilled prophecy, performed miracles (as the Koran says), and rose from the dead.dusk wrote:With Mohammed it is pretty much impossible to say he was just some little fool and the myth mostly on its own.
Wishful thinking? Is it illogical to suspend belief in something for which there is not one iota of evidence?East of Eden wrote:And some peoples wishful thinking is that there be no God to be accountable to.dusk wrote:If both claim to be prophets and it is obviously not possible to determine if one deliberately lied, was crazy or truly inspired by some god, it stands to reason that the teaching that comes more directly from god may be the right one and less distilled. If you just believe whatever story you like more you just prove all those right that say, religion is no more but wishful thinking.
Edit: Response amended to address multiple comments.
I [would] take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day. - Douglas Adams
- East of Eden
- Under Suspension
- Posts: 7032
- Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
- Location: Albuquerque, NM
Re: NYT Refuses To Run Anti-Islam Ad
Post #19The bottom line here is, the NYT limited speech due to pressure from Muslims.micatala wrote:I agree that pressure to stop free speech is a bad thing.East of Eden wrote:I disagree, ANY pressure to stop free speech on the part of anybody is a bad thing.micatala wrote:East of Eden wrote:......AFTER running an anti-Catholic ad.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ny-time ... tholic-ad/
Score one for the Islamic war on free speech.
Anyone want to defend this?
Is there a place we can get pictures of the ads that we can actually read?
I would say the Times should create a consistent policy that avoids what looks to be an inconsistency. I can see their concern about violence, given recent events, but I do think this sort of self-restraint can be detrimental in the long term
I would also ad that Ms. Gellar deserves a certain amount of condemnation for her actions, although I will make that condemnation tentative in this case pending actually seeing what the ad says.
Gellar is well-known for distorting the truth and making outrageous and inflammatory statements about Muslims. She was one of the instigators of the anti-Park 51 project (what came to be inaccurately called the "Ground Zero Mosque").
Finally, I have to once again correct the use of the term "free speech" in the OP. Free speech is a right that cannot be infringed on by the government. The NY Times has no legal obligation to print anything they do not want to, and in not publishing the ad, while they may be guilty of hypocrisy, poor judgment or a number of other bad behaviors, this does not constitute a "war on free speech."
That is not happening here. No one is stopping Ms. Gellar from saying anything she wants to say. The only issue here is whether she gets to have it published.
I never claimed the First Amendment was involved. The 1A pertains to Congress.And it is still a fact that whatever the problems with the NY Times, what they are doing is not a violation of the First Amendment.
Off topic, but what lack of truthfulness?]As far as the publication of the ad, sure, my disagreements with Ms. Gellar, my objections to her lack of truthfulness, etc. are irrelevant.
But the bigotry of the anti-Catholic ad isn't relevant? Why the double standard?To the extent that the issue is the morality or hypocrisy of the Times, or the appropriateness of either Ms. Gellar's ad or the other ad you allude to, then Ms. Gellar's truthfulness, the extent to which her view reflect bigotry, etc. are certainly relevant.
I just want them to be consistent, and not be intimidated by pressure groups.Would you object if the NY Times had refused to air the original "anti-Catholic" ad?
Would you object if they refused to run an offensive ad by white supremacists, or Taliban sympathizers?
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE
- East of Eden
- Under Suspension
- Posts: 7032
- Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
- Location: Albuquerque, NM
Post #20
Cite?Atrax Robustus wrote:Then why are the internal contradictions of the NT so problematic?East of Eden wrote:Not really, parts of the Bible were written within a few decades of the events, while the eyewitnesses would have been alive to contradict it. Nobody did. It was also far to short a time for legends to develop.dusk wrote:What I have read about the subject. There is considerable dispute about how much actual eyewitnesses had any hand in writing the bible. Still the bigger part was written by people that heard the stories from others and wrote it down an awfully long time after they supposedly happened by todays standards.East of Eden wrote:No, much of the NT was written by eyewitnesses or those who interviewed eyewitnesses.
"For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty." II Peter 1:16
In my opinion, yes. Because there are false religions doesn't prove all religions are false.You make the same assertion as someone who claims the same inspiration for the Qu'ran and Book of Mormon for example. Is the bible the only valid revealed text?
It depends on the individual. Many from all three of those groups have become Christians.If so, what evidence can you possibly bring to bear that would convince an atheist, muslim or mormon?
Uh, yes, what serious historians attest too is usually considered evidence.Do you really consider that to be an argument? Seriously?
That it would be pretty hard for Jesus to 'rig' his place of birth, lineage, details of his death and burial to fulfill OT prophecy.So, if I propose to you that the stories of Jeshua were developed with the specific intent of asserting that the OT prophecies were fulfilled, on what basis would you argue against me?
The 'wondrous works' Josephus spoke of were very possible a reference to the miracles. Jesus' Jewish enemies reference His miracles both in the NT and the later Bablyonian Talmud. (They ascribe them to 'sorcery'.) The Koran references Jesus' miracles. Why would that be?Same argument applies to the miracles and resurrection - Josephus and Tacitus, whom you believe to be authorative, didn't mention anything about miracles or resurrections - why would that be?
You would be right, if there were really not one iota of evidence.Wishful thinking? Is it illogical to suspend belief in something for which there is not one iota of evidence?
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE