US church - Quran burning

[Matts_12GS]

no more calls, we have a winner!

So you and Sean are just fine with burning the flag - it's just a man-made object made from plant detritus after all.

 

I don't have to like it, it is protected speech so I must accept it. If it happens enough to make me incensed enough I can enact a process to try and change the law.

 

Just one more of the beauties of the country I call home.

[Selden]

Selden,

 

In your experience in Saudi, did you not feel that the Saudi government (The "Royal Family") public face was a lot different from their private??

 

By that, I mean their desire to keep their position(s) and the peace (and their lives!), required them supporting the religous radical element.

 

I ask this because I did business with various Saudi entities and that was my impression!

As of the early 1980's, the royal family had an estimated 5000 members, so there was quite a wide range of belief. A large portion of the Saudi ruling/business class was educated in the west, especially in the USA, and generally (but not always) these people tend to have a more liberal outlook. Steve Coll's book, The Bin Ladens, provides a pretty good look at the differences in religious outlook among a large (non-royal) Saudi family.

 

It's useful to think of this as the year 1431 (which it is for them); religion is embedded in daily life in a way that is almost incomprehensible for a westerner, and because of sharia law, the concept of separation of religion and state is inconceivable. That said, I've been surprised at just how much King Abdullah has pushed back against the more conservative elements, as before he ascended the throne, I thought he was from the conservative branch of the family.

 

Of course, you could make a similar statement about many politicians in this country, who publicly espouse their Christian faith, but who behave much differently in private. Notwithstanding article 6 of the United States Constitution, it's probably easier for a Muslim to be elected to public office than for an atheist.

[SeanC]

So you and Sean are just fine with burning the flag - it's just a man-made object made from plant detritus after all.

When foreigners do it on foreign soil, it makes me laugh. When Americans do it, I feel contempt for them as well as immediate antipathy to whatever their cause might be. Does that qualify as "just fine," Bob? And by "just fine," I assume you mean refraining from cutting the flag burner's head off with a scimitar, spraying bullets into a crowd whilst yodeling "Allahu Akbar," etc. You know, stuff like that.

[philbytx]

I agree, they do have a large extended family don't they .

I was just thinking back to the times I met with them outside Saudi. They appeared to enjoy the liberation from the shackles of the literal Q'ranic world at times !

[Paul Mihalka]

This is a very interesting intelligent conversation that I feel is going nowhere. I would say we all, the whole world, need only one commandment. I'm sure there are more formal words to say it, but it is: "Do to others like you want them do to you". If everybody would live by it, this would be heaven.

[Ken H.]

I cannot imagine a power or a pursuasion that would motivate me to respond in an inflammatory manner because of my religion.

So can you ever envision a circumstance where you would martyr yourself for a belief? Be wiling to die for what you believe in rather than back down?

 

I suspect many of us would answer "yes" when asked that question. If not in a religious/faith context, then in a country/ideology context. E.g. Veterans.

 

I think what we fail to realize/recognize is that that same depth of conviction exist amongst practitioners of some religions. Regarding all aspects of it, including how deeply offensive burning their book is. So deep is their conviction to the tenets of there religion that they are willing to die for them. It’s not ‘religion-lite’, it’s the ‘real deal.’ 100% dedication to one’s religious ideology.

 

Bob keeps bring up the flag burning analogy. Yet how many of us, no matter how much we believe that what it represents is the absolute god-given gift to mankind as the best country in the world, would be willing to strap a bomb to our chest, go to where a flag burning was about to happen and blow ourselves up to stop it? If not, aren’t we something less than 100% committed in our patriotism?

 

In some ways I admire extremists’ (of any persuasion, not just religious extremist) conviction to what they believe in. Don’t get me wrong, decidedly not their practices and methodologies of violence and destruction, but their unwavering commitment to what they believe in. How many amongst us here can say we have that level of absolute dedication/conviction to our particular religious beliefs? Whatever they might be. Doesn’t true belief that what we believe in is what God told us (not what he told 'them' what he told us) is the final word; require that level of conviction? I suspect most of us are actually rather 'soft' in what we beleive in. We indeed practice believe-lite. Not them, they're as hard as a rock in their beliefs. Paradoxically the same characteristic we admire in our heroes - unwavering commitment.

[Ken H.]

So you and Sean are just fine with burning the flag - it's just a man-made object made from plant detritus after all.

Your parallel is a good one Bob. Burning the book isn’t burning paper bound together with ink on it; it’s showing disrespect for, and disbelief of, what the words and principles (in the book) mean.

 

Burning a flag isn’t burning cloth with ink on it, it’s showing disrespect for, and disbelief of, what the words and principles (backing up the flag) mean.

 

Book and flag burnings have been going on for the ages. They are never about the paper and cloth, they are about what that paper and cloth represent.

 

Both are a ‘burning’ done by the heart, not by the hand.

 

 

[beemerman2k]

I cannot imagine a power or a pursuasion that would motivate me to respond in an inflammatory manner because of my religion.

So can you ever envision a circumstance where you would martyr yourself for a belief? Be wiling to die for what you believe in rather than back down?

 

Yes, but in a manner that invites agape love, forgiveness, reconciliation, and maybe even using my death to rebuke those who would murder me over their symbols. I would like to think my death protests their actions, yet at the same time, invites them to grow up, mature, and to seek the higher values of peace and reconciliation.

 

This is how my heroes died: Jesus of Nazareth, Mohandas Ghandi, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Frodo Baggins -- who wouldn't permit himself to hate Sauron while he destroyed the evil ring he created -- among countless other examples.

[TyTass]

Bingo, Dave! Glad you brought this up.

 

Power is the issue, whether it comes in the guise of religion or politics.

 

Any honest investigation into our past (whether cursory or studied) reveals those individuals with the lust for power have [ab]used whatever vehicle they are most adept to convince other people to give "them" what "they" want, or - better yet - to convince other people to force far greater numbers of other people to give "them" what "they" want. Whether it be religion or politics, ALL powerful people have manipulated others by heightening their sense of fear.

 

Not religion, politics, nor money are the root of all things evil ...

 

FEAR however is the destroyer of all the good man has ever accomplished or ever hoped.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Burning the book isn't burning paper bound together with ink on it; it's showing disrespect for, and disbelief of, what the words and principles (in the book) mean.

 

Burning a flag isn't burning cloth with ink on it, it's showing disrespect for, and disbelief of, what the words and principles (backing up the flag) mean.

 

Disrespectful though they may be (no argument there), neither one should merit capital or corporal punishment, whether judicial or extrajudicial.

 

 

[philbytx]

Well,

I know a few folks that would gladly burn a book if it would enable them to receive a bit of "non-judicial" corporal punishment

[AZKomet]

Hmmmmmmmm......Like I said has there ever been an unholy cause??????????

 

In the eyes of religion or in Christianity in particular? Absolutely. There are countless "unholy causes" at work in the world today, even within the realms of all faiths. Christianity would not hesitate to acknowledge this reality.

 

I don't agree with what you or everyone else says on these forums Matt, but I do not make inflammatory comments to piss them off if I don't like what they have to say...........

 

 

Again, this is where I think SeanC has it on straight. I cannot imagine a power or a pursuasion that would motivate me to respond in an inflammatory manner because of my religion. In fact, from my own understanding of my faith, such a response from me suggests I don't understand that which I profess to believe in! If Muslims, or anyone for that matter, are secure and mature in their understanding of their faith -- and many of them are I might add; I have met more than a few over the years -- then you cannot inflame them with your words or your perspectives or your beliefs. And that's SeanC's point: grow up! If you allow yourself to behave like kindling, then someone is eventually going to light a match under your butts just so they can watch you burn! That's the way of the world and nothing will ever change that reality. So grow up!

 

 

My statement deals with warring in general. All of the past conflicts are deemed "holy" in the eyes of many sects that start them or are involved in them.

 

What about the US Army's call in a draft? "For God and Country?" I too believe there are holy causes at work all over the world....I am actually a part of many. The World Orphan Fund, donating my time and $$$ to help diseased victim in other countries and giving FREE classes on ACLS. CPR and First Aid not only in the US but countries like Nepal etc. I personally took medical supplies to Patten Hospital in Kathmandu in 2008. This included donated defibrillators from a large medical company. It wasn't an easy task. Did I want something for my efforts? Absolutely not....first and foremost I am a humanitarian, then an individual.

 

So yes, holy causes are in the hearts and minds of others.......Ask Doc47. I sent him a laptop to Gambia which costs a crap load of $$$ to do so not to mention the countless places I took it to get it shipped b/c they never heard of Gambia. Why did I take the time? Cuz I believe he and others like him are doing just in the world.

 

War w/o a just cause has no place in my life....(Take the Gulf of Tonkin incident which escalated us into the Vietnam War)

 

This is what I was speaking of in terms of holy causes. So yes, all wars are holy in the eyes of the instigator. Whatever you call your belief there is some allegiance to the cause, spiritually, religiously or otherwise.

 

[SeanC]

Your parallel is a good one Bob. Burning the book isn’t burning paper bound together with ink on it; it’s showing disrespect for, and disbelief of, what the words and principles (in the book) mean.

 

Burning a flag isn’t burning cloth with ink on it, it’s showing disrespect for, and disbelief of, what the words and principles (backing up the flag) mean.

 

Book and flag burnings have been going on for the ages. They are never about the paper and cloth, they are about what that paper and cloth represent.

Your comments lack a sense of perspective, so let me provide some.... I happen to own a U.S. flag that is very important to me (and by "very important," I mean more than anyone could possibly know). The first time I saw this flag, it was draped over my father's coffin by Marine Corps honor guards, who then removed and folded the flag and handed it to my mother and I at my father's funeral. It's never been unfolded since, and today it rests in a drawer in my house. I rarely remove it from the drawer, and only when I'm alone. I'll never fly or display it, nor do I ever show it to anyone. It's imbued with such profound personal meaning, I am unwilling and unable to share it with anyone else.

 

And yet, I would soak that flag with lighter fluid and ignite it with a Zippo before I would even consider, much less commit the act of murdering someone for burning a U.S. flag or, for that matter, showing any level of disrespect for any of my beliefs.

 

This is a point you have failed to grasp in this discussion, Ken (and your patriotism by way of suicide bombing comment illustrates that). Reasonable human beings don't kill people for disrespecting their religious beliefs, or the tokens, symbols and objects of their beliefs. That's barbarism, a world view sorely in need of reformation.

 

Burning a religious book is a dickish act. Puerile, contemptible, and clearly disrespectful (intentionally so), but it's still just a book that was lost, and in no way warrants the taking of a human life as an acceptable or appropriate response.

[azkaisr]

Therefore, while I have no reasonable way to ban organized religion, I despise it utterly because it used to control those for worldly reasons in the majority of cases.

 

Do you also despise government, since it is used for exactly the same purpose? If you look for the most egregious examples of the inhumanity of man to man, it seems to have been perpetuated by governments, such as Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Idi Amin's Uganda and so on. Of course, there have been many more examples of governments that haven't perpetuated slaughters of its citizens than those that have, just as there are many more examples throughout history of religions that haven't abused their position of trust than those that have.

 

I think the lesson to be learned from this is that no human being or collective of human beings can be trusted in a position of absolute power without the necessary checks and balances to prevent them from occasionally running amuck.

 

Sorry but that argument isn't pertinent to the conversation we are having. The fact is evil can take place in many forms. The fact that there are secular despots doesn't impact the fact that we have religious despots in any manner or show that religion is not often abused for secular gains.

[Bob Palin]

And yet, I would soak that flag with lighter fluid and ignite it with a Zippo before I would even consider, much less commit the act of murdering someone for burning a U.S. flag or, for that matter, showing any level of disrespect for any of my beliefs.

 

Reasonable human beings don't kill people for disrespecting their religious beliefs, or the tokens, symbols and objects of their beliefs. That's barbarism, a world view sorely in need of reformation.

 

Burning a religious book is a dickish act. Puerile, contemptible, and clearly disrespectful (intentionally so), but it's still just a book that was lost, and in no way warrants the taking of a human life as an acceptable or appropriate response.

Thank you Sean - you have perfectly explained a rational point of view and restored some modicum of my faith in humanity (just a very small modicum, if modicii come in sizes)

[philbytx]

I have a large modicum......and am happy to share it

[SeanC]

Okay, this really cracked me up:

 

According to The Globe and Mail, the above photo was taken yesterday of Pakistanis protesting the possibility someone in the U.S. might burn a koran.

 

I wonder if it would be okay to burn Mohammed in effigy, you know, like at a football game or something.... Just for shits and giggles.

[philbytx]

Yup!

Protests both in parts of the Muslim and Non-Muslim world and all over the Internet! Evidently, we are lumped together as just one big American bunch of blasphemers!

 

 

 

[Whip]

I have a large modicum......and am happy to share it

 

I thought the docs got most of yours.

 

[tallman]

So I find myself mostly agreeing with Sean, I have a similar flag, wondering how I am agreeing with Bob, and deciding whether to tell Ken that I would not blow myself up.

There are other ways to deal with someone you feel that much hatred for, smarter ways that allow you to accomplish the same goal and live to talk about it.

 

There was a time that people may have been less tolerant of burning the American flag by anyone in our country.

I can't imagine that going without a response on December 8,1941.

[1springer]

Yup!

Protests both in parts of the Muslim and Non-Muslim world and all over the Internet! Evidently, we are lumped together as just one big American bunch of blasphemers!

 

 

 

...you expected something different?

[moshe_levy]

 

Just finished reading this thread - and that quote says it better than I could have myself, so +1 to you Sir.

 

-MKL

[Ken H.]

Now Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, KS (yes that Baptist Church of gay bashing fame) has decided to get into the act. Phelps is saying he will burn a Qur’an and an American flag at noon tomorrow.

 

The damage all this is going to do to the cause of trying to improve the situation in the middle-east is almost unfathomable. World wars have been started over less.

 

[1springer]

I long for the days when the only thing being burned was bra's!

[TyTass]

The damage all this is going to do to the cause of trying to improve the situation in the middle-east is almost unfathomable. World wars have been started over less.

What do ya say? Let's not add hair fires to all the combustion taking place already.

 

That wars (world wars or otherwise) have been started over less is a gross over-simplification. The root cause of any modern war (of the past 300 years or so) has been serious differences between nations - ones in which peaceful negotions have failed. You're talking about that final straw, that last match that actually ignited the firestorm. However, a match won't start a fire unless the conditions are ripe - fuel and oxygen just waiting for heat of that match.

 

Perhaps the most oft-quoted example of frivolous war is The Football War. It is alledged to have started over a world cup qualifying round game between El Salvador and Honduras in 1969. But this didn't come up out of the blue ... tensions over a serious border dispute had built for years to the point that two nations, taking part in a normal international competition, either allowed the passion of post-game fan rioting (not part of the competition but illegal actions on the part of the masses) to ignite the fire (i.e., the initial invasion into the area of dispute) or the El Salvadoran govt simply used it as an excuse to settle the issue. Really no matter. It was a border dispute "period."

 

It sounds as though you would suggest the two nation should not have played the game.

 

What's to do in the case we have before us? Stiffle these freaking idiotic people's right to free speach because they are terribly rude. Prevent the press from making a meal out of this piece of news. Cower in fear over some imminent attack from the masses of Pakistani's (because they're burning the American Flags in their streets) or the more likely chance of sporadic terrorist response?

 

Regardless of what these rude idiots might say, they don't speak for us internationally (yes I'm aware of the speed of electronic communications). The fact is we elect people to speak for us as a nation. It's their job to communicate the true intentions (or not, at times) of the American People. I'm certain any President worth his salt would could explain to any seriously offended Muslim nation that it is part of our understanding of freedom, just as burning the American flag is to them - or something like that. If the current Administration cannot peacibly negotiate our way out of a war with say Pakistan on this one, then I miss my guess.

 

Frankly, I don't get what your saying here. Have you no faith in the international negotiating abilities of the current Administration? Or do you believe that the governments of Muslim nations cannot restrain themselves enough to not declare war over such an issue? Or do you believe that we should change our concept of freedom to appease terrorist organizations because we fear their reprisals?

 

The one message we should not communicate is fear (though some level of pained embarrassment would certainly be appropriate). If some Muslim nation or terrorist organization still wants to attack us (or our interests abroad) because we claim to defend the right of free speach, then we must defend that right.

 

I suggest we learn to accept the price of freedom and stop the hand-wringing.

[AviP]

+1. Love the cat avatar.

[Paul Mihalka]

The problem is not that these asshats will start a war, the war is already going on. The problem is that this produces another couple of videos Al Qaeda is showing to 14 year olds they are recruiting for terrorists.

[TyTass]

Ken,

 

Let me now add where I know I agree with you. I too believe flag burning a form of communicating one's political viewpoint or emotion regarding the actions of a government or its people.

 

As a 20+ year veteran, I will admit that when I see people burn the US flag it turns me off, that I - like Sean - chose to turn off to their cause or viewpoint. But I whole-heartedly accept (and believe my service to uphold) their right to communicate those thoughts - especially here in the US where we claim to protect the freedom of speech.

 

Obviously, setting a flag on fire at a gas station is in appropriate due to physical safety issues ... so I agree there may be limitations applied to some types of communication. However, those limitations should not merely be a ploy by which we pass laws to protect someone's feelings to the contrary. Specifically, I believe we can never apply limitations based on someone's emotional response to such communication.

 

As stated before, we all need to get some thicker skin. If not, and a person supports restricting people expressing some political or emotional views - whether through laws or any other method - then that person doesn't really recognize the right in the first place and really cannot claim to support such freedom!

[TyTass]

The problem is not that these asshats will start a war, the war is already going on. The problem is that this produces another couple of videos Al Qaeda is showing to 14 year olds they are recruiting for terrorists.

I hear you Paul. But if AQ can't find the right video clip somewhere on US TV or YouTube, they then simply create an appropriate video. Those 14-yo wouldn't know the difference because they do not posess or chose to not employ the necessary level of scrutiny. They are being manipulated.

 

The difference in this case really only is how much inventivenss AQ must employ.

[pbharvey]

So burning a Quran is going to upset the terrorists so much that they might do something harmful?

What exactly made them mad 9 years ago?

 

Its pathetic that we're still cowering in fear over these people.

 

Is it rude and unnecessary to burn the Quran? Yes, of course. In America, though we can do such rude and unnecessary things. To have our leadership suggest otherwise holds us hostage to their next demands. Maybe we'll cancel Christmas to make nice with them.

 

America has been emasculated and shows no intention of growing another pair.

[Dave McReynolds]

If people want to hate us because we are a country where it is legal to burn the Quran, then we might as well get it over with and let them get on with hating us, because the fact is, we ARE a country where it is legal to burn the Quran, and I don't think very many of us want to change that. I would hope that most of the world will realize that it is not an official policy of the US to burn the Quran, nor the desire of many of its citizens to burn the Quran, but if that doesn't make any difference to some people, and they choose to get inflamed about it, then they might as well start flaming.

 

I really don't think we US citizens should get all excited about it when the truth is exposed; in fact, I think what we need is more of the truth, not less of it.

[Fubar]

...and just think about the kettle of fish we'd be in if he were wearing a BMW shirt!

At the risk of seeming to be unnecessarily rude and insensitive, I doubt this guy can spell BMW.

[Paul Mihalka]

...and just think about the kettle of fish we'd be in if he were wearing a BMW shirt!

At the risk of seeming to be unnecessarily rude and insensitive, I doubt this guy can spell BMW.

Ya mean they make motorcycles?....

[doc47]

That church can do that.

 

Assuming we can temporarily agree that this religion stuff is true; I cannot for the life of me believe that Jesus would ever approve of such behavior on the part of his followers and worshipers. Muslims do not profess to follow Jesus as their Lord, so they are not bound to honor his values. Christians, however, are (or so I'm told).

 

Jesus teaches us in his Sermon on the Mount how to deal with difficult people.

 

"You have heard that it is said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person...You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven...So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

 

Muslims do view Jesus as a major prophet, respect, and honor his teachings. They do not accept his divinity.

[Ken H.]

Muslims do not profess to follow Jesus as their Lord, so they are not bound to honor his values.

Muslims do view Jesus as a major prophet, respect, and honor his teachings. They do not accept his divinity.

Yes, that's an important point. I’m not aware of any other religion that recognizes the prophets/guiders of other religions formally in their teachings/texts as Islam does.

[pbharvey]

Muslims do view Jesus as a major prophet, respect, and honor his teachings. They do not accept his divinity.

 

I'm curious to know how they honor His teachings when He proclaimed His divinity. It seems like that would make Him a false prophet in their eyes. [honest question, not trolling, not trying to step over the imaginary line]

[Nice n Easy Rider]

Muslims do view Jesus as a major prophet, respect, and honor his teachings. They do not accept his divinity.

 

I'm curious to know how they honor His teachings when He proclaimed His divinity. It seems like that would make Him a false prophet in their eyes. [honest question, not trolling, not trying to step over the imaginary line]

 

I think you can honor and respect a teacher without accepting everything they teach. Just MHO.

[bakerzdosen]

I’m not aware of any other religion that recognizes the prophets/guiders of other religions formally in their teachings/texts as Islam does.

Bahá’í?

[pbharvey]

Muslims do view Jesus as a major prophet, respect, and honor his teachings. They do not accept his divinity.

 

I'm curious to know how they honor His teachings when He proclaimed His divinity. It seems like that would make Him a false prophet in their eyes. [honest question, not trolling, not trying to step over the imaginary line]

 

I think you can honor and respect a teacher without accepting everything they teach. Just MHO.

 

Me too, but I think some things are deal breakers. Not in the sense that you don't honor and respect the person but that their status as a prophet would be in question because what they are proclaiming goes against the main teaching you believe. Frankly, I don't know that much about what Islam teaches but if Allah is supposed to be the one true god, then it seems like Jesus would be ineligible to be a true prophet. Obviously, I'm exposing my gross ignorance of Islam, but I'll trade that for the opportunity to learn.

[philbytx]

Jesus was a prophet and not "God on Earth".....

 

[beemerman2k]

I see things in the same light as pbharvey. I am awaiting answers and explainations, too, because this isn't making sense to me. How can Jesus, inspite of his views that he was divine, be held in honor, yet his followers aren't? :confused:

[pbharvey]

Jesus was a prophet and not "God on Earth".....

 

I'll refrain from going where I probably shouldn't so I'll ask this question: Does the Quran define Jesus as someone other than who the Bible describes Him as? Because if it does, then all the rules change.

[beemerman2k]

Let's face it, religion oftentimes, just does not make sense. We can argue until the cows come home (not that we've even begun to argue this point), but I don't imagine we will hear any answers that 1) make sense 2) pass intellectual scrutiny and 3) result in any enlightened minds.

 

This is why religion is, and in my view, should aways be personal! Ideological wars are among the most senseless and hypocritical that humans engage in.

[pbharvey]

We can argue until the cows come home

 

Unless of course you're Hindu

[Bob Palin]

I'm curious to know how they honor His teachings when He proclaimed His divinity. It seems like that would make Him a false prophet in their eyes. [honest question, not trolling, not trying to step over the imaginary line]

I'm betting that Jesus never said he was divine, it was his disciples trying to carry on after he was killed.

[azkaisr]

I'm curious to know how they honor His teachings when He proclaimed His divinity. It seems like that would make Him a false prophet in their eyes. [honest question, not trolling, not trying to step over the imaginary line]

I'm betting that Jesus never said he was divine, it was his disciples trying to carry on after he was killed.

 

I will ask him when I get home tonight.

[beemerman2k]

I'm betting that Jesus never said he was divine, it was his disciples trying to carry on after he was killed.

 

But why make such a move? There have been plenty of great, Jewish teachers through out time. I constantly hear about a man known as Rabbi Hillel, a Jewish teacher who lived in Jesus day. In fact, it is thought that Jesus was either one of his students, or was highly influenced by someone who was a student of Rabbi Hillel, as many of Jesus teachings are known to have come from this rabbi as well:

 

The comparative response to the challenge of a Gentile who asked that the Torah be explained to him while he stood on one foot, illustrates the character differences between Shammai and Hillel. Shammai dismissed the man. Hillel said: "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn" (Shab. 31a). Hillel recognized brotherly love as the fundamental principle of Jewish moral law. (Lev. xix. 18).

But when Rabbi Hillel died, I am not aware of any serious attempts to memorialize him as a diety.

 

Of all the great Jewish Teachers through out time, why the attempt to memorialize this man as devine? The need to fabricate a martyr against Roman oppression perhaps?

[philbytx]

 

"I will ask him when I get home tonight"

 

 

HeHe! Now THAT was wicked !!

[Bob Palin]

Of all the great Jewish Teachers through out time, why the attempt to memorialize this man as devine? The need to fabricate a martyr against Roman oppression perhaps?

I'm sure anti-Roman feeling was part of it, but we have absolutely no idea whether other groups tried to memorialize their martyrs (it does seem to be a common human trait). The Christians have been so succesful that I'm sure they have suppressed the stories of any meaningful competition.

[philbytx]

"to memorialize this man as devine?"

 

He's already in Wikipedia .