Do they make Muslims swear on the Bible too?

In Canada, when I interpret at discovery court, there is a stack of holy books.  I saw the Bible, Qur'an, and Torah, and wouldn't be surprised if there were a number of others.

Originally written by Maxi Schwarz-Bastami on March 17, 2010 1:46 AM In Canada, when I interpret at discovery court, there is a stack of holy books.  I saw the Bible, Qur'an, and Torah, and wouldn't be surprised if there were a number of others.

I guess the Atheists will simply swear on the penal code, while the others like it more romantically.

Bridging through stories.

"Once upon a time there was a city. It was very much like any other city, except it was almost permanently enveloped in storms.

The people who lived in it loved their city. They had, of course, adjusted to its climate. Living amid storms meant that they did not notice thunder, lightning and rain most of the time.

If anyone pointed out the climate they thought he was being rude or boring. After all, having storms was what life was like, wasn't it? Life went on like this for many centuries.

This would have been all very well, but for one thing: the people had not made a complete adaptation to a storm-climate. The result was that they were afraid, unsettled and frequently agitated.

Since they had never seen any other kind of place in living memory, cities or countries without some storms belonged to folklore and the babbling of lunatics.

There were two tried recipes which caused them to forget, for a time, their tensions: to make changes and to obsess themselves with what they had. At any given moment in their history, some sections of the population would have their attention fixed on change, and others on possessions of some kind. The unhappy ones would only then be those who were doing neither.

Rain poured down, but nobody did anything about it because it was not a recognized problem. Wetness was a problem, but nobody connected it with rain. Lightning started fires, which were a problem, but these were regarded as individual events without a consistent cause.

You may think it remarkable that so many people knew so little for so long.

But then we tend to forget that, compared to present day information, most people in history have known almost nothing about anything and even contemporary knowledge is daily being modified - and even proved wrong"

Shah, I. The Magic Monastery. E. P. Dutton, New York, 1972, © 1972 by Idries Shah.

Originally written by Nanna Mercer on March 17, 2010 8:31 AM At any given moment in their history, some sections of the population would have their attention fixed on change, and others on possessions of some kind.

Too many thoughts in that Shah's story to even begin addressing them. What interests me is the practical side of the possible conclusion that life should not be reduced to chasing possessions (e.g., Iraq) or fretting about changing décor instead of one's interior. Assuming that the majority will, indeed, say no to international adventurism (as public opinion polls already show in many countries) and relax instead of constantly fretting about mundane trifles (which they won't anyway), will this change anything? No, it won't because (a) the military greed is fuelled not by peaceful masses but by their political-and-corporate leaders who follow and will always follow the logic of money, so even with 90% opposing an invasion that invasion will take place anyway, and (b) if I stop fretting, others will continue. So, yes, the wisest decision seems to be to join the "unhappy ones ... who [a]re doing neither." This way what was going to happen will happen anyway but on an individual level, for the few who manage to recognize the problem, a lot of energy will be saved. Then they can use that energy to help another handful of individuals recognize the problem and both handfuls can then quietly dissolve in the surrounding ocean that will keep going its way anyway...

Originally written by Jacek K. on March 17, 2010 3:29 PM ...This way what was going to happen will happen anyway but on an individual level, for the few who manage to recognize the problem, a lot of energy will be saved. Then they can use that energy to help another handful of individuals recognize the problem and both handfuls can then quietly dissolve in the surrounding ocean that will keep going its way anyway...

Often, the sticky point (point of departure) is seen as something familiar and understandable but I think that's mostly because we are not in possession of all the facts. It takes energy to deal with things that are focused on neurotic fantasies, especially when we are not aware that what goes for normal is anything but. For example: "Freud's model of man as an organism seeking relief from tension, forced to negotiate a compromise among instinct, reason, and society, leaves even the most successful negotiator in a position of impoverishment as pathological, in its own way, as any illness listed in the diagnostic manual." It's easier to read a playful story like Shah's than delving into the vast literaure on the subject of perception and personal growth.

Nanna

Originally written by Nanna Mercer on March 17, 2010 8:31 AM   Rain poured down, but nobody did anything about it because it was not a recognized problem.

Nobody can. Rain or shine, that`s what you have to accept. I grant religion helps, in this case.

Wetness was a problem, but nobody connected it with rain.

Because of the religion or because of the PTB?

Lightning started fires, which were a problem, but these were regarded as individual events without a consistent cause.

As it is...

You may think it remarkable that so many people knew so little for so long.

No, this is not remarkable, this is usual.

present day information

does not change anything, because

most people in history have known almost nothing about anything and even contemporary knowledge is daily being modified

according to what?

Originally written by Harry Bornemann on March 16, 2010 7:02 PM I guess the Atheists will simply swear on the penal code, while the others like it more romantically.

I suppose I`d have to declare I`m too polite to swear...

Originally written by Jacek K. on March 17, 2010 9:29 AM will this change anything? No, it won't

Precisely.

This way what was going to happen will happen anyway but on an individual level, for the few who manage to recognize the problem, a lot of energy will be saved.

But yes!

Any use of it?

How can you have a "wrong" religion? Don't we all come from Africa (Post #178615) and beyond that from the same source somewhere else? Does it really matter whose temple used to be in those territories? It was probably man's temple. I would start worrying if apes had built it.

Camel bridging: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/16/christian-soldiers/?src=me&ref=general

The Times story is about an outreach technique that some Baptist missionaries use with Muslims. It involves stressing commonalities between the Koran and the Bible and affirming that the Allah of the Koran and the God of the Bible are one and the same.

You can see how a headline writer might call this an “overture.” And certainly the Christians who deploy the technique see it in sunny terms. Their name for it — the “Camel Method” — comes from the acronym for Chosen Angels Miracles Eternal Life.

But a more apt etymology would involve the “camel’s nose under the tent.” The “overture” — the missionary’s initial bonding with Muslims via discussion of the Koran — is precision-engineered to undermine their allegiance to Islam.

These missionaries start out by noting that the Koran depicts Jesus and his mother, Mary, in a favorable light. Indeed, they point out, the Koran depicts Jesus as a great prophet and a miracle worker who can even raise the dead. In contrast, the Koran doesn’t show Muhammad himself doing that sort of thing. Hmmm … kind of makes you wonder who the top prophet is, doesn’t it?

In some cases even the “camel’s nose” image doesn’t do justice to missionary wiliness. “Trojan Camel” might be better; some Christian missionaries call themselves Muslims — or at least muslims — because, after all, “muslim” literally means one who surrenders to God. A few have gone way undercover, growing beards and abstaining from pork.

Let’s put the shoe on the other foot. Suppose you were a Christian parent in America and you heard that someone who called himself a Christian had bonded with your son via genial Bible talk and then tried to convert him to Islam. That would be annoying, right? Might even lead to some blowback? ...