The Bible is supposed to be the holiest of anything holy with Christians. However, there are some grave problems with a book that is a patchwork of scriptures, written several hundred years after the eyewitnesses were part of the events. Also, it's a problem that it doesn't contain all the scriptures, as some were deemed "wrong" or "non-acceptable". Others weren't found until later, but one may assume that since they haven't been included when that happened they have been deemed "wrong" too. Strange? No, not really as The Bible has been turned into a useful tool for those in power, and why risk the usefulness by changing the tool?
People have loved the old myths and legends for centuries, and some even still believe in them, no matter how crazy they are: They are the glue that keeps the Christian faith alive to some people.
The main difference between The Bible and The Koran is the claim that where one is a patchwork, the other isn't: The notion of holiness moves several nooks upwards when one claims that this book is the exact dictation by Allah through the angel Gabriel, and not a patchwork of scripts by people who weren't even eyewitnesses to e.g. the Crucifixion. By being represented as a dictation all of it becomes "The words of God": That sure is a claim that beats heaps of Christian claims!!!
The Bible is sneaky when it comes to its use as a political tool, because it's built on old myths and legends that can't be verified. The Koran, on the other hand, is like a sledge hammer as it's proposed to be the indisputable truth. Muhammad didn't have any witnesses to his talks with Gabriel so everything depends on his name as a prophet: Do we believe him, or don't we believe him? Christians don't accept him as a true prophet, and atheists or agnostics don't believe either of these worldwide faith systems, but they recognize the political use that has been made of them.
Ingen kommentarer:
Send en kommentar