Societies don't have to be secular to be modern

[Barrister]

And, as for intellegability. If it is impossible to understand what possible meaning can it impart? And if it is difficult to understand how can you be sure you understood it correctly?

Difficult doesn't mean impossible.

I can't be sure.  I'm only human, I get lots of stuff wrong.  I'm flawed and a sinner, after all.  I do the best I can however to live my life as I believe God wants me to live it. 

[Malthus]

So you don't reconcile, you pick and choose.

Yep.

So you can't give me a definitve way to separate fact from allegory.

Nope.

I'm slightly baffled how you went from my "either kindling or litterature" to equating litterature to kindling?

You are implying both have the same (low) value: "worth any more than their value as either kindling or litterature".

In contrast, I find literature quite valuable.

Fair enough. But which text to judge your morales against? Well, with a text which presents a supernatually inspired morale foundation I'll insist on the truth of that supernatural source before even considering it a moral foundation. I'm sorry but a text which is based on an appeal to supernatural authority is not my first choice as a text to judge my own morals against.

That's your opinion. In mine, I'd be reluctant to disregard thousands of years of human effort on the grounds that they mention supernatural stuff - your criteria would in effect discard most human experience, since most texts were written by people who believed in some sort of supernatural origin of moral authority.

[Viking]

And, as for intellegability. If it is impossible to understand what possible meaning can it impart? And if it is difficult to understand how can you be sure you understood it correctly?

Difficult doesn't mean impossible.

I can't be sure.  I'm only human, I get lots of stuff wrong.  I'm flawed and a sinner, after all.  I do the best I can however to live my life as I believe God wants me to live it. 

How do you know? How can you be sure you are not self deluded, how can you be sure the devil didn't whisper in your ear?, how can you be sure the priest isn't tricking you to make some money? etc.etc. I can't help but get the impression that the source for absolute morality is up for interpretation.

[Pat]

Now discuss Scientology.

There appears to be a significant amount of actual evidence that L Ron Hubbard went out and created Scientology as a deliberate scam. 

As for this, from a while back: You only call it a deliberate scam because it was invented recently enough for there to be evidence it was invented. Had it been invented a long time ago you'd be talking about how we need to respect scientology because a lot of people believe in it.

[The Minsky Moment]

Which are these early documents that are unknown to Ohlig?

al-Zuhri wrote in the first half of the 8th century; ibn Ishaq in the middle of that century.
I don't know why Ohlig ignores these works; but note that even the article you cite indicates that his position is not accepted by most scholars in the field.

Where Dr. Markus Gross discussed the Buddhist influence on Islam, Professor Kropp explained the Ethiopian elements in the Koran. Independent scholar, traveller, and numismatist Volker Popp argued that Islamic history as recounted by Islamic historians has a Biblical structure –the first four caliphs are clearly modelled on Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Moses.

"Independent scholar, traveller, and numismatist Volker Popp".  Translation - crank.
This passage makes no sense - the characters "Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Moses" do not constitute some kind of "Biblical structure" nor do they correspond in any sensible way with the Rashidun caliphs. 

Popp also developed a fascinating thesis that Islamic historians had a propensity to turn nomen (gentile) (name of the gens or clan) into patronyms; a patronym being a component of a personal name based on the name of one's father. Thus Islamic historians had a tendency to take, for instance, Iranian names on inscriptions and turn them into Arabic-sounding names. Having turned Iranians into Arabs, the next step was to turn historical events connected with the original Iranians which had nothing to do with Islamic history into Islamic history. For example, Islamic history knows various so called Civil Wars. One of them was between Abd-al-Malik, his governor al-Hajjaj and the rival caliph in Mecca by the name of Abdallah Zubair. The evidence of inscriptions tells us that the name Zubayr is a misreading. The correct reading is ZNBYL. This was made into ZUBYL by the Arab historians. From ZUBYL they derived the name Zubair, which has no Semitic root. The real story is a fight between Abd al-Malik at Merv and the King of Kabulistan, who held the title ZNBYL. This took place between 60 and 75 Arab era in the East of the former Sassanian domains. The historians transferred this feud to Mecca and Jerusalem and then embedded the whole into the structure of a well known story from the Old Testament, the secession of Omri and his building the Temple of Samaria.

If this kind of wild speculation is typical of the historiographical methods used by the "independent numismatist", it doesn't raise confidence.

The humble background of Mohammed (a merchant) would also mirror the humble background of Jesus (a carpenter).

Again - to what end?  Muhammad is not delivering a similar message - he asserts and obtains political leadership over a people and directs them into war. 

Recall - Ohlig's thesis appears to be the Muhammad is an invention of the Abbasids.  But the Abassids came up with the ideological framework of distinguishing the Rashidun caliphs from the Ummayads.  The natural step would to ascribe Islam to the first of these Caliphs to established a direct connection to the new regime.

[Viking]

That's your opinion. In mine, I'd be reluctant to disregard thousands of years of human effort on the grounds that they mention supernatural stuff - your criteria would in effect discard most human experience, since most texts were written by people who believed in some sort of supernatural origin of moral authority.

You read too much into my either or comment. Some books are more worth as kindling than they are as litterature.

While I don't automatically disregard thousands of years of human experience and efforts just because they mention supernatural stuff. Supernatural stuff like hallucenogenic compounts, magnetism, human psychology, volcanos, weather and life itself should not be ignored if mentioned by the ancients. It's just that I don't give more validity to a source JUST BECAUSE OF ITS AGE.

As for the Galileo/Newton/Kepler were young earth creationsts therefore young earth creationism is more valid argument, that is just silly. Sources should be controlled for bias, but their claims should be treated on their own merits. Kepler and Newton had some really fucked up ideas about alchemy and perfect solids. I don't disregard Newton's ideas on Gravity just because he believed in pixies and angels and wanted to make the philosophers stone, just like I don't believe Einsteins view on quantum theory is valid because of his erstwhile genius.

[Viking]

Now discuss Scientology.

There appears to be a significant amount of actual evidence that L Ron Hubbard went out and created Scientology as a deliberate scam. 

As for this, from a while back: You only call it a deliberate scam because it was invented recently enough for there to be evidence it was invented. Had it been invented a long time ago you'd be talking about how we need to respect scientology because a lot of people believe in it.

Mormonism is 150 years old and started out as deliberate scam. Now it's just an unintended scam.

[The Minsky Moment]

If you want to learn morality great litterature and philosophers are great places to start. The Bible is probably better than a randomly chosen text for that purpose as well. Leave out god and "truth" then I'm happy to include the bible.

I don't think a person can begin to understand the Western philosophical tradition without first understanding the classical philosophical tradition and the response to that tradition posed by the Jewish and Christian canon.  Our present day ethical ideas happen to derive more from the latter than the former.

[Barrister]

And, as for intellegability. If it is impossible to understand what possible meaning can it impart? And if it is difficult to understand how can you be sure you understood it correctly?

Difficult doesn't mean impossible.

I can't be sure.  I'm only human, I get lots of stuff wrong.  I'm flawed and a sinner, after all.  I do the best I can however to live my life as I believe God wants me to live it. 

How do you know? How can you be sure you are not self deluded, how can you be sure the devil didn't whisper in your ear?, how can you be sure the priest isn't tricking you to make some money? etc.etc. I can't help but get the impression that the source for absolute morality is up for interpretation.

Go back and read the section you quoted.  I believe it answers your question.  In particular:

I can't be sure.

[Viking]

If you want to learn morality great litterature and philosophers are great places to start. The Bible is probably better than a randomly chosen text for that purpose as well. Leave out god and "truth" then I'm happy to include the bible.

I don't think a person can begin to understand the Western philosophical tradition without first understanding the classical philosophical tradition and the response to that tradition posed by the Jewish and Christian canon.  Our present day ethical ideas happen to derive more from the latter than the former.

I wouldn't go and ascribe value to the various sources of western thought. Levantine Religion, Greek Philosophy and Roman Law are all fundamental contributors to western thought. We don't get our philosophy without all three.

[Viking]

And, as for intellegability. If it is impossible to understand what possible meaning can it impart? And if it is difficult to understand how can you be sure you understood it correctly?

Difficult doesn't mean impossible.

I can't be sure.  I'm only human, I get lots of stuff wrong.  I'm flawed and a sinner, after all.  I do the best I can however to live my life as I believe God wants me to live it. 

How do you know? How can you be sure you are not self deluded, how can you be sure the devil didn't whisper in your ear?, how can you be sure the priest isn't tricking you to make some money? etc.etc. I can't help but get the impression that the source for absolute morality is up for interpretation.

Go back and read the section you quoted.  I believe it answers your question.  In particular:

I can't be sure.

If you argue from ignorance don't make any positive claims.

[Pat]

Which are these early documents that are unknown to Ohlig?

al-Zuhri wrote in the first half of the 8th century; ibn Ishaq in the middle of that century.
I don't know why Ohlig ignores these works; but note that even the article you cite indicates that his position is not accepted by most scholars in the field.

Where Dr. Markus Gross discussed the Buddhist influence on Islam, Professor Kropp explained the Ethiopian elements in the Koran. Independent scholar, traveller, and numismatist Volker Popp argued that Islamic history as recounted by Islamic historians has a Biblical structure –the first four caliphs are clearly modelled on Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Moses.

"Independent scholar, traveller, and numismatist Volker Popp".  Translation - crank.
This passage makes no sense - the characters "Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Moses" do not constitute some kind of "Biblical structure" nor do they correspond in any sensible way with the Rashidun caliphs. 

Popp also developed a fascinating thesis that Islamic historians had a propensity to turn nomen (gentile) (name of the gens or clan) into patronyms; a patronym being a component of a personal name based on the name of one's father. Thus Islamic historians had a tendency to take, for instance, Iranian names on inscriptions and turn them into Arabic-sounding names. Having turned Iranians into Arabs, the next step was to turn historical events connected with the original Iranians which had nothing to do with Islamic history into Islamic history. For example, Islamic history knows various so called Civil Wars. One of them was between Abd-al-Malik, his governor al-Hajjaj and the rival caliph in Mecca by the name of Abdallah Zubair. The evidence of inscriptions tells us that the name Zubayr is a misreading. The correct reading is ZNBYL. This was made into ZUBYL by the Arab historians. From ZUBYL they derived the name Zubair, which has no Semitic root. The real story is a fight between Abd al-Malik at Merv and the King of Kabulistan, who held the title ZNBYL. This took place between 60 and 75 Arab era in the East of the former Sassanian domains. The historians transferred this feud to Mecca and Jerusalem and then embedded the whole into the structure of a well known story from the Old Testament, the secession of Omri and his building the Temple of Samaria.

If this kind of wild speculation is typical of the historiographical methods used by the "independent numismatist", it doesn't raise confidence.

The humble background of Mohammed (a merchant) would also mirror the humble background of Jesus (a carpenter).

Again - to what end?  Muhammad is not delivering a similar message - he asserts and obtains political leadership over a people and directs them into war. 

Recall - Ohlig's thesis appears to be the Muhammad is an invention of the Abbasids.  But the Abassids came up with the ideological framework of distinguishing the Rashidun caliphs from the Ummayads.  The natural step would to ascribe Islam to the first of these Caliphs to established a direct connection to the new regime.

Interesting. Maybe you're right. It is true that this is a minority viewpoint, but it is also true that a majority of Islam research in the west receives funding from the arab world. There are also many other reasons of human psychology one can imagine would, for an Islamic scholar, discourage critical inquiry into the history of early Islam.

I'll suspend judgement until I have done some more reading on the subject.

[Barrister]

If you argue from ignorance don't make any positive claims.

The only positive claim I have made is about what I believe.

Edit: And since when is uncertainty and doubt the same as ignorance?  I'm pretty much of the view that anyone who doesn't acknowledge some level of either when discussing religion is somebody whose opinion isn't all that important.

[Pat]

If you argue from ignorance don't make any positive claims.

The only positive claim I have made is about what I believe.

Do you not care whether what you believe to be true corresponds with that which is true?

[Martinus]

What if we simulataneously make a rule against making replies as you read the thread, ending up with 5 or 6 consecutive posts saying almost exactly the same thing?

How would Martinus feel about that?

I would find such a rule outrageous and I would spew vitriol at it until I puke.