I went to MWSF with a Persian friend of mine, and at lunch we talked about Islam...like how he rates himself as 7/10 when it domes to how orthodox he is.
So he starts talking about visiting his relatives in Iran last summer. Apparently on a really hot day, they were walking around and decided to stop at a prune juice bar (apparently they drink a lot of that there). Because it's so damned hot, he asks for ice. His aunt stops him and gives him a long speech about how they don't believe in ice.
I just found that peculiar. He didn't really press the matter, I guess. I don't know whether his aunt shuns ice because of the technology required to make it or what.
i don't like ANYBODY of ANY RELIGION that talks too loudly about their (private) relationship to god,however they call it.
it sounds like talking about your underwear in public.
believe in what ever you want to beleive in, just please don't tell me about it, or at leat don't tell what is right or wrong according to your beliefs. meanwhile, i keep my spiritual concepts in my head and don't bore you.
Why bother posting at all in this thread then? Couldn't you tell from the title what type of thread this was?
About the "nutters of the Islamic religion"... let's face it, there are nuts of ALL religions. They are after all human beings. Pat Robertson speaks regularly to G-d, who tells him he needs money and Bush reelected (does he scare you like he scares me?), there are several prominent nutty Muslims in the news these days, and I know some very scary millitant Jews too. Even quiet peaceful Hindus want to see Pakistan blown up lately... And many atheists just seem to hate everyone with a religion.
Islam right now is having an "image problem" with the media. Every little thing done in the name of Islam is being so closely scrutinized that it will apear that there are more Islamic psychos than anyone else. And it's obviously not true.
Stick to your faith, and what it stands for at it's core. If all religious people did that it would be a much nicer world.
How spooky is it that Pat Roberstson is telling everyone that god is telling him that god wants bush re-elected.
Who knew that God was a neoconservative?
theres lot of nuts out there on all sides, dont generalize someone's beliefs because someone who says they have the same beliefs(biblically wise) is a nut. (remember, there are nuts that use macs too).
OK, I've slagged off many a Catholic (just the bad ones) and occaisionally been asked, "Why don't you slag off a Muslim?"
Here goes.
Nightcrawler, you had me right with you right until the end.
Men and women different? Well, different genitals and hormones true (and a few things that go along with that). But ontologically / philosophically / fundamentally different, enough to codify in a religion?
There is no Islamic basis for the belief that men and women are created unequally.
That's what I thought. I'd written that in an edited version.
I have no complaint with people who believe in the divinity of a guy nailed to a cross, a lake in Madagascar or Allah. Nor their religions. It's just when they start talking shite I get annoyed.
And many atheists just seem to hate everyone with a religion.
Not at all. It's "Hate the religion, love the idiot who believes in it" all the way.
Quote:
Stick to your faith, and what it stands for at it's core. If all religious people did that it would be a much nicer world.
I couldn't disagree more. Many religions, at their core, condemn anyone who doesn't follow the same religion, and the devout followers of such religions believe with all of their heart and soul that they're doing you a favor trying to convert you at gunpoint, and doing God a favor by killing you if you refuse to convert.
That's just the point Nordstrodamus, Islam states that you cannot apply human logic to God and discourages one from trying - in this sense it diverges from other montheistic traditions who do attempt to understand God with the mind (that is why they are necassarily corrupted forms - Jesus did not do this for example).
I see a big contradiction here, segovius. First, the original poster contradicts this by trying to use human logic to argue why there can only be one god. Second, any religion fundamentally asserts that there is something that can be known about the supernatural and that it can be put into human terms.
If you completely embrace the idea that god is beyond human logic, then nothing can be asserted about said god other than that. Even a supposedly divinely related text may be completely false or at least unknowable to humans.
Quote:
This is true but it should be noted that to be a Muslim it is not necessary to follow any rules (although people choose to). Anyone who subscribes to the formula 'There is no God but God and Muhammad is his prophet' is a Muslim. That is all. No rules other than that - because only God can judge.
Hmmm, sounds a lot like "And all who believe in Jesus will be saved." It's the most simple form of Us vs Them and it doesn't hold much water for me. Also, it is quite curious that in practice Islam seems to impose a whole lot more rules than simple endorsement.
Quote:
Not so. People may have closed the door but Islam has not. Not if one takes the Qu'ran as an authority.
There is a doctrine in Islam called ijtihad - basically this says: if God gave mankind the ability to reason then anything that comes from that reason cannot be evil, therefore exercising reason is to be encouraged as it will inevitably lead to truth in the end. In fact it is the not exercising reason or only half-heartedly that leads to error.
I've elaborated my reasoning in other threads, but basically I've used reason to conclude that if there is a god it would be nothing like the gods of the Koran, Bible, Talmud, etc... Reason suggests that a moral person would reject a diety that punishes good people simply for not paying homage to a vain god and that an all loving god couldn't tolerate the creation of hell.
I don't want to argue these points again, but once again we arrive at a contradiction (two actually). First, Allah gave me reason and wants me to use that reason and that reason leads me to conclude that a god like Allah would not exist then am I a good muslim? Second (and more fundamentally) if god cannot be known by reason then how can the Islam ic religion (or any religion) even exist.
Also, as with your previous point, it seems you are trying to argue for an idealized form of Islam. That's fine, I often have to clarify between real science and psuedoscience, but I guess the real test of a religion, IMO, is how many of it's practitioners exemplify the ideal. Would you say that the majority of muslims would agree that Allah no less disfavors women that wear skimpy clothes or men who eat pork or shave or marry jews or believe in evolution, so long as they simply accept Allah and his only prophet? As with Christians, I think you'll find that most practitioners have very definate opinions about what behaviors God demands that go beyond simple allegiance.
[BMen and women different? Well, different genitals and hormones true (and a few things that go along with that). But ontologically / philosophically / fundamentally different, enough to codify in a religion?
Horseshit. [/B]
I second that Harald. I'm still waiting for an explanation of where hermaphrodites fit in. Seems so many of these religions make such a big deal about what's between your legs and what you do with it, they would have addressed this.
It's also amusing that in the patriarchal religions it is blasphemous to refer to God as anything other than a "He" even though it is usually widely acknowledged (or skirted) that God probably doesn't have a penis.
Without getting into any "religion" I would like to address this thread.
I think the principle goal we should have as fellow humans living on this ball of life called earth is to respect and love all. Not to divide ourselves into camps. Not to compare and contrast who does more and who does less good. Not to point at who did more "evil" or less "evil".
You see living is trusting and trusting is respecting and this constitutes true love. Anything less is less.
I find it compelling and rewarding to live my life as if any given moment could be the last. This means to treat all with love and respect. To extend a hand when needed. To extend an ear when it is needed. When I do less than that I cheat myself and others.
So Peace be with us all as we are all fellow humans and only the best is worth having.
Don't accept less, Be Great!
"The remarkable thing is that we really love our neighbor as ourselves: we do unto others as we do unto ourselves. We hate others when we hate ourselves. We are tolerant toward others when we tolerate ourselves. We forgive others when we forgive ourselves. We are prone to sacrifice others when we are ready to sacrifice ourselves." -- Eric Hoffer
By the way, if it is truly beyond human reasoning why then can't it be said to be both TWO and ONE as well as to both exist and nnot-exist?
and, I would say that it is not true to say that Christian's do not have a history of thinking in such ways: Kiekegaard "God is that for which all things are possible" or Meister Eckhardt and other mystically inclined . . .
Also, Polythiesm such as Hinduism still believe in one source and one god but since God is that for which all things are possible then it manifests itself in many forms with many attributes and qualities
You can even look at the initial forms of Paganism (Roman Greek Germanic etc) as being Polythiesms like that above when the source is seen as a ubiquitous nature that is beyond human reason
also, wouldn't it be PROOF of God's omnipotence and beyondness to say that it were possible for him to be represented in parts and through minor dieties . . . and that he could possibly be represented in ICONS . . .
after all . . . . to say that that was not possible for God is to impose a limitation on God's power and to impose a limited human understanding
--the latter paradox, in my opinion, is what the crux of Christianity is about (from me, not a Xtian but someone who adores the Spirit of it): God is so great that he can simultaneously be the NOT great, human and shamed etc as well as the omnipotent AT THE SAME TIME . .
why, because God is that for which all things are possible
Totally agree but i would say that imo, this concept is implicit in the Bible and Qu'ran. It isn't overtly stated in those terms but the stories and contradictions (in the case of the Bible) are (imo) designed to lead one to the conclusion that intellect cannot bring one to a knowledge of God.
The Satanic Verses in the Qu'ran for example clearly imply that 'Satan' is capable of fabricating a supposedly divine text. I would point to the unfeasable contradictions in the Bible (Moses describing his own death, the two conflicting creation stories in Genesis etc) as being consciously put there rather than as being errors with this aim in view.
I'm sensing that maybe there is some fine point being made about what is known by the intellect vs. some other means. To be clear, I am considering the intellect to be the entirety of how a person knows anything (encompassing all senses, reason, emotion, and intuitions).
Regardless, it is still my opinion that the measure of a religion is the beliefs and behaviors of it's practitioners and I doubt that the majority (jews, Xians, or muslims) share your interpretation. Most consider their respective texts infalliable relations from God. Accordingly, most accept that a variety of behaviors are good or bad with corresponding consequences in the afterlife. And although I've met many Xians who concede that simply accepting Jesus is all that is necessary for salvation, most will tell you in the same breath that if your doing A, B, C, or D then you aren't "really" accepting Jesus. I'm sure the same is true with muslims.
Quote:
It doesn't claim Muhammad as superior - merely the last. So really I think to belive in Islam is by definition to believe in Christianity and Judaism also.
But not Mormonism. Regarding the uniqueness of Islam's proclamation of providing the "last" prophet, I'm not sure this is true. Don't both Judaism and Christianity promise the arrival of a "last" prophet with some pretty clear accompanying changes to the world (which did not occur with Muhammed's arrival). Even so, as Christianity proved, any new prophet can rewrite the rules. This brings us back to the fundamental problem that since we can't apply human resoning to a god, even apparent lies can be the truth.
Although I agree that many religious followers act in the way you point out, I take 'at their core' to mean on a scriptural level.
Afaik all religious scriptures (ok, to narrow it down let's just say Islam, Christianity and Judaism) actually say the opposite of what you infer - necessarily so since it is arguable that none of the Prophets of these religions actually saw themselves as founding a religion as such.
Can you think of a quote from any of the Scriptures of these religions to support your claim ?
I can think of many that contradict it.
1) John 3:15 - That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
John 3:16 - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, thatwhosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Matthew 28:19 - Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
translation: go out there a tell people about this idea that you die if you don't believe in this religion.
Your last point about rewriting the rules is completely underlined in Islam - God has power to do anythinh he wishes and humans have no say about it. It is very well accepted in Islamic intellectual thought (though not unfortunately in common practice) that God could change his mind at any point re the religions he dispensed. In effect He could send a new Prophet tomorrow even though He stated He wouldn't and this prophet could contradict every religion that ever existed and He could still be from God, as could all the religions he superceded - and it would still be Islamically correct. taleban might not like it but it revolves just the same. To believe otherwise is to limit God if you believe in Him at all.
Hi Segovius - I was always under the impression that the concept of "God" included an implicit understanding of "Him" as an unchangeable entity.
It seems bizarre to me to think of God as an entity subject to "changes of mind". Rather, I would have imagined "Him" as an unchanging Being; as the Source of a Truth that is unchanging; as the Source of a limitless stream of the energy that is 'enlightenment' - a kind of eternal 'awareness'.
Or am I way off base on all this?
Carol
PS It seems to me that the whole concept of "TRUTH" implies, by its very nature, the essence of that which is unchanging. Oui? Non?
err....well, I somehow don't see Jesus and the disciples as manic zealots in the televangelist mode. 'Teach' is a long way from 'threaten'.
As you may guess I am far from being enrolled in the ranks of the Church Triumphant and I must admit I enjoy a good xian-bashing session as much as anyone round here but really I have to say in all honesty that I can find nothing to bash in the actual words and acts of Jesus as reported in the NT.
Nor do I see any link between the contemporary God-botherers and rampant nutters we all know and hate who constantly fail to reach his example - your quotes do nothing to change that. In fact quite the reverse.
Why don't we just agree that many current Xian practitioners (throw in muslims too if you like) fail to grasp the meaning of the religion they profess to follow ?
I guess the part where they claim that "whosoever believes shall have" portion escapes you. Simply put when a religion says you must believe or else, you set up religious intolerance and the dumb ish that follows. But hey, If i'm the only one that figured that out then i guess that makes me unique.
Well the issue from an Islamic pov is that God is unknowable and therefore all the things that are known and classifiable are not Him by definition.
This extends to metaphysical concepts like truth and religion - God MUST be higher than religion or truth or HE would be subject to it and tehrefore not God who is above everything.
For example God cannot be a Muslim or a Christian because He is not subject to restriction - it's a hierarchy, all life is - like a food chain. God is just the name for the thing at the top.
On another level regarding truth being unchangingm in Islam the concept of God and Truth are interchangeable. In a real sense God is truth. And God is not limited by anything so how could he not change if He wished ? he often does change Jis mind and attitudes throughout the Bible even - surely the concept of prayer is even based on petitioning God to change His mind ?
The blackboard jungle is rent with the screeches and howls of its unruly and clamorous inhabitants. No, actually, my kids are great, as ever. I have them eating out of the palm of my hand, like the purring kittens they can be. By this time of the school year, they are all much taller than I. It never ceases to amaze me that they do everything I ask them to do. Where does this control come from, I wonder?
Well, you can state the Islamic pov, but I shall give the pov that makes sense to me.
God is unknowable; TRUTH is equally unknowable. The whole Truth is beyond the grasp of mere humans, though we may perceive some of it. God IS truth. God and Truth are, by their very nature, unchanging.
I see 'religion' as a human construct, and separate from God. I don't care 'who' the prophet is, or how God supposedly spoke through or to him. Any 'prophet' is a human medium, and therefore subject to human fallibility.
The Bible is metaphor. When the Bible says, "God became angry", that is just a bunch of human storytelling. God does NOT become angry. That is so ridiculous to me. God does not have emotions, like some woman with PMS. He IS Truth, and both He and Truth are unchanging. There is no NEED to change what is perfection. Saying that NOT being able to 'change' is a 'restriction' is purely human wordplay and misperception of the concept of perfection.
The concept of prayer is another human construct. The 'idea' of it makes people feel better. It makes them feel that there is hope. Only in 'storytelling' and metaphor does prayer have an influence on God.
I've told you before that I don't believe in religions of any kind, so I hope you won't take personally my beliefs in that regard, Segovius, my friend.
If God is truth though what is truth ? I mean it's not an absolute is it - circumstances alter cases...
As for "God is truth": I don't see the usefulness of a statement like that. The words "God" and "truth" aren't even close to synonyms in common usage. Even if you believe that God is a very honest guy, or that the existence of God is the most important truth, that's not the same thing as equating God and truth. Yes, there's some poetic resonance in a phrase like "God is truth", but... well, that's a long tangent to go off on.
As for "circumstances alter cases" what does that have to do with truth being absolute or not? Take a statement like "peanuts are deadly". Yes, circumstance can make a difference. For most people, peanuts are perfectly safe. For a few people, peanuts are indeed deadly. But only a very weak and rather useless definition of the word "truth" would say that the statement about peanuts is proof that truth isn't absolute. The fact that some people have a deadly allergy that not everyone suffers from is hardly the stuff of which metaphysical dilemmas are made.
All the peanut example shows is that many important truths are complex and require qualification. "Peanuts are deadly for some people" is quite true. If you wish to imagine that someday a cure for this allergy will be found, and that the cure will be universally distributed, you could then say "During some periods of history peanuts were deadly for some people".
For the word "truth" to have any real value at all it should be something more than a redundant synonym for "personal perspective". Personal perspectives are obviously important, but why not reserve the word "truth" for that which remains true beyond what is personal?
Is there an absolute truth about whether God exists or not? Certainly different people mean different things by the word "God". You could even play around a bit with what "exists" means. For any given precise meaning of the words "God" and "exist", however, the question "Does God exist?" will have a precise, objective, universal answer, even if that answer is unknowable.
Comments
So he starts talking about visiting his relatives in Iran last summer. Apparently on a really hot day, they were walking around and decided to stop at a prune juice bar (apparently they drink a lot of that there). Because it's so damned hot, he asks for ice. His aunt stops him and gives him a long speech about how they don't believe in ice.
I just found that peculiar. He didn't really press the matter, I guess. I don't know whether his aunt shuns ice because of the technology required to make it or what.
Originally posted by Giaguara
i don't like ANYBODY of ANY RELIGION that talks too loudly about their (private) relationship to god,however they call it.
it sounds like talking about your underwear in public.
believe in what ever you want to beleive in, just please don't tell me about it, or at leat don't tell what is right or wrong according to your beliefs. meanwhile, i keep my spiritual concepts in my head and don't bore you.
Why bother posting at all in this thread then? Couldn't you tell from the title what type of thread this was?
About the "nutters of the Islamic religion"... let's face it, there are nuts of ALL religions. They are after all human beings. Pat Robertson speaks regularly to G-d, who tells him he needs money and Bush reelected (does he scare you like he scares me?), there are several prominent nutty Muslims in the news these days, and I know some very scary millitant Jews too. Even quiet peaceful Hindus want to see Pakistan blown up lately... And many atheists just seem to hate everyone with a religion.
Islam right now is having an "image problem" with the media. Every little thing done in the name of Islam is being so closely scrutinized that it will apear that there are more Islamic psychos than anyone else. And it's obviously not true.
Stick to your faith, and what it stands for at it's core. If all religious people did that it would be a much nicer world.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
How spooky is it that Pat Roberstson is telling everyone that god is telling him that god wants bush re-elected.
Who knew that God was a neoconservative?
theres lot of nuts out there on all sides, dont generalize someone's beliefs because someone who says they have the same beliefs(biblically wise) is a nut.
OK, I've slagged off many a Catholic (just the bad ones) and occaisionally been asked, "Why don't you slag off a Muslim?"
Here goes.
Nightcrawler, you had me right with you right until the end.
Men and women different? Well, different genitals and hormones true (and a few things that go along with that). But ontologically / philosophically / fundamentally different, enough to codify in a religion?
Horseshit.
Originally posted by segovius
Nightcrawler is wrong.
There is no Islamic basis for the belief that men and women are created unequally.
That's what I thought. I'd written that in an edited version.
I have no complaint with people who believe in the divinity of a guy nailed to a cross, a lake in Madagascar or Allah. Nor their religions. It's just when they start talking shite I get annoyed.
Originally posted by FaydRautha:
And many atheists just seem to hate everyone with a religion.
Not at all. It's "Hate the religion, love the idiot who believes in it" all the way.
Stick to your faith, and what it stands for at it's core. If all religious people did that it would be a much nicer world.
I couldn't disagree more. Many religions, at their core, condemn anyone who doesn't follow the same religion, and the devout followers of such religions believe with all of their heart and soul that they're doing you a favor trying to convert you at gunpoint, and doing God a favor by killing you if you refuse to convert.
Originally posted by segovius
That's just the point Nordstrodamus, Islam states that you cannot apply human logic to God and discourages one from trying - in this sense it diverges from other montheistic traditions who do attempt to understand God with the mind (that is why they are necassarily corrupted forms - Jesus did not do this for example).
I see a big contradiction here, segovius. First, the original poster contradicts this by trying to use human logic to argue why there can only be one god. Second, any religion fundamentally asserts that there is something that can be known about the supernatural and that it can be put into human terms.
If you completely embrace the idea that god is beyond human logic, then nothing can be asserted about said god other than that. Even a supposedly divinely related text may be completely false or at least unknowable to humans.
This is true but it should be noted that to be a Muslim it is not necessary to follow any rules (although people choose to). Anyone who subscribes to the formula 'There is no God but God and Muhammad is his prophet' is a Muslim. That is all. No rules other than that - because only God can judge.
Hmmm, sounds a lot like "And all who believe in Jesus will be saved." It's the most simple form of Us vs Them and it doesn't hold much water for me. Also, it is quite curious that in practice Islam seems to impose a whole lot more rules than simple endorsement.
Not so. People may have closed the door but Islam has not. Not if one takes the Qu'ran as an authority.
There is a doctrine in Islam called ijtihad - basically this says: if God gave mankind the ability to reason then anything that comes from that reason cannot be evil, therefore exercising reason is to be encouraged as it will inevitably lead to truth in the end. In fact it is the not exercising reason or only half-heartedly that leads to error.
I've elaborated my reasoning in other threads, but basically I've used reason to conclude that if there is a god it would be nothing like the gods of the Koran, Bible, Talmud, etc... Reason suggests that a moral person would reject a diety that punishes good people simply for not paying homage to a vain god and that an all loving god couldn't tolerate the creation of hell.
I don't want to argue these points again, but once again we arrive at a contradiction (two actually). First, Allah gave me reason and wants me to use that reason and that reason leads me to conclude that a god like Allah would not exist then am I a good muslim? Second (and more fundamentally) if god cannot be known by reason then how can the Islam ic religion (or any religion) even exist.
Also, as with your previous point, it seems you are trying to argue for an idealized form of Islam. That's fine, I often have to clarify between real science and psuedoscience, but I guess the real test of a religion, IMO, is how many of it's practitioners exemplify the ideal. Would you say that the majority of muslims would agree that Allah no less disfavors women that wear skimpy clothes or men who eat pork or shave or marry jews or believe in evolution, so long as they simply accept Allah and his only prophet? As with Christians, I think you'll find that most practitioners have very definate opinions about what behaviors God demands that go beyond simple allegiance.
Originally posted by Harald
[BMen and women different? Well, different genitals and hormones true (and a few things that go along with that). But ontologically / philosophically / fundamentally different, enough to codify in a religion?
Horseshit. [/B]
I second that Harald. I'm still waiting for an explanation of where hermaphrodites fit in. Seems so many of these religions make such a big deal about what's between your legs and what you do with it, they would have addressed this.
It's also amusing that in the patriarchal religions it is blasphemous to refer to God as anything other than a "He" even though it is usually widely acknowledged (or skirted) that God probably doesn't have a penis.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Without getting into any "religion" I would like to address this thread.
I think the principle goal we should have as fellow humans living on this ball of life called earth is to respect and love all. Not to divide ourselves into camps. Not to compare and contrast who does more and who does less good. Not to point at who did more "evil" or less "evil".
You see living is trusting and trusting is respecting and this constitutes true love. Anything less is less.
I find it compelling and rewarding to live my life as if any given moment could be the last. This means to treat all with love and respect. To extend a hand when needed. To extend an ear when it is needed. When I do less than that I cheat myself and others.
So Peace be with us all as we are all fellow humans and only the best is worth having.
Don't accept less, Be Great!
"The remarkable thing is that we really love our neighbor as ourselves: we do unto others as we do unto ourselves. We hate others when we hate ourselves. We are tolerant toward others when we tolerate ourselves. We forgive others when we forgive ourselves. We are prone to sacrifice others when we are ready to sacrifice ourselves." -- Eric Hoffer
Fellowship
only got this far in this thread . . . .
I gotta say . . . Fellowship, you rock!!
and, I would say that it is not true to say that Christian's do not have a history of thinking in such ways: Kiekegaard "God is that for which all things are possible" or Meister Eckhardt and other mystically inclined . . .
Also, Polythiesm such as Hinduism still believe in one source and one god but since God is that for which all things are possible then it manifests itself in many forms with many attributes and qualities
You can even look at the initial forms of Paganism (Roman Greek Germanic etc) as being Polythiesms like that above when the source is seen as a ubiquitous nature that is beyond human reason
also, wouldn't it be PROOF of God's omnipotence and beyondness to say that it were possible for him to be represented in parts and through minor dieties . . . and that he could possibly be represented in ICONS . . .
after all . . . . to say that that was not possible for God is to impose a limitation on God's power and to impose a limited human understanding
--the latter paradox, in my opinion, is what the crux of Christianity is about (from me, not a Xtian but someone who adores the Spirit of it): God is so great that he can simultaneously be the NOT great, human and shamed etc as well as the omnipotent AT THE SAME TIME . .
why, because God is that for which all things are possible
Originally posted by pfflam
PROOF [/I]
I guess proof would be the wrong word here, hunh?!
Originally posted by segovius
Totally agree but i would say that imo, this concept is implicit in the Bible and Qu'ran. It isn't overtly stated in those terms but the stories and contradictions (in the case of the Bible) are (imo) designed to lead one to the conclusion that intellect cannot bring one to a knowledge of God.
The Satanic Verses in the Qu'ran for example clearly imply that 'Satan' is capable of fabricating a supposedly divine text. I would point to the unfeasable contradictions in the Bible (Moses describing his own death, the two conflicting creation stories in Genesis etc) as being consciously put there rather than as being errors with this aim in view.
I'm sensing that maybe there is some fine point being made about what is known by the intellect vs. some other means. To be clear, I am considering the intellect to be the entirety of how a person knows anything (encompassing all senses, reason, emotion, and intuitions).
Regardless, it is still my opinion that the measure of a religion is the beliefs and behaviors of it's practitioners and I doubt that the majority (jews, Xians, or muslims) share your interpretation. Most consider their respective texts infalliable relations from God. Accordingly, most accept that a variety of behaviors are good or bad with corresponding consequences in the afterlife. And although I've met many Xians who concede that simply accepting Jesus is all that is necessary for salvation, most will tell you in the same breath that if your doing A, B, C, or D then you aren't "really" accepting Jesus. I'm sure the same is true with muslims.
It doesn't claim Muhammad as superior - merely the last. So really I think to belive in Islam is by definition to believe in Christianity and Judaism also.
But not Mormonism. Regarding the uniqueness of Islam's proclamation of providing the "last" prophet, I'm not sure this is true. Don't both Judaism and Christianity promise the arrival of a "last" prophet with some pretty clear accompanying changes to the world (which did not occur with Muhammed's arrival). Even so, as Christianity proved, any new prophet can rewrite the rules. This brings us back to the fundamental problem that since we can't apply human resoning to a god, even apparent lies can be the truth.
Originally posted by segovius
Although I agree that many religious followers act in the way you point out, I take 'at their core' to mean on a scriptural level.
Afaik all religious scriptures (ok, to narrow it down let's just say Islam, Christianity and Judaism) actually say the opposite of what you infer - necessarily so since it is arguable that none of the Prophets of these religions actually saw themselves as founding a religion as such.
Can you think of a quote from any of the Scriptures of these religions to support your claim ?
I can think of many that contradict it.
1) John 3:15 - That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
John 3:16 - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, thatwhosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Matthew 28:19 - Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
translation: go out there a tell people about this idea that you die if you don't believe in this religion.
Originally posted by segovius
Your last point about rewriting the rules is completely underlined in Islam - God has power to do anythinh he wishes and humans have no say about it. It is very well accepted in Islamic intellectual thought (though not unfortunately in common practice) that God could change his mind at any point re the religions he dispensed. In effect He could send a new Prophet tomorrow even though He stated He wouldn't and this prophet could contradict every religion that ever existed and He could still be from God, as could all the religions he superceded - and it would still be Islamically correct. taleban might not like it but it revolves just the same. To believe otherwise is to limit God if you believe in Him at all.
Hi Segovius - I was always under the impression that the concept of "God" included an implicit understanding of "Him" as an unchangeable entity.
It seems bizarre to me to think of God as an entity subject to "changes of mind". Rather, I would have imagined "Him" as an unchanging Being; as the Source of a Truth that is unchanging; as the Source of a limitless stream of the energy that is 'enlightenment' - a kind of eternal 'awareness'.
Or am I way off base on all this?
Carol
PS It seems to me that the whole concept of "TRUTH" implies, by its very nature, the essence of that which is unchanging. Oui? Non?
Originally posted by segovius
As you may guess I am far from being enrolled in the ranks of the Church Triumphant and I must admit I enjoy a good xian-bashing session as much as anyone round here but really I have to say in all honesty that I can find nothing to bash in the actual words and acts of Jesus as reported in the NT.
Nor do I see any link between the contemporary God-botherers and rampant nutters we all know and hate who constantly fail to reach his example - your quotes do nothing to change that. In fact quite the reverse.
Why don't we just agree that many current Xian practitioners (throw in muslims too if you like) fail to grasp the meaning of the religion they profess to follow ?
I guess the part where they claim that "whosoever believes shall have" portion escapes you. Simply put when a religion says you must believe or else, you set up religious intolerance and the dumb ish that follows. But hey, If i'm the only one that figured that out then i guess that makes me unique.
Originally posted by segovius
Hi Carol - how's the balckboard jungle ?!
Well the issue from an Islamic pov is that God is unknowable and therefore all the things that are known and classifiable are not Him by definition.
This extends to metaphysical concepts like truth and religion - God MUST be higher than religion or truth or HE would be subject to it and tehrefore not God who is above everything.
For example God cannot be a Muslim or a Christian because He is not subject to restriction - it's a hierarchy, all life is - like a food chain. God is just the name for the thing at the top.
On another level regarding truth being unchangingm in Islam the concept of God and Truth are interchangeable. In a real sense God is truth. And God is not limited by anything so how could he not change if He wished ? he often does change Jis mind and attitudes throughout the Bible even - surely the concept of prayer is even based on petitioning God to change His mind ?
The blackboard jungle is rent with the screeches and howls of its unruly and clamorous inhabitants. No, actually, my kids are great, as ever. I have them eating out of the palm of my hand, like the purring kittens they can be. By this time of the school year, they are all much taller than I. It never ceases to amaze me that they do everything I ask them to do. Where does this control come from, I wonder?
************************* ************************
Well, you can state the Islamic pov, but I shall give the pov that makes sense to me.
God is unknowable; TRUTH is equally unknowable. The whole Truth is beyond the grasp of mere humans, though we may perceive some of it. God IS truth. God and Truth are, by their very nature, unchanging.
I see 'religion' as a human construct, and separate from God. I don't care 'who' the prophet is, or how God supposedly spoke through or to him. Any 'prophet' is a human medium, and therefore subject to human fallibility.
The Bible is metaphor. When the Bible says, "God became angry", that is just a bunch of human storytelling. God does NOT become angry. That is so ridiculous to me. God does not have emotions, like some woman with PMS. He IS Truth, and both He and Truth are unchanging. There is no NEED to change what is perfection. Saying that NOT being able to 'change' is a 'restriction' is purely human wordplay and misperception of the concept of perfection.
The concept of prayer is another human construct. The 'idea' of it makes people feel better. It makes them feel that there is hope. Only in 'storytelling' and metaphor does prayer have an influence on God.
I've told you before that I don't believe in religions of any kind, so I hope you won't take personally my beliefs in that regard, Segovius, my friend.
Originally posted by segovius
I never take things personally Carol - you know that !
Okay, if you say so.
Originally posted by segovius
If God is truth though what is truth ? I mean it's not an absolute is it - circumstances alter cases...
As for "God is truth": I don't see the usefulness of a statement like that. The words "God" and "truth" aren't even close to synonyms in common usage. Even if you believe that God is a very honest guy, or that the existence of God is the most important truth, that's not the same thing as equating God and truth. Yes, there's some poetic resonance in a phrase like "God is truth", but... well, that's a long tangent to go off on.
As for "circumstances alter cases" what does that have to do with truth being absolute or not? Take a statement like "peanuts are deadly". Yes, circumstance can make a difference. For most people, peanuts are perfectly safe. For a few people, peanuts are indeed deadly. But only a very weak and rather useless definition of the word "truth" would say that the statement about peanuts is proof that truth isn't absolute. The fact that some people have a deadly allergy that not everyone suffers from is hardly the stuff of which metaphysical dilemmas are made.
All the peanut example shows is that many important truths are complex and require qualification. "Peanuts are deadly for some people" is quite true. If you wish to imagine that someday a cure for this allergy will be found, and that the cure will be universally distributed, you could then say "During some periods of history peanuts were deadly for some people".
For the word "truth" to have any real value at all it should be something more than a redundant synonym for "personal perspective". Personal perspectives are obviously important, but why not reserve the word "truth" for that which remains true beyond what is personal?
Is there an absolute truth about whether God exists or not? Certainly different people mean different things by the word "God". You could even play around a bit with what "exists" means. For any given precise meaning of the words "God" and "exist", however, the question "Does God exist?" will have a precise, objective, universal answer, even if that answer is unknowable.