Well this is not the Islamic perspective. Reason is a guiding principle but there are modalities of understanding that are held to be superior.
Essentially, reason is used when it can support Islam, and is discarded or considered inadequate when it cannot. This isn't unique to islam as a theology, of course, but it is an argumentative device I don't buy.
Quote:
They may consider them infallible but that doesn't make it so. As I said before I'm sure you are right about the practitioners believing they are right but if they wish to be called Muslims or Christians they must be weighed against the Qu'ran and the Bible. You can't weight the Qu'ran or the Bible against them.
With most philosophies I would agree that the philosophy is not to blame for those who misinterpret it. I think with respect to religion, however, you can hold the doctrine to account for the actions of its followers. After all, if the premise is that a divine book was related by God, then it is completely reasonable to assume that an all knowing God would be capable of anticipating the misinterpretations of humans and adjust the text to avoid such problems.
Quote:
Well it depends on the definition of Prophet I suppose. I believe the Jews are waiting for the Messiah who is not strictly speaking a Prophet as the Prophets were forerunners of him in Judaistic tradition. The same with Jesus in Christianity re John the Baptist.
Good point, I suppose there is some distinction to be made from prophet and messiah. Still I doubt Islam is the only major religion to proclaim a final prophet and in action I'm sure it has acquired "mini-prophets" who don't necessarily claim divine inspiration, but carry enough authority to drastically alter the course of the faith. Isn't this the case with the different sects of Islam? I recall Shiite, sunni, wahabbi (sp), and there's one other that I can't recall.
Quote:
... 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prophet could contradict every religion that ever existed and He could still be from God, as could all the religions he superceded - and it would still be Islamically correct.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.
And, of course, nothing says a God can't change the rules retroactively or even lie outright. My favorite theological mindf**k is that God, being able to change the rules at whim, could have introduced the bible or koran or whatever as a test and that only those brave enough to reject it and risk possible hell fire in favor of reason, ethics, and love are worthy of heaven/paradise. The rest get a "do-over"
Not at all. It's "Hate the religion, love the idiot who believes in it" all the way.
My religion tells me what I should do, and the rules for how to live. the core of my religion is Love G-d, don't f**k with people or their things, and do the right things. Your problem isn't religion, it's the abuse of religion.
Quote:
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.
I couldn't disagree with you more. Many religions have at their core a belief in the sanctitiy of life. Anyone who'd actually have read, say the Qu'ran at all, would know never does it advocate the murder of children. All of the "religions of the Book" have this little clause where G-d says "DON'T Kill".
You are making the extreme examples the norm. I don't say that all atheists are asses (even though most i meet are... by their own admission :P)
I couldn't disagree with you more. Many religions have at their core a belief in the sanctitiy of life. Anyone who'd actually have read, say the Qu'ran at all, would know never does it advocate the murder of children. All of the "religions of the Book" have this little clause where G-d says "DON'T Kill".
Many religions have lots of contradictions. Sure, there's "Thou shalt not kill" and other appeals to peace and gentleness. But there's also plenty of talk of war, who and who not you should allow to live, who is an enemy of God and needs to be smote (though it's sometimes unclear if the believer should simply sit back and let God do the smiting, or lend a helping hand.)
I think its disingenuous to look only at the good and kindly and tolerant aspects of the teachings of a religion, and call those the "core beliefs", while brushing aside doctrines of intolerance and cruelty as if somehow those don't "count".
As usual . . . my posts are virtually ignored *pout*
as I said above with reference to a notion of God beyond human Reason: 'that for which all things are possible'
um . . .Derridean deconstruction takes on shades of negative theology when you take into account the realm of both True and Not True (of God) that I mentioned above . . . and we see that Derrida reveals even this condition innescapably withing the heart of Human Reasoning itself . . . . but that is another story . .
About this TRUTH business:
Usually what we mean by true is the felicity of a proposition with a certain state-of-affairs. This is known as the 'Correspondence theory' of Truth. When a statement can be said to correspond to the state of affairs as they are.
For the most part we extrapolate from this popular and ordinary manner of defining and using 'truth' and True/False and generalize a more abstract constant that can be refered to . . . ie; that which is felicitous for all occasions . . = 'truth with a capitol "T"'
historically we have looked at the form of assertions made in language ie: "it is true that X equals Y" and we have generated an abstract FORM of Propositional Logic. This is seen as the skeletal form of Abstract Reason . . . ie Logic
We then attempted to say that through the analysis of this abstract form we could get to Nature of the Absolute and Always True
The problem that became apparent was that the truths of Abstract Reason always ended up being reducible to their most fundamental form: namely the form of Tautologies: meaning that A=A . . . therefor the Abstract form of Reason as a method of analysing "Truth" ended up being EMPTY of CONTENT
Empty of content is another way of saying that they were basically not saying anything more than "A=A is True" and "A=~A is false"
No matter how elaborate the Abstract Analysis the supposed Metaphysics were not getting behind the physics with 'synthetic' assertions but were rather making empty analytic constructions
What I mean to say with this is that the notion of Truth is either an abstraction who's generality grows out of context derived correspondence/contingent truths, or, it is meaningless, Or, it can be poetic
The latter is the form of truth that does not depend on the True/false dichotomy but can be called 'immanent' in that its force of 'truth' is a matter of revealing the Being of our lives over time and presenting Being as worthy of reflection
To meditate on the concept of 'God' in this latter light, as well as in terms of abstract Reason (as in: "God=that who's essence is to exist" etc) leads to paradoxes worth contemplating not mere truth-functional statements or platitudes . . . and is meaningless only to those who demand 'truth' . . . as in A=A
thank you all for contributing to this thread . I'm sorry that I couldn't answer earlier, but I was quite busy.
It's interesting to see all the different philosophical backgrounds and concepts, but I was quite astonished that most of you interpreted my lines about men and women in the way that I thought that women would be inferior to men. Nothing is further from truth.
Perhaps the misunderstanding has to do something with the words "unequal" and "different" that I used in that context as synonyms, but from your reactions to that I sense that they are not synonyms at all.
In the islamic view women and men are different, because women can get pregnant and can grow new life in her wombs, and when they give birth to that life, they can feed it for up to two years through a special food that grows in her breasts.
For muslims that alone makes women more worth than men. But there are other differences like the emotional and communicative capabilities as well as the striving for harmony that make women very worthful for all societies.
I think that the misuderstanding between the muslims and the western world on that topic lies in the different background-conceptions. The europeans a few centuries back have developed a concept called "individuality". For them every single human is an individual.
The islam on the other hand doesn't see individuals but only pairs, and soon to be pairs.A woman and a man complement each other to a family, and therefore it are the "pairs" which are the smallest unit from the islamic view.\t\t
Now I will answer to some of your postings:
Powerdoc,
like I already said the current constellation of goverments in the islamic world are a direct consequence of the coloniazation that has occured until the mid of the 20th century.
On the other hand in the islamic view it doesn't matter who governs, if a king, a dictator or a democratically elected president, as long as the goverment keeps true to the rules and ideals set down in the Quran. Government is seen as a burden for the one who takes the responsibility upon himself.
Nordstrodamus,
in the islamic view morals and ethics aren't concepts that stand on their own, rather they are results of God teaching mankind through millenias and millenias, not only with his messages, but also through guidance and seduction of souls.
The free will of all humans comes into action when you decide if you want to follow the guidance or the seduction.
Sondjata,
idolatry is condemned by God in the Quran, because in the islamic view idolatry is seen as justification of sins. For example imagine a village falling prey to care-free-sex. That village then invent a goddess of sexuality, so they can justify what they are doing, and so that they can teach others to do the same...
Let's imagine another village that falls prey to war-mongering, they then invent a goddess of war...
Centuries after these villages invented these "gods", they have spread and you get hundreds of "gods", symbolising and justifying a special desire. People create idols for them so they can differentiate them.
In the islamic view a god is something that can create something out of nothing and is itself not created. Therefore it is not true that there are gods or lesser-gods, as you see all the angels, demons... are all created by God, and they can't create anything out of nothing.
Segovious,
you seem to know quite a lot about Islam, but you have some misconceptions going with it:
1.Like I said above, God is something that hasn't been created, and can create something out of nothing. That means that all the other beings, be it angels, demons or humans are not gods! Additionaly God is not in the same time-space as we. God exists in all times at the same time, meaning he sees the past, the present and the future at once. Therefore he himself is unchanging, and that's why the Quran is written from a timeless perspective, speaking about things after judgment day like it already happened for example.
Therefore if God says in the Quran that the prophet Mohammed will be the last prophet until judgment day, he won't change his mind about that, because he already sees every time-phase at once.
2. "Allahu akbar" means God is greater(!). This exactness is necessary, as it states that God is incomparable to anything, and he is not part of the things people compare it to...
3. Regarding idolatry and what it accompanies, see my reply to sondjata above,please.
4. Regarding the women-men-complex, see the start of this reply.
5.Corruption of religions is something that is really occuring. In the case of Islam, the corruption takes place through the "hadiths". Therefore I warn you to take any hadiths as serious. Stick to the Quran instead, this is the only source in the islamic religion you can trust. "Hadiths" are only hear-say at best of what the prophet Mohammed has said. Most of the time they are just interpretations, myths... put into the case of a hadith, so that it gets accepted.\t
Reason is a concept in Islam that is held to lead to God if He wills it. In fact everything in Islam is dependent on the will of God. Many people have a problem with this but imo it one of the most subtle of religious doctrines when fully explored.
My problem is that for any other position this argument wouldn't pass the laugh test. Arguing that reason only applies if it supports your position is just silly.
Quote:
I agree. But: the doctrine Qu'ranic contradicts murder of civilians, killing of children, conversion of Jews and Christians, harrassment of same, injustice to women, and on and on....essentially the doctrine is there but if people ignore it and still claim to be following it then tha's their problem not the doctrine's.
Granted, and I would not suggest that even an omnipotent God could relate a doctrine that would prevent deliberate misuse. However, I think it's the immensity of misuse and misinterpretation that is damning here. Osama is widely regarded as a hero in the islamic world, women experience widespread injustice, and I sincerely doubt the majority of muslims share your more thoughtful metaphysical interpretations, which, for the most part, I agree with.
idolatry is condemned by God in the Quran, because in the islamic view idolatry is seen as justification of sins. For example imagine a village falling prey to care-free-sex. That village then invent a goddess of sexuality, so they can justify what they are doing, and so that they can teach others to do the same...
Let's imagine another village that falls prey to war-mongering, they then invent a goddess of war...
Centuries after these villages invented these "gods", they have spread and you get hundreds of "gods", symbolising and justifying a special desire. People create idols for them so they can differentiate them.
In the islamic view a god is something that can create something out of nothing and is itself not created. Therefore it is not true that there are gods or lesser-gods, as you see all the angels, demons... are all created by God, and they can't create anything out of nothing.\t
\t\t\t\t
Nightcrawler
I understand where you're coming from, but what you describe is not how such things were/are practiced. And in fact the "non-idolators" seem to have just as much problems with "sinning" than those so called Idolators, which would lead me to say that the so called "non-idolators" aught to be more concerned with their onw shortcomings than those of other people. But of course when one is commanded to "go forth..." then personal introspection or even group introspection becomes a less glamorous way to practice a given religion.
I laugh that one would condenm a sociey that has a war god ( Ifa" Ogun), when today the greatest pedelers of war are so called 'non-idolators." Anyway, at least in Ifa, Ogun explains much more than war. He really represents the aggressive nature in mankind and our observations to/of him is a means to recognize our own aggressive tendancies and to be sure to keep a cool head. But that would be lost on an outsider.
Similarly Osun, who represents sexuality, among other things, in Ifa was not "created" to excuse "lax" morals, but to recognize the place that sexuality,sensuality and feminity that is in all beings. But again, an outsider would put the cart before the horse and assume that the Yoruba just want an excuse to lay up with women.
But this goes right back to my original point that in these "religions" and "religious books" many people have ulterior motives for condemning "other" practices and usually do not have the fortitude of mind and faith to preactice thier religion or faith without the need to condemn or pick at others.
How many Christians REALLY agree with the following statement and actually live it:
You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.
J Christ
For any who have not seen the movie "Gandhi" they should rent it.
I saw it when it first came out but I maybe didn't get it ......maybe I'll check it out.
Ben Kingsley is a great actor.
The reason I made mention of the movie is because it revolves around the quote you had earlier: "Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles."
An Islamic perspective on this would be that of the medieval thinker Sidi Ali Al-Jamal:
Don't say, "I am nothing,"
but don't say,"I am something."
Don't say,"Nothing concerns me,"
but don't say,"Something concerns me,"
Just say "Allah"- and you will witness wonders.
An interesting poetic idea, good for opening up your mind and tweaking one's sense of wonder, not good for deciding that all of the other doctrinal baggage that gets attached to words like "Allah" and "God" has any particular value.
Empty of content is another way of saying that they were basically not saying anything more than "A=A is True" and "A=~A is false"
No matter how elaborate the Abstract Analysis the supposed Metaphysics were not getting behind the physics with 'synthetic' assertions but were rather making empty analytic constructions[/B]
By making the small practical assumption that you can trust the evidence of your senses, especially after applying a few safeguards against known conditions that can fool the senses, you can get a bit further than mere tautology, or at least wrap your tautologies around your internalized sense of the world around you.
Quote:
The latter is the form of truth that does not depend on the True/false dichotomy but can be called 'immanent' in that its force of 'truth' is a matter of revealing the Being of our lives over time and presenting Being as worthy of reflection
To meditate on the concept of 'God' in this latter light, as well as in terms of abstract Reason (as in: "God=that who's essence is to exist" etc) leads to paradoxes worth contemplating not mere truth-functional statements or platitudes . . . and is meaningless only to those who demand 'truth' . . . as in A=A
The trouble is not too many people simply sit back and mediate upon these ideas. They want to believe that this is their personal road to specific "revealed" Truths about the world... God says don't eat that, God says he'll smite you if you do X on day Y, the Gods says don't put rod A in hole B or you'll come back in your next life as an aphid, etc.
the problem with relegion is that it is practiced by cultures, so when cultures clash - each side believes it is god's will to annihilate the other side.
Reason is a concept in Islam that is held to lead to God if He wills it. In fact everything in Islam is dependent on the will of God. Many people have a problem with this but imo it one of the most subtle of religious doctrines when fully explored.
Subtle? No more than a clever phrasing of an old religious trick: I know I'm right because God willed me to know what's right, and if you can't see that I'm right and you're wrong, it's not my fault that God didn't will you to see as clearly as I do.
Why He wills what He does is a different issue but the problem is a theological one that all monotheistic religions have had to address - Xianity, for example rationalised it in a different way with the introduction of a counter-force, Satan.
Christians did not create the concept of set-an nor did they introduce him into thier ideolgy. Set is an ancient Egyptians (arguably both polygamous and idolatrous) Neter (god) that fell out with Ausar(Osiris). Horus ( the son of Ausar) avenges the killing of his father by Set. hence we get the conflict of good and evil and the avenging angel (Michael).
Though it does not read the same as what we find in the Bible(s). The basic idea is still there of a creation of God choosing to "sin" ( in one case wanting to be God, and in the other actually carrying out the process to become God) and that individual becoming an outcast and in the end having to meet his end at the sword of the returning and avenging son.
Comments
and the thread starter hasnt answered to anything. is this thread worth argueing, if he's not going to see / say anything about anything anyone says?
Originally posted by Giaguara
and the thread starter hasnt answered to anything.
I've been thinking about that. This thread was probably started by a troll who wanted to drop a topic bomb and see what would happen.
Originally posted by segovius
Shetline: the nature of truth is a philosophical conundrum....
What your example shows is that self-reference can result in logical paradoxes, not that the notion of truth itself is such a conundrum.
Originally posted by segovius
Well this is not the Islamic perspective. Reason is a guiding principle but there are modalities of understanding that are held to be superior.
Essentially, reason is used when it can support Islam, and is discarded or considered inadequate when it cannot. This isn't unique to islam as a theology, of course, but it is an argumentative device I don't buy.
They may consider them infallible but that doesn't make it so. As I said before I'm sure you are right about the practitioners believing they are right but if they wish to be called Muslims or Christians they must be weighed against the Qu'ran and the Bible. You can't weight the Qu'ran or the Bible against them.
With most philosophies I would agree that the philosophy is not to blame for those who misinterpret it. I think with respect to religion, however, you can hold the doctrine to account for the actions of its followers. After all, if the premise is that a divine book was related by God, then it is completely reasonable to assume that an all knowing God would be capable of anticipating the misinterpretations of humans and adjust the text to avoid such problems.
Well it depends on the definition of Prophet I suppose. I believe the Jews are waiting for the Messiah who is not strictly speaking a Prophet as the Prophets were forerunners of him in Judaistic tradition. The same with Jesus in Christianity re John the Baptist.
Good point, I suppose there is some distinction to be made from prophet and messiah. Still I doubt Islam is the only major religion to proclaim a final prophet and in action I'm sure it has acquired "mini-prophets" who don't necessarily claim divine inspiration, but carry enough authority to drastically alter the course of the faith. Isn't this the case with the different sects of Islam? I recall Shiite, sunni, wahabbi (sp), and there's one other that I can't recall.
... 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.
And, of course, nothing says a God can't change the rules retroactively or even lie outright. My favorite theological mindf**k is that God, being able to change the rules at whim, could have introduced the bible or koran or whatever as a test and that only those brave enough to reject it and risk possible hell fire in favor of reason, ethics, and love are worthy of heaven/paradise. The rest get a "do-over"
Originally posted by pfflam
only got this far in this thread . . . .
I gotta say . . . Fellowship, you rock!!
Originally posted by Harald
Fellowship for member of the year.
Thank you both for the kind words. You all are special and a lot of fun to be around here at AO.
Fellows
Originally posted by shetline
Not at all. It's "Hate the religion, love the idiot who believes in it" all the way.
My religion tells me what I should do, and the rules for how to live. the core of my religion is Love G-d, don't f**k with people or their things, and do the right things. Your problem isn't religion, it's the abuse of religion.
Quote:
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.
I couldn't disagree with you more. Many religions have at their core a belief in the sanctitiy of life. Anyone who'd actually have read, say the Qu'ran at all, would know never does it advocate the murder of children. All of the "religions of the Book" have this little clause where G-d says "DON'T Kill".
You are making the extreme examples the norm. I don't say that all atheists are asses (even though most i meet are... by their own admission :P)
Originally posted by FaydRautha
I couldn't disagree with you more. Many religions have at their core a belief in the sanctitiy of life. Anyone who'd actually have read, say the Qu'ran at all, would know never does it advocate the murder of children. All of the "religions of the Book" have this little clause where G-d says "DON'T Kill".
Many religions have lots of contradictions. Sure, there's "Thou shalt not kill" and other appeals to peace and gentleness. But there's also plenty of talk of war, who and who not you should allow to live, who is an enemy of God and needs to be smote (though it's sometimes unclear if the believer should simply sit back and let God do the smiting, or lend a helping hand.)
I think its disingenuous to look only at the good and kindly and tolerant aspects of the teachings of a religion, and call those the "core beliefs", while brushing aside doctrines of intolerance and cruelty as if somehow those don't "count".
as I said above with reference to a notion of God beyond human Reason: 'that for which all things are possible'
um . . .Derridean deconstruction takes on shades of negative theology when you take into account the realm of both True and Not True (of God) that I mentioned above . . . and we see that Derrida reveals even this condition innescapably withing the heart of Human Reasoning itself . . . . but that is another story . .
About this TRUTH business:
Usually what we mean by true is the felicity of a proposition with a certain state-of-affairs. This is known as the 'Correspondence theory' of Truth. When a statement can be said to correspond to the state of affairs as they are.
For the most part we extrapolate from this popular and ordinary manner of defining and using 'truth' and True/False and generalize a more abstract constant that can be refered to . . . ie; that which is felicitous for all occasions . . = 'truth with a capitol "T"'
historically we have looked at the form of assertions made in language ie: "it is true that X equals Y" and we have generated an abstract FORM of Propositional Logic. This is seen as the skeletal form of Abstract Reason . . . ie Logic
We then attempted to say that through the analysis of this abstract form we could get to Nature of the Absolute and Always True
The problem that became apparent was that the truths of Abstract Reason always ended up being reducible to their most fundamental form: namely the form of Tautologies: meaning that A=A . . . therefor the Abstract form of Reason as a method of analysing "Truth" ended up being EMPTY of CONTENT
Empty of content is another way of saying that they were basically not saying anything more than "A=A is True" and "A=~A is false"
No matter how elaborate the Abstract Analysis the supposed Metaphysics were not getting behind the physics with 'synthetic' assertions but were rather making empty analytic constructions
What I mean to say with this is that the notion of Truth is either an abstraction who's generality grows out of context derived correspondence/contingent truths, or, it is meaningless, Or, it can be poetic
The latter is the form of truth that does not depend on the True/false dichotomy but can be called 'immanent' in that its force of 'truth' is a matter of revealing the Being of our lives over time and presenting Being as worthy of reflection
To meditate on the concept of 'God' in this latter light, as well as in terms of abstract Reason (as in: "God=that who's essence is to exist" etc) leads to paradoxes worth contemplating not mere truth-functional statements or platitudes . . . and is meaningless only to those who demand 'truth' . . . as in A=A
just 2cents as a ramble of caffeine . . . .
thank you all for contributing to this thread . I'm sorry that I couldn't answer earlier, but I was quite busy.
It's interesting to see all the different philosophical backgrounds and concepts, but I was quite astonished that most of you interpreted my lines about men and women in the way that I thought that women would be inferior to men. Nothing is further from truth.
Perhaps the misunderstanding has to do something with the words "unequal" and "different" that I used in that context as synonyms, but from your reactions to that I sense that they are not synonyms at all.
In the islamic view women and men are different, because women can get pregnant and can grow new life in her wombs, and when they give birth to that life, they can feed it for up to two years through a special food that grows in her breasts.
For muslims that alone makes women more worth than men. But there are other differences like the emotional and communicative capabilities as well as the striving for harmony that make women very worthful for all societies.
I think that the misuderstanding between the muslims and the western world on that topic lies in the different background-conceptions. The europeans a few centuries back have developed a concept called "individuality". For them every single human is an individual.
The islam on the other hand doesn't see individuals but only pairs, and soon to be pairs.A woman and a man complement each other to a family, and therefore it are the "pairs" which are the smallest unit from the islamic view.\t\t
Now I will answer to some of your postings:
Powerdoc,
like I already said the current constellation of goverments in the islamic world are a direct consequence of the coloniazation that has occured until the mid of the 20th century.
On the other hand in the islamic view it doesn't matter who governs, if a king, a dictator or a democratically elected president, as long as the goverment keeps true to the rules and ideals set down in the Quran. Government is seen as a burden for the one who takes the responsibility upon himself.
Nordstrodamus,
in the islamic view morals and ethics aren't concepts that stand on their own, rather they are results of God teaching mankind through millenias and millenias, not only with his messages, but also through guidance and seduction of souls.
The free will of all humans comes into action when you decide if you want to follow the guidance or the seduction.
Sondjata,
idolatry is condemned by God in the Quran, because in the islamic view idolatry is seen as justification of sins. For example imagine a village falling prey to care-free-sex. That village then invent a goddess of sexuality, so they can justify what they are doing, and so that they can teach others to do the same...
Let's imagine another village that falls prey to war-mongering, they then invent a goddess of war...
Centuries after these villages invented these "gods", they have spread and you get hundreds of "gods", symbolising and justifying a special desire. People create idols for them so they can differentiate them.
In the islamic view a god is something that can create something out of nothing and is itself not created. Therefore it is not true that there are gods or lesser-gods, as you see all the angels, demons... are all created by God, and they can't create anything out of nothing.
Segovious,
you seem to know quite a lot about Islam, but you have some misconceptions going with it:
1.Like I said above, God is something that hasn't been created, and can create something out of nothing. That means that all the other beings, be it angels, demons or humans are not gods! Additionaly God is not in the same time-space as we. God exists in all times at the same time, meaning he sees the past, the present and the future at once. Therefore he himself is unchanging, and that's why the Quran is written from a timeless perspective, speaking about things after judgment day like it already happened for example.
Therefore if God says in the Quran that the prophet Mohammed will be the last prophet until judgment day, he won't change his mind about that, because he already sees every time-phase at once.
2. "Allahu akbar" means God is greater(!). This exactness is necessary, as it states that God is incomparable to anything, and he is not part of the things people compare it to...
3. Regarding idolatry and what it accompanies, see my reply to sondjata above,please.
4. Regarding the women-men-complex, see the start of this reply.
5.Corruption of religions is something that is really occuring. In the case of Islam, the corruption takes place through the "hadiths". Therefore I warn you to take any hadiths as serious. Stick to the Quran instead, this is the only source in the islamic religion you can trust. "Hadiths" are only hear-say at best of what the prophet Mohammed has said. Most of the time they are just interpretations, myths... put into the case of a hadith, so that it gets accepted.\t
\t\t\t\t
Nightcrawler
Originally posted by segovius
Reason is a concept in Islam that is held to lead to God if He wills it. In fact everything in Islam is dependent on the will of God. Many people have a problem with this but imo it one of the most subtle of religious doctrines when fully explored.
My problem is that for any other position this argument wouldn't pass the laugh test. Arguing that reason only applies if it supports your position is just silly.
I agree. But: the doctrine Qu'ranic contradicts murder of civilians, killing of children, conversion of Jews and Christians, harrassment of same, injustice to women, and on and on....essentially the doctrine is there but if people ignore it and still claim to be following it then tha's their problem not the doctrine's.
Granted, and I would not suggest that even an omnipotent God could relate a doctrine that would prevent deliberate misuse. However, I think it's the immensity of misuse and misinterpretation that is damning here. Osama is widely regarded as a hero in the islamic world, women experience widespread injustice, and I sincerely doubt the majority of muslims share your more thoughtful metaphysical interpretations, which, for the most part, I agree with.
Originally posted by Nightcrawler
Sondjata,
idolatry is condemned by God in the Quran, because in the islamic view idolatry is seen as justification of sins. For example imagine a village falling prey to care-free-sex. That village then invent a goddess of sexuality, so they can justify what they are doing, and so that they can teach others to do the same...
Let's imagine another village that falls prey to war-mongering, they then invent a goddess of war...
Centuries after these villages invented these "gods", they have spread and you get hundreds of "gods", symbolising and justifying a special desire. People create idols for them so they can differentiate them.
In the islamic view a god is something that can create something out of nothing and is itself not created. Therefore it is not true that there are gods or lesser-gods, as you see all the angels, demons... are all created by God, and they can't create anything out of nothing.\t
\t\t\t\t
Nightcrawler
I understand where you're coming from, but what you describe is not how such things were/are practiced. And in fact the "non-idolators" seem to have just as much problems with "sinning" than those so called Idolators, which would lead me to say that the so called "non-idolators" aught to be more concerned with their onw shortcomings than those of other people. But of course when one is commanded to "go forth..." then personal introspection or even group introspection becomes a less glamorous way to practice a given religion.
I laugh that one would condenm a sociey that has a war god ( Ifa" Ogun), when today the greatest pedelers of war are so called 'non-idolators." Anyway, at least in Ifa, Ogun explains much more than war. He really represents the aggressive nature in mankind and our observations to/of him is a means to recognize our own aggressive tendancies and to be sure to keep a cool head. But that would be lost on an outsider.
Similarly Osun, who represents sexuality, among other things, in Ifa was not "created" to excuse "lax" morals, but to recognize the place that sexuality,sensuality and feminity that is in all beings. But again, an outsider would put the cart before the horse and assume that the Yoruba just want an excuse to lay up with women.
But this goes right back to my original point that in these "religions" and "religious books" many people have ulterior motives for condemning "other" practices and usually do not have the fortitude of mind and faith to preactice thier religion or faith without the need to condemn or pick at others.
Originally posted by segovius
How many Christians REALLY agree with the following statement and actually live it:
You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.
J Christ
For any who have not seen the movie "Gandhi" they should rent it.
Fellowship
Originally posted by segovius
er...Fellowship....wasn't Gandhi a Hindu ?
Yes.... Have you seen the Movie?
It is one of the best movies of all time..
Academy Award Nominations: 11. Academy Awards: 9, including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor--Ben Kingsley, Best (Original) Screenplay.
Gandhi movie link
Fellowship
I wish all here could see this movie... Go out and rent it in the next day or two.
Originally posted by segovius
I saw it when it first came out but I maybe didn't get it ......maybe I'll check it out.
Ben Kingsley is a great actor.
The reason I made mention of the movie is because it revolves around the quote you had earlier: "Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles."
The movie was powerful and changed me.
Fellowship
Originally posted by segovius
An Islamic perspective on this would be that of the medieval thinker Sidi Ali Al-Jamal:
Don't say, "I am nothing,"
but don't say,"I am something."
Don't say,"Nothing concerns me,"
but don't say,"Something concerns me,"
Just say "Allah"- and you will witness wonders.
An interesting poetic idea, good for opening up your mind and tweaking one's sense of wonder, not good for deciding that all of the other doctrinal baggage that gets attached to words like "Allah" and "God" has any particular value.
Originally posted by pfflam
Empty of content is another way of saying that they were basically not saying anything more than "A=A is True" and "A=~A is false"
No matter how elaborate the Abstract Analysis the supposed Metaphysics were not getting behind the physics with 'synthetic' assertions but were rather making empty analytic constructions[/B]
By making the small practical assumption that you can trust the evidence of your senses, especially after applying a few safeguards against known conditions that can fool the senses, you can get a bit further than mere tautology, or at least wrap your tautologies around your internalized sense of the world around you.
The latter is the form of truth that does not depend on the True/false dichotomy but can be called 'immanent' in that its force of 'truth' is a matter of revealing the Being of our lives over time and presenting Being as worthy of reflection
To meditate on the concept of 'God' in this latter light, as well as in terms of abstract Reason (as in: "God=that who's essence is to exist" etc) leads to paradoxes worth contemplating not mere truth-functional statements or platitudes . . . and is meaningless only to those who demand 'truth' . . . as in A=A
The trouble is not too many people simply sit back and mediate upon these ideas. They want to believe that this is their personal road to specific "revealed" Truths about the world... God says don't eat that, God says he'll smite you if you do X on day Y, the Gods says don't put rod A in hole B or you'll come back in your next life as an aphid, etc.
i hope some day, it won't be like this.
Originally posted by segovius
Reason is a concept in Islam that is held to lead to God if He wills it. In fact everything in Islam is dependent on the will of God. Many people have a problem with this but imo it one of the most subtle of religious doctrines when fully explored.
Subtle? No more than a clever phrasing of an old religious trick: I know I'm right because God willed me to know what's right, and if you can't see that I'm right and you're wrong, it's not my fault that God didn't will you to see as clearly as I do.
Originally posted by segovius
Why He wills what He does is a different issue but the problem is a theological one that all monotheistic religions have had to address - Xianity, for example rationalised it in a different way with the introduction of a counter-force, Satan.
Christians did not create the concept of set-an nor did they introduce him into thier ideolgy. Set is an ancient Egyptians (arguably both polygamous and idolatrous) Neter (god) that fell out with Ausar(Osiris). Horus ( the son of Ausar) avenges the killing of his father by Set. hence we get the conflict of good and evil and the avenging angel (Michael).
Though it does not read the same as what we find in the Bible(s). The basic idea is still there of a creation of God choosing to "sin" ( in one case wanting to be God, and in the other actually carrying out the process to become God) and that individual becoming an outcast and in the end having to meet his end at the sword of the returning and avenging son.