[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by hddd12345678910

Have I shown you one aspect of Islam that you found disagreeable?

I have never had anything intrinsically disagreeable about Islam, it has simply not convinced me that it was technically the most meaningful world view for my view of the world.  This does not mean that I am, or have ever been, antagonistic to Islam.

quote:

But you missed my whole point.  I have accepted the absolute, you have not, so if the Quran is telling me that all the questions as to how to best and most efficiently live my life while taking into consideration the well being of the rest of humanity are answered within the book, then what need do I have to look for new questions?

I have two issues with this.

Firstly, most of the quotes you gave relate to how Muslims should treat each other, not how it should treat the rest of humanity.  I am not doubting that the Quran does also tell you how you should treat non-Muslims, it is merely that it (as does the Bible, particularly the Old Testament) does appear to be quite discriminatory in treating one's own differently from treating outsiders.

More specifically, I don't know what the Islamic tradition is, but certainly in the Jewish tradition (and at least some branches of the Christian tradition) there are people who spend their whole lives looking at the Bible and seeking to find new answers to questions from therein.  Sometimes the answers can seem like an over-interpretation of what is written, but nonetheless it does demonstrate the principle that merely because a body of written knowledge is fixed, it does not mean that one cannot seek new knowledge even from that fixed set of words.

George

[namaan]

2:62 (That was a glimpse of the past.) Behold, those who believe (in the Qur'an and call themselves Muslims), and those who are Jews, and Christians and the Agnostics - whoever truly believes in Allah and the Last Day and does work that benefits humanity - surely their reward is with their Lord. For them shall be no fear from without, nor shall grief touch them from within.

Well, you pretty much hit a wall right there...What can I say, that's the point of a religion these days.  But although it’s complicated to you; it’s not at all so for me.  If you want a general summary of humanity in view of the Quran, here it goes:  Humans are created; they begin agriculture and so forth, begin to form permanent dwellings and begin to ask the big questions about life.  Without any direct guidance from God so far, Noah comes to them as God's first message.  History continues, and essentially more and more prophets keep coming to warn humans of wrongdoing and show them a way towards bliss and security.  From the time of Prophet Noah, to the time of Prophet Muhammad, all nations recieved a prophet (such as Moses to Egypt and Jesus to Israelites) and thus a fair warning and incentive to do good works for ALL humanity.  The Torah and Bible were both authored by the same God that authored the Quran, but since humanity was slowly developing its infrastructure, these books were revealed in stages, with the Quran being the final message.  And so that is the reason why no prophets are needed any longer, the Quran is the final message and it is well preserved unlike the other books who's original message has been thoroughly decimated because of the selfish desires of humans.

quote:
Firstly, most of the quotes you gave relate to how Muslims should treat each other, not how it should treat the rest of humanity.

Your argument makes no sense.  What do you expect them to do, go into the other society, and fight whoever is oppressing there own people?  That’s like saying the United States embarking on a mission to save a homeless person in another person’s society…And keep in mind the world was not globalized as it is today.  It wasn’t even as though the other societies at the time besides the Islamic society were weak in strength.  But besides this, there are plenty of verses, which I don’t have time to find right now, that relate to leaving people at peace as long as they wish to remain at peace.  

2:190 [All mankind should agree upon and mark their calendars for four months of peacetime. However, true following of the Divine System of Life will meet with harsh opposition.] So, fight in the Cause of Allah those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression. Behold, Allah loves not aggressors. (2:194, 2:217, 4:91, 9:5, 9:36, 22:39, 60:8.)

2:193 Hence, fight them only until there is no more harassment, and Deen may be adopted for the sake of Allah alone. And if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against those who replace peace with aggression.

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by hddd12345678910

quote:
Firstly, most of the quotes you gave relate to how Muslims should treat each other, not how it should treat the rest of humanity.

Your argument makes no sense.  What do you expect them to do, go into the other society, and fight whoever is oppressing there own people?  That’s like saying the United States embarking on a mission to save a homeless person in another person’s society…And keep in mind the world was not globalized as it is today.  It wasn’t even as though the other societies at the time besides the Islamic society were weak in strength.  But besides this, there are plenty of verses, which I don’t have time to find right now, that relate to leaving people at peace as long as they wish to remain at peace.  

Firstly, my comment was with regard to your quotes, not the totality of the Quran, which as I said, although I did not know exact texts, I was aware did include clauses about how to treat non-Muslims.  The only issue I was raising was that you were saying how great Islam was for humanity, and I was saying that your quotes only pertained to how great Islam was for Muslims.

Secondly, your comparison with the USA is both erroneous and inconsistent.

In most regards, the law of the USA pertains to all persons legally living within the USA, whether they be US citizens or not.  US jurisdiction, for the most part, does not have global reach, and so does not pertain to persons living outside of the USA, of whatever nationality.  I accept that this is a generalisation, and there is some extraterritoriality in US law, and there are some differences in the rights of US and non-US citizens resident within the US, but these are a few exceptions, and in principle all humans within the jurisdiction of the US law are equal under the law.

Beyond that, to try and compare Islamic law with US law would imply that Islam was merely a nation State.  It is not that, and certainly it has ambitions to be far more than a nation State.

Your comment that “keep in mind the world was not globalized as it is today” seems to imply that you implicitly accept that one should read the Quran within the context in which it was written, and regard it as pertaining to that context.  Does this not run counter to your argument that the Quran should be read context free, and its law should be regarded as valid for all contexts, without regard to the context in which it was written.

By the way, none of the above is intended to be a condemnation of the Quran, just simply highlighting that it is more the work of man than of God, and as such it should be regarded as having the imperfections of all works of men, including the fact that it was more concerned with what was happening within the society in which it was written (the society that was what the human authors of the Quran were concerned about) than it was looking at a broader world view.  Within that limitation, it is a valiant attempt of its time.

George

[namaan]

Sorry, but this is exactly why I stopped arguing.  This whole arguement is just going in circles since I'm sure I have already covered everything you are arguing in previous posts.  You made an intial mistake which sprang out from still not fully realizing my absolute prespective from which I am speaking and rolled with it to the end of the post.  So as far as I'm concerned, I felt that much of the post towards the end was irrelevant.  I feel like typing, "maybe now you understand what I mean by delving in the relative", but I'm sure that you don't.  I'm not blaming you or calling you ignorant, but this is the obvious limitation of speaking across online forums which I throughly explained in a previous post.

[tony6789 (OP)]

Hey i got on most replied topic YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

- Big T

[tony6789 (OP)]

SO no one really knows the answer oh well but i hey i mean there is a possiblity that he is not real i mean people belive what they would like to think is true. People like the idea of a god and jesus so they beilieve it

- Big T

[mcduke]

Hi all, this is my first post here so be gentle
So, is God real? I'm assuming you mean the biblical all powerful, all knowing creator of everything God. Well, first of all you would think such a being could do a better job of preventing the confusion with all the different religions in the world. There's to much of the, you must believe the same as me or you'll burn in hell for an eternity (cuz that's what a loving God does?). Lets face it, two thousands years ago there wasn't a heck of alot to do except the usually fight for survival bit with alot of why am I here thinking going on. To have a bunch of guys on earth write down on tablets rules to live by and leave it at that, well, Can you be a God by proxy? Our father who art in heaven! If any parents on earth tried being a parent by proxy they'd be thrown in jail for child abuse. Ok kids, I'm going to have you write these rules down for you to live by and I'll look in on you from time to time, but you won't see me. I think if there is a supreme being then he/she needs to be more hands on, and I'm not seeing that.
Religion provides security and comfort in a world where nature is harsh, cruel, and frightening. I've had friends who've turned back to they're religous beliefs in hard times when they need comfort and security. After all, it's what they were raised with. When they've tried to talk religion to me I side step the conversation. Not because I'm afraid of the conversation. I'm simply respecting their belief and don't want to take away their security and comfort. A majority of people cling to a specific belief simply because of how they where raised (it's what they're used to and comfortable with).

Here's an interesting thought. In the bible God can be angry, jealous, and loving. How about bored? Let's face it, being all powerful and able to do anything anytime you want sounds like a perfect recipe for boredom eventually. Therefore, the universe, and we, where created for entertainment. That's why the world is such a confusing mess. And we're all channels on a remote control for the ultimate plasma tv. Click, lets see what Bob is up to today! oh, what a card, that Bob is funny. How about Jack? What's Jack doing today. Oh Jack, that's being a bad boy. So, a perfect world is a boring world not to mention an over populated world.
So, is there a God? If there is one then none of us really have any true idea what he is or wants from us (atleast not unitl you die, maybe). As for me, I like Buddhism, they're peaceful and respect others.

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by mcduke

Here's an interesting thought. In the bible God can be angry, jealous, and loving.

One of the things you also have to bear in mind is that over time the very meaning of the words used has changed, so what the people intended when they wrote the words might have been subtly different from the way we reed those words.

quote:

 How about bored? Let's face it, being all powerful and able to do anything anytime you want sounds like a perfect recipe for boredom eventually.

It actually sound like a recipe for indecision – if you can do anything, then you can also do it an infinite number of ways, and no one way is any better than another, so there is no rational basis for choosing one way of doing something over another way of doing it.

George

[ukmicky]

I wonder if he's got fast forward,or slow reverse[]

Michael

[gecko]

the idea of something being all-powerful is self defeating and natural selection and evolution continue to compound hard evidence, showing a creator is unneccesary.

god doesnt and exist and he never did. what, have you people lost it?

[tony6789 (OP)]

hey hey hey ok gecko prove that he does not exist

- Big T

[mcduke]

The reason people believe is because they need the security and comfort of that belief, that there is something greater and benevolent out there watching over us. The mess this world is in pretty much answers that question. Sure we may be the most intelligent beings on the planet, but that just means our ways are that much more complicated then the other creatures on the planet.
I've been asked do I believe in God, but what I'm really being asked is does my belief match his belief? These days I tell em I'm buddhaRue. That means I'm peaceful and live in harmony with all things unless you piss me off, lol.
Most important is just to have fun in life. After all, if you can't have fun then what's the point?

I bet that Gods remote control has fast forward and backwards, and even slow forward and backwards for full entertainment value.

[gecko]

tony, i cant prove god doesnt exist anymore than you can prove he can.

 when you say something exists with no evidence whatsoever, just because of faith or belief, you can never be proven wrong. i believe theres a planet in the universe ruled by a race of skyscraper sized ants who eat nothing but pancakes. if you cant prove me wrong, than is that true?

 god is just about as likely, considering theres the same amount of proof for both. i always want to see evidence before i believe in something... for some reason objectivity and skepticism have taken a backseat to the whimsy and wonder of religion

[another_someone]

In the physical world (i.e. away from mathematics or pure logic), then the only thing that can be proven is “I think, therefore I am” - everything else is hypothesis, and its usage depends upon its utility not upon absolute proof of absolute truth.

It may be argued that the utility of God as a working hypothesis has been superseded by other theories that provide greater utility in many contexts, but none of this proves any of them to be an absolute truth, or absolute falsehood.

George

[mcduke]

Inorder to prove if God exist or not, don't you need to know what religious version to prove or disprove? I think there's a reference in the Bible to Gods, not just God. So, if there is more then one, which one/ones would you like to prove/disprove?
I would think that a God would provide better order in the world, ya know, like just one religion, and if someone gets the idea of starting a different/wrong religion God would pay him/her a visit(or atleast send an angel) to say,"hey, that's wrong". I would think an all powerful being would be able to do that. If not, then the confusion here must be on purpose, as in, We're entertainment for a supreme being that is bored. Or, maybe just a science project. Of course there is the possibility that we're just nature at work void of any divine intentions.

[neilep]

In my opinion, God is an invention via the imagination of man.

[Ultima]

What I dont get is that there is neither "proof" for or against some super deity behind the scenes. So why would someone jump to the conclusion that one exists? Maybe back in the day before we had any scientific method or knowledge it was the simplest answer to the great question; Why? But now we have scientific method and a nice simple answer that the universe just is and runs on natural interactions between stuff and other stuff. So why would anyone continue with deity worship? Personally I embrace EVERYTHING as if it were God because clearly we are all part of the grand interconnected system that is life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ockham%27s_Razor

Assuming that there is a hidden super being running the show isn't exactly justified in my mind. Why do I need to think that there is one?? When the world merrily goes on working without me doing so in a reasonably predictable way from currently available evidence. If suddenly we find that everything we thought was true breaks down and four giant horsemen come flying about my head I might be inclined to change my mind []

A lot of religions don't take themselves quite so seriously as Christianity or Islam etc. Most of the eastern philosophies take a far more relaxed approach and dont assume anything is true [] or that any of their deities truly exist in how they worship and symbolise them. So who is right???

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by mcduke

Inorder to prove if God exist or not, don't you need to know what religious version to prove or disprove? I think there's a reference in the Bible to Gods, not just God. So, if there is more then one, which one/ones would you like to prove/disprove?
I would think that a God would provide better order in the world, ya know, like just one religion, and if someone gets the idea of starting a different/wrong religion God would pay him/her a visit(or atleast send an angel) to say,"hey, that's wrong". I would think an all powerful being would be able to do that. If not, then the confusion here must be on purpose, as in, We're entertainment for a supreme being that is bored. Or, maybe just a science project. Of course there is the possibility that we're just nature at work void of any divine intentions.

Maybe God would rather remain anonymous, and is quite happy if we don't know who he is, but would worship some non-existent phantom – who can tell.

The problem is, if the guy is all powerful, then He would scarcely need to send angels to correct His
mistakes, because the mistakes would not have happened to be corrected.

In fact, the notion of God being all powerful implies that He must be the only God, since if He had any competition, then he could not be all powerful.  But, if He is all powerful, then why would He even require assistants, such as angels?

quote:Originally posted by Ultima

What I dont get is that there is neither "proof" for or against some super deity behind the scenes. So why would someone jump to the conclusion that one exists? Maybe back in the day before we had any scientific method or knowledge it was the simplest answer to the great question; Why? But now we have scientific method and a nice simple answer that the universe just is and runs on natural interactions between stuff and other stuff. So why would anyone continue with deity worship? Personally I embrace EVERYTHING as if it were God because clearly we are all part of the grand interconnected system that is life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ockham%27s_Razor

Assuming that there is a hidden super being running the show isn't exactly justified in my mind. Why do I need to think that there is one?? When the world merrily goes on working without me doing so in a reasonably predictable way from currently available evidence. If suddenly we find that everything we thought was true breaks down and four giant horsemen come flying about my head I might be inclined to change my mind []

The point is that there are different ways of looking at the world.

The modern perspective is almost purely functional, and the question we ask most is “how does it work” - and the answer to this is not well facilitated by the notion of God.

In the past, the world was less scientific, less functional; and people were more interested in hierarchies of allegiance and responsibility, and having a God at the root of such a model makes as much sense as the Big Bang makes to the fill the lack of direct knowledge about the roots of cosmology.

George

[mcduke]

Well, may the force be with you.

[gecko]

isnt the idea of all powerful-ness adressed with-

can god make a stone so big he couldnt move it?

if he can, then he is not all powerful; because he cant move the stone. if he cant, then he is not all powerful either; because he cant make a large enough stone.

thats what always killed all-powerfulness for me.