Islam miracles.

Mesquite, thanks for post illustrating the changing character of the Quran.

I'm reluctant to offend the deeply held religious beliefs of anyone. However, as I've already done it, I might as well say what I think. There seems to be an obvious character flaw in each of the world's three main monotheistic religions. Islam is the inspiration for holy war, not just with the sinful side of the self, but for real and violent acts against non believers. Christianity appears to be based on a blend of Jewish messianic and Greek mystery cults, embellished and adapted for Roman taste by St Paul and makes no sense. Judaism is fundamentally racist as it teaches that the Children of Israel alone are God's chosen people.

To my mind religion should be of an entirely personal and private character. It should not be used to indoctrinate the young or as a substitute for a proper education. It most certainly should not be used as an inspiration for or justification of political acts.

Hobitbob,
During the time when the Quran was revealed, the Arabs best asset was their literature and poetry. They were the best of the best Arabic poets ever. They were able to hear somethng once, memorize it, and repeat it back. The Quran was first passed down through memorization. Word for word it was passed down, and the proof of that is what I have been saying all this time. That if you go anywhere in the world today, the Quran is the same throughout. Not one single arabic letter is changed. If anyone can show me 2 opposing Qurans which we use, then they have a point. But there is something about the Othman or Usman period in which he wanted to change the Quran by standardizing it. But it was decided not to and they were burned those standardized ones because they were not going to be the originals anymore. So maybe a couple of them may still exist(I heard there are 2 remaining in museums) but they are not accepted. So it was preserved in the memory of the Arabs at first then later on it was written down and made into a book. Remember Quran does not mean Book. It means something to be recited.

Steve,
Thank you for your opinion on the 3 monotheistic religions.

Now lets get back to the topic, shall we????

Is the Quran Gods Words??
I still havent seen why I should believe otherwise.

Even in the modern era, differences exist, even between publishers.

Q-Kid "Is the Quran Gods Words??
I still havent seen why I should believe otherwise."


Of course it isn't. None of the religious documents are. They were written by men. If g-d really wanted us to hear him he would not make himself only manifest by man and so ambiguous. G-d is all powerful and would make you able to automatically understand. G-d would not have to be limited by means only men can use.

Religions that stem from books are, without a doubt, from men. They are methods of social control with the backing of mythology. This does not mean there is or is not a g-d, but the books are not from g-d. This also does not mean the books are not useful - some of them have good moral codes.

Think of anything that other humans tell you is not falsifiable (cannot, ever, be proven wrong no matter what, is itself the ultimate truth.) You will only find this pattern in forms of totalitarian social control: in imposing corrrupt governments, cults, and many religions. Anything that is non-falsifiable is untrue. Truth must come from observation, not by some "ultimate source." And, where totalitarian governments can only threaten with punishments of this lifetime or ending it, religon can threaten with an eternity of punishment - death, the great unknown- and does - in order to keep it's followers strictly believing.

You can test your religion to see if it is non-falsifiable - try to deny part of it and say it is untrue. Are you allowed to do that? Will it condemn you or make the rest of the reading incorrect? Now try to deny all or half of it and say that it is untrue. How does the religion/government punish you for your dissenting beliefs?

Portal

"Anything that is non-falsifiable is untrue. Truth must come from observation, not by some "ultimate source." "


Agree with sentiments. Cant quite get my head round "anything that is non falsifiable is untrue"

Would have said myself...goes in the category of "cannot be known described as true" ?

Here's a question for Qkid,

If "God created everything" why did he create the Shi'ites who indulge in self mutilation or the Sunni's who blew them up while they were doing it last week in Iraq ?

You're not supposed to ask difficult questions Fresco(is your name Alan btw?) - as non Muslim its a sign of Islamophobia, and therefore verboten and as a Muslim its a sign of apostasy, which can have unfortunate side affects, like getting stoned.

Er.....what about Christians who engage in self-mutilation (scourging and other froms of penance are still acceptable for conservative Catholics)? Do they get a free pass because they aren't Muslim? As for violence against others, no religion is exempt from this. You should probably think about these things before you make silly comments like the one above.

hobitbob,

If you check out my (numerous) threads you will note that I have declared myself to be an atheist who believes ALL organized religion tends to be evil. This particulat thread is about Islam and I respond accordingly.

By the way Qkid I don't think you answered a previous question of mine about Mohammed's intercourse with a nine year old girl.

Thanking you in anticipation

Hobitbob

Christians who engage in self mutilation are just as dangerously deluded imo as are Muslims who do the same. Except I don't know of any Christians who do this. And I certainly haven't seen thousands of young Christian men and boys, children some of them, wacking themselves on the forehead with swords to cut themselves in order to bleed profusely. What sort of a religion is this? Behaviour like that has no place in a civilised society.

And while I'm on about it, I don't see Christians mutillating the genitalia of children, or making animal sacrifices.

You said



You accuse Fresco of making silly statements, but this one of yours takes some beating. Ever heard of Jainism? Or Quakers? How about Budhists? When did the Pope last order attacks on Muslims? Sometime ago. Or Dr Rowan Williams go in for a bit of Jew baiting?

Your attempt to defend Islam makes you blind to the fact that there are some aspects of it which are indefensible. I don't believe in the equal moral value of all religions. Is Voodoo or African animist religion or canibalism of equal worth to Islam? Or Zen? Patently not.

IMO it is perfectly reasonable to roughly rank religions in some sort of moral value. Near the top would be those that teach tolerance, contemplation, the inward battle with sin and quiet meditation. And near the bottom (but not at the bottom) would be a religion that encourages young men and boys to parade through the streets cutting themselves with swords. [Amongst the many examples of discrimination against women in Islam, but one I wholeheartedly agree with, it does not allow women and girls to do the same].

steve - are you unaware of the history of catholic saints? Ever heard of St. Ursula? What about the saint who became a saint for licking the pussy scabs of lepers? Christain monks used to (and some still do) wear hair shirts and constantly whip themselves. Don't forget that the ultimate destinaton for non-conformers under christianity is an eternety of being burned. I don't think that is "civilized." People do whatever they want with a religion. Animism makes perfect sense in a society centered around hunting and agriculture. Animism wouldn't make any sense in New York City. Religions aren't more or less civilized based on notions - they adapt to fit the life of the people who create them. Even Buddhism has it's fanatic sects (mostly ones that believe buddha was g-d.) I do prefer religions that preach tolerance, education, and self defense, but there will always be people who use that relgion as an excuse to kill/hurt.

Also, Jainists do hurt things - other people. But they don't hurt insects. Do you know what you have to do, as a Jainist, if you accidentally step on a rat?

What she said.

Well I've said it before so why not again

Christianity is nonsense
Judaism is racist
Islam is violent


But give me nonsense anyday before either of the other two.

Islam is no more or less violent than any other faith (This includes Buddhism). I ordinarily agree with your positions, Steve, but I think you are wrong here.

I ordinarily agree with your positions hobitbob, but that was a rather provacative statement which I assume was meant to generate questions, so I will bite. Does Buddhism have anything in it's writings or teachings that is as gross as taking an old lady, having her tied between two camels and driving them apart until she is wrent in two as Islam does? Does any other religion than Islam have their religious leaders issue death directives such as Khomeni did, or even more recently in Nigeria? Does any other religion today still practice barbaric acts such as stoning to death for adultery?

I do believe that all religions have their problems, but IMHO there are very different degrees.

Look at the history of Buddhist monaticism in 12-16th century Japan, or in SE Asia in the 19th century. Violence was the watchword for societies of very bellicose monks.

That may be true, but my question was...

1-Not that familiar with the sutras. You'd have to ask Asherman.

hobitbob

Your comparisons appear to be largely historical, whereas Steve's appear to be mainly contemporary. If you view religion (as I do) as a mental conjoint to tribalism (the latter being exhibited by primates) then the content matter will inevitably be corrupted to an "us-them" rationality to support tribal strife by the evocation of "divine authority".


The philosophical "nonsense" of religion is of course matched by the "nonsense" of nationality, sometimes also with an appeal to divinity. Unfortunately when the chips are down, or threatened, we are prone to accept such such "nonsense" to maintain our personal security.

The problem is that the concept of "self" is inextricably bound up with the concept of "group". The unique human communication mode of a socially transmitted language makes this a local truism.

Note also the word magic angle of "holy books" which artificially attempt negate and to "fix in stone" the essentially dynamic of communicative interaction by the claim to "eternal truth". Observe the reification of these "truths" by mindless chanting...the philosophical equivalent of sticking your fingures in your ears and singing la-la-la !

truth
Mesquite, what about Christianity's Inquisition and Crusades? And we see contemporary expressions of the same dispositions when we send our young men to die and kill in wars under the twin authority of nation and God.