Da Man's comments are not the ones that should have been deleted IYAM.
I'm really looking forward to this ever-delayed site redesign...
Da Man's comments are not the ones that should have been deleted IYAM.
I'm really looking forward to this ever-delayed site redesign...
Well this ridiculous. Da Man is not Voldermort!
Opionated, with a nice line in barbed comments, but hardly the bogeyman.
If you believe his posts are the ramblings of a misanthropic twit, isn't it better to leave them up, for everyone to see?
P.s. plus it looks like I'm talking to myself... annoying.
Ghz: "There are a lot of similarities between Malcom X and Nelson Mendela, but that doesn't mean that they're the same person, does it?"
Yes, it does. That means that Malcolm X and Nelson Mandela are identical.
"It most certainly does not.
That's just what you want to believe."
Anyway, the many similarities between Quranic stories and Alexandric legends are one piece of evidence supporting the identification. According to what I have figured out, the main reason why some moderns take Dhul-Qarnayn to be Cyrus the Great or some other non-Alexander-the-Great person is because Alexander was discovered not to be the saint Christians and other ancient people had thought. But the Dhul-Qarnayn issue is at any rate a digression.
"Just like the sun does not literally set IN THE WEST, the verse does not say that the sun had literally set IN A POOL."
Then what the hell do you suggest that it means? A poetic means of saying that the sunset was magnificent?
Does a text always need to explicitly inform the reader that what is written is intended literally? The Surah at hand prima facie suggests the absurd reading, which Muslims obviously must, quite ad hoc, deny. The fact that the verse also says Dhul-Qarnayn reached the setting place of the sun confirms it.
"Anyone with a brain would recognise that."
This conditional is false. I have a brain, and I do not recognise your point. Please don't assume that your opponent suffers from stupidity--if you continue to do so, then I think you have diagnosed yourself.
"Besides which, trying to analyse an English translation of the Qur'an is pointless. Figurative speech doesn't always translate from one language to another, and I can guarantee you that that there's not a single Arabic speaker who draws the same incorrect conclusion that you've presented."
There are many aspects of language that aren't directly translatable, but it's always the case that the propositional content -is-. I'll give you some examples of Arabic speaking people, scholars even, who have interpreted the text as I have, by utilising a quick Google search: Muhammad al-Tabari, Ibn Abbas.
The person who wrote the Hadith Sunan Abu Dawud 3991 presumably knew Arabic well, and he would have us believe that Muhammed believed that the sun set in a pool of warm water. Perhaps the writer didn't have a brain.
The argument between kafikjelen and G1GA brings a question to mind regarding religious text.
For those of you whose consider yourselves devout, what is your take on the primary text of your respective belief system? I have met Christians who believe the bible is the literal word of God, and Christians who don't. Have any of you converted to a new religion? How does your appreciation for the new religious text differ than your previous experience?
One thing that seems to be common amongst religious systems is the 'this is right, everything else is wrong' mentality. Is conscious or unconscious judgement being passed on those who don't share your views?
sorry, a whole bunch of tangential questions.
about the current discussion...is it possible that the passage in question is accurately recorded and translated, but poetical in nature rather than plainly worded? wouldn't that make the whole point moot?
Hmm... So first you try and tell me that the Qur'an specifically refers to Alexander (or is it Cyrus...?), and now you're trying to convince me that Malcolm X and Nelson Mandela are identical...
I don't think that there's any need for this discussion to continue any further.
There's definitely no point in getting into the science of Hadith with you to respond to your "quick Google", and in any case, your inability to make sense of a very easy to understand figurative description of a sunset also speaks volumes.
Troll someone else...
I am the only Muslim (that I know of) in my entire extended family. When I was younger, I was raised as a Christian, and attended a Church of England church every Sunday.
My father was in the British army, and not only did I get religious input from Sunday School and church services, but the British Service Schools that I attended also had a strong Church of England influence.
That's not to say that I just took everything that was spoon fed to me. When I was around 11 years old, I can remember asking the local minister at the time "Who made God?", and feeling somewhat disappointed with his response. As I grew into my teens, Christianity played much less of a part in my life, but I still maintained a strong belief in God, and still considered myself to be Christian.
During my late teens, I got into crime, and started to get into trouble with the police. I was on the verge of getting kicked out of school, and wasting my entire education, on more than one occasion. Basically, I was on a road to nowhere, fast.
It was around time that I first came across Islam. I first learned about it at around 17 years old, but didn't actually become Muslim until just before turning 19.
Between first learning anything about it, and becoming Muslim, I spent around a year studying and researching comparative religion. I looked into many different religions. I looked into what they said, what they called to, what they believed, and how their followers were.
Even though I was interested in Islam, I didn't want to jump straight into it without being 100% sure that it was something that I believed. The fact that it was so closely linked to things and names that I already knew about from the Bible not only made it easier to understand, but it also removed all of the doubts and answered all of the questions that Christianity had left in me.
It wasn't an easy step for me to take, though. I had to change my whole life away from the lures of the street life that I was spiralling into, and I can remember vividly my mother telling me that 'I wouldn't be her son' if I ever became Muslim.
Now, as a Muslim, so many things about Christianity are clear. We believe that the Qur'an is the complete and 100% word of God. So like I mentioned before, we believe in all of it completely, and without hesitation. One of our beliefs is that the Bible has been changed over time, and is no longer the word of God, because it contains many contradictions that were inserted by men.
So in answer to your question, I see the Bible as having an authentic source, but as being unreliable, due to its having been changed over time. Essentially, whatever is in the Bible that agrees with what is in the Qur'an, we believe, and whatever is in it that contradicts what is in the Qur'an, we reject. Anything else, we neither agree with, or reject, but remain silent about it.
These days, I've been Muslim for over 15 years. I try to recite the Qur'an, and learn about it and Islam as much as I am able to. I currently live in Saudi Arabia, and I also try to attend the lessons of the Islamic scholars over here as much as possible. For me, that was one of the most compelling reasons for accepting Islam. In Christianity, there are so many questions that you just have to ignore if you really want to believe it. Whereas, in Islam, it's practically essential to keep learning your whole life. You are encouraged to ask questions, and learn more.
By the way, I want to make it clear that I'm not writing this to attack Christianity here, but to answer the question "How does your appreciation for the new religious text differ than your previous experience?"
"about the current discussion...is it possible that the passage in question is accurately recorded and translated, but poetical in nature rather than plainly worded?"
It is possible, and it is exactly the case.
Other than the long span of unaltered text (1400 years is a long time for a thing to not change) what was it about Islam that attracted you?
Just as I was finishing high school I came across World Scripture as a trade paperback. It quickly became one of my favorites. The website linked here is the complete text made available online. Of course, it had the opposite effect on me than your contact with Islam. While I still love learning more about the various belief systems, and the variations of expression, from a catholic background I have moved farther and farther from faith.
One of the facets that has so thoroughly turned me away is the similarities (as seen in the book linked above) contrasted with the bone deep obsession with being 'right'. The Christian faith relies on Jesus being both the son of God and God, and the only path to salvation. Anyone who does not seek Jesus' favor is stuck in hell or purgatory. My previous exposures to Islam has had a similar flavor. This pretty much follows for each of the Abrahamic traditions, of which there are many sects.
While other systems don't necessarily condemn me to hell for not believing, they do seem to condemn me to a secondary status. It's a mentality that puts walls between believers and non-believers. Many of the faithful that I know have simply abandoned that facet of their faith in order to feel better about their relations(or maintain them at all). A few have expressed sadness over my damnation, but never challenged the doctrine itself. It all left a nasty taste in my mouth. Rather than all this division, I'd like to see our differences be a cause for union, peace, and discovery rather than distrust and discontent. This is rarely the case.
I believe it was monkeygourmet who said it properly, 'do your own thing and help people where you can.' I'd add, "try not to hurt anything while you're at it." Sums it up pretty well, no need to worry about the non believers at all in this system. What do you think Monkey, time to start a religion? :)
I'm having thoughts about the unchanging nature of the Qur'an and entropy, but I'll probably have to learn to read the thing in it's original form (some might say...the only way) before I can bring these thoughts intelligibly forth.
Anyone else interested in chiming in? Gwyn we've heard from. What about you xino? How'd you come to you faith? Who was raised in faith but lost it, like me? If you don't mind...why? G-sama? you've been absent a while.
i disagree with you , you say that its a troll lol hilarious excuse
you didnt even listen to the questions properly
those where simple questions the christian guy couldn't answer
and hes answers where contradictory
anyway jesus is not god ,hes a prophet sent by god to deliver the message to worship the only one true god and its clearly not jesus
wake up open your eyes read properly
for people who say that they are looking for the truth you should at least read the books :the bible and the Quran and then you gonna realise what is the truth
how could you believe somthing its true if you dont look for it you just read the bible thats it
(excuse my english)
What attracted me? To be honest, it was the character of the Muslims that I saw that first got me interested. It seemed like the kind of character that I expected a believing people to have, and it was a million miles away from what was around me. It was that, and the fact that someone was able to answer some questions had, using things that I already knew, but from a different perspective.
That was enough to get me interested, then after that, I pretty much took to researching things on my own. That's one of the things that made it easier for me, I think. People would tell me to go and find the information myself, rather than lecturing me or trying to push a particular view onto me.
Anyway, I have a question for you. Do you believe that in the world as we know it, there is one universal truth, or many relative truths?
For example, do you think that if someone believes something to be true, then it becomes true, or do you think that one understanding being true necessitates that every conflicting understanding is false?
(Thanks for the Hadley link, btw)
Truth is an interesting subject to me. Articulating this may be beyond my current allotment of time, but I'll give it a shot.
Much like Plato envisioned pure forms, I envision a pure truth. I think there is a pure, truth that is beyond human capacity to understand. This truth is everything. Every atom and every galaxy, thought and emotion, define this universal truth. We each take what we can and form our own personal, subjective truths, but the truth in our head is not the pure truth. It is just what lets us get by in our lives.
I almost don't want to post this, as it does a rather hash job of expressing the idea. but still...something like that.
if you have access to journal databases, you might be able to find the full Hadley text, ebsco or something like it.
No, that was a great post.
Truth can variate based on perspective and perceived views. If you hold a strong religious belief, truth is a constant. This is where religion views non-religious views as false.
Religion is the truth. Anything else is a false version of reality.
The argument becomes impossible and invalid.
You either have faith, or you don't.
Studying its merits and history almost becomes null and void. All it does is illustrate people who need more indoctrination to become believers. And likewise for people who find 'god'.
IMO, it is in built in certain people (a large number), countries belief, family precedence, a void in someone's life etc etc... These all create a gap religion is either forced into or can fill.
Apart from the history learned from ancient cultures, I find religious studies and practice to be a huge waste of time and resources.
Hmm... That's certainly an interesting concept.
So is it that you believe in relative truths, where ultimately, there is no wrong? That what every person believes will come to pass based on their personal perspective? Therefore you see no reason for enmity between followers of any faith?
Sorry if I misinterpreted your explanation. I just want to be sure that I understood it correctly.
A discussion about the "truth" & not one "A few good men" GIF?
Internet you disappoint me :/
zinc, you missed your chance... :P
Truth does not variate based on your own thoughts. The truth is still true whether you agree with it or not.
What that truth is, we don't understand, and its probably beyond our level of comprehension. In fact its quite arrogant of us to think that we could understand the truth.
Can a worm comprehend the machinations of the Solar System?
@G1GAHURTZ He wasn't saying that at all. He was saying that we form our opinions based on our own experiences which has no bearing on what the real truth is - but if it gets you through the night then that's not a bad thing anyway. But what we think is 'the truth' almost certainly isn't
I firmly believe that humanity will uncover the mechanic's of the universe as soon as we create the math/science to do so.
Though that seems far less complex than figuring out our place within it on a philosophical level.
@Zinc, our place is purely to eat, drink, shit, piss & breathe- survive, & if we intend to survive as a species, procreation is a must. Everything else is entirely optional, survival is our only true goal.
I'm well aware that the meaning of life is to live.
But what does that mean?
Who says there needs to be a deeper meaning? Instead of thinking why, ask how!
The why, inspires the how.
And as a species we need it. Its why our librarys are full of more than just encyclopedias.
Its also the reason we cook up such crazy nonsense like religions... trying to fit our pathetic understandings to what we see around us. And for the most part we are wrong. I'd be surprised if we ever know. YOu can't just say we'll know when we work out the maths :D
That's like saying you know how a perpetual motion machine works, first you need something that will spin forever without any energy input, and there you go... :D
Like I said, it's incredibly arrogant of us to think we can ever even come close to understanding what is going on. I'm not saying that we should stop trying.
Put a flea on an iPhone, it will never work out how to make a call. Or even understand what a call is.
@G1GAHURTZ So who do you now believe created God? :D
I can & will say, we'll work it out. I have faith.
Lloytron comes pretty close, but their interpretation of my thoughts seems to miss the mark a bit. The universal Truth is complete, but we each contribute our own personal truths to this. This contribution is not our thoughts and beliefs, but rather the essence of our being. To know the Truth of a thing we would need to know the distribution of its matter, its effect on the world around it, its disposition in terms of objective, physical, reality and in subjective viewership. Know all of that, and you will know the truth of an item now. If any of that changes and you don't keep up, you no longer know the truth of the thing.
knowing the Truth of an event is much more complicated as it involves the passage of time. For example, to know how an item came to be here would necessitate knowing it's origin and the linkage of events that brought it to this present condition.
To directly respond to your questions, G1GA. As I see it, our personal, subjective truths inform the Truth, but do not dictate the reality of it. A person that disbelieves the presence of an apple does not make an apple disappear but the universal Truth of that person must take into account their disbelief. Are they wrong or incorrect to disbelieve in the presence of this object? objectively, sure (I suppose), independent corroboration will show the existence of the apple.
Subjectively, however, they can disbelieve to a degree that the presence of the apple will never be processed by their brain. The cones and rods of the retina may fire, but the signal will get lost upon integration. They have created their own subjective truth. Who am I to tell them they are wrong?
By a seemingly different train of thought than you, I did arrive at the conclusion that there is no call for enmity based on a difference of faith/belief/perception of reality.
I certainly agree with Lloytron that the vast majority of us have no hope of comprehending the objective universal Truth. I think we are efficient at gathering superficial observations that we use to form our subjective truths. It is a process that allows us to move on to the business of living rather quickly.
On the topic of meaning and purpose:
There is a fun little mental exercise that I appropriated from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy many years ago. Hold a mental image of some small thing, and zoom out. While zooming out hold firm the initial image, and all the new things that come into view and the relationships between these items. Example, apple -> apple + branch -> apple tree with many apples -> hillside covered in grass with a few apple trees heavy with apples -> surrounding forest around the hill + apple trees and apples -> roads bounding the forest which surrounds the hill with the trees -> the towns that the roads lead to, around the forest, around the hill, with the apple trees that are heavy with apples, and our starting apple -> etc.
Take this as far as you can without losing the scale and complexity. try again with a different subject. And don't allow yourself to cheat...keep that relationship from the first item all the way to the biggest locked in. Most people that I know that have tried this cheat a little...they end up just naming different levels of complexity and keeping the names in mind rather than the true relationships.
As usual, I feel I made a hash of this...
I agree with you that religious studies can be a waste of time if your goal is to prove something. But I find it quite useful if the purpose is to better relate to people with a difference of opinion. I don't thing that aspect should be discounted.
more questions have occurred to me :) Did you find the character of the Christians around you to be lacking? or did their preachiness turn you off? How about the character of Buddhists? Every Buddhist that I've met who really tries to live in accordance with their philosophy has had a mightily impressive character. The same actually goes for most people of faith. Those who walk the walk. So what was it that turned you away from the familiar? How wide was your personal research before you decided to convert to Islam?
"Hmm... So first you try and tell me that the Qur'an specifically refers to Alexander (or is it Cyrus...?), and now you're trying to convince me that Malcolm X and Nelson Mandela are identical..."
Actually, I should have made my post clearer--that was simply an attempt at making a silly joke to lighten up the discussion, where I quoted you out of context to sort of correct me.
"There's definitely no point in getting into the science of Hadith with you to respond to your "quick Google", and in any case, your inability to make sense of a very easy to understand figurative description of a sunset also speaks volumes."
I have argued for my literal interpretation of the text, you have not argued for yours.
@wornthreads: "For those of you whose consider yourselves devout, what is your take on the primary text of your respective belief system?"
I view the Bible as a human collection of human documents about divine revelation. I think that view makes a lot of sense, and makes me open-minded about findings that might prove some parts of the text false. My faith isn't based on the Bible, but on the person of Christ. His resurrection is demonstrable, and shows Christianity to be the true religion.
"His resurrection is demonstrable, and shows Christianity to be the true religion."
How exactly is his resurrection demonstrable?
Because it says so in the Bible? The gospels were not eye witness accounts, they were written anywhere between 40-150 years after Jesus died, and nobody knows exactly when or by whom. (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John weren't exactly common names in that time period and they wildly contradict each other).
So no, it's not demonstrable at all, and therefore your conclusion based on this is false.
Or is there any specific evidence outside of The Bible? If so, share it! You'll make millions.
You must log in to post.
© videogaming247 Ltd.