Morality of Religions- Discussion thread

[Red-Indian]

The gymnastics part here is that the usage of a word or term to describe the concept of an Almighty for two different concepts of an Almighty is being confused as the same or one being a derivative of the other. When the two are distinct and unique ideas.

Well the fact that the name YHWH for a god (not THE god, mind you) predates Judaism is pretty well documented. The process by which early Israelites initially worshipped a bunch of gods and then moved to monolatrism and eventually monotheism worshipping only Yahweh is not well understood. To justify Jewish faith, all you have to do is add in the prophet Moses somewhere around the 7th or 6th century BC to come in and clarify that all other gods are false and only Yahweh was to be worshipped. It seems an easy jump of faith as long as you believe Moses existed. If you like, you can also believe this was the real beginning of Jewish faith.

 

[Stewie]

Well the fact that the name YHWH for a god (not THE god, mind you) predates Judaism is pretty well documented. The process by which early Israelites initially worshipped a bunch of gods and then moved to monolatrism and eventually monotheism worshipping only Yahweh is not well understood. To justify Jewish faith, all you have to do is add in the prophet Moses somewhere around the 7th or 6th century BC to come in and clarify that all other gods are false and only Yahweh was to be worshipped. It seems an easy jump of faith as long as you believe Moses existed. If you like, you can also believe this was the real beginning of Jewish faith.

That’s pretty much what I have been alluding to. The similarities stop at the name.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Well the fact that the name YHWH for a god (not THE god, mind you) predates Judaism is pretty well documented. The process by which early Israelites initially worshipped a bunch of gods and then moved to monolatrism and eventually monotheism worshipping only Yahweh is not well understood. To justify Jewish faith, all you have to do is add in the prophet Moses somewhere around the 7th or 6th century BC to come in and clarify that all other gods are false and only Yahweh was to be worshipped. It seems an easy jump of faith as long as you believe Moses existed. If you like, you can also believe this was the real beginning of Jewish faith.

You could be right. The story of Moses could’ve been made to drive Israelites towards monotheism. In the process they also unified EL and Yahweh. The once father and son now are used interchangeably when addressing Jewish God.
In this entire process Ba’al got destroyed. The once powerful god in levant is no where to be seen now.

 

[Red-Indian]

You could be right. The story of Moses could’ve been made to drive Israelites towards monotheism. In the process they also unified EL and Yahweh. The once father and son now are used interchangeably when addressing Jewish God.
In this entire process Ba’al got destroyed. The once powerful god in levant is no where to be seen now.

Have you read Neil Gaiman's American Gods or seen the show (though it's not as good)? Brilliant exploration of the concept of gods and their rise and fall.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Have you read Neil Gaiman's American Gods or seen the show (though it's not as good)? Brilliant exploration of the concept of gods and their rise and fall.

I haven’t seen it. If it’s on YouTube, I will give it a watch.

 

[ElRaja]

Well the fact that the name YHWH for a god (not THE god, mind you) predates Judaism is pretty well documented. The process by which early Israelites initially worshipped a bunch of gods and then moved to monolatrism and eventually monotheism worshipping only Yahweh is not well understood. To justify Jewish faith, all you have to do is add in the prophet Moses somewhere around the 7th or 6th century BC to come in and clarify that all other gods are false and only Yahweh was to be worshipped. It seems an easy jump of faith as long as you believe Moses existed. If you like, you can also believe this was the real beginning of Jewish faith.

purely my own opinion, but it seems that the ancient israelites had a "contract" with YHWH, i.e. to protect the temple in return for their security in ancient Jerusalem. YHWH appeared to be a local god with local power, however after the Babylonians conquered Jerusalem and the jews moved en masse to Persia it seems that the jews had a problem, i.e. their local god YHWH didnt keep to his side on the contract in protecting them.

so somewhere during the exhile you have a very obvious change where yhwh becomes a omnipotent omniscient god, solely responsible for everything, to show that what was yhwh is now an entity which will protect the jews everywhere and eventually see them restored back to the promised land.

 

[Red-Indian]

purely my own opinion, but it seems that the ancient israelites had a "contract" with YHWH, i.e. to protect the temple in return for their security in ancient Jerusalem. YHWH appeared to be a local god with local power, however after the Babylonians conquered Jerusalem and the jews moved en masse to Persia it seems that the jews had a problem, i.e. their local god YHWH didnt keep to his side on the contract in protecting them.

so somewhere during the exhile you have a very obvious change where yhwh becomes a omnipotent omniscient god, solely responsible for everything, to show that what was yhwh is now an entity which will protect the jews everywhere and eventually see them restored back to the promised land.

Not a bad theory and as good as any other reason why they made the switch. How is what @Stewie is concerned with I think. Also what did they do with the change. How long did they continue to believe YHWH was the primary god of the Pantheon and at what point did they make the mental switch to believing he/she was the sole entity? I suppose a prophet called Moses is a pretty decent explanation for the mechanism of the change. Nothing contradicting that anyway.

 

[ElRaja]

Not a bad theory and as good as any other reason why they made the switch. How is what @Stewie is concerned with I think. Also what did they do with the change. How long did they continue to believe YHWH was the primary god of the Pantheon and at what point did they make the mental switch to believing he/she was the sole entity? I suppose a prophet called Moses is a pretty decent explanation for the mechanism of the change. Nothing contradicting that anyway.

again imo isiah is the most influential in this regard, i read the quran, and i read some parts of the Old Testament, and it was obvious that they are completely different writing styles, content, and assertion of power of god, however the latter part of isiah where the entity formerly known as yhwh asserts his authority as the god of everything and IMO becomes the monotheistic god, and never really changes for the jews or islam after that.

imo it wouldnt be wrong to say whoever wrote this passage pretty much defined the monotheistic god. creator of all, physical and metaphysical, and entitled to worship and acknowledgement of all living beings. afaik this was written 40 years after the destruction of the first temple.

5 I am the Lord, and there is no other; besides Me there is no God: I will strengthen you although you have not known Me.

6 In order that they know from the shining of the sun and from the west that there is no one besides Me; I am the Lord and there is no other.

7 Who forms light and creates darkness, Who makes peace and creates evil; I am the Lord, Who makes all these.

8 Cause the heavens above to drip, and let the skies pour down righteousness; let the earth open, and let salvation and righteousness be fruitful; let it cause them to sprout together; I, the Lord, have created it.

9 Woe to him who contends with his Creator, a potsherd among the potsherds of the earth, shall the clay say to its potter, "What do you make? And your work has no place."

10 Woe to him who says to a father, "What do you beget?" and to a woman, "Why do you experience birth pangs?"

11 So said the Lord, the Holy One of Israel, and his Creator, "Ask Me about the signs; concerning My children and the work of My hands do you command Me?

12 I made the earth, and I created man upon it; as for Me-My hands stretched out the heavens, and I ordained their host.

again this is pbly controversial, and purely speculation, but this is also the period that it becomes taboo to say yhwh or the name of god amongst the israelites, and he becomes "hashem", which would be convenient for a religion that doesnt want people delving too deep into the origins of its god.

 

[Red-Indian]

again imo isiah is the most influential in this regard, i read the quran, and i read some parts of the Old Testament, and it was obvious that they are completely different writing styles, content, and assertion of power of god, however the latter part of isiah where the entity formerly known as yhwh asserts his authority as the god of everything and IMO becomes the monotheistic god, and never really changes for the jews or islam after that.

imo it wouldnt be wrong to say whoever wrote this passage pretty much defined the monotheistic god. creator of all, physical and metaphysical, and entitled to worship and acknowledgement of all living beings. afaik this was written 40 years after the destruction of the first temple.



again this is pbly controversial, and purely speculation, but this is also the period that it becomes taboo to say yhwh or the name of god amongst the israelites, and he becomes "hashem", which would be convenient for a religion that doesnt want people delving too deep into the origins of its god.

I'm way out of my comfort zone discussing this stuff nowadays. Haven't read anything on the subject in 20 years and that was during my phase of trying to discover the core lie in all religions and expose the whole fraudulent system.

From what I remember though, there's a theory that the historical prophet was the founder or originator of a school/class of YHWH worshippers who kept refining the theory till it got to the real origin of monotheistic religion. Would tie into your theory I guess. Moses unfortunately is difficult since his teachings seem retrofitted to later beliefs and obviously is in the wrong time and place to help with this transition.

 

[ElRaja]

I'm way out of my comfort zone discussing this stuff nowadays. Haven't read anything on the subject in 20 years and that was during my phase of trying to discover the core lie in all religions and expose the whole fraudulent system.

From what I remember though, there's a theory that the historical prophet was the founder or originator of a school/class of YHWH worshippers who kept refining the theory till it got to the real origin of monotheistic religion. Would tie into your theory I guess. Moses unfortunately is difficult since his teachings seem retrofitted to later beliefs and obviously is in the wrong time and place to help with this transition.

the only disagreement i would arguably have with this is that i dont think getting to monotheism was the original goal, as the ancient israelites it seems spent hundreds of years (as evidenced by all the writings of the "prophets") as henotheists, or narrow polytheists. if anything the rabbinic tradition is essentially the ironing out of theology to deal with current problems and getting rid of the historical "wrinkles" which arise as a result.

theres a common theme of religions and civilisations falling when the promises of their gods are proven to be false, chaos ensues, and societies usually collapse. the rabbinic achievement, so to say, was to externalise all of gods features, and promises, whilst still maintaining a theological ground for a connection to that god, and the result was monotheism IMO.

the quran states, very loosely, that if their were multiple gods, they would fight each other, and compete for dominance and lead to chaos. that is seems nonsensical in a literal sense, why would two complimentary entities in some form of cosmic balance compete with each other, however if you take it figuratively it is the arguments the ancient priests must have put forth to ensure that there were no more divisions in the judaic world, as the cosmopolitan henotheistic israelities fell further from the fundamentalist judaens, the latter of whom were instrumental in formalising the old testament texts.

 

[uppercut]

All religions have morality & logic issues, apart from Islam as it has divine , protected words of God himself .

How do you know this to be factually correct? And What was your scientific method to come to that conclusion ?

 

[uppercut]

Describe true sanatanis.

Dang I almost tried to answer this shukhar Inti/Bhagwan/Jesus/Moses/Budha/... in that order

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Dang I almost tried to answer this shukhar Inti/Bhagwan/Jesus/Moses/Budha/... in that order

You chickened out once again.

 

[Itachi]

The logical extension of believing that is Darwinism - survival of the fittest. We might as well get rid of all the eldery and disabled people in the world who will be nothing but a burden to the more stronger of the species. They serve no purpose in world driven by subjective morality.

This is a wrong representation of natural selection to be honest.

Age has nothing to do with natural selection.

 

[RexRex]

This is a wrong representation of natural selection to be honest.

Age has nothing to do with natural selection.

No, what I said is we should get rid of the weaker/disabled people in society. They are a burden. Survival of the fittest is what the Nazis thought the motto should be - a darwinian outcome.

 

[deltexas]

All relgions have inherent flaws and thinge in scriptures that go against modern life and values. These were written 1000s of years ago - so it's understandable. And they have to adapt or be modified per modern norms. Problem is sticking to them and implementing them the same way even in this era and being super rigid and islam leads the way here. That's the main problem that we are seeing worldwide now.

 

[uppercut]

All relgions have inherent flaws and thinge in scriptures that go against modern life and values.

I beg to disagree on that first line as there is no call to treat followers of other religions differently in Hinduism/Jainism/Buddhism/Sikhism... I understand your sentiment but when the larger context is that of human rights there is no comparison with Indic Religions that are very tolerant and have stood the Test of time

 

[deltexas]

I beg to disagree on that first line as there is no call to treat followers of other religions differently in Hinduism/Jainism/Buddhism/Sikhism... I understand your sentiment but when the larger context is that of human rights there is no comparison with Indic Religions that are very tolerant and have stood the Test of time

Point taken on the tolerance for other religions.

 

[RexRex]

I understand your sentiment but when the larger context is that of human rights there is no comparison with Indic Religions that are very tolerant and have stood the Test of time

yes indeed, the caste system and treatment of dalits within hinduism has stood the test of time.

 

[rpant_gabba]

yes indeed, the caste system and treatment of dalits within hinduism has stood the test of time.

Yes, exactly like Monotheistic prescribed slavery which lasted till 1865 and church supported apartheid which lasted till 1990's

• BTW, Have you decided if exodus, deuteronomy etc are given by the "rule giver" to moses? are those reflection of "rule givers" morality?

• how come Xtians don't follow Christ's advice to implement moses's god given laws

• Why do you feel holocaust carried out by the Nazi as bad thing, when Nazi are a xtian army and they were follow gods model of genocide? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gott_mit_uns

• How do you feel about he morality of the self proclaimed last prophet marrying a 9 year old when he was in his 50's?

PS: In case you haven't figured it out, james and robert are a lot more forgiving of a#$%%e i$%&s than I'm.

 

[deltexas]

yes indeed, the caste system and treatment of dalits within hinduism has stood the test of time.

It has not and that's the point he was making. You question thr rongs and if it is you rectify it. You are willing to change it and adapt it. Do that with Islam and get hit with blasphemy charges. No religion unlike Islam takes what's written in the books at total fave value tgat cant be changed or adapted to even if it's intrinsically wrong by modern knowledge and common sense

 

[Champ_Pal]

Yes, exactly like Monotheistic prescribed slavery which lasted till 1865 and church supported apartheid which lasted till 1990's

• BTW, Have you decided if exodus, deuteronomy etc are given by the "rule giver" to moses? are those reflection of "rule givers" morality?

• how come Xtians don't follow Christ's advice to implement moses's god given laws

• Why do you feel holocaust carried out by the Nazi as bad thing, when Nazi are a xtian army and they were follow gods model of genocide? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gott_mit_uns

• How do you feel about he morality of the self proclaimed last prophet marrying a 9 year old when he was in his 50's?

PS: In case you haven't figured it out, james and robert are a lot more forgiving of a#$%%e i$%&s than I'm.

Slavery was finally abolished after the west industrialized and human labor was not needed as much. It was not some God given morality that changed their followers minds.

Jesus abolished the Moses laws. Jesus came with a new covenant. He declared himself as Son of God which is a huge blasphemy according to Old Testament laws. He was crucified for that. Jesus tried to change the old Jewish laws and failed in his life time. But his followers over the next 500 years managed to convert the entire continent of Europe and later on in South America and Africa. Kudos to them for their efforts.

We can argue that Hitler’s army was Christian. Christians try to distance themselves from Hitler and Nazis. To them, Hitler was not following Christ’s path. But the animosity towards Jews stems for Christians as many far right Christian groups blame Jews for Christ’s death. Amazingly, without the death of Christ on the cross, there is no Christianity.

This is why we should not take religions too seriously. The more religious we get, the more crazy it gets. It goes pretty deep.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Slavery was finally abolished after the west industrialized and human labor was not needed as much. It was not some God given morality that changed their followers minds.

Jesus abolished the Moses laws. Jesus came with a new covenant. He declared himself as Son of God which is a huge blasphemy according to Old Testament laws. He was crucified for that. Jesus tried to change the old Jewish laws and failed in his life time. But his followers over the next 500 years managed to convert the entire continent of Europe and later on in South America and Africa. Kudos to them for their efforts.

We can argue that Hitler’s army was Christian. Christians try to distance themselves from Hitler and Nazis. To them, Hitler was not following Christ’s path. But the animosity towards Jews stems for Christians as many far right Christian groups blame Jews for Christ’s death. Amazingly, without the death of Christ on the cross, there is no Christianity.

This is why we should not take religions too seriously. The more religious we get, the more crazy it gets. It goes pretty deep.

Why do you think I started this thread?

 

[ElRaja]

This is why we should not take religions too seriously. The more religious we get, the more crazy it gets. It goes pretty deep.

any dogma is dangerous because you are outsourcing your rationality to someone else, religion is a subset of dogmas which gets a worse rep because its adherents have codified their beliefs and thus outsiders can pinpoint exactly where things get crazy.

 

[rajeshpatel]

Yes, exactly like Monotheistic prescribed slavery which lasted till 1865 and church supported apartheid which lasted till 1990's

• BTW, Have you decided if exodus, deuteronomy etc are given by the "rule giver" to moses? are those reflection of "rule givers" morality?

• how come Xtians don't follow Christ's advice to implement moses's god given laws

• Why do you feel holocaust carried out by the Nazi as bad thing, when Nazi are a xtian army and they were follow gods model of genocide? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gott_mit_uns

• How do you feel about he morality of the self proclaimed last prophet marrying a 9 year old when he was in his 50's?

PS: In case you haven't figured it out, james and robert are a lot more forgiving of a#$%%e i$%&s than I'm.

Similarly, questions can be asked about Hinduism.

What about more than 16K wives of Krishna? How many kids did he procreate? Were all the 16K wives legal? Were some forced marriages?

Why did Ravan kidnap Sita? What was the purpose? Who was Luv and Kush's dad?

I think it is better not to ask questions regarding other religions when our religion itself has so many unanswered questions. I am not sure what the intent of this thread was. I hope it was a genuine question with no malafide intentions.

Peace. I don't mean any mischief by asking such questions. I don't care about atheism or any religion.

I respect all religions.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Similarly, questions can be asked about Hinduism.

and?

Who was Luv and Kush's dad?

not sure. don't care.

I am not sure what the intent of this thread was.

To challenge the view that religions teach morals

I hope it was a genuine question with no malafide intentions.

define malafide intentions

 

[Justcrazy]

Like you said, the only real similiarity between the 3 religions is they all believe in montheism i.e the concept of one God.

> Christians and Jews think Prophet Mohammed read the bible and based on that made up his own religion.
> Jews think that Jesus Christ was just an ordinary man, not the son of God like Christians claim.

Speculating whether it's all the same God is pointless.

The first arabic bible was written centuries after Muhammad, so that is not possible.

 

[Justcrazy]

Similarly, questions can be asked about Hinduism.

What about more than 16K wives of Krishna? How many kids did he procreate? Were all the 16K wives legal? Were some forced marriages?

Why did Ravan kidnap Sita? What was the purpose? Who was Luv and Kush's dad?

I think it is better not to ask questions regarding other religions when our religion itself has so many unanswered questions. I am not sure what the intent of this thread was. I hope it was a genuine question with no malafide intentions.

Peace. I don't mean any mischief by asking such questions. I don't care about atheism or any religion.

I respect all religions.

Krishna had an interesting life according to Purans

 

[rpant_gabba]

The myth behind Vishnu's incarnation as the human Krishna is preserve the earth becos human toll earth became unbearable. He orchestrates the war to save earth. Thats the story anyway.

 

[Champ_Pal]

The first arabic bible was written centuries after Muhammad, so that is not possible.

Hazrat Khadija’s cousin Waraqa Ibn Naufal was translating Bible to Arabic. It was Waraqa that identified Muhammad PBUH as a prophet.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Similarly, questions can be asked about Hinduism.

What about more than 16K wives of Krishna? How many kids did he procreate? Were all the 16K wives legal? Were some forced marriages?

Why did Ravan kidnap Sita? What was the purpose? Who was Luv and Kush's dad?

I think it is better not to ask questions regarding other religions when our religion itself has so many unanswered questions. I am not sure what the intent of this thread was. I hope it was a genuine question with no malafide intentions.

Peace. I don't mean any mischief by asking such questions. I don't care about atheism or any religion.

I respect all religions.

1. As per Bhagavatam of Vaishnava tradition, the demon king Narakasura kidnapped those 16000 women. When Sri Krishna slayed him, all those women requested Krishna to either marry them or they will commit suicide as the society will not accept them anymore. So Krishna married them and gave them the honorary title of queens.

In reality, Sri Krishna’s really married only 8 women.

2. Ravan kidnapped Site to marry her. Ravana was ethical in the sense that he did not want to touch Sita until she wholeheartedly accepted Ravana.

Luv and Kush dad is Rama. Sita only became pregnant after she came back to Ayodhya and lived with Rama for sometime. We know the over Dharmic Rama did not want to accept a pregnant Sita after he heard a washerman comment on Sita’s honor.

Rama did not want anything that will make his kingdom’s people question him or his family’s honor. Hence Rama gets criticized for his decision to send Sita away. It is a valid criticism. There should be a limit to how extreme kingship.

3. You have to question the validity of the religious figures. They are humans and they had their flaws.

Rama was appreciated because of his obedience to his father. He is also appreciated because he would go to any lengths to keep his kingdoms people happy. An ideal king. Not an ideal husband from Sita’s point of view.

I always find Hindu versions of Rama and Krishna a bit over exaggerated. You have to read Jain traditions too to understand the complete picture.

 

[uppercut]

All religions have morality & logic issues, apart from Islam as it has divine , protected words of God himself .

What was the independent verification that you did to ascertain that ? For instance do you really believe that the moon was split or that the world Can survive without lending money on interest? Also the sorry state of soo many Islamic countries tells you a different story altogether.

 

[KingKhanWC]

What was the independent verification that you did to ascertain that ? For instance do you really believe that the moon was split or that the world Can survive without lending money on interest? Also the sorry state of soo many Islamic countries tells you a different story altogether.

The Quran is verified as being unchanged, thus morality from the creators to be accepted as best for mankind . Splitting of moon has nothing to do with morality. Interest does , it’s a form of slavery as the lenders get richer while most recipients are stuck in a cycle of poverty, sometimes for generations.

 

[uppercut]

The Quran is verified as being unchanged, thus morality from the creators to be accepted as best for mankind . Splitting of moon has nothing to do with morality. Interest does , it’s a form of slavery as the lenders get richer while most recipients are stuck in a cycle of poverty, sometimes for generations.

You also claimed it to be logical. Splitting moon falls in the illogical category.

But are you saying that the world can survive without Interest?

 

[KingKhanWC]

You also claimed it to be logical. Splitting moon falls in the illogical category.

But are you saying that the world can survive without Interest

It’s not morality the thread subject but of course it’s logical once you accept the creator & his power . You’re confusing logic with scientific evidence , there isn’t any for god either .

The world & many civilisations survived without interest. There are many companies today which offer interest free payments. Are you from Mars?

 

[Champ_Pal]

It’s not morality the thread subject but of course it’s logical once you accept the creator & his power . You’re confusing logic with scientific evidence , there isn’t any for god either .

The world & many civilisations survived without interest. There are many companies today which offer interest free payments. Are you from Mars?

Thank you. Did not ever think I will hear this from you.

So all your assertions are based on an imaginary being. So your arguments of morality do not hold any ground.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Thank you. Did not ever think I will hear this from you.

So all your assertions are based on an imaginary being. So your arguments of morality do not hold any ground.

You can talk , you get your morality from Bollywood bro

 

[Champ_Pal]

You can talk , you get your morality from Bollywood bro

I do not get my morality from Bollywood. Nice joke.

I was born in a Hindu household. My motto is live and let live. I will never impose my will on others especially when I have no evidence to what I believe in.

 

[IndoorCricket]

One thing I dont understand with religions is characteristic of God. They say man is created in the image of God.
Why would a God get angry and be pity? Why would a God care if someone hurls abuses at it(?).

It is scientifically know that chemicals in our body regulates our mood. God being all creator, cant even control emotions? Not only that, he(?) wipes out cities and sends plagues and punish people who offend him. Sounds like a classic snowflake.

 

[uppercut]

It’s not morality the thread subject but of course it’s logical once you accept the creator & his power . You’re confusing logic with scientific evidence , there isn’t any for god either .

Logic is the bedrock of science.. so please explain how the moon was split and when that actually happened as that would fall under the illogical category.

The world & many civilisations survived without interest. There are many companies today which offer interest free payments. Are you from Mars?

Without the concept of interest the world would never develop and thrive like it does today. Outlawing it would be a recipe for catastrophic disaster. Behind All major inventions that require large funds there are banks or institutions that charge interest.

And there is no such thing as longterm interest free loans ... atleast not in any western country. But If you are in the know send me some links so that I can stop paying interest on my mortgage loan.

And whats with the aggro ?

 

[Red-Indian]

the only disagreement i would arguably have with this is that i dont think getting to monotheism was the original goal, as the ancient israelites it seems spent hundreds of years (as evidenced by all the writings of the "prophets") as henotheists, or narrow polytheists. if anything the rabbinic tradition is essentially the ironing out of theology to deal with current problems and getting rid of the historical "wrinkles" which arise as a result.

I honestly don't have an opinion. I used to vaguely think that the YHWH worshippers kept pushing for their faith to become more and more dominant till it got to a high level of monolatrism and then pushed towards monotheism. It seemed to be logical since any priestly class dedicated to a god would have that as an objective anyway. Maybe it evolved over time as you say.

theres a common theme of religions and civilisations falling when the promises of their gods are proven to be false, chaos ensues, and societies usually collapse. the rabbinic achievement, so to say, was to externalise all of gods features, and promises, whilst still maintaining a theological ground for a connection to that god, and the result was monotheism IMO.

Agreed though it's often a chicken and egg. Which failed first - the civilization or the contract with their gods?

The rabbinic masterpiece of turning the god omnipotent, unwilling to act openly on earth and pushing all promises to the afterlife was a huge achievement which probably is the basis of 50% of modern religion. I don't have a super firm grasp on Buddhist theology but from everything I understand, they got to it first though from a slightly different direction. Tantric Buddhism lost some of that but the essence of monotheism is still there.

 

[Champ_Pal]

One thing I dont understand with religions is characteristic of God. They say man is created in the image of God.
Why would a God get angry and be pity? Why would a God care if someone hurls abuses at it(?).

It is scientifically know that chemicals in our body regulates our mood. God being all creator, cant even control emotions? Not only that, he(?) wipes out cities and sends plagues and punish people who offend him. Sounds like a classic snowflake.

God expects his creation to follow all the rules he sets. Otherwise, he will send them to hell.

But God has no rules for himself. He gets angry, he commits genocide, he acts like a child and gets jealous if you happen to worship a different God.

Basically God does not measure up to his own rules.

 

[IndoorCricket]

God expects his creation to follow all the rules he sets. Otherwise, he will send them to hell.

But God has no rules for himself. He gets angry, he commits genocide, he acts like a child and gets jealous if you happen to worship a different God.

Basically God does not measure up to his own rules.

Sounds like a cry baby and ego-maniac to me. And also a control-freak. A typical megalomaniac.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

he commits genocide

Lol... if God does all the evil things then what does the Satan and his followers do? Well are you an atheist?

 

[Champ_Pal]

Lol... if God does all the evil things then what does the Satan and his followers do? Well are you an atheist?

Exaclty.

Satan should leave his job and retire permanently.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Sounds like a cry baby and ego-maniac to me. And also a control-freak. A typical megalomaniac.

This is exactly what Richard Dawkins said and religious folk call him all sorts of choicest names.

 

[Justcrazy]

Hazrat Khadija’s cousin Waraqa Ibn Naufal was translating Bible to Arabic. It was Waraqa that identified Muhammad PBUH as a prophet.

Yes he identified Muhammad SAW as prophet , not from Bible but from circumstances and characteristics.

 

[Justcrazy]

1. As per Bhagavatam of Vaishnava tradition, the demon king Narakasura kidnapped those 16000 women. When Sri Krishna slayed him, all those women requested Krishna to either marry them or they will commit suicide as the society will not accept them anymore. So Krishna married them and gave them the honorary title of queens.

In reality, Sri Krishna’s really married only 8 women.

2. Ravan kidnapped Site to marry her. Ravana was ethical in the sense that he did not want to touch Sita until she wholeheartedly accepted Ravana.

Luv and Kush dad is Rama. Sita only became pregnant after she came back to Ayodhya and lived with Rama for sometime. We know the over Dharmic Rama did not want to accept a pregnant Sita after he heard a washerman comment on Sita’s honor.

Rama did not want anything that will make his kingdom’s people question him or his family’s honor. Hence Rama gets criticized for his decision to send Sita away. It is a valid criticism. There should be a limit to how extreme kingship.

3. You have to question the validity of the religious figures. They are humans and they had their flaws.

Rama was appreciated because of his obedience to his father. He is also appreciated because he would go to any lengths to keep his kingdoms people happy. An ideal king. Not an ideal husband from Sita’s point of view.

I always find Hindu versions of Rama and Krishna a bit over exaggerated. You have to read Jain traditions too to understand the complete picture.

You gave the background of Krishna marriage to so many women , that is fine , are you trying to say that even though krishna married them , it was platonic relation ?

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Exaclty.

Satan should leave his job and retire permanently.

O got it thats why you consider modi as an avatar of God

 

[KingKhanWC]

Logic is the bedrock of science.. so please explain how the moon was split and when that actually happened as that would fall under the illogical category.




Without the concept of interest the world would never develop and thrive like it does today. Outlawing it would be a recipe for catastrophic disaster. Behind All major inventions that require large funds there are banks or institutions that charge interest.

And there is no such thing as longterm interest free loans ... atleast not in any western country. But If you are in the know send me some links so that I can stop paying interest on my mortgage loan.

And whats with the aggro ?

Lol you just made this up . There are many things which science cannot answer in a logical way but through observation it’s known they are correct . The logic is if God exists , splitting a moon is the least of your issues . As he can do anything , this is logic .

Already answered the question of interest . History & businesses right now don’t charge interest.

Can I ask if you went to school in India or abroad?

 

[Champ_Pal]

You gave the background of Krishna marriage to so many women , that is fine , are you trying to say that even though krishna married them , it was platonic relation ?

He only married to give them a place in the society. No real wife and husband stuff. In reality, Krishna married 8 women.

Some say that Krishna also married every girl (Gopika) in Yadava Clan in Vrindavan. But it was not a real marriage. All the females were in love with Krishna. The only prominent one among them was Radha. She loved Krishna the most. But Krishna never married Radha.

Whatever I am saying is from the Hindu traditions. I will take all these stories with a bucket load of salt. Overly exaggerated.

Jain traditions tells different story. They do not believe in any of the romantic relations of Krishna.

It is just my opinion which may not sit well with many Hindus, I believe Krishna was just a human and an extremely popular figure of his time(if he existed). I want to err on the side of Krishna existing. If he did not exist, he would not be mentioned in Jainism as well. Krishna was so popular for establishing dharma that the Vedic religion followers had to incorporate him as an avatar of Lord Vishnu.

 

[Justcrazy]

He only married to give them a place in the society. No real wife and husband stuff. In reality, Krishna married 8 women.

Some say that Krishna also married every girl (Gopika) in Yadava Clan in Vrindavan. But it was not a real marriage. All the females were in love with Krishna. The only prominent one among them was Radha. She loved Krishna the most. But Krishna never married Radha.

Whatever I am saying is from the Hindu traditions. I will take all these stories with a bucket load of salt. Overly exaggerated.

Jain traditions tells different story. They do not believe in any of the romantic relations of Krishna.

It is just my opinion which may not sit well with many Hindus, I believe Krishna was just a human and an extremely popular figure of his time(if he existed). I want to err on the side of Krishna existing. If he did not exist, he would not be mentioned in Jainism as well. Krishna was so popular for establishing dharma that the Vedic religion followers had to incorporate him as an avatar of Lord Vishnu.

If that is the case , Krishna married them to give them a place in society and did not have physical relations with them , then he was denying them conjugal rights , thus he was a faulty person.

Also you yourself accepted that according to hindu traditions he was never married to Radha , but still had a relation with her , is that trait looked up positively in the society ?

 

[ElRaja]

I honestly don't have an opinion. I used to vaguely think that the YHWH worshippers kept pushing for their faith to become more and more dominant till it got to a high level of monolatrism and then pushed towards monotheism. It seemed to be logical since any priestly class dedicated to a god would have that as an objective anyway. Maybe it evolved over time as you say.

Agreed though it's often a chicken and egg. Which failed first - the civilization or the contract with their gods?

The rabbinic masterpiece of turning the god omnipotent, unwilling to act openly on earth and pushing all promises to the afterlife was a huge achievement which probably is the basis of 50% of modern religion. I don't have a super firm grasp on Buddhist theology but from everything I understand, they got to it first though from a slightly different direction. Tantric Buddhism lost some of that but the essence of monotheism is still there.

id say its a simultaneous failure, some calamity which led to social upheaval must have seemed like god forsaking his people.

id also add to the rabbinic achievement the creation of a nation state without borders, if u dont view judaism as a religion, rather the formalisation of the customs of the people of judah, in a manner that enabled them to keep a nationhood without a nation, it makes sense in a different way.

im not very sure abt buddhism, only buddhism i know is alan watts western zen buddishm, which i always had a soft spot for. i was under the impression buddishm believes in karmic cycles, no end, no begging, no creator and no destroyer. i may be wrong tho.

 

[rpant_gabba]

If that is the case , Krishna married them to give them a place in society and did not have physical relations with them , then he was denying them conjugal rights , thus he was a faulty person.

Krishna is never portrayed as a virtuous person. Anyone with a cursory knowledge of Mahabharata will admit this.

Hell, the purpose of his existence was to get humans to kill each other.

Also you yourself accepted that according to hindu traditions he was never married to Radha , but still had a relation with her , is that trait looked up positively in the society ?

marriage is a late stage societal construct. This is evident from Tamil literature, where protagonists are referred to as "thalaivan" and "thaliavi" and not as husband and wife.

The concept of marriage had to be brought about becos, for lack of a better description. Then there were flawed solutions such as the whole village weddings, childhood marriages etc etc

 

[rpant_gabba]

The logic is if God exists , splitting a moon is the least of your issues . As he can do anything , this is logic .

Yet, he sat on his hands watching millions marched into gas chambers.

Oh, wait you belong in the category of holocaust deniers

This almighty seems to have a good old time watching the Palestinians getting pummeled non-stop.

The omnipotent, moral, merciful one.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Lol... if God does all the evil things then what does the Satan and his followers do? Well are you an atheist?

Bible Gateway passage: Isaiah 45:7 - King James Version

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

www.biblegateway.com

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

Satan: Remember friends, Plagues, great floods and pandemics are gods department.

 

[BouncerGuy]

The issue is trying to apply human limitations to God, who is beyond them. In Islam, God's actions come from His perfect nature, even if they seem contradictory to us.

Instead of attributing human flaws to God, it's important to focus on understanding His perfect attributes.

 

[rpant_gabba]

The issue is trying to apply human limitations to God, who is beyond them. In Islam, God's actions come from His perfect nature, even if they seem contradictory to us.

Instead of attributing human flaws to God, it's important to focus on understanding His perfect attributes.

Logic fail.

On one hand you are convinced he is perfect, merciful, moral blah blah blah and other hand you claim he is beyond human comprehension.

which one is it?

If everything happens due god's will, the Palestinian current suffering is divinely ordained, correct? after all, Jews and muslims pray to the same god. Is god again choosing Jews over muslims?

 

[BouncerGuy]

We can't fully grasp God, but that doesn't mean He's unfair. People cause suffering, not God. He tests us through hardship, but also expects us to help each other.

Instead of just arguing about who's right, Islam teaches us to do what's right to make the world better.

 

[rpant_gabba]

We can't fully grasp God, but that doesn't mean He's unfair. People cause suffering, not God. He tests us through hardship, but also expects us to help each other.

Instead of just arguing about who's right, Islam teaches us to do what's right to make the world better.

except for the apostates right? how about blasphemers? Idolators?

give it up dude. All this dancing by religious people used to work when information was difficult to get your hands on.

 

[rpant_gabba]

If you treat moses, jesus and mohammad as wise men who pushed their peers to be better humans during their time and buy onto that spririt, there is some thing to work with.

If you took their words as a permanent dogma, its utter lunacy IMO.

 

[BouncerGuy]

You gotta be careful when you are trying to mock another's religion.

 

[rpant_gabba]

You gotta be careful when you are trying to mock another's religion.

No, I don't. not when they claim my way or highway.

Do you respect Scientologists? Pastafarians?

 

[BouncerGuy]

Is this thread about religion vs science or some Flying Spaghetti Monster believers??????

Morality of religions was the topic and you should stick to that.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Is this thread about religion vs science or some Flying Spaghetti Monster believers??????

Morality of religions was the topic and you should stick to that.

yes, I've sticking to that. When I'm questioning the morality of religions, is mocking worse?

Anyway, please, justify the morality of "the book" that islam hold in high regards. "god" spoke to a bunch of illiterate goat herders and gave them teh book which preaches genocide, rape, murder and slavery. That is ok according to islam, but pagans and polythiests, nah, thats not ok.

I'll wait.

 

[BouncerGuy]

which preaches genocide, rape, murder and slavery. That is ok according to islam, but pagans and polythiests, nah, thats not ok.

I'll wait.

prove it brother. Do not make illogical statements.

 

[rpant_gabba]

prove it brother. Do not make illogical statements.

Prove what? that old testament preaches slavery and genocide?

Exodus 21: slavery

Exodus 35:2 murder for working on Sabath day

Deuteromny: murder of disobeient child

Deut. 20:10-18: Genocide of Cannanites

Have you had enough?

These are teachings Islam considers to be part of "the good book"

 

[BouncerGuy]

Prove what? that old testament preaches slavery and genocide?

Exodus 21: slavery

Exodus 35:2 murder for working on Sabath day

Deuteromny: murder of disobeient child

Deut. 20:10-18: Genocide of Cannanites

Have you had enough?

These are teachings Islam considers to be part of "the good book"

Anyway, please, justify the morality of "the book" that islam hold in high regards. "god" spoke to a bunch of illiterate goat herders and gave them teh book which preaches genocide, rape, murder and slavery. That is ok according to islam, but pagans and polythiests, nah, thats not ok.

LOL.

I guess you misread or ignored your own statement. Read again

Providing proof from BIBLE That is tempered over the years and no doubts about this fact, instead when I asked about the proof in the ISLAMIC BOOK THAT IS "The HOLY QURAN" as you said.

Have some knowledge about it brother then I hope you will learn something and not make out-od-context statements from other books.

 

[rpant_gabba]

LOL.

I guess you misread or ignored your own statement. Read again

Providing proof from BIBLE That is tempered over the years and no doubts about this fact, instead when I asked about the proof in the ISLAMIC BOOK THAT IS "The HOLY QURAN" as you said.

Have some knowledge about it brother then I hope you will learn something and not make out-od-context statements from other books.

Ok. miscommunication. let me address that.

Islam considers moses and Jesus a prophets and provides special dispensation for people of "the book"

why? when the said book is vile to put it mildly.

but islam has an issue with pagans and polythiests who don't preach that vile crap

why?

Islams also sees up in arms about apostates, blashphemers and idolators all the while looking the other way about slavery.

why?

 

[BouncerGuy]

Ok. miscommunication. let me address that.

Islam considers moses and Jesus a prophets and provides special dispensation for people of "the book"

why? when the said book is vile to put it mildly.

but islam has an issue with pagans and polythiests who don't preach that vile crap

why?

Islams also sees up in arms about apostates, blashphemers and idolators all the while looking the other way about slavery.

why?

All the books other than "THE HOLY QURAN" have been tempered over time by humans. Provide proofs from "HOLY QURAN" as you said earlier THE ISLAMIC BOOK said this and that etc etc...

 

[rpant_gabba]

All the books other than "THE HOLY QURAN" have been tempered over time by humans. Provide proofs from "HOLY QURAN" as you said earlier THE ISLAMIC BOOK said this and that etc etc...

Doesn't islam punish apostates and blasphemers with death.

does islam expicitly forbid slavery even though it vile practice which was common in in the 7th century

stell what islam did to stop the vile habits of monotheism? was it afraid of judaism and xtianity from a poltical angle at that time and willing to trade its morals?

are you saying everthign outside of Quran like Hadith's are meaningless?

 

[Red-Indian]

All the books other than "THE HOLY QURAN" have been tempered over time by humans. Provide proofs from "HOLY QURAN" as you said earlier THE ISLAMIC BOOK said this and that etc etc...

There is plenty of criticism to be honest (websites devoted to it) and is usually explained by stating you've got to understand the context - the time and the era and you've got to trust the learned to interpret the mind of the Prophet to understand what he meant in the modern context.

I'm not sure this is the right forum for the discussion though. There will have to be some disrespect, tempers will fly high and people will get offended. A Pakistani cricket forum is hardly the right venue to critically examine the most holy Islamic book.

 

[BouncerGuy]

Doesn't islam punish apostates and blasphemers with death.

does islam expicitly forbid slavery even though it vile practice which was common in in the 7th century

tell what islam did to stop the vile habits of monotheism? was it afraid of judaism and xtianity from a poltical angle at that time and willing to trade its morals?

are you saying everthign outside of Quran like Hadith's are meaningless?​

​

In the past, some Muslim teachings said that leaving Islam or speaking badly about it could lead to serious punishment. But nowadays, many Muslims believe in freedom of religion and following the Quran's message of kindness.

The Quran descendant when people were used to owning slaves, but it said to treat them well. Later on, many Muslims worked to end slavery, which is now against the law in most Muslim countries.

Islam showed up as a new way for people to believe in one God, and it respected other similar religions like Judaism and Christianity. It wanted to fix some wrong ideas in those religions. Hadiths are stories about the Prophet Muhammad's life that help Muslims understand the Quran better. Some people might not agree on all the details of Hadiths, but they are still important for learning about Islam.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Doesn't islam punish apostates and blasphemers with death.

does islam expicitly forbid slavery even though it vile practice which was common in in the 7th century

stell what islam did to stop the vile habits of monotheism? was it afraid of judaism and xtianity from a poltical angle at that time and willing to trade its morals?

are you saying everthign outside of Quran like Hadith's are meaningless?

Quote me one verse which says Slavery is compulsory. But I can quote many verses of Quran where it discourages slavery so comeback if you can quote one or else don't waste peoples time here.

 

[Red-Indian]

Quote me one verse which says Slavery is compulsory. But I can quote many verses of Quran where it discourages slavery so comeback if you can quote one or else don't waste peoples time here.

Quote me one verse where it says owning a slave even for 5 minutes is utterly immoral and unethical.

We should hold religious books that are suppose to guide all of humanity to a higher standard shouldn't we?

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Quote me one verse where it says owning a slave even for 5 minutes is utterly immoral and unethical.

We should hold religious books that are suppose to guide all of humanity to a higher standard shouldn't we?

In Islam, freeing slaves is a way of expiations of sins. Also Zakat is a compulsory pillar of Islam and even there we find a mention of giving money to those people who were facing slavery. And this is 1400 years before not a recent phenomenon like USA 1861 civil war.

This category of people is defined in surah at-Taubah (9) verse 60:

“The alms are only for the poor and the needy, and those who collect them, and those whose hearts are to be reconciled, and to free the captives and the debtors, and for the cause of Allah, and (for) the wayfarers; a duty imposed by Allah. Allah is knower, Wise.” (The Holy Qur’an 9:60).

Zakat is distributed among 8 asnaf (categories) of people, namely:

Fakir – One who has neither material possessions nor means of livelihood.
Miskin – One with insufficient means of livelihood to meet basic needs.
Amil – One who is appointed to collect zakat.
Muallaf – One who converts to Islam.
Riqab – One who wants to free himself from bondage or the shackles of slavery.
Gharmin – One who is in debt (money borrowed to meet basic, halal expenditure).
Fisabillillah – One who fights for the cause of Allah.
Ibnus Sabil – One who is stranded in journey.

Source: Surah Taubah, Holy Quran

 

[Red-Indian]

In Islam, freeing slaves is a way of expiations of sins. Also Zakat is a compulsory pillar of Islam and even there we find a mention of giving money to those people who were facing slavery. And this is 1400 years before not a recent phenomenon like USA 1861 civil war.

This category of people is defined in surah at-Taubah (9) verse 60:

“The alms are only for the poor and the needy, and those who collect them, and those whose hearts are to be reconciled, and to free the captives and the debtors, and for the cause of Allah, and (for) the wayfarers; a duty imposed by Allah. Allah is knower, Wise.” (The Holy Qur’an 9:60).

Zakat is distributed among 8 asnaf (categories) of people, namely:

Fakir – One who has neither material possessions nor means of livelihood.
Miskin – One with insufficient means of livelihood to meet basic needs.
Amil – One who is appointed to collect zakat.
Muallaf – One who converts to Islam.
Riqab – One who wants to free himself from bondage or the shackles of slavery.
Gharmin – One who is in debt (money borrowed to meet basic, halal expenditure).
Fisabillillah – One who fights for the cause of Allah.
Ibnus Sabil – One who is stranded in journey.

Source: Surah Taubah, Holy Quran

Can you show the verse where it says it is unethical to own a slave either by purchasing one or by winning one in battle and any slave owner who doesn't free the slave within 5 minutes will be condemned to hell for eternity?

 

[Romali_rotti]

All religions provide no evidence of a heaven or hell, afterlife, souls floating peacefully away from the materialistic world in endless nirvana etc.

It is just a belief system that is all, practice it peacefully, do not force your beliefs onto others, do not blackmail/scare monger ppl saying if you don't believe in my god you will go to hell.

Respect that we all have different set of beliefs and accept ppl for who they are, critiquing religion is ok, as long as violence doesn't follow.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Can you show the verse where it says it is unethical to own a slave either by purchasing one or by winning one in battle and any slave owner who doesn't free the slave within 5 minutes will be condemned to hell for eternity?

The religious scripture isn't based on someone's whims and demands. In order to ascertain how it views a particular situation or phenomenon is to interpret and read it's verses pertaining to that situation.

Show me one place in Quran where it says it is compulsory or infact just show where it encourages it.

 

[Red-Indian]

The religious scripture isn't based on someone's whims and demands. In order to ascertain how it views a particular situation or phenomenon is to interpret and read it's verses pertaining to that situation.

Show me one place in Quran where it says it is compulsory or infact just show where it encourages it.

I guess we come back to the point at which this thread started off. The Quran was definitely a morality that was slightly ahead of it's time. When most of society was accepting of treating slaves like an object you owned like say a table, it was refreshing to see the Quran advocating treating slaves with respect and stating that freeing them was virtuous.

However, today humanity has advanced in it's morality and come to the consensus that owning a slave i.e. owning another human being, irrespective of whether you eventually free them, is deeply immoral. Unfortunately, the Quran doesn't reflect that and fallen behind contemporary morality.

I guess you'll now say you have to see the morality in the context of the time which is the entire point I was making.