Morality of Religions- Discussion thread

[Stewie]

if that is the case why are there such dramatic difference in Christianity and Islam ?


Examples: Idol worship, Alcohol, pork, prayer rules just to name the most obvious.

This has been explained tons of times. Can’t believe this question keeps coming back over and over again.

 

[Stewie]

That's a pretty well thought out question. We would survive not descending into chaos, rape, theft and murder the same way most animals do. The 'selfish' gene prioritises survival of the species.

Elephant matriarchs protect not just their young but the young of their entire herd even species. Often lay down their lives to protect the young of another mother.

Vampire bats donate their blood to sick individuals in their brood.

Humans have just codified these instincts of survival of the species into logical common sense rules. Religious prophets/gurus took these common sense rules and presented them with the backing of a god of their creation.

There is absolutely zero proof in your statement, no offense.

It’s all a matter of opinion. You “think” humanity would have behaved that way. But there is no way to prove it.

 

[Stewie]

There's only one way to find out.

Book a charter plane to the Amazon and observe how those isolated tribes live. Those are tribes that have never come into modern human contact and I assume know nothing about mainstream religions. Or observe the Sentinelese who live in the Andaman Islands near India.

Sentinelese - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That’s such a neat idea. I wonder if any studies have been done on these people. Will be interesting to look into.

But having said that, let’s take this premise and go with it. A tribe or group of people without the divine morality of “sky gods” living in isolation in a jungle in this state vs others who have evolved enough to go to the moon.

Is that not interesting?

 

[rpant_gabba]

FYI- you guys won’t reach any closure here.

You are not wrong, If you insist that the god can only be benevolent, mericful etc etc and otherwise he doesn't exist all the while ignoring "sriptures" which demonstrate the exact opposite

Where would we have derived it from?

Since you keep insisting that topic has been diverted,

how about addressing the morality of religions instead of where they came from?

Are the teachings of old testament moral?

Did jesus in his teaching advocate discarding the mosaic law?

you have a problem answering that becos you tied yourself to the god of judaism and xtianity with a different cover.

 

[uppercut]

This has been explained tons of times. Can’t believe this question keeps coming back over and over again.

I dont follow all posts in this thread or any other thread religiously ( no pun intended) . Pls quote the post where you or anyone else explains this.

 

[rpant_gabba]

I dont follow all posts in this thread or any other thread religiously ( no pun intended) . Pls quote the post where you or anyone else explains this.

In techincal fields its called waving the hand and moving to the next slide

 

[Stewie]

I dont follow all posts in this thread or any other thread religiously ( no pun intended) . Pls quote the post where you or anyone else explains this.

You are not wrong, If you insist that the god can only be benevolent, mericful etc etc and otherwise he doesn't exist all the while ignoring "sriptures" which demonstrate the exact opposite

Since you keep insisting that topic has been diverted,

how about addressing the morality of religions instead of where they came from?

Are the teachings of old testament moral?

Did jesus in his teaching advocate discarding the mosaic law?

you have a problem answering that becos you tied yourself to the god of judaism and xtianity with a different cover.

Looks this has been answered a million times before. But I will say it again:

Islam, Christianity and Judaism are all branches of the same faith. Muslims believe we are the continuation and finality of God’s religion. It was incomplete before and Quran completed it ( along with Muhammed’s teachings)
All the stuff in the previous books… whatever you want to call them, injil, zuboor, Torah, Old Testament, New Testament, etc, are not in their true forms and have been modified through the ages. So whatever they teach contrary to Quran is not “accurate”

So all the references to genocides and rape and this and that you guys keep discussing is basically man made.

That’s the Islamic tradition. I know you guys would love to poke holes in it but I tire of the continued questions being raised here by Hindus and atheists alike. We don’t condone any of the ugly stuff but we believe the books are/were real but we don’t believe they are entirely authentic. I hope this question does not come up again. I have explained this a million times already.

Now to the larger question of the debate: if there was a superior entity that created life and gave us a planet with all its resources to live on, that has to be a very superior, advanced and noble being. Why would someone like that create us to simply wreak havoc on ourselves and violate each other? Why would someone like that command us to wage wars, rape, steal and kill each other?

It’s utterly ridiculous you guys are failing to admit the fallacy in your logic. The ugly parts are clearly made up by man to serve his purpose through the ages. You want to justify killing of another tribe of people, put that in your religious scripture. Easy!

This is why we take so much pain in ensuring Quran is not changed or modified. It’s the same for all Shia, Sunni, etc. and it’s the same language it was originally in. I’m sure the naysayers will find plenty to complain about in Quran as well. Maybe topic for another discussion.

But at the end of the day, I keep repeating myself you are all asking the wrong question. You won’t achieve anything out of proudly proclaiming the god if Jesus or Moses is a tyrant because the book has such and such in it. I’m sorry that simply can’t happen. Because if you atheists are so smart to disprove their noble intentions, you cannot reconcile their divinity and their evil. There is no logical way to do it.

Either God exists or HE doesn’t. Let’s stick to this topic rather than trying to prove God is an evil super villain who enjoys us violating each other.

 

[Red-Indian]

There is absolutely zero proof in your statement, no offense.

It’s all a matter of opinion. You “think” humanity would have behaved that way. But there is no way to prove it.

True. This is just the strongest hypothesis currently that seems to fit known observations and have no inherent contradictions. There are others. I'm open to considering them.

We certainly can't use a guy in the sky handing us morality as a theory. It doesn't seem to fit known facts and observations.

 

[Stewie]

True. This is just the strongest hypothesis currently that seems to fit known observations and have no inherent contradictions. There are others. I'm open to considering them.

We certainly can't use a guy in the sky handing us morality as a theory. It doesn't seem to fit known facts and observations.

I still think you are missing the point. If it was not passed down by a guy in the sky, someone must have put the book of morality in human history for us. whether Abraham, Jesus, Muhammad, Moses, were holy men or not, got their message from God or not, is inconsequential. The point is they wanted to lead humanity in all the right direction and provide us with a code. some of it we all agree with and some we do not. I would say most of us agree with a vast majority of it. Don't lie, don't steal, don't kill, be nice to your neighbor, be honest, etc, etc.

So my question is why would we question "the morality of it all" still? At best, it is the word of God and some parts of it have been tainted by man, and at worst, it is a lesson for us constructed by some very smart and intelligent and morally upright people.

The morality of today is derived from the organized religions of human history whether you like it or not. Everything else is speculation as to how we would have evolved in the absence of this guidance.

 

[Justcrazy]

if that is the case why are there such dramatic difference in Christianity and Islam ?


Examples: Idol worship, Alcohol, pork, prayer rules just to name the most obvious.

Differences is between Muslim sects as well. Does that nullify Islam? For example if there is a word in English , five different people spell it five different ways , will it make dictionary wrong or the people wrong.

There is a natural difference between Islam and Christianity , both were different eras with different prophets and different shariah ( laws ). It is called progression. From Adam to Muhammad.

Now there are differences which have been man made themselves. For example you mentioned Idol worship , does Bible says to worship Idol?

When we read even this tampered Bible believe in one God exists , so if someone claims to be Christian but negates his own scriptures , on what grounds he can claim to be a Christian? His identity as Christian is dependant on his scripture , without scriptures , there are NO religions.

 

[Justcrazy]

Your morality needs to be updated with scientific advancements. Some like don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t rape are universal. But things like don’t eat this, stay away from these people , do your work this way only etc can be updated when there is scientific evidence to back it up.

From where those universal laws came , and where is the list to those things ?

 

[Champ_Pal]

From where those universal laws came , and where is the list to those things ?

Common sense. If it hurts you, then don’t do it to others.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Differences is between Muslim sects as well. Does that nullify Islam? For example if there is a word in English , five different people spell it five different ways , will it make dictionary wrong or the people wrong.

There is a natural difference between Islam and Christianity , both were different eras with different prophets and different shariah ( laws ). It is called progression. From Adam to Muhammad.

Now there are differences which have been man made themselves. For example you mentioned Idol worship , does Bible says to worship Idol?

When we read even this tampered Bible believe in one God exists , so if someone claims to be Christian but negates his own scriptures , on what grounds he can claim to be a Christian? His identity as Christian is dependant on his scripture , without scriptures , there are NO religions.

WTH does it mean. Progression?

why is there need for progression if the god is ominpotent and omniscient? if you buy the abrahamic bs

>>He creates adam and eve, who, according to scripture have no knowledge, tells them not eat a fruit of knowledge.

being omniscient did he not know that adam&eve did not have the faculty's to ignore him? then he is not omniscient.

So the their biggest sin is seeking knowledge? the horror. so punishes them

Cain kills his brother in jealous rage, but the same god protects him<<

so seeking knowledge is worse than killing your sibling out of jealousy?

If adam eve are first two humans, are we all progeny of generations of incest?

If you insist those abrahamic stories are true events, claim god is benevolent and merciful, then you have to own the inconsistencies and the mocking that come with it.

Islam, seems like a way ignore all the problematic bits of abrahamic doctrine to that day and simply claim those don't apply to us.

 

[Stewie]

WTH does it mean. Progression?

why is there need for progression if the god is ominpotent and omniscient? if you buy the abrahamic bs

>>He creates adam and eve, who, according to scripture have no knowledge, tells them not eat a fruit of knowledge.

being omniscient did he not know that adam&eve did not have the faculty's to ignore him? then he is not omniscient.

So the their biggest sin is seeking knowledge? the horror. so punishes them

Cain kills his brother in jealous rage, but the same god protects him<<

so seeking knowledge is worse than killing your sibling out of jealousy?

If adam eve are first two humans, are we all progeny of generations of incest?

If you insist those abrahamic stories are true events, claim god is benevolent and merciful, then you have to own the inconsistencies and the mocking that come with it.

Islam, seems like a way ignore all the problematic bits of abrahamic doctrine to that day and simply claim those don't apply to us.

Just like Christians, Jews, Hindus, Other faiths conveniently ignore the distinctly Islamic components of their faith and simply claim they don’t apply to them, you mean?

What a profound point you have just made! I actually never ever thought of that, my God!
Oh I am sorry I may have offended you through that exclamation.

What a joke pseudo intellectual atheists are. Why can’t they all just be agnostics?

 

[rpant_gabba]

Just like Christians, Jews, Hindus, Other faiths conveniently ignore the distinctly Islamic components of their faith and simply claim they don’t apply to them, you mean?

??? timeline chief.

Judaism, Christianity and Hinduism predates islam. more like islam is hodge podge of political convenient stuff from the 7th century.

not that I hold the other in any high regard.

What a joke pseudo intellectual atheists are. Why can’t they all just be agnostics?

LMAO. You are an athiest wrt Thor, Vishnu, Shiva, zeus etc etc. We just have gone one step further.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Brutal.....

Heaven watches this with complete indifference. And then 3000 years ago, thinks 'That's enough of that. It's time to intervene,' we'll pick the most backward, the most barbaric, most illiterate, most superstitious, most savage people we can find, in the most stony are of the world,

we won't appear to the chinese, who can already read or the indus valley civilization, where they know a thing or two

We’ll appear to this brutal superstitious crowd, forced them to cut their way through their neighbors, with slaughter genocide and racism, and settle down in the only part of the middle east, where there is no oil.

And all subsequent revelations occur the same district and without this we wouldn’t know right from wrong.

 

[Stewie]

??? timeline chief.

Judaism, Christianity and Hinduism predates islam. more like islam is hodge podge of political convenient stuff from the 7th century.

not that I hold the other in any high regard.


LMAO. You are an athiest wrt Thor, Vishnu, Shiva, zeus etc etc. We just have gone one step further.

Who cares about timeline? You have to study the teachings and then pass judgment. You seem to have done a fair bit of studying… even if it’s just surface reviews … of Judaism and Christianity. Why don’t you study Islam and come back with any questions? At best you have been able to simply whine about the slavery issue.

Whether any of the morality or religion is divine or not, it’s all derived from religion. You can cry yourself to sleep at night telling yourself you would have developed whatever values you love by without any of it but the truth is even you are not sure about it.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Who cares about timeline?

Comedy gold right there.

Islam which came after hinduism, judaism and xtianty somehow influenced them and not the way around.

I'vent come across bigger idiocy.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Comedy gold right there.

Islam which came after hinduism, judaism and xtianty somehow influenced them and not the way around.

I'vent come across bigger idiocy.

Almost like WAQF board in india which does a land grab wherever they feel like. Goes WAQF board is consistent with islamic principles.

 

[Stewie]

Almost like WAQF board in india which does a land grab wherever they feel like. Goes WAQF board is consistent with islamic principles.

Comedy gold right there.

Islam which came after hinduism, judaism and xtianty somehow influenced them and not the way around.

I'vent come across bigger idiocy.

Once again I feel this is an utterly pointless debate. You come here asking questions about religion, obviously as atheist you are clueless about them. When others try explain their POv to you, you continue to approach it with an atheist angle. I keep telling you about the whole ideology of Abrahamic faiths and the continuation, others have as well but the concept and idea is still lost on you.

So why do we even bother with this stuff. I am not the only one other Indians probably share my sentiment as well that you put up the facade of debating this stuff but you refuse to even read the material and POv shared with you and keep regurgitating your own pointless theories that serve add absolutely zilch to the context of this debate.

To a religious person, a timeline does not mean anything because it’s the same faith to us that sent new and updated directions to humanity as humanity evolved. I don’t feel this concept should be this hard to grasp unless you come with a predetermined notion that it’s all fake.. in which case we don’t have anything to discuss at all.

 

[guard]

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.

Adding the compulsory Muslim dig, that’s how inclusive and tolerant Hindus are..

Looks this has been answered a million times before. But I will say it again:

Islam, Christianity and Judaism are all branches of the same faith. Muslims believe we are the continuation and finality of God’s religion. It was incomplete before and Quran completed it ( along with Muhammed’s teachings)
All the stuff in the previous books… whatever you want to call them, injil, zuboor, Torah, Old Testament, New Testament, etc, are not in their true forms and have been modified through the ages. So whatever they teach contrary to Quran is not “accurate”

So all the references to genocides and rape and this and that you guys keep discussing is basically man made.

That’s the Islamic tradition. I know you guys would love to poke holes in it but I tire of the continued questions being raised here by Hindus and atheists alike. We don’t condone any of the ugly stuff but we believe the books are/were real but we don’t believe they are entirely authentic. I hope this question does not come up again. I have explained this a million times already.

Now to the larger question of the debate: if there was a superior entity that created life and gave us a planet with all its resources to live on, that has to be a very superior, advanced and noble being. Why would someone like that create us to simply wreak havoc on ourselves and violate each other? Why would someone like that command us to wage wars, rape, steal and kill each other?

It’s utterly ridiculous you guys are failing to admit the fallacy in your logic. The ugly parts are clearly made up by man to serve his purpose through the ages. You want to justify killing of another tribe of people, put that in your religious scripture. Easy!

This is why we take so much pain in ensuring Quran is not changed or modified. It’s the same for all Shia, Sunni, etc. and it’s the same language it was originally in. I’m sure the naysayers will find plenty to complain about in Quran as well. Maybe topic for another discussion.

But at the end of the day, I keep repeating myself you are all asking the wrong question. You won’t achieve anything out of proudly proclaiming the god if Jesus or Moses is a tyrant because the book has such and such in it. I’m sorry that simply can’t happen. Because if you atheists are so smart to disprove their noble intentions, you cannot reconcile their divinity and their evil. There is no logical way to do it.

Either God exists or HE doesn’t. Let’s stick to this topic rather than trying to prove God is an evil super villain who enjoys us violating each other.

They would rather wave their hand and move onto the next slide

 

[Champ_Pal]

Who cares about timeline? You have to study the teachings and then pass judgment. You seem to have done a fair bit of studying… even if it’s just surface reviews … of Judaism and Christianity. Why don’t you study Islam and come back with any questions? At best you have been able to simply whine about the slavery issue.

Whether any of the morality or religion is divine or not, it’s all derived from religion. You can cry yourself to sleep at night telling yourself you would have developed whatever values you love by without any of it but the truth is even you are not sure about it.

There was no Islam prior to 7th century. There were Christians of various denominations(many were considered heretics) and Jews along with Pagan Arabs living there.
Holy Kaaba used to house the Idols of Pagan Arabs along with the statue of Mother Mary and baby Jesus. It was a sanctuary where everyone used to get along and no fighting was allowed irrespective of any enmities or grudges.

Slavery issue will be discussed here because the thread is about the morality of religions.

Of course morality of various people around the world comes from religion which in itself is a product of the environment and political situation of those times. Religion also undergoes changes to accommodate the changing society and political situation. Ideas are borrowed whenever an invading force enters the society.

No one is crying about how values are developed. The values of a society and religion both feed each other and grow in tandem. Even environment and weather plays a huge role in the religion and values of the society.

 

[Stewie]

There was no Islam prior to 7th century. There were Christians of various denominations(many were considered heretics) and Jews along with Pagan Arabs living there.
Holy Kaaba used to house the Idols of Pagan Arabs along with the statue of Mother Mary and baby Jesus. It was a sanctuary where everyone used to get along and no fighting was allowed irrespective of any enmities or grudges.

Slavery issue will be discussed here because the thread is about the morality of religions.

Of course morality of various people around the world comes from religion which in itself is a product of the environment and political situation of those times. Religion also undergoes changes to accommodate the changing society and political situation. Ideas are borrowed whenever an invading force enters the society.

No one is crying about how values are developed. The values of a society and religion both feed each other and grow in tandem. Even environment and weather plays a huge role in the religion and values of the society.

Is this supposed to be a slight on Muslims somehow?

You should really read up on the history. Muslims had migrated to Medina and would not have bothered with the meccans, it was their hostility that forced Muslims to fight back and when they did, they made sure nobody is hostile towards them again in the basis of their faith.
Other religions were allowed to continue under their rule. Kaaba has a historical significance in Islam as we believe Ibrahim laid the foundation for it and built it so we took it back.

This is no different from
Hindus reclaiming ram mandir in place of Babri masjid.

But the last part of your post I agree with… albeit cautiously. The evolution of human society itself does have a lot to do with it. If it did not God would not have sent his message to humanity in sections over so many centuries. Humanity had to mature and evolve to grasp it fully.

 

[Justcrazy]

WTH does it mean. Progression?

why is there need for progression if the god is ominpotent and omniscient? if you buy the abrahamic bs

>>He creates adam and eve, who, according to scripture have no knowledge, tells them not eat a fruit of knowledge.

being omniscient did he not know that adam&eve did not have the faculty's to ignore him? then he is not omniscient.

So the their biggest sin is seeking knowledge? the horror. so punishes them

Cain kills his brother in jealous rage, but the same god protects him<<

so seeking knowledge is worse than killing your sibling out of jealousy?

If adam eve are first two humans, are we all progeny of generations of incest?

If you insist those abrahamic stories are true events, claim god is benevolent and merciful, then you have to own the inconsistencies and the mocking that come with it.

Islam, seems like a way ignore all the problematic bits of abrahamic doctrine to that day and simply claim those don't apply to us.

Look this way you can keep asking 1000 of questions , this is never ending process , stick to one point and then after that raise another. Before in one of the lasts posts I asked one question. I asked regarding the killings by the atheist , does that not mean that even atheist ideology has killed people for there ideology ?

If you agree , we can move to your next point mentioned in this particular post.

 

[Justcrazy]

Common sense. If it hurts you, then don’t do it to others.

Common sense can vary from person to person , so you want to say morality depends on individual to individual case ? Am I right ?

 

[rpant_gabba]

Look this way you can keep asking 1000 of questions , this is never ending process , stick to one point and then after that raise another. Before in one of the lasts posts I asked one question. I asked regarding the killings by the atheist , does that not mean that even atheist ideology has killed people for there ideology ?

If you agree , we can move to your next point mentioned in this particular post.

there is no athiest ideology.

an athiest lacks belief in god. thats it. it says nothing else about him.

of course, if you make the claims that monotheism and dictates/demands what non-believers should and shouldn't do, there will be all kinds of questions. If the history and current behavior of believers is as sordid as it is., there will be even more questions.

 

[Red-Indian]

I still think you are missing the point. If it was not passed down by a guy in the sky, someone must have put the book of morality in human history for us. whether Abraham, Jesus, Muhammad, Moses, were holy men or not, got their message from God or not, is inconsequential. The point is they wanted to lead humanity in all the right direction and provide us with a code. some of it we all agree with and some we do not. I would say most of us agree with a vast majority of it. Don't lie, don't steal, don't kill, be nice to your neighbor, be honest, etc, etc.

So my question is why would we question "the morality of it all" still? At best, it is the word of God and some parts of it have been tainted by man, and at worst, it is a lesson for us constructed by some very smart and intelligent and morally upright people.

The morality of today is derived from the organized religions of human history whether you like it or not. Everything else is speculation as to how we would have evolved in the absence of this guidance.

Sure yeah. I think we're back where we started. Most big religious leaders - Buddha, Jesus, Shankaracharya, Mohammad etc. have done a pretty bang up job codifying and disseminating contemporary advanced moral thought of their times. We owe them a lot of debt and you're also right that most modern law is a direct descendant of their codifications. If we had to depend on logic and not god as a dissemination method, we would've taken much longer to get where we are today.

It's just that unless we accept that human morality is human deduced, we will struggle to advance it. For a lot of human history, as morality advanced, new religions/sects emerged to keep up or (if you prefer) be slightly ahead of it.

When morality consensus was 'don't kill and enslave in your tribe/community', some holy guy picked it up and turned it into a message from god.
When it was 'don't kill anyone unless in the cause of justice, treat slaves well and protect women', again some guy made it rules from his god.
Now that we've figured out it's 'killing itself is immoral, slavery is wrong etc.', no religion is coming up to codify our new thoughts. We either need a new prophet and religion to turn this into god's message or need to accept that morality is human deduced and can evolve.

 

[Justcrazy]

there is no athiest ideology.

an athiest lacks belief in god. thats it. it says nothing else about him.

of course, if you make the claims that monotheism and dictates/demands what non-believers should and shouldn't do, there will be all kinds of questions. If the history and current behavior of believers is as sordid as it is., there will be even more questions.

Brother , Ideology does not necessarily has to have God involved. Do you understand that ?

a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

This is what is ideology.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Brother , Ideology does not necessarily has to have God involved. Do you understand that ?

a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

This is what is ideology.

Yes. In being athiest, there is nothing else beyond lack of belief. You lack belief in Krishna, Zeus, Thor, Apollo, Zoraster and thousands of deitys worshipped by mankind in it history. Athiests go one stop further. Thats it.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Common sense can vary from person to person , so you want to say morality depends on individual to individual case ? Am I right ?

Fundamental things like don’t hurt others, don’t steal, don’t rape are universal and it is common sense.

Humans made laws to govern it efficiently. They amended those laws, discarded some of them. It took centuries and decades to arrive at where we are now. These laws are not made in a day or an hour by one man which religious folk believe. It’s all trial and error. It’s an ongoing experiment.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Is this supposed to be a slight on Muslims somehow?

You should really read up on the history. Muslims had migrated to Medina and would not have bothered with the meccans, it was their hostility that forced Muslims to fight back and when they did, they made sure nobody is hostile towards them again in the basis of their faith.
Other religions were allowed to continue under their rule. Kaaba has a historical significance in Islam as we believe Ibrahim laid the foundation for it and built it so we took it back.

This is no different from
Hindus reclaiming ram mandir in place of Babri masjid.

But the last part of your post I agree with… albeit cautiously. The evolution of human society itself does have a lot to do with it. If it did not God would not have sent his message to humanity in sections over so many centuries. Humanity had to mature and evolve to grasp it fully.

There is no evidence of Abraham holding Kaaba. There is no evidence that Abraham ever going that far down south into Arabian desert with Hajra and Ishmael.
There was evidence of a temple

The Proof Of Ram Temple At Ayodhya That You May Have Missed

Was the Babri Masjid built on the remains of a Hindu temple? The issue has been under discussion since the very beginning and now the Supreme Court has passed the judgment on the issue on Saturday. How Did Pakistan Respond To The Ayodhya Verdict? When the Director-General of the Indian...

www.eurasiantimes.com

Archeological survey of India found evidence of an ancient temple where the Babri mosque was built. That is why the court allowed for the construction of the New temple. It took more than 3 decades to arrive at the conclusion after gathering all the needed evidence.

We can argue about rhe existence of Rama the King. No physical or contemporary evidence of his existence can be found anywhere in India. But there is enough evidence for the existence of an ancient temple at the Babri Mosque location.

 

[Stewie]

There is no evidence of Abraham holding Kaaba. There is no evidence that Abraham ever going that far down south into Arabian desert with Hajra and Ishmael.
There was evidence of a temple

The Proof Of Ram Temple At Ayodhya That You May Have Missed

Was the Babri Masjid built on the remains of a Hindu temple? The issue has been under discussion since the very beginning and now the Supreme Court has passed the judgment on the issue on Saturday. How Did Pakistan Respond To The Ayodhya Verdict? When the Director-General of the Indian...

www.eurasiantimes.com

Archeological survey of India found evidence of an ancient temple where the Babri mosque was built. That is why the court allowed for the construction of the New temple. It took more than 3 decades to arrive at the conclusion after gathering all the needed evidence.

We can argue about rhe existence of Rama the King. No physical or contemporary evidence of his existence can be found anywhere in India. But there is enough evidence for the existence of an ancient temple at the Babri Mosque location.

We don't need a Hindu to certify evidence of Abraham laying foundation for Kaaba. The Islamic traditions are good enough for us.

 

[Champ_Pal]

We don't need a Hindu to certify evidence of Abraham laying foundation for Kaaba. The Islamic traditions are good enough for us.

There you go. Bringing the religion or beliefs of the questioner when answering the question.

Abraham was from Haran which was in Southern Turkey. He was 90+ years old at the time he took his wife Hagar and son Ishmael and took them to the Meccan desert. Haran is 1200 km's from Mecca. If we have to believe a 90 year old man could travel that far in a desert along with is wife, then you really need super strong faith to believe in that story.

It is hard enough to believe the Biblical narrative that Abraham took Hagar and Ishmael to Paran which is about 600 kms from Paran. It is not logistically possible.

 

[Stewie]

Sure yeah. I think we're back where we started. Most big religious leaders - Buddha, Jesus, Shankaracharya, Mohammad etc. have done a pretty bang up job codifying and disseminating contemporary advanced moral thought of their times. We owe them a lot of debt and you're also right that most modern law is a direct descendant of their codifications. If we had to depend on logic and not god as a dissemination method, we would've taken much longer to get where we are today.

It's just that unless we accept that human morality is human deduced, we will struggle to advance it. For a lot of human history, as morality advanced, new religions/sects emerged to keep up or (if you prefer) be slightly ahead of it.

When morality consensus was 'don't kill and enslave in your tribe/community', some holy guy picked it up and turned it into a message from god.
When it was 'don't kill anyone unless in the cause of justice, treat slaves well and protect women', again some guy made it rules from his god.
Now that we've figured out it's 'killing itself is immoral, slavery is wrong etc.', no religion is coming up to codify our new thoughts. We either need a new prophet and religion to turn this into god's message or need to accept that morality is human deduced and can evolve.

This could make for a wonderful plot for a 5th Matrix movie.
But on a serious note, it sounds to me what you saying is that the question is really of guidance. Guidance to help us through an organic human societal and intellectual evolution, isn't it? As we grow and run into new challenges or think of new things and ideologies, how do we reconcile all that with the ages old religious edict?

In Islamic framework, there are concepts of Ijma and Ijithad, that tackle exactly this question. Without getting into the nitty gritty, the idea is that an individual (in the case of Ijtihad) or the larger community (Ijma) can discuss and have consensus on a topic, issue, problem, etc in the light of precedents or common sense thinking and come up with a decision. This decision then holds true and becomes law for the rest of the Muslims. The decision of course has to NOT violate existing directives found in the Quran and Fiqh.

Other religions may or may not have have something similar. Maybe Catholicism does as well because the Pope is considered the spiritual leader and can provide the necessary guidance.

 

[Stewie]

There you go. Bringing the religion or beliefs of the questioner when answering the question.

Abraham was from Haran which was in Southern Turkey. He was 90+ years old at the time he took his wife Hagar and son Ishmael and took them to the Meccan desert. Haran is 1200 km's from Mecca. If we have to believe a 90 year old man could travel that far in a desert along with is wife, then you really need super strong faith to believe in that story.

It is hard enough to believe the Biblical narrative that Abraham took Hagar and Ishmael to Paran which is about 600 kms from Paran. It is not logistically possible.

None of that is possible if you want hard evidence. There is no hard evidence of Ibrahim ever existing, or him being 90 when he supposedly laid the foundation for Kaaba. All we have is from the holy books. so if you believe it, you gotta go all in. You cannot academically scrutinize bits and pieces of it as you please.

There are a multitude of Jewish, Christian scholars, religious historians, theologians, etc who happen to agree with the origins of Kaaba in the Islamic tradition. You can Google for details.

 

[Champ_Pal]

None of that is possible if you want hard evidence. There is no hard evidence of Ibrahim ever existing, or him being 90 when he supposedly laid the foundation for Kaaba. All we have is from the holy books. so if you believe it, you gotta go all in. You cannot academically scrutinize bits and pieces of it as you please.

There are a multitude of Jewish, Christian scholars, religious historians, theologians, etc who happen to agree with the origins of Kaaba in the Islamic tradition. You can Google for details.

We cannot prove existence of Abraham. But we can definitely discuss and scrutinize a 90 year old man walking a thousand miles with a pouch of water with his wife and an infant son. Its not physically possible.

 

[Stewie]

We cannot prove existence of Abraham. But we can definitely discuss and scrutinize a 90 year old man walking a thousand miles with a pouch of water with his wife and an infant son. Its not physically possible.

There is a lot not physically possible in religious history. I keep saying we cannot say it never happened. That's part of faith.

There are tons of stories in Hindu books as well that don't sound plausible at all but most Hindus believe they did happen due to their divine nature.

That's what religion or faith is.

 

[Champ_Pal]

There is a lot not physically possible in religious history. I keep saying we cannot say it never happened. That's part of faith.

There are tons of stories in Hindu books as well that don't sound plausible at all but most Hindus believe they did happen due to their divine nature.

That's what religion or faith is.

Its mythology. Religious scripture writers have to massively elevate the stature of great men of their time to show the miracle of their favorite God. This is same in Hindu scriptures. Kings like Ram and Krishna may or may not have existed. But the stories written about them elevate them to unhuman levels. This is why many of the deeds of what Krishna did fall under mythology.

Faith cannot override logic.

 

[Stewie]

Its mythology. Religious scripture writers have to massively elevate the stature of great men of their time to show the miracle of their favorite God. This is same in Hindu scriptures. Kings like Ram and Krishna may or may not have existed. But the stories written about them elevate them to unhuman levels. This is why many of the deeds of what Krishna did fall under mythology.

Faith cannot override logic.

Maybe you should resort to Googling to get your answer on this matter for what its worth. Like I mentioned there is a school of thought that agrees with the Islamic tradition and have provided arguments for it.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Maybe you should resort to Googling to get your answer on this matter for what its worth. Like I mentioned there is a school of thought that agrees with the Islamic tradition and have provided arguments for it.

Schools of thought people are still religious folks. They don't go by reality and logic.

 

[Red-Indian]

This could make for a wonderful plot for a 5th Matrix movie.
But on a serious note, it sounds to me what you saying is that the question is really of guidance. Guidance to help us through an organic human societal and intellectual evolution, isn't it? As we grow and run into new challenges or think of new things and ideologies, how do we reconcile all that with the ages old religious edict?

In Islamic framework, there are concepts of Ijma and Ijithad, that tackle exactly this question. Without getting into the nitty gritty, the idea is that an individual (in the case of Ijtihad) or the larger community (Ijma) can discuss and have consensus on a topic, issue, problem, etc in the light of precedents or common sense thinking and come up with a decision. This decision then holds true and becomes law for the rest of the Muslims. The decision of course has to NOT violate existing directives found in the Quran and Fiqh.

Other religions may or may not have have something similar. Maybe Catholicism does as well because the Pope is considered the spiritual leader and can provide the necessary guidance.

I suspect there are similar traditions even if not clearly worded as such in all religions. Else India would still be stuck with the caste system and we would be implementing some of the unusual punishments from the Old testament in Israel.

However the updation only works if folks are willing to accept logic and deviations from the religious texts. For example most educated Muslims will fully endorse Sharia as a rightful system of justice but hardly any would actually want to live in a country where the authorities would cut a limb off for theft or impose death for apostasy. This is great advancement but what about the uneducated Muslims? What about the uneducated Hindus who still believe they are defiled by contact with an untouchable?

Religion in general resists change like crazy and of late (and by that I mean the last 1000 years) has to be dragged kicking and screaming into accepting each change in human thought, philosophy and morality. I think we need a better way to drive consensus and advance morality than religious 'Ijtehad' as you call it. To be fair, most western nations have already divorced morality from religion - banning capital punishment, decriminalisation of adultery, LGBT acceptance - all this is happening through the ballot box and the courts not through religious prophets or religious scholar consensus as it happened through most of human history. Developing countries cannot get there overnight but have to find a better middle way. Some are actually sliding back unfortunately.

 

[Stewie]

Schools of thought people are still religious folks. They don't go by reality and logic.

If you want to follow reality and logic the concept of religion goes out the window. The whole concept, that is. Maybe Hindus should not object to eating meat then because human beings are omnivores. Maybe people should stop celebrating occasions like Christmas and Hannakah and Eid and stop performing the pilgrimages. Maybe Hindus in India should consider the origins of Ram Mandir as well because Ram was not a DIETY but just a man and at best the evidence he was born in Ayodhaya is half baked.

We have been over this multiple times before. its all based on faith. If God wanted Ibrahim to build Kaaba in Mecca, there is nothing you or I or anybody can say or do to nullify His Will and it did happen. Pretty plain and simple..

 

[Stewie]

I suspect there are similar traditions even if not clearly worded as such in all religions. Else India would still be stuck with the caste system and we would be implementing some of the unusual punishments from the Old testament in Israel.

However the updation only works if folks are willing to accept logic and deviations from the religious texts. For example most educated Muslims will fully endorse Sharia as a rightful system of justice but hardly any would actually want to live in a country where the authorities would cut a limb off for theft or impose death for apostasy. This is great advancement but what about the uneducated Muslims? What about the uneducated Hindus who still believe they are defiled by contact with an untouchable?

Religion in general resists change like crazy and of late (and by that I mean the last 1000 years) has to be dragged kicking and screaming into accepting each change in human thought, philosophy and morality. I think we need a better way to drive consensus and advance morality than religious 'Ijtehad' as you call it. To be fair, most western nations have already divorced morality from religion - banning capital punishment, decriminalisation of adultery, LGBT acceptance - all this is happening through the ballot box and the courts not through religious prophets or religious scholar consensus as it happened through most of human history. Developing countries cannot get there overnight but have to find a better middle way. Some are actually sliding back unfortunately.

For the record, Ijtehad is a Muslim term and I by no means intended that it should be applied across the board to everyone.

With that out of the way, some of the stuff you mentioned is still up for debate even in the western world and the morality even divorced from religion is not set in stone far as the standards you mentioned. Capital punishment is still favored in some western countries. The southern US states are still big believers in it. If someone was found guilty of cold blooded murder, I don't have an issue with him/her getting the lethal injection. I don't see how that goes against modern morality either. Will I be ok with paying for that person's upkeep in a prison during a life sentence out of my tax dollars? NO!

So you see we are already in disagreement even though historically we tend to agree with most things on this forum.

Also, KSA probably has the most draconian Sharia laws in place. I know of a lot of educated Pakistanis who live there and don't have a problem living there. If you are not going to commit theft, murder, adultery and such then you don't have to worry about these laws. I do have a problem with females restrictions though and I feel the laws can be amended in that regard. But apart from that, as Muslim I would not complain about living in a society governed by Sharia law. I would welcome it as long as its not the military or some royal family lording over the rest. But perhaps that's another discussion.

Even on LGBTQ stuff, a lot of white Americans I know have issues with the recent change and laws. There is a great pushback on the whole gender identification nonsense. Then there is the whole abortion situation which I am sure you are aware of.

So you see morality is still defined by other standards than religion, there are still liberal and conservative values existing in the society whether they stem directly from religion or not and these conflicts do exist even in developed countries.

In modern western states where you have separation of church and state, the best way for consensus is voting. But religious people still derive morality at a personal level from religion when they consider their vote. So how would you escape it? lol

 

[Champ_Pal]

If you want to follow reality and logic the concept of religion goes out the window. The whole concept, that is. Maybe Hindus should not object to eating meat then because human beings are omnivores. Maybe people should stop celebrating occasions like Christmas and Hannakah and Eid and stop performing the pilgrimages. Maybe Hindus in India should consider the origins of Ram Mandir as well because Ram was not a DIETY but just a man and at best the evidence he was born in Ayodhaya is half baked.

We have been over this multiple times before. its all based on faith. If God wanted Ibrahim to build Kaaba in Mecca, there is nothing you or I or anybody can say or do to nullify His Will and it did happen. Pretty plain and simple..

Exactly.

Would you make decisions for yourself and your family based on logic or by blind faith?

Regarding Hindus not eating beef, anyone giving a scriptural evidence should not be accepted. If the beef ban is based on India being an agrarian economy and the need for cattle is the reason given, then it makes some sense. It may have worked historically. But in this day and age where machines are replacing age old method of using cattle for ploughing the fields, it does not make much sense for beef ban. All traditions must be questioned.

I never understood the pilgrimages concept. On one hand they say God is everywhere and he or she can see you all the time. Then you don't need to visit a particular place to offer prayers and find God. I always maintained Ram and Krishna are humans. They were elevated to God status by calling them Avatars or incarnations of God himself as they were extraordinary men of their time.

If everything is based on faith alone, then we are leading a false life and deluding ourselves everyday into something that does not exist.

 

[Red-Indian]

For the record, Ijtehad is a Muslim term and I by no means intended that it should be applied across the board to everyone.

With that out of the way, some of the stuff you mentioned is still up for debate even in the western world and the morality even divorced from religion is not set in stone far as the standards you mentioned. Capital punishment is still favored in some western countries. The southern US states are still big believers in it. If someone was found guilty of cold blooded murder, I don't have an issue with him/her getting the lethal injection. I don't see how that goes against modern morality either. Will I be ok with paying for that person's upkeep in a prison during a life sentence out of my tax dollars? NO!

So you see we are already in disagreement even though historically we tend to agree with most things on this forum.

Also, KSA probably has the most draconian Sharia laws in place. I know of a lot of educated Pakistanis who live there and don't have a problem living there. If you are not going to commit theft, murder, adultery and such then you don't have to worry about these laws. I do have a problem with females restrictions though and I feel the laws can be amended in that regard. But apart from that, as Muslim I would not complain about living in a society governed by Sharia law. I would welcome it as long as its not the military or some royal family lording over the rest. But perhaps that's another discussion.

Even on LGBTQ stuff, a lot of white Americans I know have issues with the recent change and laws. There is a great pushback on the whole gender identification nonsense. Then there is the whole abortion situation which I am sure you are aware of.

So you see morality is still defined by other standards than religion, there are still liberal and conservative values existing in the society whether they stem directly from religion or not and these conflicts do exist even in developed countries.

In modern western states where you have separation of church and state, the best way for consensus is voting. But religious people still derive morality at a personal level from religion when they consider their vote. So how would you escape it? lol

Hmm...obviously this isn't going anywhere but it's still an interesting debate. And I did anticipate we'd start differing somewhere here. It would be really boring talking otherwise.

First - sure...a lot of Muslims (and even Hindus and Christians) do live in Saudi under those old fashioned morality laws but ask them about quality of life and whether they would prefer to live in the west under a different framework and I suspect you'd get interesting answers if they were being honest. The problem with religious morality is that it's not designed with human frailty in mind. Yes you can say no need to worry if you're not going to commit a crime but what about being falsely accused, what about a moment of frailty, what about being wrongly judged because your lawyer was incompetent? If you're going to say that wouldn't happen in a system that perfectly follows Islamic law, then if no country is able to implement it, maybe it just is not meant to work in human society.

I'm also well aware there is still debate on moral and legal standards even in the west but even with all your exceptions, you can't deny it's moved well ahead of western religious books. Can you name a country in the west where slavery is legal? Or a country where adultery is still a criminal offense? Or where one's sexual orientation is a crime? Debate's always going to be there but slow or fast, societal moral consensus is diverging from religion. Whether religion accepts this change and drives it forward like it has in the past or gets left behind is up to it. They can fight through the ballot box but in my opinion, that's a bit of raging against the dying of the light.

Finally I have no problem if individuals follow a stricter personal code of morality driven by religion than societal mandated morality. But they can't enforce it on others. For example, if it turns out that your daughter/son has had premarital sex, you can't punish her/him stronger than society allows.

 

[Stewie]

Exactly.

Would you make decisions for yourself and your family based on logic or by blind faith?

Regarding Hindus not eating beef, anyone giving a scriptural evidence should not be accepted. If the beef ban is based on India being an agrarian economy and the need for cattle is the reason given, then it makes some sense. It may have worked historically. But in this day and age where machines are replacing age old method of using cattle for ploughing the fields, it does not make much sense for beef ban. All traditions must be questioned.

I never understood the pilgrimages concept. On one hand they say God is everywhere and he or she can see you all the time. Then you don't need to visit a particular place to offer prayers and find God. I always maintained Ram and Krishna are humans. They were elevated to God status by calling them Avatars or incarnations of God himself as they were extraordinary men of their time.

If everything is based on faith alone, then we are leading a false life and deluding ourselves everyday into something that does not exist.

That's not entirely accurate and I think my statement needed a qualifier as well. If human are to follow reality and logic as they perceive it, logic goes out the window. Our perceptions are limited is the crux of the basis of religion and faith.

And the logic you gave for banning cow slaughter is also nonsensical. Most agrarian societies in the world have breeding programs for cows in place. Pakistan is an agrarian society. I highly doubt we are running short of cows.

Religions find ways to justify their actions through logic. I cannot speak for others but Islam provides a very good reason for pilgrimage. You can Google that yourself.

Religion can only be a detriment if we as human beings allow it to become one. I think the basis of religions is good, they mean well and they start off meaning well till humans pervert it. If you are finding fault with faith and religion for false lives and deluding yourself, trust me in absence of religion, human beings would have found something else to fill in the space. We are by nature a combination of negative and positive emotions, thoughts, actions, sentiments, etc, etc. We kill not just in the name of religion but because we look different, speak different, eat different, live different, behave different. etc, etc, etc. Worshipping a different God (or no God at all) is just one aspect of our tendency to breed conflict.

 

[Champ_Pal]

That's not entirely accurate and I think my statement needed a qualifier as well. If human are to follow reality and logic as they perceive it, logic goes out the window. Our perceptions are limited is the crux of the basis of religion and faith.

And the logic you gave for banning cow slaughter is also nonsensical. Most agrarian societies in the world have breeding programs for cows in place. Pakistan is an agrarian society. I highly doubt we are running short of cows.

Religions find ways to justify their actions through logic. I cannot speak for others but Islam provides a very good reason for pilgrimage. You can Google that yourself.

Religion can only be a detriment if we as human beings allow it to become one. I think the basis of religions is good, they mean well and they start off meaning well till humans pervert it. If you are finding fault with faith and religion for false lives and deluding yourself, trust me in absence of religion, human beings would have found something else to fill in the space. We are by nature a combination of negative and positive emotions, thoughts, actions, sentiments, etc, etc. We kill not just in the name of religion but because we look different, speak different, eat different, live different, behave different. etc, etc, etc. Worshipping a different God (or no God at all) is just one aspect of our tendency to breed conflict.

You are talking about modern cow breeding programs. There was no mass cow farming in subcontinent hundreds of years ago.
Pakistanis were also not eating cows until Islamic conquest. So you were wrong in comparing the eras.

I am not going to google why pilgrimage is needed. You have to put forward the best reason for it and I will respond.

Religion is not personal when it comes to any organized religion. It is the law too. That is where the issue comes. When you do not have any evidence to God or the truth in a particular religion, you cannot enforce the rules of that religion on people who are not part of that religion.

Since you are a Muslim, I am going to give you this example. Do you support the Ridda wars by Hazrat Abu Bakar against Arabs leaving Islam? He did not leave those people alone saying that it was their personal choice.

 

[Stewie]

Hmm...obviously this isn't going anywhere but it's still an interesting debate. And I did anticipate we'd start differing somewhere here. It would be really boring talking otherwise.

First - sure...a lot of Muslims (and even Hindus and Christians) do live in Saudi under those old fashioned morality laws but ask them about quality of life and whether they would prefer to live in the west under a different framework and I suspect you'd get interesting answers if they were being honest. The problem with religious morality is that it's not designed with human frailty in mind. Yes you can say no need to worry if you're not going to commit a crime but what about being falsely accused, what about a moment of frailty, what about being wrongly judged because your lawyer was incompetent? If you're going to say that wouldn't happen in a system that perfectly follows Islamic law, then if no country is able to implement it, maybe it just is not meant to work in human society.

I'm also well aware there is still debate on moral and legal standards even in the west but even with all your exceptions, you can't deny it's moved well ahead of western religious books. Can you name a country in the west where slavery is legal? Or a country where adultery is still a criminal offense? Or where one's sexual orientation is a crime? Debate's always going to be there but slow or fast, societal moral consensus is diverging from religion. Whether religion accepts this change and drives it forward like it has in the past or gets left behind is up to it. They can fight through the ballot box but in my opinion, that's a bit of raging against the dying of the light.

Finally I have no problem if individuals follow a stricter personal code of morality driven by religion than societal mandated morality. But they can't enforce it on others. For example, if it turns out that your daughter/son has had premarital sex, you can't punish her/him stronger than society allows.

I don't have a problem with morality that humanity adopts as it evolves. I am just trying to justify that some of its basis will always reside in religion. Maybe it will entirely evaporate at some point, who knows. Will it be acceptable to me as a Muslim. Who knows? Personally, I live in the west and my faith demands that I abide by the laws of the land so if the renewed morality dictates certain laws to me, I will abide by them. Thankfully, I have the freedom of religion clause to fall back on to defend my faith if need be. This takes me back to a case of a marriage registration in Texas, a white woman, who refused to certify a marriage certificate for a gay couple who had gotten married because her religion did not allow her to accept their union. I am not sure what happened in her case but I agree with her stance.

I will say though in some issues the moral code of religion is way way ahead of humanity, make of it what you will. Quran clearly states that man is born of free will and no man is superior to another on the basis of qualities other than taqwa. This was made available to Muslims 14 years ago.

USA abolished slavery just 200 or so years ago.

 

[Stewie]

You are talking about modern cow breeding programs. There was no mass cow farming in subcontinent hundreds of years ago.
Pakistanis were also not eating cows until Islamic conquest. So you were wrong in comparing the eras.

I am not going to google why pilgrimage is needed. You have to put forward the best reason for it and I will respond.

Religion is not personal when it comes to any organized religion. It is the law too. That is where the issue comes. When you do not have any evidence to God or the truth in a particular religion, you cannot enforce the rules of that religion on people who are not part of that religion.

Since you are a Muslim, I am going to give you this example. Do you support the Ridda wars by Hazrat Abu Bakar against Arabs leaving Islam? He did not leave those people alone saying that it was their personal choice.

why am I wrong in comparing the eras? Pakistan did not exist until Islam came to these lands. So Pakistani were eating cows when they became Pakistanis. I am not sure what you are trying to exactly state. I am addressing the modern day ban not a historic ban.

The modern day ban in India does not make sense. What also does not make sense is someone claiming Pakistan has a more advanced cow breeding tech than India. Do you disagree with any of it?

If you don't want to Google don't, but don't make assertions that pilgrimage is unnecessary in Islam's case. That's the Hallmark of an illiterate person,claiming something to be true just because he does not know any better. I am sure you don't want to be perceived as an illiterate person.

Hajj or Muslim pilgrimage, by the way, is only required if you have the wherewithal to do it. If not, it is not required. Also you are only asked to perform it once if your physically and financially able to do it.

I also don't believe in enforcing the rules of a religion on people who are not part of it. I am not sure where you got that from that I was a proponent of that ideology. I am not.

The Ridda wars have a political backdrop. It was a war for survival. It was against a fake prophet who portrayed himself as a prophet of Islam after Prophet Muhammed when we know he was the final prophet in our faith.

This line of debate will take us into the whole apostasy issue which is probably discussed in the apostasy thread. I suggest you take your thoughts regarding this matter there.

 

[Stewie]

I don't have a problem with morality that humanity adopts as it evolves. I am just trying to justify that some of its basis will always reside in religion. Maybe it will entirely evaporate at some point, who knows. Will it be acceptable to me as a Muslim. Who knows? Personally, I live in the west and my faith demands that I abide by the laws of the land so if the renewed morality dictates certain laws to me, I will abide by them. Thankfully, I have the freedom of religion clause to fall back on to defend my faith if need be. This takes me back to a case of a marriage registration in Texas, a white woman, who refused to certify a marriage certificate for a gay couple who had gotten married because her religion did not allow her to accept their union. I am not sure what happened in her case but I agree with her stance.

I will say though in some issues the moral code of religion is way way ahead of humanity, make of it what you will. Quran clearly states that man is born of free will and no man is superior to another on the basis of qualities other than taqwa. This was made available to Muslims 14 years ago.

USA abolished slavery just 200 or so years ago.

Correction 1400 years ago.. not 14 years ago.

 

[Champ_Pal]

why am I wrong in comparing the eras? Pakistan did not exist until Islam came to these lands. So Pakistani were eating cows when they became Pakistanis. I am not sure what you are trying to exactly state. I am addressing the modern day ban not a historic ban.

That is what I am saying too. Historic ban should not be applied to modern day and hence you cannot compare the eras. The land of modern day Pakistan also had cow meat ban until Islam came.

The modern day ban in India does not make sense. What also does not make sense is someone claiming Pakistan has a more advanced cow breeding tech than India. Do you disagree with any of it?

No one said Pakistan has advanced cow breeding program.

If you don't want to Google don't, but don't make assertions that pilgrimage is unnecessary in Islam's case. That's the Hallmark of an illiterate person,claiming something to be true just because he does not know any better. I am sure you don't want to be perceived as an illiterate person.

I asked you to put forward the best reason for Pilgrimage to Mecca. You don't want to and you are calling me illiterate person.

Hajj or Muslim pilgrimage, by the way, is only required if you have the wherewithal to do it. If not, it is not required. Also you are only asked to perform it once if your physically and financially able to do it.

I know that already.

I also don't believe in enforcing the rules of a religion on people who are not part of it. I am not sure where you got that from that I was a proponent of that ideology. I am not.

Then there is no issue there.

The Ridda wars have a political backdrop. It was a war for survival. It was against a fake prophet who portrayed himself as a prophet of Islam after Prophet Muhammed when we know he was the final prophet in our faith.

Quran clearly says there is no compulsion in religion. Obviously not. Whether Musaylima Kazab was fake or not, who are Muslims to decide? He does not have the freedom to propagate his own ideas about God?

This line of debate will take us into the whole apostasy issue which is probably discussed in the apostasy thread. I suggest you take your thoughts regarding this matter there.

Agreed.

 

[Stewie]

That is what I am saying too. Historic ban should not be applied to modern day and hence you cannot compare the eras. The land of modern day Pakistan also had cow meat ban until Islam came.

No one said Pakistan has advanced cow breeding program.

I asked you to put forward the best reason for Pilgrimage to Mecca. You don't want to and you are calling me illiterate person.

I know that already.

Then there is no issue there.

Quran clearly says there is no compulsion in religion. Obviously not. Whether Musaylima Kazab was fake or not, who are Muslims to decide? He does not have the freedom to propagate his own ideas about God?

Agreed.

Quran does state there is no compulsion in religion as long as the religion does not portray itself as Islam and yet introduces its own ideology and concepts in which case its not Islam anymore. I think Islam is well within its rights to protect itself if someone tries to steal its brand, slaps its own spin on it and tries to pass it off as Islam. Here is another lesson in it for your. modern laws and morality defend such actions which Hazrat Abu bakar took 1400 years ago. So modern morality actually agrees with his actions.


Hajj is necessitated in Islam to bring the community closer and to encourage exchange of views, unity, etc. When Muslims travel to Mecca from all parts of the world, they get a chance to associate with Muslims from all over the world, learn about them, learn from them and it encourages enhanced cooperation and unity. Which is why it is only required once in a life time and if you can make it. I saved you the googling. But I also don't like repeating myself. I have had to repeat myself quite a lot on this thread. Which is why I prefer to point people in the right direction. The rest is up to them to take up that offer or not. If you think I do it because I am defending something, I am not because my views do not any defense. I am just trying to educate those who have been misguided or have incorrect perceptions of Islam or Muslims.

So you get one pass this time. Like Spidey says everybody gets one.

 

[Champ_Pal]

Quran does state there is no compulsion in religion as long as the religion does not portray itself as Islam and yet introduces its own ideology and concepts in which case its not Islam anymore. I think Islam is well within its rights to protect itself if someone tries to steal its brand, slaps its own spin on it and tries to pass it off as Islam. Here is another lesson in it for your. modern laws and morality defend such actions which Hazrat Abu bakar took 1400 years ago. So modern morality actually agrees with his actions.

Islam did exactly that to Judaism and Christianity. It took their religion and slapped its own spin and created a new religion. It even calls all of their Prophets as Muslims.

Hajj is necessitated in Islam to bring the community closer and to encourage exchange of views, unity, etc. When Muslims travel to Mecca from all parts of the world, they get a chance to associate with Muslims from all over the world, learn about them, learn from them and it encourages enhanced cooperation and unity. Which is why it is only required once in a life time and if you can make it. I saved you the googling. But I also don't like repeating myself. I have had to repeat myself quite a lot on this thread. Which is why I prefer to point people in the right direction. The rest is up to them to take up that offer or not. If you think I do it because I am defending something, I am not because my views do not any defense. I am just trying to educate those who have been misguided or have incorrect perceptions of Islam or Muslims.

So you get one pass this time. Like Spidey says everybody gets one.

So Hajj is only for exchange of ideas. No religious significance?

Below is the first link I got in Google search.

"As one of the five pillars of Islam, the purpose of Hajj for Muslims means fulfilling our spiritual duties to Allah (SWT) and showing our submission to Him. Muslims believe Hajj offers a chance to wipe clean past sins and start anew before Allah."

https://www.islamic-relief.org.uk/resources/knowledge-base/five-pillars-of-islam/hajj/what-is-hajj/?__cf_chl_tk=YTMpZ5yJ3KqDeU5arGJwepQbWcUZJercIMMEWzFQrgo-1724090397-0.0.1.1-5396

 

[Stewie]

Islam did exactly that to Judaism and Christianity. It took their religion and slapped its own spin and created a new religion. It even calls all of their Prophets as Muslims.

So Hajj is only for exchange of ideas. No religious significance?

Below is the first link I got in Google search.

"As one of the five pillars of Islam, the purpose of Hajj for Muslims means fulfilling our spiritual duties to Allah (SWT) and showing our submission to Him. Muslims believe Hajj offers a chance to wipe clean past sins and start anew before Allah."

https://www.islamic-relief.org.uk/resources/knowledge-base/five-pillars-of-islam/hajj/what-is-hajj/?__cf_chl_tk=YTMpZ5yJ3KqDeU5arGJwepQbWcUZJercIMMEWzFQrgo-1724090397-0.0.1.1-5396

Islam calls itself Islam. It does not call itself Christianity or Judaism. It is very clear on that. Its not that hard of a concept to grasp. If one were to publicize oneself as a Muslim, one has to abide by the basic tenets. Muhammed PBUH is the final prophet and wont be one after him. If someone claims to be a prophet of Islam after Muhammed, that's a lie.

Hajj is definitely a pillar of Islam and I never claimed that the ONLY REASONS its required of Muslims is because it promoted unity and cohesion within the community. I only used that as a reason to explain to you because you brought up the question why do you have to go and pray in Kaaba when you can do it anywhere.
You are "fulfilling your spiritual duty to Allah and SHOWING your submission to Him" by undertaking Hajj for the REASONS I had mentioned.
Hope that makes sense

 

[Justcrazy]

Fundamental things like don’t hurt others, don’t steal, don’t rape are universal and it is common sense.

Humans made laws to govern it efficiently. They amended those laws, discarded some of them. It took centuries and decades to arrive at where we are now. These laws are not made in a day or an hour by one man which religious folk believe. It’s all trial and error. It’s an ongoing experiment.

Laws and morality are two completely different things , those things which you mentioned above are illegal , made punishable by laws. Here we are talking about morality.

 

[RexRex]

Now you know one of the reasons why I didn't bother to engage you in the other thread where you wanted evidence for forced conversions.

You didn't bother to engage because there was no reasearch or data for mass forced conversions. Simple. Otherwise you would have posted it when I tagged you about a dozen times here patiently (and politely).

 

[RexRex]

To be fair Yahweh does have a track record of ordering some nasty stuff. I suppose most Christians believe life was worth less at that time and such stuff was acceptable in the context of the time. Jesus came around when life was more precious and moderated the message.

You've more or less hit the nail on the head ... when it comes to christian belief. That is -

All the nasty/hard to believe stuff happened around the time when the world was a uniquely wicked place, uncultured, orgies etc.. and then Jesus came later in -33 AD and radically altered the existing Jewish laws morality.

 

[RexRex]

LMAO. You are an athiest wrt Thor, Vishnu, Shiva, zeus etc etc. We just have gone one step further.

lol.. please stop stealing famous Richard Dawkins quotes and pasting them here. Don't you have an original thought of your own?

 

[Champ_Pal]

Laws and morality are two completely different things , those things which you mentioned above are illegal , made punishable by laws. Here we are talking about morality.

Laws govern morality and morality governs laws. They are interlinked.

Science and logic assists the law makers in making better laws. Child marriages were okay a hundred years ago. Not anymore. Now we have science to tell us that children are not ready for marriage.

 

[Champ_Pal]

You've more or less hit the nail on the head ... when it comes to christian belief. That is -

All the nasty/hard to believe stuff happened around the time when the world was a uniquely wicked place, uncultured, orgies etc.. and then Jesus came later in -33 AD and radically altered the existing Jewish laws morality.

Christianity cannot get away from old testament stories. All of the evil stuff in Old Testament was commanded by Yahweh. Jesus softened the image of Yahweh. But polemics against Christianity includes the entire Old Testament.

 

[RexRex]

Now to the larger question of the debate: if there was a superior entity that created life and gave us a planet with all its resources to live on, that has to be a very superior, advanced and noble being. Why would someone like that create us to simply wreak havoc on ourselves and violate each other? Why would someone like that command us to wage wars, rape, steal and kill each other?

It’s utterly ridiculous you guys are failing to admit the fallacy in your logic. The ugly parts are clearly made up by man to serve his purpose through the ages. You want to justify killing of another tribe of people, put that in your religious scripture. Easy!

This is not a rational stance to take.

If you think the ugly/distasteful bits in the Bible were man-made to serve his purpose, does that mean the distasteful bits in Islam's holy book is man-made as well ? That is the logic that should follow.

 

[RexRex]

Christianity cannot get away from old testament stories. All of the evil stuff in Old Testament was commanded by Yahweh. Jesus softened the image of Yahweh. But polemics against Christianity includes the entire Old Testament.

Yes of course, I have never said otherwise.

Bible is taught to kids in Church school every Sunday, that includes OT ... but OT is not taken in a literal sense, just the overarching morals from the story is taught.

 

[Stewie]

This is not a rational stance to take.

If you think the ugly/distasteful bits in the Bible were man-made to serve his purpose, does that mean the distasteful bits in Islam's holy book is man-made as well ? That is the logic that should follow.

What distasteful bits are we talking about here? Do you have any examples you would like to share?

There are certainly some parts that raise the eyebrows. But there are some decent and some not so decent explanations for those by scholars. There is nothing in Quran that I have seen which is so bad as encouraging rape and genocide and what not.

 

[RexRex]

As a believer, how do you feel about your God being evil once upon a time?

All I'll say is that ... after exploring the various religious texts, some of their contradictions, errors and some such ... I'm generally a lot more open-minded about faith than I used to be .. to the point where I might I even call myself an agnostic on a bad day.

But athiesm is a position that I find irrational and untenable.

 

[rpant_gabba]

lol.. please stop stealing famous Richard Dawkins quotes and pasting them here. Don't you have an original thought of your own?

Don't have to. Knowledge learned, borrowed and passed on.

Your problem is that you have no way to counter it.

 

[Champ_Pal]

All I'll say is that ... after exploring the various religious texts, some of their contradictions, errors and some such ... I'm generally a lot more open-minded about faith than I used to be .. to the point where I might I even call myself an agnostic on a bad day.

But athiesm is a position that I find irrational and untenable.

Why do you think Atheism is irrational?

 

[Stewie]

Why do you think Atheism is irrational?

I would like to hear the answer to that as well. I actually don’t find it irrational at all. Unlike atheists who find religion irrational, I feel we should consider all options.

 

[Champ_Pal]

What distasteful bits are we talking about here? Do you have any examples you would like to share?

There are certainly some parts that raise the eyebrows. But there are some decent and some not so decent explanations for those by scholars. There is nothing in Quran that I have seen which is so bad as encouraging rape and genocide and what not.

As a person with a lot of Polytheists in the family, I find some verses in the Quran to be distasteful. Why is your God so worried about Polytheists that he has to make eternal verses for us?

On one hand Quran says that your religion is yours and my religion is mine. Then there are so many verses in Quran about disgracing Jews & Christians and Pagans? The book calls them the worst of creatures. I am sure we are not.

 

[Stewie]

As a person with a lot of Polytheists in the family, I find some verses in the Quran to be distasteful. Why is your God so worried about Polytheists that he has to make eternal verses for us?

On one hand Quran says that your religion is yours and my religion is mine. Then there are so many verses in Quran about disgracing Jews & Christians and Pagans? The book calls them the worst of creatures. I am sure we are not.

quote those verses and I’ll do my best to respond.

By the way if Polytheism, mythology, etc, etc are very different from Abrahamic faiths. I agree that in Abrahamic faiths there is a lot of assertion about pagans or polytheists praying to the wrong “god” or “gods”. The concept is that you want to put people on the “right” or righteous path. We have discussed this at length in the past. It’s all about bringing standards to society and making sure you follow them and do not divert from them.

That being said: Muslims will preach to you, they will try to convince you to come to the right side. If you take that as a slight well, that’s just how it is. But if you don’t, and you want to practice your own faith, Islam will leave you to it.

But once again I may have to review what verses you are referencing to give a more definitive answer

 

[rpant_gabba]

 

[anikrc1]

I have always wanted to ask this, but what's Islam's position against questions like can God create a stone which he can't lift?

 

[rpant_gabba]

All I'll say is that ... after exploring the various religious texts, some of their contradictions, errors and some such ... I'm generally a lot more open-minded about faith than I used to be .. to the point where I might I even call myself an agnostic on a bad day.

But athiesm is a position that I find irrational and untenable.

If you are more open minded now and willing to commit rape, murder and genocide against innocents on god's command I shudder to think what you would have resorted to before.

 

[BouncerGuy]

If you are more open minded now and willing to commit rape, murder and genocide against innocents on god's command I shudder to think what you would have resorted to before.

Where does it say to commit rape or murder or genocide??? quote those words but read the context as well before doing so.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Where does it say to commit rape or murder or genocide??? quote those words but read the context as well before doing so.

have you read the old testament?

 

[BouncerGuy]

have you read the old testament?

Are you talking about the Bible or HOLY QURAN??? Because the Bible is not in its original form due to human intervention over the years.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Are you talking about the Bible or HOLY QURAN??? Because the Bible is not in its original form due to human intervention over the years.

We will be going around in circle on this.

The comment was directed at a xtian, who'd like to disown the old testament, but stated if he is indeed commanded by god to murder and commit genocide, (eg. cananites massacre in old testament) he would do it, becos, its god!

 

[Champ_Pal]

quote those verses and I’ll do my best to respond.

By the way if Polytheism, mythology, etc, etc are very different from Abrahamic faiths. I agree that in Abrahamic faiths there is a lot of assertion about pagans or polytheists praying to the wrong “god” or “gods”. The concept is that you want to put people on the “right” or righteous path. We have discussed this at length in the past. It’s all about bringing standards to society and making sure you follow them and do not divert from them.

That being said: Muslims will preach to you, they will try to convince you to come to the right side. If you take that as a slight well, that’s just how it is. But if you don’t, and you want to practice your own faith, Islam will leave you to it.

But once again I may have to review what verses you are referencing to give a more definitive answer

"Indeed, those who disbelieve from the People of the Book and the polytheists will be in the Fire of Hell, to stay there forever. They are the worst of ˹all˺ beings".

Surah Al-Bayyinah - 6 - Quran.com

Indeed, those who disbelieve from the People of the Book and the polytheists will be in the Fire of Hell, to stay there forever. They are the worst of...

quran.com

Do not marry polytheistic women until they believe; for a believing slave-woman is better than a free polytheist, even though she may look pleasant to you. And do not marry your women to polytheistic men until they believe, for a believing slave-man is better than a free polytheist, even though he may look pleasant to you. They invite ˹you˺ to the Fire while Allah invites ˹you˺ to Paradise and forgiveness by His grace.1 He makes His revelations clear to the people so perhaps they will be mindful.

Surah Al-Baqarah - 221 - Quran.com

Do not marry polytheistic women until they believe; for a believing slave-woman is better than a free polytheist, even though she may look pleasant to...

quran.com

But once the Sacred Months have passed, kill the polytheists ˹who violated their treaties˺ wherever you find them,1 capture them, besiege them, and lie in wait for them on every way. But if they repent, perform prayers, and pay alms-tax, then set them free. Indeed, Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Surah At-Tawbah - 4-14 - Quran.com

(4) As for the polytheists who have honoured every term of their treaty with you and have not supported an enemy against you, honour your treaty with ...

quran.com

 

[RexRex]

Why do you think Atheism is irrational?

Because .. read post #265 and post #273 which were directed to @rpant_gabba both of which he ignored because it made his moralising to a thiest very silly.

 

[RexRex]

What distasteful bits are we talking about here? Do you have any examples you would like to share?

There are certainly some parts that raise the eyebrows. But there are some decent and some not so decent explanations for those by scholars. There is nothing in Quran that I have seen which is so bad as encouraging rape and genocide and what not.

I suspect you'll regret asking this question. You've stepped on massive landmine there.

 

[Red-Indian]

"Indeed, those who disbelieve from the People of the Book and the polytheists will be in the Fire of Hell, to stay there forever. They are the worst of ˹all˺ beings".

Surah Al-Bayyinah - 6 - Quran.com

Indeed, those who disbelieve from the People of the Book and the polytheists will be in the Fire of Hell, to stay there forever. They are the worst of...

quran.com

Not exclusive to Islam but this is one that bothers me about most or all monotheistic religions i.e. everything else is secondary...unless you worship the one god of our religion, you're condemned to eternity in hell.

I can't believe people actually like such a god. It's a bit of a cliche but I'd honestly rather just burn in hell for eternity than worship such a guy.

I'd rather just follow a guy who says "I couldn't care less whether you believe in me or not, whether you pray 10 times a day or none, whether you face this side or that. As long as you treat folks well and follow these basic rules of morality <append brief list>, I'll take care you once you die...whatever that means for you. Honestly just forget about me and do your best. If you're an idiot on earth, no threats but you won't get any of the good stuff you want when you're done."

I suppose though prophets and gods can't get followers unless they threaten the hell (pun intended) out of them with fire, torture and all sorts of dire stuff.