Ban the Bible and the Qur'an?

[YmirGF]

Should we draw a line under these religions by banning the bible and the Quran and instead work to find belief systems for the majority of mankind that serve as better vehicles of the scientific and moral knowledge accumulated since the 1st and 6th century when they were established? Or should we allow these religions to continue and on what grounds?

You have to "allow" them because they have far too many adherents to seriously oppose at this point in time. That would precipitate a religious genocide. I would not be opposed to outlawing proselytizing methods such as those employed by Jehovah's Witness followers who arrive unannounced at your door and then politely try to guilt you out for not taking them seriously. Though polite, it is still quite rude, insensitive and sometimes obnoxious.

I do agree with the sentiments that humanity is coming to the stage where we are ready for better answers to more intelligent questions than the pale offerings we have saddled ourselves with. Even here though, with those "better answers" to "more intelligent questions" we run into the evangelical problem of shoving this new truth down the throats of those unwilling to swallow. My advice would be to take the slow route and let nature take its course. If the messaging is spot on and talks to the curious minds of modern human animals, eventually, it will trickle down to the mainstream. We must stridently resist the urge to physically do battle with those who disagree otherwise we are no less intolerant and haven't learned a damned thing.

 

[gnostic]

I am never fan for banning books...even books that I disagree with or books that I dislike.

No books should be banned.

 

[Fool]

What does that mean exactly?
Tawhid (Arabic: توحيد‎‎ tawḥīd, meaning the oneness [of God]"; also transliterated as Tawheed and Touheed) is the indivisible oneness concept of monotheism in Islam. Tawhid is the religion's most fundamental concept and holds that God (Allah, literally Al-Ilāh "the God") is One (Al-ʾAḥad) and Single (Al-Wāḥid).
Still dont see anything in the Quran that speaks of love and forgiveness to others.

God is love.

friendship is two bodies being of one mind, or yoked together.

Jesus said to love your neighbor and your enemies. He who wishes to be greatest must be a slave/servant to all. That is the oneness or tawheed/tawhid and Jesus Most High God. God is not a respecter of person even if the christian or follower of islam believe so.

 

[Acim]

Well, I'n glad someone read it.

No, you nailed it. Cultural genocide is accurate. Its emotive but given the imperialist implications of european conception of progres, its accurate.

The problem is that ideas or "cultures" not merely something existing in isolation. Ideas are tools. As our science and technology advance, we necessarily have to advance our ideas to correspond to them. This process occurs in part spontaneously as new ideas supplant old ones on the back of scientific discoveries and technological breakthroughs. In so far as these ideas are used within the process of production-both physically and as an understanding of social organisation- each of those greatly increase mans power to create and to destroy. This could be described as progress, but progress is a procress of simultaneous creation and destruction. So it is nieve to confuse progress with a "pain-free" conception of growth.

I'm having trouble parsing this wording, especially early on in the paragraph. Could you provide examples of what you are getting across? Particularly what are "our ideas" that correspond to science and technology, but would somehow be seen as distinct from both?

The "imperialist" part is over whether some ideas are superior or inferior to others. Ideally, a wholly free exchange of ideas would mean that "superior" ideas are those which have greater degree of truth content and consequently are useful in the process of production. That is not the whole story though, because ideas are not simply the reflection of objective reality in their "true" content, but also the creation of human beings. Our ideas tell us not only about the world but about our humanity- the scope and limits of our powers. So of course, ideas can serve as tools to protect and legitimise those sources of power that may have an interest in keeping people ignorant or believing in politically useful falsehoods.

"Our ideas" is found here as well. Again, I seek examples of what this means, that is somehow devoid of science, technology, and ancient religions. Being one that claims to be New Age spiritualist, I think I can quickly catch up to any claims you'd wish to make about "our ideas" that don't fit neatly into such categories, but not sure they'd be universally accepted as such. In fact, I'm sure either modern science fanatics, or adherents of ancient religions would lay claim to any such ideas.

If ideas are/were truly superior to others, then the thought of banning wouldn't even considered, I don't think. Do we consider banning telephone books of old because we have technology now that makes all that information more readily accessible?

One of my first thoughts of responding to your post was the faith being placed in science, but I think is not recognized as (pure) faith. I routinely think our ideas are a reflection of our individual and collective faiths. If somehow one is hung up on the concept of "faith" thinking that can only apply to religions/spirituality, then let's just go with trust or credence that is believed to come from science, when in reality it comes from the individual. To even suggest it is science, and not something else, takes such trust, or wildly speculative assumptions. Like when something new appears to us, the design can easily be seen as art, yet science lays claim to it, and calls it "advanced technology" brought to 'us' via science, and not something else.

I say all this because "our ideas" aren't shaped by anything that is actually strictly modern, and for sure not strictly science, unless science is willing to include all sorts of things that fanatics of science may (zealously) wish to disregard because they deem themselves the gatekeepers.

The dominance of Christianity and Islam is clearly not a reflection of the scientific accuracy of either the qu'ran or the bible. They are ancient and our knowledge far surpasses that of our counterparts in the 3rd and 6th centuries when they were assembled.

Such as this. This is what a modern day fanatic of science may wish to claim. Here "our ideas" as it relates to knowledge is plausibly only relating to scientific literacy, and unless specified, I would think nothing else. The fundamental assumptions about knowledge (of own self, much less the world) haven't changed all that much. Not really. If you or anyone reading this begs to differ, then please let us discuss / debate.

Whilst such texts may well have served as a repository to accumulated knowledge in their respective times, the sheer speed of the advances and accumulation of knowledge has left them far behind.

And again, if this is true, then one would wonder why there would even be consideration for banning such books? But because 'knowledge' is being used where 'contextual data' is I think meant, it seems like a bold claim. One that if explored would make for a different type of thread, where not just 2 books, but literally everything (and I mean everything) of old would be up for such consideration of banning, or putting away in favor or what new. Aristotle's form of science can be put away, as can Newton's, as can many others. All of it. Gone. No longer necessary in modern times. If you enjoy it for whatever reason, and find the history helpful, for whatever reason, that's perhaps okay, but is it truly useful? Truly superior, or inferior, to what we 'know' today?

So What of the morality in the bible and the quran? If we think of moral ideas as tools and as means to express the scope and limitations of our social organisation, the same problem applies. concepts of slavery, death penalty, forced marriage or even monarchy may well be represented in their pages but they are not appropriate in societies whose technological development has vastly exceeded the source of these ideas in terms of levels of literacy, education, means of contraception or mass media as a means to participate in the political process.

Here, but not only here, I think you are overestimating the power of any individual in the modern processes. Take Trump's Twitter feed as perhaps best example I can come up with. The person recently elected as 'leader of the world' (or for sure the U.S.) is using same means all of us have access to, and yet, even his use of that tool is seen as highly questionable, and worth (daily) ridicule. Difference is, his tweets will be promoted on many news outlets as if it is gospel. As if our monarchy king is speaking (divine) revelation and in what way shall 'we' understand this current communication. Yet, we are not unified in how that message is to be spun. So, show me the person, or group of people, speaking to humanity right now in whatever forms they wish to utilize and who are not facing strong criticism, or ridicule in whatever their message is. I'm feeling confident you cannot, nor can anyone. Thus, our means have theoretically exceeded the old way, while are 'knowledge' is plausibly devolving.

God, as an idea and a tool, may serve to represent man's submission to the forces of nature and as our projection of personality or consciousness onto the weather and natural pheneomena. But when mankind has itself become a force of nature and starts "playing god", thinking that our judgements should originate from or be left to a deity is gross failure to accept responsibility for the consequences of human actions.

This was as true 3000 years ago as it is today.

 

[Acim]

(continuing)

The problem is the persistence of religious views in our time that are wildly out of step with the sort of freedoms and powers we have. This is to the point where blind trust in ancient texts as a source of scientific and moral authority or even reasoned argument still built on the assumption that man must serve god as representing the force of nature.

I originally thought this (and remainder of your post) would be the only part I would quote from, for this strikes me as clarifying what is really at stake in this thread. But given what I've said up to this point, I definitely see it worthy of debate/disagreement that our freedoms and powers are wildly out of step with ancient religions, other than in a nefarious way that is likely spoken about in such ancient texts.

The blind trust thing works with science just as well as religion. I can't even count how many times people I know think something is automatically true because the likes of FDA, CDC, NASA, and about 80 other acronyms report as "findings" of which no one thinks they have the responsibility to verity on their own, but is just easier to accept it as 'probably true' and go from there. So much for human responsibility and consequences from blindly accepting political falsehoods. I think for non-practicing scientists, that is all that science has become - whatever those 'people in the know' are up to, must be true. The appeal to authority has worked well in our logical framework, not to mention how relatively easy it has become to induce emotive responses to allegedly dire consequences. All based on blind trust. Such as "we need to save the planet from doom" because, ya know, those scientists say it's going to happen if we don't do thus and so right now. Used to be "the end is near" type rhetoric was laughed at and ridiculed. Now, it is treated as "science" and "knowledge."

Almost seems like we are wildly aligned with the nefarious aims of ancient religious warlords. Based on blind trust, in science, no doubt.

If instead of trusting our desire for spiritual enlightenment and happiness to 1st century carpenters or 6th century warrior-prophets, we tried to develop ideas about our own psychological and phyisological requirement based on scientific evidence- we may find it alot easier to attain enlightenment. We could satisfy those needs for meaning and purpose.

Without the spiritual, I see no way of this occurring. Zero. Science cares very little about meaning and purpose. I'll keep pointing this out in all such threads that claim such things about science. I find so little of it in science that I'm surprised it still comes up as if this might be the day science actually starts to care about meaning and purpose and elevates it above how something happened and when and where it did. Why and for what purpose are not the concerns of modern science. Perhaps if modern science went in this direction and wasn't held back, the ancient religions would go away based on believers seeing a new door has been opened. I currently see very little chance of that, and so the ancient religions will survive for a long time to come.

Yet, there's one other pertinent point to make here.

The reason for arguing for banning the bible and the quran is as part of the larger goal-assuming that they persist in such a way through accumulated status and privallage that prevents more productive ideas coming into the mainstream. You can read that as "Communism" but a radical liberal humanism probably would do just as well. I won't deny there is cultural genocide behind the label "progress" though.

The other pertinent point, from my perspective (as a Gnostic, New Age Christian) is that divine revelation is happening all the time. I recognize that to the agnostic types, and to them who think God spoke 'perfectly' to humanity thousands of years ago, what I say can't possibly be true. Me, I operate on the idea that all of it (literally all words in this thread and not in this thread) are 'echoes of the Voice for God.' How this relates to 'productive ideas' is matter of own discernment, which can be nurtured through ancient doctrines, modern ones, or via patience, prayer, contemplation and meditation. And I say all this to note that some ideas, as tools, can be let go of, put aside as no longer serving the original purpose. That's internal, via discernment. The desire to outwardly ban it, would actually be promoting the stature of it in one's own mind, and making it so any (physical) awareness of such ideas takes additional work, much less disregard of what must temporarily be reviewed to ensure it is worthy of not being considered. Or a roundabout process toward simple discernment.

Simply put, reality don't work that way.

 

[Kirran]

You have to "allow" them because they have far too many adherents to seriously oppose at this point in time. That would precipitate a religious genocide. I would not be opposed to outlawing proselytizing methods such as those employed by Jehovah's Witness followers who arrive unannounced at your door and then politely try to guilt you out for not taking them seriously. Though polite, it is still quite rude, insensitive and sometimes obnoxious.

I'm open to this idea, although I can't say I'm totally sold on it.

R.e. the latter part of this post, people will seek out truth if they want to. We can to some extent help in creating a conducive environment to foster healthy expressions of that search, but at the end of the day it's hard to force.

 

[Fool]

I am never fan for banning books...even books that I disagree with or books that I dislike.

No books should be banned.

agreed, thought control is the beginning of corruption

 

[GodsVoice]

Bear with me for a moment. This isn't as crazy or evil as it may at first sound.

The Bible and the Qur'an represent the holy books of the world two largest religions, as well as various denominations and their predecessor Judaism from the old testament.

Whilst the concept of banning these two books flies in the face of our conceptions of personal liberty, there is a social evolutionary factor in this. The bible and the quran are both texts far removed from our own time and literal readings of them as truth are a hindrance on scientific advances as well a source of moral philosophies that struggle with questions in our technological age.

It would be hoped that in the era of atomic bombs, space exploration and industrialisation we would have developed religions or belief systems that correspond to the needs of the times. Whilst it is true that some varients of Islam and Christianity have re-invented themselves, it is only to remove the essence of the religious orthodoxy as mans submission to natural forces personified as a deity. It is more than possible to argue that such interpretations have defeated the religion itself as there are limits to how far you can interpret christianity or islam until you cease to be either a christian or a muslim. So whats the purpose of these religions if they are both scientifically and morally out-dated?

The flip side of this, is that as man comes to have greater mastery of the forces of nature and more power from our science and technology, being guided by a "bronze age" morality may infact be dangerous. Literal readings of these texts as a moral guide would produce hideously immoral societies by the standards we have today. the alternative is an extreme selectivity of these religions traditions and scripture which means that we are all but paying lip service to them. So why do we maintain the pretense of Christianity or Islam when we have made ourselves as individuals the supreme authority in deciding what parts of the religion we follow? This individualism is contaty to religious authority if it were cliamed to be derived from god or the church so it is not as if such a wide scope of interpretation is the pursuit of deeper "truth" when we have decided to ignore most of the religion.

So instead Christianity and Islam continue this strange pseudo-existence- on the one hand becoming empty liberal secular versions of themselves which do not necessarily offer spiritual truth or fulfilment in a way they were originally intended, or they are treated as truth and we condemn the results as contary to our humanity because they are such a miss match with advanced technological capabilities that could solve many problems. How long can this go on?

Should we draw a line under these religions by banning the bible and the quran and instead work to find belief systems for the majority of mankind that serve as better vechicles of the scientific and moral knowledge accumulated since the 1st and 6th century when they were established? Or should we allow these religions to continue and on what grounds?

There's nothing to worry about. God plans on burning up everything on earth during the one hour after the earth starts to shake violently. Then we'll start all over without Satan and the Beast whose influence caused man to write down his thoughts with his human hands and build all the false gods according to those plans, notes, images, etc. Never again will we be building false gods with our human hands or writing down any words. In fact, our new language will be spoken in a frequency that's more like the infra-red frequencies that computers speak to each other with.

 

[LuisDantas]

Being in a rozeh for imam husain pbuh

I take it you mean the first Iman of the Shia, and the grandson of Muhammad the Prophet, Husayn ibn Ali ?

Would "Rozeh" mean something with a meaning not too much unlike "helper"? Perhaps as a reference to the Battle of Karbala?

A cry for him will make u happy
We don't know what kind of tear is this!!!
U feel free u wanna fly
Others think we are crying but actually we experience a sense that is full of happiness

The joy of having decided to do the right thing despite paying a price for it can be overwhelming, isn't that right?

Please don't say anything because this is not logical and is completely emotional

Uh.... please forgive me then.

 

[Kirran]

I take it you mean the first Iman of the Shia, and the grandson of Muhammad the Prophet, Husayn ibn Ali ?

Yo Ali was their first Imam. As Imams go by the different Shi'ite groups differ on details. Such as who they are, and how many there were.

 

[Milton Platt]

Bear with me for a moment. This isn't as crazy or evil as it may at first sound.

The Bible and the Qur'an represent the holy books of the world two largest religions, as well as various denominations and their predecessor Judaism from the old testament.

Whilst the concept of banning these two books flies in the face of our conceptions of personal liberty, there is a social evolutionary factor in this. The bible and the quran are both texts far removed from our own time and literal readings of them as truth are a hindrance on scientific advances as well a source of moral philosophies that struggle with questions in our technological age.

It would be hoped that in the era of atomic bombs, space exploration and industrialisation we would have developed religions or belief systems that correspond to the needs of the times. Whilst it is true that some varients of Islam and Christianity have re-invented themselves, it is only to remove the essence of the religious orthodoxy as mans submission to natural forces personified as a deity. It is more than possible to argue that such interpretations have defeated the religion itself as there are limits to how far you can interpret christianity or islam until you cease to be either a christian or a muslim. So whats the purpose of these religions if they are both scientifically and morally out-dated?

The flip side of this, is that as man comes to have greater mastery of the forces of nature and more power from our science and technology, being guided by a "bronze age" morality may infact be dangerous. Literal readings of these texts as a moral guide would produce hideously immoral societies by the standards we have today. the alternative is an extreme selectivity of these religions traditions and scripture which means that we are all but paying lip service to them. So why do we maintain the pretense of Christianity or Islam when we have made ourselves as individuals the supreme authority in deciding what parts of the religion we follow? This individualism is contaty to religious authority if it were cliamed to be derived from god or the church so it is not as if such a wide scope of interpretation is the pursuit of deeper "truth" when we have decided to ignore most of the religion.

So instead Christianity and Islam continue this strange pseudo-existence- on the one hand becoming empty liberal secular versions of themselves which do not necessarily offer spiritual truth or fulfilment in a way they were originally intended, or they are treated as truth and we condemn the results as contary to our humanity because they are such a miss match with advanced technological capabilities that could solve many problems. How long can this go on?

Should we draw a line under these religions by banning the bible and the quran and instead work to find belief systems for the majority of mankind that serve as better vechicles of the scientific and moral knowledge accumulated since the 1st and 6th century when they were established? Or should we allow these religions to continue and on what grounds?

No banning of books. Once that happened to two books, the list will continually grow. Very bad move. I am atheist, and have no regard for either book, but I support free speech and freedom of religion.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

There's nothing to worry about. God plans on burning up everything on earth during the one hour after the earth starts to shake violently. Then we'll start all over without Satan and the Beast whose influence caused man to write down his thoughts with his human hands and build all the false gods according to those plans, notes, images, etc. Never again will we be building false gods with our human hands or writing down any words. In fact, our new language will be spoken in a frequency that's more like the infra-red frequencies that computers speak to each other with.

God is going to remove free will?

 

[Esaurus]

Bear with me for a moment. This isn't as crazy or evil as it may at first sound.

The Bible and the Qur'an represent the holy books of the world two largest religions, as well as various denominations and their predecessor Judaism from the old testament.

Whilst the concept of banning these two books flies in the face of our conceptions of personal liberty, there is a social evolutionary factor in this. The bible and the quran are both texts far removed from our own time and literal readings of them as truth are a hindrance on scientific advances as well a source of moral philosophies that struggle with questions in our technological age.

It would be hoped that in the era of atomic bombs, space exploration and industrialisation we would have developed religions or belief systems that correspond to the needs of the times. Whilst it is true that some varients of Islam and Christianity have re-invented themselves, it is only to remove the essence of the religious orthodoxy as mans submission to natural forces personified as a deity. It is more than possible to argue that such interpretations have defeated the religion itself as there are limits to how far you can interpret christianity or islam until you cease to be either a christian or a muslim. So whats the purpose of these religions if they are both scientifically and morally out-dated?

The flip side of this, is that as man comes to have greater mastery of the forces of nature and more power from our science and technology, being guided by a "bronze age" morality may infact be dangerous. Literal readings of these texts as a moral guide would produce hideously immoral societies by the standards we have today. the alternative is an extreme selectivity of these religions traditions and scripture which means that we are all but paying lip service to them. So why do we maintain the pretense of Christianity or Islam when we have made ourselves as individuals the supreme authority in deciding what parts of the religion we follow? This individualism is contaty to religious authority if it were cliamed to be derived from god or the church so it is not as if such a wide scope of interpretation is the pursuit of deeper "truth" when we have decided to ignore most of the religion.

So instead Christianity and Islam continue this strange pseudo-existence- on the one hand becoming empty liberal secular versions of themselves which do not necessarily offer spiritual truth or fulfilment in a way they were originally intended, or they are treated as truth and we condemn the results as contary to our humanity because they are such a miss match with advanced technological capabilities that could solve many problems. How long can this go on?

Should we draw a line under these religions by banning the bible and the quran and instead work to find belief systems for the majority of mankind that serve as better vechicles of the scientific and moral knowledge accumulated since the 1st and 6th century when they were established? Or should we allow these religions to continue and on what grounds?

Hello Laika,

You said, "The bible and the quran are both texts far removed from our own time and literal readings of them as truth are a hindrance on scientific advances as well a source of moral philosophies that struggle with questions in our technological age."

As for the Bible, please tell me: Is the half glass of water half full or half empty? As Bible based laws are overturned in cultures, shouldn't we say that it is the cultures that remove themselves from the Biblical standard by their own choices?

Have you considered the vast increases in technology versus increasingly sharp moral decline? For example, the advanced state of internet communication we now enjoy was not in existence about 30 years ago. Because of it, things like access to pornography and victimization of pedophilia have exploded despite the good things the internet brought us that we enjoy. If we should thus depend only on increased learning and technological advances for our good, how do we go about controlling run-away human nature that corrupts? History repeats itself.

Should the Bible and the Koran be similarly categorized as your speech implies? Have you considered the vast differences between the two?

Why does religion exists? If we believe the Bible, we know that Adam and Eve had fellowship with God from the first moment they came into existence. But a bad move on their part (collectively our part) disrupted the fellowship and brought about the chaos that continues to this day.

Aren't we all like children that long for our wise parents to oversee us? Isn't there a search within each of us for someone superior that's powerful enough to control inclement weather and capable of blessing us with a good harvest, both of which are beyond our control?

As for whether there's a need to recognize God or not, is it not human nature that tends to lift itself to the no. 1 position in the universe only to set itself up for a massive flop? Regardless how well advanced in age, knowledge, and experience, aren't there moments of sudden crisis that catch us with knowledge hardly better than that of a child for handing a critical situation? Where then shall we find help? Such moments are where temptation for compromise is the greatest. Who may we trust with his human nature?

There's nothing that compares with the Bible as the technical manual for humanity! The greater its power, the greater the responsibility for care in its proper handling.


Earl

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Aren't we all like children that long for our wise parents to oversee us? Isn't there a search within each of us for someone superior that's powerful enough to control inclement weather and capable of blessing us with a good harvest, both of which are beyond our control?

It wasn't addressed to me, but this point in particular is one I've heard from time to time.

In the words of George Bernard Shaw, [/quote]Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.[/quote]

For me, personally, I would prefer to embrace it. The alternative (for me) is willful denial of what I think is true in favour of a comforting lie. And once recognised as a lie, how can it provide comfort? It is not the simple path, I would say that. Ultimately, recognizing (using your example) that inclement weather IS in fact beyond our control is far more comforting to me than believing we are leaves tossed about on the whims of an intelligent being. Because my immediate next reaction would be 'Why?'

Why did one town deserve to be flooded, and another not?
Why an earthquake here, a mere tremor there?

No. I don't live on a tectonic plate edge. Earthquakes don't occur here. In New Zealand I did. Earthquakes occurred. In Papua New Guinea, the whole are was riddled with active volcanoes, and severe tremors were constant. Same me in each situation.

 

[GodsVoice]

God is going to remove free will?

Who said we have free will to choose what we're going to observe in our mind? Didn't you know God is the ONE who feeds us all the make believe worlds we experience with our created senses that are used to pick up the invisible frequencies to make those worlds for us. We are not real people living on a real planet. It's all a total illusion that forms in the MIND which is another name for God.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Who said we have free will to choose what we're going to observe in our mind? Didn't you know God is the ONE who feeds us all the make believe worlds we experience with our created senses that are used to pick up the invisible frequencies to make those worlds for us. We are not real people living on a real planet. It's all a total illusion that forms in the MIND which is another name for God.

Sorry, I assumed there was a point to the current world.
Perhaps not then.

 

[GodsVoice]

Sorry, I assumed there was a point to the current world.
Perhaps not then.

Of course there's a reason the world is the way it is with all the cities full of false gods built with human hands. Here's a story I wrote for God a few weeks ago. It's about how the Beast was used to reveal God and His Voice. The Beast

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Wait, wait...if we don't have free will, from a Christian perspective, what is the point of this world?

 

[GodsVoice]

Wait, wait...if we don't have free will, from a Christian perspective, what is the point of this world?

Did you open up that link I shared with you to read?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Did you open up that link I shared with you to read?

Indeed I did. If that explained the point of the world assuming absence of free will, I might have missed it. Perhaps you could identify it more specifically?