Ban the Bible and the Qur'an?

[lightbulbfish]

If ancient scripture was made by man not only should they be banned today but they should have been banned back then as well.

If ancient scripture Did come from God then shouldnt we have continued cannonized scripture today from God that is applicable to us in our time?

 

[Midget01]

You and a few others think removing God from an already horrible situation is the way to remedy an evil situation. Ok maybe you don't understand the Bible, the Koran, or at worst the Mormon books or any other books on moral behavior with in a purported religious community is a way of fixing something we think we need to fix. That is our first mistake. We don't fix the world. Sometimes things are not up to us. Yes we can adjust and correct our behaviors but if we have no guide to show us what is right and what is wrong then our behavior then becomes more difficult and have far reaching issues to deal with. Our Government Laws of Society are based on these so called Golden Rules and some of you think we don't need law? This type of thinking is what got us in t his mess in the first place. I will pray for you. Most of you who have succumb to the new so called New Age Religion have lost sight of real truth. You don't spank your children who looked to you for guidance because some of the people over due the punishment (they react in anger when they punish instead of focusing on true justification for your child's wrong ). Verbal and physical abuse are truly wrong (I was a Child Protection Caseworker); but children crave parents attention and their love. To let a child grow up in a society with out rules and guide would only create Chaos. If you want a good world read your bible, live it and love those who haven't heard or learned of this loving and forgiving God. Correct those who misunderstand His words. Evil exists in this world and we can't remove it; we can only avoid it and help others find their way. God will preserve those who live by His rule. Old fashion I don't think so. In the 1900's many of us thought there was a better way and many revolted and then we ended up with Margaret Sanger ( Planned Parenthood, Adolph Hitler ,Mussolini, and a whole list of New Churches who thought they were more right than God. He has let all those people have their way and because of this Groups like Isis are formed and they bully their way across our Universe. Read Screw Tape Letters written by C.S. Lewis. He never became Catholic but he gives more of a reason (for Atheists or a person questioning faith) to believe then all other modern day writers today. The Shack also offers a different alternative way of looking or coming to faith. These are books good books should they also be banned? While I am a devout Catholic and a full-fledged practicing one; I could have come with more religious Catholic books; yet I realize a lot of you are either against the Catholic Church or have fallen away and would not view my well formed suggestions with proper thought. So I make suggestions that perhaps you might relate to. We do not let the prisoners out of jail because one person thinks that the inmates are causing too much trouble. We look at what we are doing to insight the riots. We reorganize and we recreate a new approach but we protect those people in our communities who cannot protect themselves. We owe our world that much. Many can't fight back due to lack of funds, lack of power, lack of knowledge etc. There are as many reasons as there are countries and people. To give up and remove the Words of our Creator is not the answer. Many of our schools have already went down hill with the removal of prayer and rules and now you want a country and eventually a world with Chaos? You must be one of them; one the devil plants to seed this world to convince those who are feeble and weak that it would be easier since there are variations of belief to remove them after all look at how some people misunderstand and look at how they misuse these so called Sacred Words. Instead this world needs to dig in read those books compare them and live by the truth that is revealed in them. Then those who think they are strong can not go against God's strong people because a body of Christ cannot be defeated because He himself says not even the gates of hell will destroy them. Those of you who are weak or think you have figured it out will argue and try to put me down but it is not mean you blaspheme against it is God your creator and in the end you will see that God wins. It has been prophesied for over 3,000 years if not longer. Then the Word of God was put to paper and Man has argued and tried to control Him since the beginning of time. Adam and Eve thought the devil might be right and they spent a long time repenting for their sin. This story shows man that we are not in charge and what happens when we think we are. Believe it or not Free Will is your Choice. Heaven or Hell is your choice. But remember you can't make a decision for others. If you do and you are wrong you will pay dearly for leading others astray. I for one have a hard enough time living my own life without telling others to sacrifice their souls to turn away from their Redeemer and allow Satan to rule this world. I don't tell them they must believe but I ask them to allow those who might want to to have the freedom to search and seek out their truth not yours. That is your choice.

 

[Fool]

If ancient scripture was made by man not only should they be banned today but they should have been banned back then as well.

If ancient scripture Did come from God then shouldnt we have continued cannonized scripture today from God that is applicable to us in our time?

we have you, a book of wonders.

And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books.

 

[icehorse]

Just i said
They will say he can't to be a judge himself

Exactly! And in the same way, non-Muslims say that Muslims can't be the only judge of what's the best book. We simply don't give you the authority to decide for us.

This is the problem with many religions, Islam being an example. Muslims are not open to other ideas. Muslims are forced to always defend that their ideas are the best. It's a form of intolerance and it has always created conflict, and it will always create conflict.

Non-Muslims simply do not believe Muslims whenever Muslims will not compromise. And it's too often that Muslims will not compromise.

 

[interminable]

Yeah, and their judgement is that the Qur'an is not God's word. That's why they're unbelievers. So do you accept their judgement and become a kaffir?

First they need to bring like Qur'an and then say we won't believe in

 

[Kirran]

First they need to bring like Qur'an and then say we won't believe in

But they're the judge of whether it's like the Qur'an or not. Easy!

'Like the Qur'an' is meaningless.

 

[interminable]

Exactly! And in the same way, non-Muslims say that Muslims can't be the only judge of what's the best book. We simply don't give you the authority to decide for us.

This is the problem with many religions, Islam being an example. Muslims are not open to other ideas. Muslims are forced to always defend that their ideas are the best. It's a form of intolerance and it has always created conflict, and it will always create conflict.

Non-Muslims simply do not believe Muslims whenever Muslims will not compromise. And it's too often that Muslims will not compromise.

U made these questions to back to square one

They have to bring 3 verses like the Qur'an then say we aren't belivers

In your case even those who don't know Arabic can make this claim that this book isn't good enough.

But they're the judge of whether it's like the Qur'an or not. Easy!

'Like the Qur'an' is meaningless.

 

[icehorse]

They have to bring 3 verses like the Qur'an then say we aren't belivers

Non-Muslims DO NOT AGREE that Muslims are in charge of making the rules. Have you read Rumi? I would say that Rumi's writing is far superior to the Quran. And Rumi wrote in Persian.

 

[KKawohl]

If the medieval practices and the medieval beliefs of Christianity, Judaism and Islam that are based on superstitions were eliminated, then we could start building a rational and logical belief system that is based on truth and an understanding of spirituality. This is the value of truthfulness and rationality. - A transcendologist

 

[interminable]

Non-Muslims DO NOT AGREE that Muslims are in charge of making the rules. Have you read Rumi? I would say that Rumi's writing is far superior to the Quran. And Rumi wrote in Persian.

Hafez
Sadi
Khaiam
Jami

All have poems that are equal of rumi

But we don't have any book like Qur'an in centuries
That's the difference


That's enough
We talked a lot
I'm tired

 

[Fool]

If the medieval practices and the medieval beliefs of Christianity, Judaism and Islam that are based on superstitions were eliminated, then we could start building a rational and logical belief system that is based on truth and an understanding of spirituality. This is the value of truthfulness and rationality. - A transcendologist

language and colloquialism becomes an issue as the dead letter. adapt or die, evolve. the form may change but its still a person no matter how small/tall.

 

[icehorse]

Hafez
Sadi
Khaiam
Jami

All have poems that are equal of rumi

But we don't have any book like Qur'an in centuries
That's the difference


That's enough
We talked a lot
I'm tired

And I'm happy to understand your OPINION. But it's not a fact, it's just an opinion.

 

[Quintessence]

@Laika - I figure someone has to try and drag this thread back on-topic.

Pardon if the use of the phrase "cultural genocide" is bothersome. I aim to be careful in using that phrase, but I find it important to call out because groups that tell the story of "we want to get rid of this way of life and replace it with ours in the name of blah blah blah" see themselves as being on high ground (aka, they are very ethnocentric). It's a way to remind folks that what they propose has destructive and catastrophic consequences upon others - it makes them think about the costs. I'd like to think that helps defray the irritating self-righteous arrogance of the ethnocentric mindset, but that's probably being naive. That hubris seems rather intrinsic, for better or for worse. Still, I have respect for those who know their principles and stick by them knowing full well that they are waging a war with those ideals. I mostly like to remind folks to pick their battles carefully and be certain they're willing to die on that hill.

I think I'll leave alone any criticism of the myth of progress that underlies the stories you tell. Instead I'd like to point out a couple problems with the approach you have here.

(1) It needs to be remembered that while the various Abrahamic traditions have a holy book, they are not defined by it. Many of the beliefs and practices within their traditions come not from this book, but from cultural and familial traditions, other authoritative bodies like clergy and scholars, non-scriptual sources and contemporary writings, and so forth. Removing the holy book would thus accomplish very little, save perhaps ticking folks off.

(2) I'm just not seeing the problem with deriving inspiration from something that happens to be old. The value and merit of an idea has little correspondence to its age or its source. Compelling ideas are compelling ideas, and talented bards or storytellers can weave any tale into relevance for any age and audience. Hell, this has already happened. The myth of progress is basically a retelling of the myth of salvation cast in window dressing that post-Enlightenment techno-worshipers enjoy. So I guess I find the entire proposal a bit ironic.

 

[Rapture Era]

The bible commands Christians to love and forgive others, even their enemies! The Quran does not. What does that say about the followers of each book? What have we seen in just the last 10 years how Christians behave and how Muslims behave with regard to love and forgiveness toward others?So if I were to get rid of one book or the other, guess which one?

 

[Fool]

The bible commands Christians to love and forgive others, even their enemies! The Quran does not. What does that say about the followers of each book? What have we seen in just the last 10 years how Christians behave and how Muslims behave with regard to love and forgiveness toward others?So if I were to get rid of one book or the other, guess which one?

Islam requires the oneness of love, tawheed, or tawhid.

 

[Kirran]

Hafez
Sadi
Khaiam
Jami

All have poems that are equal of rumi

But we don't have any book like Qur'an in centuries
That's the difference


That's enough
We talked a lot
I'm tired

You seem to have missed his point that all such Sufi poets write stuff which is better than the Qur'an. So not only are they like it, but have surpassed it. I'd agree with that, incidentally.

 

[interminable]

You seem to have missed his point that all such Sufi poets write stuff which is better than the Qur'an. So not only are they like it, but have surpassed it. I'd agree with that, incidentally.

U say better
While I as a Persian speaker I say it's not
Actually they can't be compared to Qur'an
I don't know how do u say that?

 

[icehorse]

U say better
While I as a Persian speaker I say it's not
Actually they can't be compared to Qur'an
I don't know how do u say that?

Comparing books is a subjective activity. You have your OPINION and I have a different OPINION. We could potentially have interesting debates and discussions about our OPINIONS.

But Muslims often claim that their OPINIONS are FACTS. That's where the problems start. It is simply NOT A FACT that the Quran cannot be surpassed. It's only an OPINION.

 

[Kirran]

U say better
While I as a Persian speaker I say it's not
Actually they can't be compared to Qur'an
I don't know how do u say that?

At the end of the day 'Who reads a love letter in the presence of the beloved?'

 

[Laika]

@Laika - I figure someone has to try and drag this thread back on-topic.

Pardon if the use of the phrase "cultural genocide" is bothersome. I aim to be careful in using that phrase, but I find it important to call out because groups that tell the story of "we want to get rid of this way of life and replace it with ours in the name of blah blah blah" see themselves as being on high ground (aka, they are very ethnocentric). It's a way to remind folks that what they propose has destructive and catastrophic consequences upon others - it makes them think about the costs. I'd like to think that helps defray the irritating self-righteous arrogance of the ethnocentric mindset, but that's probably being naive. That hubris seems rather intrinsic, for better or for worse. Still, I have respect for those who know their principles and stick by them knowing full well that they are waging a war with those ideals. I mostly like to remind folks to pick their battles carefully and be certain they're willing to die on that hill.

I think I'll leave alone any criticism of the myth of progress that underlies the stories you tell. Instead I'd like to point out a couple problems with the approach you have here.

(1) It needs to be remembered that while the various Abrahamic traditions have a holy book, they are not defined by it. Many of the beliefs and practices within their traditions come not from this book, but from cultural and familial traditions, other authoritative bodies like clergy and scholars, non-scriptual sources and contemporary writings, and so forth. Removing the holy book would thus accomplish very little, save perhaps ticking folks off.

(2) I'm just not seeing the problem with deriving inspiration from something that happens to be old. The value and merit of an idea has little correspondence to its age or its source. Compelling ideas are compelling ideas, and talented bards or storytellers can weave any tale into relevance for any age and audience. Hell, this has already happened. The myth of progress is basically a retelling of the myth of salvation cast in window dressing that post-Enlightenment techno-worshipers enjoy. So I guess I find the entire proposal a bit ironic.

Yeah. The topic sort of aborted. I can't think why?

I honestly have to wrestle with the implications of cultural genocide, given how quickly it degenerates into the real thing. I can't remember who said it but there's a quote that feels appropriate: "first they burn books, then we burn people". The evolutionary logic often goes that far in over-riding more individual and human considerations. I admit I have no solution to that so I accept using the term and your criticism as valid- but progress is not either creative or destructive but both. The results of cultural genocide are both catastrophic and destructive which is what makes the subject so "meaningful" in evaluating the price or cost of progress (even if it is agreed as such).

In response to your points:

1) that is true. If reading the bible or the Quran were merely a symptom rather than the "cause", something is going to fill the gap. I think Thomas Aquinas books would be a good candidate.

If anything that sort of underlines the absurdity of trying to regulate the evolution of human thought but it depends if the interests of those who regulate and those who are regulated are the same. I've yet to hear a clear argument that that is so, so that sort of thought control produces major conflicts of interest.

2) the argument I've used could well be an argument for burning the collected works of Shakespeare or Dickens, if you apply the same evolutionary logic to fiction (thinking of ideas as tools). So the subjective factor of the simple pleasure of reading and knowing could be an argument against a sort of utilitarian attitude to ideas. It might as well be saying you should burn the Sistine chapel or the last supper for having religious symbolism. Your right to see the irony as whether it were Christians or Communists burning books or works of art or destroying music, it is still iconoclasm in thinking words and symbols have a power to communicate ideas beyond the person reading, looking at or listening to them. I think the Soviets banned Mozarts church music because of its religious symbolism.

I agree with you basically and it's the fact I have no decent criticism or way to smooth over the catastrophic effects which makes the idea difficult to dismiss. it's hard to get a discussion going on to a point where the very value of progress is discussed in a relatable way. a majority of people wouldn't even pose this sort question hypothetically. it's unthinkable to them even if they live with the results of people practicing censorship and cultural genocide in the past simply because it was so successful in eradicating all trace of what went before. It's a strange kind of selective blindness to our own history and that it may happen again in the future.