Chronologically and geographically isolated revelation = god is unjust and unfair.

[jmvizanko]

Not all religions are revelation-based, you know.

Well obviously the thread is only targeted at the one's that consider themselves as such.

 

[bowingtoGod]

first let me add that I am horrible at apologetics so I am sure my arguments will be destroyed (sighs)
anyways here I go!!
For the miracle thing, God did send a miracle to all times. The Qur'an. It is met without equal. It's beauty is unparalleled and its message is timeless. The Prophets (peace be upon them) did have miracles for that specific time (Moses (pbuh) split the sea, Jesus (pbuh) cured the ill, and Muhammad (pbuh) the final messenger brought the Qur'an). Since Prophet Muhammad's (pbuh) miracle was meant for all of mankind, it must be a continuous miracle. As such it must always make people go in awe.

Well that was my argument. Please be kind in responding
I don't take well to emotional stress

 

[Riverwolf]

Well obviously the thread is only targeted at the one's that consider themselves as such.

But you said that "any" religion (that is, any that you can pick out of a hat... IOW, all of them) fit the qualification, that is, of chronologically and geographically isolated revelation. This statement would only work if all religions were revelation-based, which is not true.

 

[Riverwolf]

I don't take well to emotional stress

Neither do I, brother, neither do I.

If that's really the case, I recommend not participating too much, if at all, in the debates section, because it can get very heated here.

 

[jmvizanko]

first let me add that I am horrible at apologetics so I am sure my arguments will be destroyed (sighs)
anyways here I go!!
For the miracle thing, God did send a miracle to all times. The Qur'an. It is met without equal. It's beauty is unparalleled and its message is timeless. The Prophets (peace be upon them) did have miracles for that specific time (Moses (pbuh) split the sea, Jesus (pbuh) cured the ill, and Muhammad (pbuh) the final messenger brought the Qur'an). Since Prophet Muhammad's (pbuh) miracle was meant for all of mankind, it must be a continuous miracle. As such it must always make people go in awe.

Well that was my argument. Please be kind in responding
I don't take well to emotional stress

But the Koran was, once again, delivered after much of humanity existed, to at first a small group of people in a small region. What about all the people that existed before it, or the people a thousand miles away after it was finished? Why would a god leave whatever he considered his important message in the hands of people to transmit? Why not just deliver the message directly to everyone equally?

Personally, and I'll admit I haven't read much of it at all, I am not impressed at all with anything from the Koran I have seen. Definitely not to the point of considering it miraculous by any means. Most texts considered holy appear to me to be overly cryptic, repetitive, and largely incoherent, as well as boring, poems obviously written by ancient, unintentionally ignorant men.

And no worries about me being mean. I'll say my opinion bluntly, but I try to remain as respectful as possible. I find ad hominem abhorable.

 

[Blackdog22]

But you said that "any" religion (that is, any that you can pick out of a hat... IOW, all of them) fit the qualification, that is, of chronologically and geographically isolated revelation. This statement would only work if all religions were revelation-based, which is not true.

I believe he said "Any religion *that* met the qualification." Not "Any Religion met the qualifications."

 

[jmvizanko]

I believe he said "Any religion *that* met the qualification." Not "Any Religion met the qualifications."

Well to be fair, I did say "god is unjust" not this or that god is unjust, although, I obviously have recognized that there are conceptions of god that do not include isolated revelation.

 

[Madhuri]

For the miracle thing, God did send a miracle to all times. The Qur'an. It is met without equal. It's beauty is unparalleled and its message is timeless. The Prophets (peace be upon them) did have miracles for that specific time (Moses (pbuh) split the sea, Jesus (pbuh) cured the ill, and Muhammad (pbuh) the final messenger brought the Qur'an). Since Prophet Muhammad's (pbuh) miracle was meant for all of mankind, it must be a continuous miracle. As such it must always make people go in awe.

But the Qur'an was not available at all times. It was compiled by your Prophet relatively recently in human history. Do you mean that God has revealed his message in various forms at different times?

You say that the Qu'ran is met without equal and it's beauty is unparalleled. I ask you, have you read any other scripture to know this? Because I have read from the Qu'ran and then read the Bhagavad Gita and in comparison, the Qu'ran is very ordinary. Rather than making this sound like I'm preaching, I'd like to acknowledge that this is comparison shows a subjectivity in perspective. I find my Hindu scripture to be the most beautiful and wise truth but another person will find a different scripture to be the most wonderful. But I do not think a person can legitimately make that comparison without actually exploring other texts.

You said: "Since Prophet Muhammad's (pbuh) miracle was meant for all of mankind, it must be a continuous miracle. As such it must always make people go in awe."

But it doesn't.

 

[Riverwolf]

and largely incoherent, as well as boring,

They were more coherent and less boring in the language for which they were intended.

Imagine how incoherent and boring Shakespeare must be in some other language. ^_^

 

[Riverwolf]

I believe he said "Any religion *that* met the qualification." Not "Any Religion met the qualifications."

Oh, whoops. ^_^

My bad. I retract my statement.

 

[Riverwolf]

I find my Hindu scripture to be the most beautiful and wise truth but another person will find a different scripture to be the most wonderful.

I once saw an atheist call the Bhagavad-Gita "one of the driest books he'd ever read." ^_^ (To which I say he was probably reading a very dry translation... like most of them. )

Certainly, the worth of a holy book shouldn't be based on whether or not everybody "likes" it.

 

[Zadok]

first let me add that I am horrible at apologetics so I am sure my arguments will be destroyed (sighs)
anyways here I go!!
For the miracle thing, God did send a miracle to all times. The Qur'an. It is met without equal. It's beauty is unparalleled and its message is timeless. The Prophets (peace be upon them) did have miracles for that specific time (Moses (pbuh) split the sea, Jesus (pbuh) cured the ill, and Muhammad (pbuh) the final messenger brought the Qur'an). Since Prophet Muhammad's (pbuh) miracle was meant for all of mankind, it must be a continuous miracle. As such it must always make people go in awe.

Well that was my argument. Please be kind in responding
I don't take well to emotional stress

It is my understanding that the Qur'an is only for those that speak Arabic and that if translated is no longer considered as holy as the Arabic Qur’an. If that is true then that particular miracle was not meant for all of mankind – just those that read Arabic.

Zadok

 

[jmvizanko]

It is my understanding that the Qur'an is only for those that speak Arabic and that if translated is no longer considered as holy as the Arabic Qur’an. If that is true then that particular miracle was not meant for all of mankind – just those that read Arabic.

Zadok

I don't buy that argument for a second. If we can translate any other written dialogue in Arabic and understand its full meaning in English, I refuse to believe that the Koran, a book written with human language, is not fully translatable. Surely translation somtimes does destroy some meaning, but that doesn't mean somebody perfectly fluent in both languages and knowledgable about the context of everything in the Koran cannot produce a nearly perfect translation.

Arabic may be more pretty looking than english, and I happen to think it is, but it is still human language built of words and an arbitrarily different syntax. Its not like anything I have read in the Koran is so complex or unique to Arabs that it can't be perfectly expressed in another language. If this last statement is wrong, then give an example.

I think the whole point of this is as a ploy to be able to say to anyone critical of the Koran that they just don't understand it.

 

[bowingtoGod]

Neither do I, brother, neither do I.

If that's really the case, I recommend not participating too much, if at all, in the debates section, because it can get very heated here.

Awww *hugs back*
I thank you brother
I know, when we get into debates I get sad.
Oh well. I gave my two cents hahahaha
By the way, I have tried reading the Bhagavad Gita and other scriptures of Hinduism. But it is so confusing for me (although I do get the feeling I am reading something very deep and wise). I am not too smart so ahhh.
I bought a book called, "The Everything Hinduism Book". I hope I can learn from it insha'Allah (God willing)

 

[Madhuri]

I once saw an atheist call the Bhagavad-Gita "one of the driest books he'd ever read." ^_^ (To which I say he was probably reading a very dry translation... like most of them. )

Certainly, the worth of a holy book shouldn't be based on whether or not everybody "likes" it.

I'd expect an atheist to find a book about spiritual practice to be fairly boring.
But I can't imagine anyone not loving the Mahabharata as a whole

 

[Madhuri]

By the way, I have tried reading the Bhagavad Gita and other scriptures of Hinduism. But it is so confusing for me (although I do get the feeling I am reading something very deep and wise). I am not too smart so ahhh.

I am sure you are smart enough but I would expect it to be difficult as the concepts are very, very different to the Abrahamic philosophy. It is an entirely different reality

 

[Meow Mix]

I'd expect an atheist to find a book about spiritual practice to be fairly boring.
But I can't imagine anyone not loving the Mahabharata as a whole

Hey, that depends on what qualifies as spiritual practice. I love reading stories about the Greek gods and the legends surrounding them, for instance. Some parts of the Bible are "kind of" cool but ugh... so dry to read and not even worth it for the story.

Now... J.R.R. Tolkien's Silmarillion is downright awesome.

Fairy tales entrenched in fairy tales, fierce romances, high kings, epic battles that ring with heraldic fury! Now THAT I can get behind!

*changed my religion to Iluvatarism*

 

[logician]

Why would a fair and just super intelligent being only present his miracles and/or messiah to a select few in a specific location eons before and after, as well as around the globe away, from most of the people that ever existed? And then to top it off with, expect everyone to accept a telephone game testimony of these miracles and affirmations of truth? Why would it not make more sense to share with everyone equally any reason to affirm faith in any specific direction, rather than letting such imperfect means be the only source of discovering the truth, let alone the most important truth to know for anyone's soul?

This is one question, of course, that cannot be answered by a religion that believes in a man-god that supposedly existed in some past time.

 

[croak]

I don't buy that argument for a second. If we can translate any other written dialogue in Arabic and understand its full meaning in English, I refuse to believe that the Koran, a book written with human language, is not fully translatable. Surely translation somtimes does destroy some meaning, but that doesn't mean somebody perfectly fluent in both languages and knowledgable about the context of everything in the Koran cannot produce a nearly perfect translation.

Arabic may be more pretty looking than english, and I happen to think it is, but it is still human language built of words and an arbitrarily different syntax. Its not like anything I have read in the Koran is so complex or unique to Arabs that it can't be perfectly expressed in another language. If this last statement is wrong, then give an example.

I think the whole point of this is as a ploy to be able to say to anyone critical of the Koran that they just don't understand it.

Qantara.de - Precise or Poetic?
Assessing English Translations of the Qur'an :: Middle East Quarterly

Perfect translations don't exist. As for a nearly perfect translation, what would you prefer: meaning or poetry? If meaning, how would you prefer words with many possible meanings be translated? A list of all possible meanings? What about idioms? Would you prefer them to be translated word-for-word or translated into a compatible idiom in another language? Or both? I foresee the Qur'an turning into a dictionary at this rate.

And oh, I missed the first part of your post:

If we can translate any other written dialogue in Arabic and understand its full meaning in English

Where did you get that idea? Lost in Arabic translation / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com And then you have the dialects... oh dear.

 

[jmvizanko]

Perfect translations don't exist.

And I said as much. But how nearly perfect is perfect enough to understand it basically? Should we never bother translating anything between any two languages, because we can only get to 99.9% meaning accuracy? At a certain point you get the point, and the point in my opinion is that there is nothing significantly greater about the Koran than any other holy text I've read anything from. And there is nothing great to begin with about any of them, other than beauty from a historical and poetic standpoint.

Where did you get that idea? Lost in Arabic translation / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com And then you have the dialects... oh dear.

So there are crappy translators out there. This can happen between any two languages. But once again, that is why it is important to verify and be careful about translation.