Is Islam a universal religion.

[LuisDantas]

So essentially you wish to change the definition of religion? .

No. You did. I can only wonder why.

And let me say, I see attempts at fusing theistic religion with religion itself with very little sympathy. It is abuse of the concept and shows little respect for religious practice.

 

[Sha'irullah]

No. You did. I can only wonder why.

I did not try to change religion.
Religion is an organized system of practices and beliefs with give structure to a concept of spirituality.

And let me say, I see attempts at fusing theistic religion with religion itself with very little sympathy. It is abuse of the concept and shows little respect for religious practice.

How can a religion be non-theistic? As I stated earlier the only universal religion is the first building block that all religions share which is Belief in God or the Supernatural. That is about as universal as it gets

 

[LuisDantas]

I did not try to change religion.
Religion is an organized system of practices and beliefs with give structure to a concept of spirituality.

True enough.

Belief in God strictly optional, except as per the choices of specific paths.

How can a religion be non-theistic?

By not having a god-concept, as in Confucionism and Humanism, or by not basing itself on such a concept even if it happens to have one, as in Jainism, many forms of Taoism and most of Buddhism.

There are probably other ways as well.

As I stated earlier the only universal religion is the first building block that all religions share which is Belief in God or the Supernatural. That is about as universal as it gets

If you sincerely mistake belief in God with spirituality, I suppose that will sound just right. Unfortunately or otherwise, it is not actually true.

 

[Sha'irullah]

By not having a god-concept, as in Confucionism and Humanism, or by not basing itself on such a concept even if it happens to have one, as in Jainism, many forms of Taoism and most of Buddhism.

There are probably other ways as well.

Those beliefs have a form of spirituality though except for Confucianism and Humanism which are both labelled philosophies. They do not fall into the category of religion. Religion must have morals, practices, spirituality and philosophy. Stopping short on 1 of these does not make it a religion.

Confucianism and Humanism are not recognized as religions according to any person as far as I know. This is why in China they practiced this as communist ideology rids itself of religion and god. Most who do believe in god mix Confucianism with Buddhism often. Many people exclude Buddhism actually which is not fair considering that it is a Natural Theology.

If you sincerely mistake belief in God with spirituality, I suppose that will sound just right. Unfortunately or otherwise, it is not actually true.

I think this is where the problem is.
Religions accept both god and spirituality as to believe in god you cannot have the other. God is not necessary for religion entirely but spirituality(or even the supernatural) is all that is needed.
All religions fall under this branch.

 

[LuisDantas]

Those beliefs have a form of spirituality though except for Confucianism and Humanism which are both labelled philosophies.

Which is a very arbitrary distinction.

They do not fall into the category of religion. Religion must have morals, practices, spirituality and philosophy. Stopping short on 1 of these does not make it a religion.

Confucianism and Humanism are not recognized as religions according to any person as far as I know.

Really?

This is why in China they practiced this as communist ideology rids itself of religion and god. Most who do believe in god mix Confucianism with Buddhism often. Many people exclude Buddhism actually which is not fair considering that it is a Natural Theology.

I can't even figure what to make of this, sorry.

I think this is where the problem is.
Religions accept both god and spirituality as to believe in god you cannot have the other. God is not necessary for religion entirely but spirituality(or even the supernatural) is all that is needed.
All religions fall under this branch.

Yes, they do. But you are using a weird, artificially restrictive understanding of what spiritually is. That does not serve you well, I fear.

 

[paarsurrey]

The attributes we assign to god are our own imagination.

I don't agree with you.
The one true God has mentioned His attributes in Quran. It is not any human imagination.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I don't agree with you.
The one true God has mentioned His attributes in Quran. It is not any human imagination.

Please provide to me the evidence that the one true god spoke to Muhammad.

I do not accept the Qur'an as the word of god as it is the word of men. If that is so then it means that Muhammad was just a VERY smart person and so much of an intellectual he was able to compose the Qur'an.

The Qur'an does not dictate the nature of god.

 

[Breathe]

By not having a god-concept, as in Confucionism

Though I agree with your message, Confucianism has a God-concept; Neo-Confucianism turned it into more of a metaphor, though, probably because of influence of Buddhism -- but Confucius' teachings on Heaven were very theistic.

 

[paarsurrey]

Though I agree with your message, Confucianism has a God-concept; Neo-Confucianism turned it into more of a metaphor, though, probably because of influence of Buddhism -- but Confucius' teachings on Heaven were very theistic.

Thanks for providing the information.

 

[LuisDantas]

Though I agree with your message, Confucianism has a God-concept; Neo-Confucianism turned it into more of a metaphor, though, probably because of influence of Buddhism -- but Confucius' teachings on Heaven were very theistic.

I stand corrected. Thanks!

Edited to add: however, come to think of it, that it is even workable to build a Neo-Confucianism that does not truly need Theism is significant. Theism is quite legitimate, but it is not necessary for religious practice.


Have you seen this other thread? http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/comparative-religion/148495-god-does-not-exist.html

 

[paarsurrey]

Islam has very simple concepts and easy to practice; not many formalities; that also makes it universal.

 

[sojourner]

Well, is it?

Not so long as it keeps separating God's people into "righteous" and "infidel."

 

[LuisDantas]

Islam has very simple concepts and easy to practice; not many formalities; that also makes it universal.

So you see sense in saying that a strictly Theistic religion might be somehow universal?

 

[paarsurrey]

Not so long as it keeps separating God's people into "righteous" and "infidel."

It is the people who separate themselves; the one true God does not force anybody in any such category.

 

[paarsurrey]

So you see sense in saying that a strictly Theistic religion might be somehow universal?

If others claim to be universal religion also; that supports me also in a way; but for that they shall have to prove their claim and reason from the scripture they believe to be true.

If they put words in the mouth of their scriptures; that will only prove that they know more than their scriptures; that is in a way denying their scriptures.

 

[LuisDantas]

If others claim to be universal religion also; that supports me also in a way; but for that they shall have to prove their claim and reason from the scripture they believe to be true.

If they put words in the mouth of their scriptures; that will only prove that they know more than their scriptures; that is in a way denying their scriptures.

Well, personally I think that it is a misuse of scriptures to assume that they are necessarily wiser than the understanding of specific practicioners.

Religious people are supposed to develop religious wisdom to the best of their abilities, and that naturally means that sometimes they will indeed know better (or at least express better) than the pure letter of their scriptures.

I also believe that the reason of being of religion is the connection with the sacred and the moral, not necessarily with some conception of God; such conceptions are sometimes helpful, but just as often are actual obstacles to religiosity proper.

 

[paarsurrey]

That is unbecoming of the scriptures; in other words it is saying that one's scriptures are not perfect or due to the debris of times the scriptures have lost the perfectness and need to be reformed; and that is possible.

Of course one could differ with me.

 

[LuisDantas]

That is unbecoming of the scriptures; in other words it is saying that one's scriptures are not perfect or due to the debris of times the scriptures have lost the perfectness and need to be reformed; and that is possible.

Of course one could differ with me.

Could we agree that it is a matter of deciding how the perfection of the scripture in itself compares with the perfection of the understanding and expression of living people?

 

[paarsurrey]

Could we agree that it is a matter of deciding how the perfection of the scripture in itself compares with the perfection of the understanding and expression of living people?

I say that all revealed scripture were truthful and perfect at the time they were revealed on a truthful messenger prophet of the one true God; it was the duty of its followers to keep them secure and in the pristine form; when they failed in their duty; the light in them became dim and hence they lost the perfectness in them.

The scriptures must lead one to perfectness; if they are not perfect;they are dead meaning they don't serve the purpose, hence they need refurbishment.

 

[LuisDantas]

If so, then it would appear that there is no true scripture after all.