My first post

[TagliatelliMonster]

(ps: please start using the quoting function, because it's really hard to keep track of a conversation in this way)

Since you didn’t accept my definition, then I’ll go with yours. What do you mean by having a duration and occupying a location?

Not sure what you find so confusing about that...
Duration = a period of time
occupying a location = a place somewhere

So if X exists, that means that it is manifesting in some location for some period of time.

I agree, and I never made such a claim either. There are a lot of people that don’t believe in God and they are morally better people than those that do believe in God.

So what use does religion have then?

Yet, that has nothing to do with religion not being needed. Islam for example is a guide for anyone that wants it

But you just acknowledge that this isn't required, since people will simply do what they do regardless (ie: being messed up or not messed up).

It’s not forced upon anyone

Isn't it?
Tell me.... according to islamic lore, what happens to an atheist when he dies while having heard about Islam while (s)he was alive?

nor can a person force another person to change what's in their heart.

So, according to islamic lore, what should happen to a muslim who no longer has islam in his heart and for that reason apostates and leaves the religion?


Tell me again that there is no compulsion in Islam..................

You can also say that there is no "compulsion in paying protection money to the mafia don".
But the fact is that if you don't, you'll get a bullet in the head.
And if that happens, then you did not commit suicide.

 

[Come2thelight]

@TransmutingSoul

Hey Tony, I hope you're well.

“The Word of Allah can indeed touch our heart. There a rare few that are pure enough in heart to embrace those Messages without being educated”

You seem to have missed my point. I am not referring to those that became Muslims, but those that denied it and called it magic words. They were still affected by it because they knew the Arabic language (morphology, semantics, and syntax). So my question still stands friend. Why do you think people can't know the message of the Quran under a linguistic microscope?

And concerning your new Prophet. What have you done to verify his claims? Why are you convinced that he was a Prophet of God?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

“How do Muslims rationalize this?”

For starters, by not judging the 7th century based on our current standards.

Aren't Allah's standards supposed to be timeless?

Secondly, could you honestly tell me that you would be the only one at that time that would speak out against this custom? Or would you probably have gotten married off early like everyone else?

The question is not if primitive barbarians saw problems with it. The question is why the all knowing, supposedly benevolent, creator of the universe didn't saw problems with it...................

He goes out of his way to tell humans what they can and can't eat, what they can and can't wear, etc.
He even goes out of his way to show his homophobia and call for the deaths of 2 adults who have sex with mutual consent.
But he doesn't see any problems with having sexual relations with children or with keeping slaves.

It's curious how this God's moral standards seem completely on par with the primitive moral standards of the society in which his religion was born. It's even more curious how this seems to be the case with ALL gods.
It's almost, .... almost...., as if these people just invented these religions and formalized their own morals and ideas into it.

 

[Come2thelight]

When I have a bunch of messages piled up, I can't quote them like this. This system isn't the friendliest. Sub comments so that each commenter has their own 'box' sort of thing could help with the organizing.

Not sure what you find so confusing about that...
Duration = a period of time
occupying a location = a place somewhere

So if X exists, that means that it is manifesting in some location for some period of time.

Here's an analogy that could help you understand the Muslim belief concerning God.

The Maker of the computer doesn't become the computer, nor is the Maker subjected by the laws the computer runs by, nor is the Maker made up of the same material as the computer.

In the above analogy God is the Maker and existence is the computer. Existence can be everything we know and everything we don't know. (ie the laws, objects, creatures, emotions, death, concepts, and so forth)

Under this premise, we don't say God is occupying a location within this universe rather beyond it and is not subjected by time. Rather time is just another computer.

So what use does religion have then?

Help us pass the test and develop a connection with the source of existence.

But you just acknowledge that this isn't required, since people will simply do what they do regardless (ie: being messed up or not messed up).

Yes, people are free to do whatever they want, but for those that want guidance, there is a guide. Not everyone believes this life has no purpose, and thus go on a spiritual journey looking for guidance. Some land on Islam, some land elsewhere. C'est la vie

Isn't it?
Tell me.... according to islamic lore, what happens to an atheist when he dies while having heard about Islam while (s)he was alive?

They'll be questioned on the Day of Judgment on why God should accept them in the next life while they denied Him in this one.

So, according to islamic lore, what should happen to a muslim who no longer has islam in his heart and for that reason apostates and leaves the religion?

Secularly, nothing.

You can also say that there is no "compulsion in paying protection money to the mafia don".
But that fact is that if you don't, you'll get a bullet in the head.
And if that happens, then you did not commit suicide.

There's a difference here with your example. If a person doesn't believe in God, then the threat of Hell is empty. While the Mafia don will kill the person if they don't pay up. The individual is dealing with a direct consequence, while the disbeliever in God isn't.

 

[Audie]

@Audie

I won't lie, but your wording confuses me. Are you saying that it is irrational to conclude that existence has a source?

You really - really dont understand that no
amount of " revelation"` nor philosophy or
metaphysics is going to provide any information on such matters as the speed of light, the nature of time, or how what we call
the universe arrived in its present state?

Your kalam cosmo / revelation / metaphysics or whatever names strike your fancy are not
irrational. The word is facile.

 

[Audie]

Aren't Allah's standards supposed to be timeless?



The question is not if primitive barbarians saw problems with it. The question is why the all knowing, supposedly benevolent, creator of the universe didn't saw problems with it...................

He goes out of his way to tell humans what they can and can't eat, what they can and can't wear, etc.
He even goes out of his way to show his homophobia and call for the deaths of 2 adults who have sex with mutual consent.
But he doesn't see any problems with having sexual relations with children or with keeping slaves.

It's curious how this God's moral standards seem completely on par with the primitive moral standards of the society in which his religion was born. It's even more curious how this seems to be the case with ALL gods.
It's almost, .... almost...., as if these people just invented these religions and formalized their own morals and ideas into it.

Weve seen this same q asked of others of
different faith. And about why the " science"
Is equally crude or superstitious.

 

[Come2thelight]

This custom lasted until at least the 20th century pretty much all over the globe.

Cecile of France married at the age of 8 or 9 in 1106.

Marie of Ponthieu married at the age of 9 in 1208.

Joan of France married at the age of 9 to the duke of burgundy Odo IV in 1318.

Isabella of Valois married at the age of 6 married King Richard II and he was 29 in 1396.

Charlotte of Savoy married at the age of 9 in 1451.

Anne de La Tour d'Auvergne married at 8 in 1505.

Christina of Denmark married at 11 in 1533. Princess Luisa Cristina of Savoy married at 13 in 1642.

Marguerite Sédilot, married at 11 in 1654.

Landgravine Caroline of Hesse-Rotenburg, married at 13 in 1728.

Maria Teresa Cybo-Malaspina, Duchess of Massa married at 9 in 1734.

Justina Davis, married at 15 to Arthur Dobbs who was 73! in 1762.

Virginia Eliza Clemm Poe, married at 13 in 1837.

Frances Belle Heenan, married at 15 to Edward Browning who was 51 in 1926.

Don't sit here and think that it is objective to judge a certain period based on our contemporary mindset. That's not how it works.

He even goes out of his way to show his homophobia and call for the deaths of 2 adults who have sex with mutual consent.

Where does it say to kill two homosexuals in the Quran?

But he doesn't see any problems with having sexual relations with children or with keeping slaves.

We are not allowed to have sexual relationships with children. This is your misunderstanding. They must be mentally and physically mature before anything.

 

[Come2thelight]

@Audie
I disagree to an extent. Yes, it wouldn't be definitive, yet that doesn't mean we can't come to rational conclusions based on what we can examine.

For example, do you believe the universe had a beginning?

 

[Come2thelight]

@danieldemol

“Why do you say technically they shouldn't fast when the Quran says they should fast, from when "the white thread of dawn appear to you distinct from its black thread; then complete your fast till the night appears" surah 2:187”

Because during those periods, such a distinction isn’t possible. Therefore, technically excused from fasting and as compensation they can feed a needy person or make up the days at a later period as the Quran dictates. However, this isn’t the case today and as stated, the Muslim communities in those locations found it best to follow Mecca timings.

 

[Come2thelight]

@Sedim Haba

If you can’t find the link to the PDF, you can always go to quran.com and then find the same translation within the settings.

Concerning the Hadith. You can go to Sunnah.com, they’ll have the grading system there as well for you to know which hadiths are authentic and which ones are weak.

“I would imagine that Hadith is very much like the Jewish Talmud, acting as the source for the practices that come from the teachings into daily life.”

Hadith in the Arabic language means narration. The Quran calls itself a Hadith. (18:6)

When we refer to Hadith al nabawi, we are referring to the sayings and actions of the Prophet Muhammad. These hadiths come through chains of narrations that have to get traced back to the Prophet himself. You can learn more about them in the following videos if you would like.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Here's an analogy that could help you understand the Muslim belief concerning God.
Help us pass the test and develop a connection with the source of existence.
.. but for those that want guidance, there is a guide.
They'll be questioned on the Day of Judgment on why God should accept them in the next life while they denied Him in this one.
The individual is dealing with a direct consequence, while the disbeliever in God isn't.

Talk about belief after you have given the proof.
What do you know of the source of existence? Tests would come up later.
Which one? Many claims. What proof of authenticity?
Don't compound your problems. You talk of God, then guides, and now judgment? Where is the proof?
What need to deal with what has no material consequence?

Spin a yarn and then get your own self entangled in it.

 

[sayak83]

@sayak83

“Assume there are a set of scriptures that are revealed to the accomplished practioners through mystical communication or in trances. New insights may come in a continuous fashion to accomplished worshippers in this mode. So the scripture continues to grow.”

Where can we examine these continuously growing scriptures?

You seem to misunderstanding. I am talking about any hypothetical religious faith. It seems to me that you are simply trying to dodge the question by asking for details. Why do you need so much details? Let us assume that this religion never ever came from Allah or any of his prophets past or present. Now what is your answer?

 

[Come2thelight]

What do you know of the source of existence?

Whatever the source revealed through the Prophet Muhammad.

Which one?

There is only one source of existence.

What proof of authenticity?

It's a step process...

1) We can show you a lot of evidence that points towards the Quran being a spoken revelation and that a book was never compiled until after the death of the Prophet.

2) I can also show you that we have copies of the same Quran that can be dated close to the Prophet's era. Plus, other manuscripts that have been discovered can be brought in as evidence to compare with the current Quran and we can see little to no change in them all. The variations that we do find come from human error, or from the difference in presentation, due to the evolution of the Arabic language.

3) I can also share more evidence that points to the Quran being spontaneously revealed based on day-to-day events for about a span of 23 years.

4) I can also show you that a linguist will state that humans cannot spontaneously speak in a perfectly coherent manner.

5) We can also examine through linguistics (morphology, semantics, and syntax) that the Quran is perfectly coherent spontaneous speech and thus not the product of a human mind.

The question is, would showing the above help?

 

[Come2thelight]

Why do you need so much details?

So that I can be fair in my assessment.

Let us assume that this religion never ever came from Allah or any of his prophets past or present. Now what is your answer

Allah just means "The God" in the Arabic language. The source of existence has had many names over the course of history. So if you are talking about that source of existence, but it brought a message to people in some land, then again, we will be ok with it face value, but then we will like to see the teachings in order to be sure. This is out of being fair and not by dodging the question.

I was very clear from the start. There is no way any Muslim can say who's going to Hell and who isn't as you are trying to get me to say. The Quran makes it clear that on the Day of Judgement those that denied the source of existence will be questioned as to why they did. God will decide their fate at that time. We will never know until then.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This custom lasted until at least the 20th century pretty much all over the globe.

Again............

The question is not why humans didn't see problems with it.
The question is why didn't god, with his supposedly timeless superior moral standards, didn't see problems with it?

Don't sit here and think that it is objective to judge a certain period based on our contemporary mindset. That's not how it works.

I'm not judging the people - they didn't know any better.
I'm judging the god who didn't feel a need to condemn it - who had to know better.

Where does it say to kill two homosexuals in the Quran?

The quran only says they must be punished, without going into detail how.
The death penalty punishment comes from hadith.

But this is nevertheless a diversion as it isn't the topic.
Fact is that this god supposedly went out of his way to list plenty of stuff that is "haram" and what isn't.

The fact that pedophile relations / activities didn't make the "haram" list, requires an explanation imo.

We are not allowed to have sexual relationships with children. This is your misunderstanding. They must be mentally and physically mature before anything.

And a 9-year old is "mentally and physically mature"? is that what you are saying?



Do you have children?
If yes, is one of them a daughter?
If yes, consider how she was when she was 9. Or even 12.
Do you think she was "mentally and physically" mature enough to have sex and produce off spring with a 40-year old man?

Personally, if any adult would even only touch my daughter with that in mind, and there is nobody around to stop me, I'ld beat the guy into a pulp to the point that what will be left will be a "pile of human".

 

[Audie]

@Audie
I disagree to an extent. Yes, it wouldn't be definitive, yet that doesn't mean we can't come to rational conclusions based on what we can examine.

For example, do you believe the universe had a beginning?

To what extend do you agree?

"Rational"- being about reason and logic- do not
necessarily lead to correct answers.
The less info that goes into the reasoning, the worse the result.
" kalam" combines low information with
unsupportable assumptions. All very rational and all quite vacuous.

I notice you now include the word "examine".

If by that you mean doing actual astrophysics
you' ve left "metaphysics" and " revelation" in
the dust bin where they belong.

So what is your actual topic?

I dont know what you mean by " beginning"
to the universe.
Ask a specific and meaningful question. I will
say what I think.

 

[Come2thelight]

@Audie

Yes, there is no point in talking about revelation when we are trying to rationalize existence having a source or not.

What I mean by beginning is that do you believe that the universe started through a big bang?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Whatever the source revealed through the Prophet Muhammad.
There is only one source of existence.
It's a step process...
1) We can show you a lot of evidence that points towards the Quran being a spoken revelation and that a book was never compiled until after the death of the Prophet.
2) I can also show you that we have copies of the same Quran that can be dated close to the Prophet's era.
3) I can also share more evidence that points to the Quran being spontaneously revealed based on day-to-day events for about a span of 23 years.
4) I can also show you that a linguist will state that humans cannot spontaneously speak in a perfectly coherent manner.
5) We can also examine through linguistics (morphology, semantics, and syntax) that the Quran is perfectly coherent spontaneous speech and thus not the product of a human mind.
The question is, would showing the above help?

With proof or without proof?
Let us go through the steps.
1) What is that (the proof). Kindly enlighten.
2) OK. So, Quran was compiled soon after Mohammad's passing away. How does it prove the authenticity of what is written in Quran?
3) Yeah, extempore, according to the situation. Does that prove its authenticity?
4) If they are of clear mind, whether saints or charlatans, they can speak coherently. That is how fakes deceive the stupid.
5) Go ahead.
If what you show is coherent, it would certainly help.

 

[England my lionheart]

@England my lionheart

“There have been many prophets or messengers but only in the Middle East,none here or europe or Scandinavia Russia etc,considering “we have sent a messenger to all nations”.”

India isn’t in the Middle East. We are talking about Hindu scriptures.

But they are polytheists.

 

[Audie]

@Audie

Yes, there is no point in talking about revelation when we are trying to rationalize existence having a source or not.

What I mean by beginning is that do you believe that the universe started through a big bang?

I know " revelation" is useless in this regard.

What about metaphysics? Are you going to
try to keep that, use it to figure the nature of the universe?

Have you moved into astrophysics or are you keeping one foot in the middle ages?

"Rationalize existence"
What does that even mean? The term makes no sense.
"Source"?
"Started"?
"Big bang"?
I dont know what YOU mean by any of this,
or how much you know of BB theory.

You may be trying to frame this discussion to
your pov, or actually trying to see what mine is.

Ive no reason to be difficult about answering,
but I dont know what you are asking.

For example- by source you mean like a coal
mine is a source of coal? Coal is a source of heat?

If you dont feel up to explaining what you
mean by what you say, I will leave it at that
I believe the nature of reality is far weirder than
people have ever remotely begun to grasp.

And that any attempt to apply " metaphysics"
to the subject is as pathetically hopeless as
a cat trying rationalize the Source of cat food.