Observing Religions as a Theory that evolved

[Imagist]

But for some cases (especially small ones) it is too bothersome to call a third party. If both parties agree to resolve the issue "out of the court" then so be it.

But according to your rule, the victim is not obligated to settle at all. Sure, he'll get a little more reward with Allah if he forgives, but the standard according to the Quran's rule is to react with vengeance.

Valid point. But remember, just as scientific advancements and the pursuit for more knowledge is good even though that knowledge can be used to do good or evil, very similarly, humans are more evolved than the remaining species due, for one reason, their ability to make free choices. Humans using their free will to make the wrong choices is not a counter to the fact that they are more advanced.

I agree that humans are more advanced, but my statements were to disprove your statement that:

Humans are the pinnacle of evolution and are the best of the species without a doubt in that they can make choices and can reflect and think. Other species just follow instinct.

Not on this thread. View the Quranic Debates folder in Scriptural Debates folder in Religious Debates folder in ... and I would like to read your views on a topic that interests you (there are only a handful at the moment).

Unfortunately I'm already following five threads closely; there's only so much I can do. When one of the threads I'm watching dies down, I'll take a look at the forum you mention.

 

[tariqkhwaja]

ure, he'll get a little more reward with Allah if he forgives,

Excuse me? Little more reward. Where did you get that from? The standard is to react with vengeance?
Firstly, it is complete justice that if you punch me I punch you back with equal or lesser force. There is no injustice in this at all. So even if it is a "standard" I hope you don't disagree with it.

I agree that humans are more advanced

Then that is all I meant.

 

[Imagist]

Excuse me? Little more reward. Where did you get that from? The standard is to react with vengeance?

And the recompense of an injury is an injury the like thereof

Firstly, it is complete justice that if you punch me I punch you back with equal or lesser force. There is no injustice in this at all. So even if it is a "standard" I hope you don't disagree with it.

I do disagree with it. Perpetuating a crime for the sake of justice does more damage than injustice does. All your retribution will do is start a fistfight.

In some situations it might be okay to punch back, but only in self-defense, not for justice.

In my opinion, forgiveness is the only correct action for a victim. Justice is only important inasmuch as it protects victims and provides reparation (NOT retribution) for wrongs. Only in situations where reparation or protection are appropriate should justice be served, and then always by a third party if at all remotely possible.

 

[tariqkhwaja]

In my opinion, forgiveness is the only correct action for a victim.

Really? So you believe in turning the other cheek. Always. Unless a judge is at hand.

Oh and the victim should not ask for the judge because that would be tantamount to asking for revenge, right? The victim should just stand by and hopefully the judge witnessed what happened and decided on his own to be just (I think it is called sumo moto notice).

 

[Imagist]

Really? So you believe in turning the other cheek. Always. Unless a judge is at hand.

In some situations it might be okay to punch back, but only in self-defense, not for justice.

Oh and the victim should not ask for the judge because that would be tantamount to asking for revenge, right? The victim should just stand by and hopefully the judge witnessed what happened and decided on his own to be just (I think it is called sumo moto notice).

I have already explained this but I will attempt to be more clear.

There are two things that are important when wrongdoing occurs:
1. Reparation (return or repair of lost, stolen, or destroyed goods, fixing the wrongdoing).
2. Protection (prevention of further wrongdoing for the safety, security, and wellbeing of the victims of wrongdoing and others who might become victims).

These should be enforced by a neutral third party when possible. Obviously if no neutral third party is available the victim has no choice but to take matters into his/her own hands, especially if protection is needed (this is known as self-defense).

"Turn the other cheek" entails not seeking reparation or protection.

"An eye for an eye" is neither reparation nor protection, but is instead retribution/revenge. If person A loses an eye because of person B's actions, taking out Person B's eye does not help person A (reparation) or prevent person B from taking person A's other eye, or taking the eye of someone else (protection).

The ONLY result of "an eye for an eye" is harm (to person B). In contrast, both reparation and protection result in good, not harm.

Person A is allowed to ask for a judge to determine whether reparation or protection are necessary. Person A might ask for a judge out of vengeful reasons, but that is irrelevant: the ENTIRE REASON for a judge is to prevent Person A's desire for vengeance from affecting the distribution of reparation and protection, because in most cases the victim WILL have vengeful feelings toward the wrongdoer.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Just a point of interest about "turning the other cheek." It's not entirely passive. In that time and culture, a back-handed slap, which would ordinarily would be done with the right hand on the right side of the face, was meant not to be just painful, but humiliating as well. By turning the other cheek, one makes it impossible for the striker to repeat the act and may even send a message: "Don't do that again."

 

[fantome profane]

Just a point of interest about "turning the other cheek." It's not entirely passive. In that time and culture, a back-handed slap, which would ordinarily would be done with the right hand on the right side of the face, was meant not to be just painful, but humiliating as well. By turning the other cheek, one makes it impossible for the striker to repeat the act and may even send a message: "Don't do that again."

A very interesting perspective, but one that I don’t believe is supported by the text. What you are suggesting here is that “turning the other cheek” is actually a clever way to avoid the evil. But the text directly contradicts this interpretation; it says “resist not evil”.

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also

As hard as it may be to accept it does seem from the text that Jesus is actually suggesting that we should allow someone to strike us again. The idea expressed here is so radical that most people simply cannot accept it, even those who believe that they ought to follow the teachings of Jesus. So they simply reinterpret it and decide that it must mean something else than what it actually says.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

A very interesting perspective, but one that I don’t believe is supported by the text. What you are suggesting here is that “turning the other cheek” is actually a clever way to avoid the evil. But the text directly contradicts this interpretation; it says “resist not evil”.
As hard as it may be to accept it does seem from the text that Jesus is actually suggesting that we should allow someone to strike us again. The idea expressed here is so radical that most people simply cannot accept it, even those who believe that they ought to follow the teachings of Jesus. So they simply reinterpret it and decide that it must mean something else than what it actually says.

I didn't say it was supported by the text. It's something historians and theologians pointed out on a PBS program. (From Jesus to Christ, I think.) Sorry, but I think I'll take their understanding over yours unless you're a specialist in the area.

 

[herushura]

Original? Zeus isn't one of the original gods. Ask any shaman-king.

Greeks and Romans adopted there gods from Metopotamia, The Original Gods are the "Annunaki"

 

[Imagist]

Greeks and Romans adopted there gods from Metopotamia, The Original Gods are the "Annunaki"

The part about the Greeks and Romans adopting the Mesopotamian gods is interesting, but irrelevant. The Mesopotamian gods aren't the original gods either.

My reference to "shaman kings" is due to the fact that the earliest religions predate large-scale civilization (including that in Mesopotamia) and were lead by shaman kings, or rulers who derived their power from the perception that they communicated with gods. The names of these gods are lost, but they were the original gods (as far as we know).

 

[painted wolf]

Even before "Shaman kings" there were spiritual leaders. Most of the time they were quite distinct from the secular leaders.

Human society has been extremely diverse since its beginings... I seriously doubt there were ever any 'original gods'.

wa:do

 

[fantome profane]

I didn't say it was supported by the text. It's something historians and theologians pointed out on a PBS program. (From Jesus to Christ, I think.) Sorry, but I think I'll take their understanding over yours unless you're a specialist in the area.

Well you have three options here.

1) Take the word of the PBS experts.
2) Take my word
3) Think for yourself.

I would personally recommend option number three, but it does come with a significant drawback. If you choose to do your own thinking you will have come up with your own reasoning to support it. It can be a lot of work. So the choice is yours.

 

[little_monkey]

In that it seems, that from many periods in time, new additions and progressions to the belief systems, share that the words of religious teachings evolved over time.

How it is that if religious books are the words ‘by God’ that in the evolution of the very beliefs continue to evolve over time?

If the words found in the literature of religious orders are the ‘creation’ of God, then why the changes over time?

Same with debating the evolution of species; if man was ‘created’ in God’s image, then why was the serpent capable of deceiving a God?

Then if life was created and just planted on this earth by God, then why are there dinosaur bones in the soil?

SO the idea of the thread is, if we as people can see evolution in just about every step we take in nature and knowledge; then why is evolution so firmly denied as a pattern of progression, quite similar to the ‘golden ratio’ shared in the structures of living things?

Perhaps, we should all go back to honoring Zeus on a thrown and forget the so called prophets who contributed to the evolution of knowledge and be faithful to the original Gods of mankind?

Since humans evolve in their thinking, and God is a human invention, then it follows that the concept of God and religion will evolve.

 

[tariqkhwaja]

I have already explained this but I will attempt to be more clear.

There are two things that are important when wrongdoing occurs:
1. Reparation (return or repair of lost, stolen, or destroyed goods, fixing the wrongdoing).
2. Protection (prevention of further wrongdoing for the safety, security, and wellbeing of the victims of wrongdoing and others who might become victims).

These should be enforced by a neutral third party when possible. Obviously if no neutral third party is available the victim has no choice but to take matters into his/her own hands, especially if protection is needed (this is known as self-defense).

"Turn the other cheek" entails not seeking reparation or protection.

"An eye for an eye" is neither reparation nor protection, but is instead retribution/revenge. If person A loses an eye because of person B's actions, taking out Person B's eye does not help person A (reparation) or prevent person B from taking person A's other eye, or taking the eye of someone else (protection).

The ONLY result of "an eye for an eye" is harm (to person B). In contrast, both reparation and protection result in good, not harm.

Person A is allowed to ask for a judge to determine whether reparation or protection are necessary. Person A might ask for a judge out of vengeful reasons, but that is irrelevant: the ENTIRE REASON for a judge is to prevent Person A's desire for vengeance from affecting the distribution of reparation and protection, because in most cases the victim WILL have vengeful feelings toward the wrongdoer.

I pretty much agree with you. And how this differs with what is stated in the Quranic verses I don't understand.

The statement that forgiveness should be meted out only if this will not encourage the wrongdoer is what is stated in the verse I showed. But should the victim insist that exact revenge be taken upon the wrongdoer then fine. There is no injustice in that. But according to the Quran it might not always be the best option. But it is not a wrong option ... that is the key. If you slap me it is not wrong for me to slap you back ... regardless of the reason for which you slapped me. If it was a mistake it would make more sense that I let you go. But it would not be wrong to mete out the same punishment to you.

As far as nuetral judge is concerned the verse seems neither here nor there. There are other verses of the Quran that mention judges and nuetral parties in a biparty agreement.

 

[Imagist]

But should the victim insist that exact revenge be taken upon the wrongdoer then fine. There is no injustice in that. But according to the Quran it might not always be the best option. But it is not a wrong option ... that is the key. If you slap me it is not wrong for me to slap you back ... regardless of the reason for which you slapped me. If it was a mistake it would make more sense that I let you go. But it would not be wrong to mete out the same punishment to you.

This is exactly where we disagree: revenge IS the wrong option.

What good comes of the loss of a criminal's eye, or of you slapping me? These behaviors merely continue the violence without addressing the problem.

It is EXACTLY this kind of thinking that is perpetuating the conflict between Israel and its neighbors. Both sides react to violence with revenge, and the violence continues. I'm not saying that if one side lay down their arms the other would stop attacking, but I AM saying that insisting upon revenge ensures that the other side WON'T stop attacking.

As long as a religion holds on to this idea of an eye for an eye, it is not a religion of peace. Such a religion fundamentally misunderstands peace. This includes both Judaism AND Islam.

 

[LuisDantas]

Since humans evolve in their thinking, and God is a human invention, then it follows that the concept of God and religion will evolve.

Actually, even if God were real it would follow that human understanding of society and nature would allow (even demand) religion and the concept of God to improve over time.

That's one of the main reasons why fundamentalism is a diservice to any religion.

 

[tariqkhwaja]

This is exactly where we disagree: revenge IS the wrong option.

What good comes of the loss of a criminal's eye, or of you slapping me? These behaviors merely continue the violence without addressing the problem.

It is EXACTLY this kind of thinking that is perpetuating the conflict between Israel and its neighbors. Both sides react to violence with revenge, and the violence continues. I'm not saying that if one side lay down their arms the other would stop attacking, but I AM saying that insisting upon revenge ensures that the other side WON'T stop attacking.

As long as a religion holds on to this idea of an eye for an eye, it is not a religion of peace. Such a religion fundamentally misunderstands peace. This includes both Judaism AND Islam.

No Imagist. For you to consider revenge (equal or less) WRONG is a point I must disagree with. Again, it might not be the best option but it is certainly not wrong.

You are holding kindness above justice. For a victim to not respond to being slapped is his kindness. For a victim to respond more is injustice. But, surely, for a victim to respond equally is justice.

Remember, kindness is a step better than justice. But kindness must not contradict justice. Caring at the cost of Rights is wrong. If someone inflicts me with certain torture it becomes my right to inflict him with equal torture.

Of course, Islam encourages us to go for the best option. The thing that I believe is the only way Israel and Palestine (and so many other conflicting nations) can make peace today. To forego their rights. Unfortunately neither of the two is willing to do this and, unfortunately, there is no peace.

Al-Nahl Chapter 16 : Verse 91
"Verily, Allah enjoins justice, and the doing of good to others; and giving like kindred; ..."

Justice comes first. Kindness second. And treatment like that of kindred third.

 

[Imagist]

You are holding kindness above justice. For a victim to not respond to being slapped is his kindness. For a victim to respond more is injustice. But, surely, for a victim to respond equally is justice.

It is not justice, it is revenge. Justice entails reparation of damages and/or protection from further wrongs. Your concept of justice does nobody any good, and does a great deal of harm in many situations.

Furthermore, while I am all for kindness, it has nothing to do with this situation. Reparation and protection are not kind to the wrongdoer; in fact they are usually UNkind.

Remember, kindness is a step better than justice. But kindness must not contradict justice. Caring at the cost of Rights is wrong. If someone inflicts me with certain torture it becomes my right to inflict him with equal torture.

Of course, Islam encourages us to go for the best option. The thing that I believe is the only way Israel and Palestine (and so many other conflicting nations) can make peace today. To forego their rights. Unfortunately neither of the two is willing to do this and, unfortunately, there is no peace.

Al-Nahl Chapter 16 : Verse 91
"Verily, Allah enjoins justice, and the doing of good to others; and giving like kindred; ..."

Justice comes first. Kindness second. And treatment like that of kindred third.

The only evidence that you have presented is an unwillingness to question the Quran. My very argument is based on the assumption that the Quran is incorrect, so your argument essentially amounts to "you are wrong" - hardly a valid argument.

I have stated that your concept of justice does no good for anyone, and indeed often does a great deal of harm. Please respond to this point.

Don't bother quoting the Quran unless you are going to prove that it is correct; the Quran is not evidence any more than the Bible or The God Delusion is evidence. Unless you can provide actual logical proof for your beliefs, they are incorrect, scriptural "evidence" notwithstanding.

 

[tariqkhwaja]

It is not justice, it is revenge. Justice entails reparation of damages and/or protection from further wrongs. Your concept of justice does nobody any good, and does a great deal of harm in many situations.

Disagree. But I can't explain it any better I think.

Don't bother quoting the Quran unless you are going to prove that it is correct; the Quran is not evidence any more than the Bible or The God Delusion is evidence. Unless you can provide actual logical proof for your beliefs, they are incorrect, scriptural "evidence" notwithstanding.

That is so unfair. I present an argument. It is a logical argument. It just happens to be an argument that I learnt by reading a Quranic verse. Just because the argument comes from the Quran doesn't make it any less valid.

Justice first, kindness second, and kinship third is a principle that should be followed by everyone and is stated in the Quran. Just because I say the aforementioned principle is mentioned in the Quran does not make it invalid. In fact in your view the validity of the Quran should increase due to the aforementioned principle being mentioned. Other holy books don't even come near.

To try and prove it was the best was my objective here. But it seems your definition of justice states that if someone slaps me I do not have the right to slap the person back.

 

[Imagist]

That is so unfair. I present an argument. It is a logical argument. It just happens to be an argument that I learnt by reading a Quranic verse. Just because the argument comes from the Quran doesn't make it any less valid.

You did not present a logical argument.

If you believe that you have presented a logical argument, please restate your argument, without quoting the Quran. If this is impossible, you have not presented a logical argument.

Justice first, kindness second, and kinship third is a principle that should be followed by everyone and is stated in the Quran. Just because I say the aforementioned principle is mentioned in the Quran does not make it invalid. In fact in your view the validity of the Quran should increase due to the aforementioned principle being mentioned. Other holy books don't even come near.

I agree with everything in this paragraph except the bold parts.

I do not agree that the mentioned principle should be followed by everyone, as this would result in mass chaos.

The Quran is no more and no less ridiculous than other religious texts, in my opinion.

To try and prove it was the best was my objective here. But it seems your definition of justice states that if someone slaps me I do not have the right to slap the person back.

Please explain how your definition of justice is better than mine.