• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Qur'an Vs Bible Vs Bhagavad Gita Vs None

Which is best?

  • Bhagavad Gita

    Votes: 11 28.2%
  • Bible

    Votes: 12 30.8%
  • Qur'an

    Votes: 3 7.7%
  • None

    Votes: 13 33.3%

  • Total voters
    39

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
View attachment 63555
I read 2 out of 3 and touched on a summary with one of the others. Which one do you believe is the best and give your reasons for why. For those that think none of them are any good, state your reasons as well.

There is no option to select ‘all’. In the Baha’i Faith we believe in all these Holy Books. We read from all 3 in our Houses of Worship throughout the world in all our services. We do not consider one superior to another.

So our position of equality of each religion is not represented above.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I translated the Quran from an archaic version with footnotes I added from a basic research on terms specific to Islam, but that's about it.

When you say you translated from an archaic version, what do you mean? Is it a script you are referring to or something else?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Rape appears to happen because people are horny and some of them lack self control.

Not really Daniel. I know that this is what we normally think, but some time ago for a particular purpose I studied this subject.

Rape does not take place because someone is horny and lacks self control. Maybe occasionally, but that's not the common reason. This notion was thrown aside long ago.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
The Gita seemed to me like a prolonged PR piece on nationalism and war.
Yes, I believe that Gita is heavily interpolated by Vaishnavas.
Its central message is to perform your duty irrespective of all other things.
Then, it has some beautiful verses on non duality.

Without considering happiness or distress, loss or gain, victory or defeat, in that way engage in the war, by so doing you shall never incur sin. Gita 2.38

This is not nationalism, this is not about a war. This is about ones duty. Be it a war or trying to save a woman from a murderous rapist. Do it without any second thought.

A learned and gentle brāhmiṇ, a cow, a she elephant, a dog or a dog-eater, an outcaste, the wise see them all as equal. Gita 5.18
 

Semmelweis Reflex

Antivaxxer
When you say you translated from an archaic version, what do you mean? Is it a script you are referring to or something else?

I just took an old translation of the Quran and changed it to modern day language. Words like "niggardly" and "churlish" into "miserly" and "mean spirited" and "Allah" into "God." And then added the footnotes explaining terms exclusive to Islam.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I just took an old translation of the Quran and changed it to modern day language. Words like "niggardly" and "churlish" into "miserly" and "mean spirited" and "Allah" into "God." And then added the footnotes explaining terms exclusive to Islam.

Ah. Okay. You had translated English into Modern English. Understood.

What do you mean "terms exclusive to Islam"?
 

Semmelweis Reflex

Antivaxxer
Ah. Okay. You had translated English into Modern English. Understood.

What do you mean "terms exclusive to Islam"?

Terms that are used, as far as I know, exclusively in Islam. Like, the word Islam meaning literally submission in Arabic. I couldn't give you any examples unless I looked at some old translation of the Quran. Just footnotes. We are talking about my own personal word for word (pretty much) translation of the Quran from 1800's English to Modern English for my own personal website. Nothing spectacular. No scholarly or academic phenomenon.
 
Last edited:

firedragon

Veteran Member
Terms that are used, as far as I know, exclusively in Islam. Like, the word Islam meaning literally submission in Arabic. I couldn't give you any examples unless I looked at some old translation of the Quran. Just footnotes. We are talking about my own personal word for word (pretty much) translation of the Quran from 1800's English to Modern English for my own personal webiste. Nothing spectacular. No scholarly or academic phenomenon.

Hi. I understand what you say. No problem. You also said about the word Islam being exclusive to Islam, like the word Christianity is exclusive to Christianity, and Buddhism is exclusive to Buddhism.

I asked to understand what your basis was to make the comments you made earlier. The Qur'an is much more sophisticated than that. But there is a trend to make Quran commentary with such low level knowledge on it. It is rampant, all over the internet, and I see that in this forum a lot.

Thanks for engaging.
 

Semmelweis Reflex

Antivaxxer
I asked to understand what your basis was to make the comments you made earlier. The Qur'an is much more sophisticated than that. But there is a trend to make Quran commentary with such low level knowledge on it. It is rampant, all over the internet, and I see that in this forum a lot.

It seemed to me, right from your first response to me, that your problem was that I was critical of the Quran. You more or less said I must have little knowledge, which happened to be true, but I hadn't really said anything that would indicate that to you. So, it was a problem you saw in my criticism. For all you know I could have been a remarkable scholar on the subject. Admittedly not very likely, but that isn't the point.

Here's the thing. People tend to be pretty extreme in either their praise or criticism of the Quran. Yes, I've seen far more of the latter online in my time. I tend to associate more with atheists online, very rarely Christians and I hardly ever come across Muslims or people of any other religion. That's probably because my own personal interest is in the Bible. So my knowledge of other religions and their sacred texts are pretty limited. It's just not my thing.

In that limited sense, I have noticed that when people praise the Quran I haven't seen much reason for doing so. What I do get is there seems to be a great deal of ideological attachment. A religious fervor. And when people are critical it seems the opposite. They do have good reason, though they also sometimes, not always, have an ideological or irreligious fervor.

I consider fairness extremely important. Important in accessing knowledge, as well as in dealing with people. I have to have the same degree of respect for the beliefs of others if I expect to receive the same, but that doesn't invalidate criticism I'm on either end of. I try to be honest, straightforward, but respectful of the unspoiled teachings of other religions but the result of that is that I have very little respect for organized religion. In other words I think it a shame the teachings are distorted, sometimes beyond recognition through massive appeal. Organized religion.

So I fully understand criticism of the Bible. Christianity and Islam have a pretty ugly history. That reflects on their teachings as well, even though those have deviated from the original. I gave the Quran a fair examination. For my own personal evaluation, and it was pretty much what I expressed earlier. I'm also critical of the Bible, although not to that extent because I happen to think it a much better text. Am I wrong? It certainly is possible.

So, tell me, if you will, how I'm wrong. How is the Qur'an much more sophisticated than I have been led to believe?

ETA: I didn't express myself very well when I used Islam as a word I would have thought to edit. Actually meant to say that it was a word I would have included in a footnote.
 
Last edited:

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
Every present is a realized future. Does the fact that we can plan for and cause future events make it any less abstract in your mind?

As to the physics, only time will tell. :)

I do find it funny that a scientific theory can be called upon to support a notion of reality as an illusion, but to counter science as a source to support concepts of a reality external to the mind, you characterize scientific theory as "merely speculation", in another thread. :)


You’ve misunderstood the point about speculation in scientific theories I think; the explanatory element of any scientific theory is by definition speculative because, unlike the empirical foundations of the theory, the explanation is unobservable. Thus for example, Newton’s law of gravitation, being derived from empirical observation using inductive reasoning, is still remarkably accurate in making predictions about orbits etc, but the explanation that gravity is a force of attraction between two bodies along a line intersecting with both, has been invalidated by general relativity.

In other words, the theoretical as opposed to empirical element of any law of science or nature, is by definition a metaphysical construct, and is therefore speculative in that it can only ever be indirectly supported by observation, being generally arrived at through inductive reasoning (itself problematic).
 
Last edited:

firedragon

Veteran Member
It seemed to me, right from your first response to me, that your problem was that I was critical of the Quran. You more or less said I must have little knowledge, which happened to be true, but I hadn't really said anything that would indicate that to you. So, it was a problem you saw in my criticism. For all you know I could have been a remarkable scholar on the subject. Admittedly not very likely, but that isn't the point.

Here's the thing. People tend to be pretty extreme in either their praise or criticism of the Quran. Yes, I've seen far more of the latter online in my time. I tend to associate more with atheists online, very rarely Christians and I hardly ever come across Muslims or people of any other religion. That's probably because my own personal interest is in the Bible. So my knowledge of other religions and their sacred texts are pretty limited. It's just not my thing.

In that limited sense, I have noticed that when people praise the Quran I haven't seen much reason for doing so. What I do get is there seems to be a great deal of ideological attachment. A religious fervor. And when people are critical it seems the opposite. They do have good reason, though they also sometimes, not always, have an ideological or irreligious fervor.

I consider fairness extremely important. Important in accessing knowledge, as well as in dealing with people. I have to have the same degree of respect for the beliefs of others if I expect to receive the same, but that doesn't invalidate criticism I'm on either end of. I try to be honest, straightforward, but respectful of the unspoiled teachings of other religions but the result of that is that I have very little respect for organized religion. In other words I think it a shame the teachings are distorted, sometimes beyond recognition through massive appeal. Organized religion.

So I fully understand criticism of the Bible. Christianity and Islam have a pretty ugly history. That reflects on their teachings as well, even though those have deviated from the original. I gave the Quran a fair examination. For my own personal evaluation, and it was pretty much what I expressed earlier. I'm also critical of the Bible, although not to that extent because I happen to think it a much better text. Am I wrong? It certainly is possible.

So, tell me, if you will, how I'm wrong. How is the Qur'an much more sophisticated than I have been led to believe?

ETA: I didn't express myself very well when I used Islam as a word I would have thought to edit. Actually meant to say that it was a word I would have included in a footnote.

No problem.

My criticism of your statements of both the Qur'an and the Bhagvad Githa is that you are making statements that is not deep enough. But now I do understand that you read the translations, and had your opinions. And when you said that you translated an archaic text I thought that you were translating from arabic to English but that was clarified.

In the post I responded to you only referred to the Bhagvad Githa and the Quran, but not the Bible (If I remember right). But even if you were referring to all three books, you cannot bake one book your yardstick and dismiss the others like you did. They are three different genre's.

If you take a completely naturalistic approach with all three, no God, nothing divine, just three books written by three different people. The Bible was written by maybe 50 different authors. The Qur'an was written by one individual. The Bhagvad Githa is also the same. One individual.

Do you know about the past tense and the present tense usage of the Qur'an? It is Maadhi and Mudhaari. The usage of Mudhaari has present and future tense in it, and not like the English language. For example, the word Muminoon means a person who believes today, and will do so tomorrow. Just a linguistic fashion. In arabic poetry of the time which will have to explain this meaning the Qur'an uses one single word. Like the words used in harsh terms with the letter Ha (as in Ha, Kaf) which has that connotation instead of using another word just to imply the harshness or the severity of the situation. Written this way, with Wakth which means the ending of a sentence, it has been composed for someone to memorise easily. Maybe in order to understand this one would have to read a whole book. to explain it so simply to an absolute beginner is not so simple.

So like you said this ad hoc composition of the Qur'an is just a false assumption of people who don't have simple knowledge of the Qur'an. It is composed for memorisation, and not just to read like a novel or a classic. If you think you have given it a fair examination, it's actually not so true. You have not given any fair evaluation.

Have you ever tried to take a critical approach to the text? What ever text. When I say critical, I don't mean just scrutinising it. Take a biblical approach if you may. Apply form criticism as an example to both text. What is the outcome?
 

danieldemol

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Not really Daniel. I know that this is what we normally think, but some time ago for a particular purpose I studied this subject.

Rape does not take place because someone is horny and lacks self control. Maybe occasionally, but that's not the common reason. This notion was thrown aside long ago.
So what is the common reason for rape?
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
Ok. Do you think that secular philosophy has been a cause of rape?


Not sure I understand the question, or it’s implications. More pertinently, it
is widely documented that rape is and has been for centuries, a deliberate weapon of war.

The secular Red Army raped it’s way across Germany in 1945, exactly in the manner of all armies throughout history, including those most explicitly aligned to religions. The common thread here is not belief, but the violence of the victor toward the vanquished.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
So what is the common reason for rape?

I have to do a cut and paste if you don't mind for this subject. Mind you, I am no expert on this topic, I simply bank on other peoples expertise.

Rape - Society, we are a huge part of a huge problem


“You are sympathising with sluts” I was told by a lady when I wrote against rape, tried to remotely help victims. A man could only remotely help which means there should be buffers because being a man, men and women both don’t trust you. Also, being a representative of the male species if you write against rape, there are those who by default believe your motives have something sinister. Not only men, but also women (not all of course) think that rape victims are now sluts, which was one of the biggest mind-blowing realisations I endured. Society, know this in your heart that you are a huge part of a huge problem.

In 1979, Dr. Nicholas Groth and H. Jean Birnbaum developed a profile of several types

of assault, drawn from their work with people who had been arrested, convicted and

incarcerated for crimes of sexual violence. It was called the offenders typology. The first one is the power rapist. These types of rapists don’t use excessive force but just enough to fulfill his desire of power. They feel they need to prove their macho man persona, or they could feel powerful only if they know that they have power over someone. This could be upon opportunity, like a date gone awry or it could be planned. Nevertheless, though in real life they may or may not have a don juan de marcos attitude, his low self-esteem saturates his life. This is predominantly created by the society in which a girl is deemed a tom boy or lesbian if she is no meek kitten and has bigger aspirations in life. Where men are not men if they are loyal, and loyalty scares a lot of people including their best friends, mothers and wives. Societies that justify female genital mutilation by thinking a reduction of sexual stimulation would domesticate a young woman. The problem is not completely due to one of these aspects of course where each society would vary in adherence to one or the other or a combination of all or part of them.

"One of the major problems with the adversarial system here is that the telling of the story in rape cases focuses on the credibility of the victim and various myths are used to malign them," says Dr Bows, a senior lecturer and expert in the field.

Investigative legal systems, in which a judge directs the proceedings and decides guilt, are used across Europe and are less likely to result in victims being attacked and their story questioned. "Institutional practices should treat victims properly and believe them rather than have them under suspicion," says Dr. Bows. "We have a culture of disbelief within our criminal justice system, which becomes one of the key tactics by the defence." More cases are swiftly dealt with and the victims are not further shamed or victimized, which again adds to the success rate.

A victim is a victim, and are in dire need of help. They should be told that they can actually request for closed quarter interrogation. Action should not take 10 or more years. Reforms to the judicial system must be implemented. More importantly, mothers, fathers and society must change their views on women, to protect their own children. We should know, that we ourselves are a huge part of a huge problem.

Someone said change will come by making your bed.

Why do they do it?



People think without analysis the following



1. A lusty male who is the victim of a provocative and vindictive woman.

2. A sexually frustrated man reacting under the pressure of his pent-up needs.

3. A demented sex-fiend harbouring insatiable and perverted desires.



All wrong, and this is why your son could be a rapist and your daughter could be a victim (Thats not being sexist. It’s just that most rape is committed by men so I wish to stick to that.). And whatever you read next is very short but based on clinical research, not speculation.



They all assume that the offender's behaviour is primarily motivated by sexual desire and that rape is directed toward gratifying only this sexual need. Quite to the contrary, careful clinical study of offenders reveals that rape is in fact serving primarily nonsexual needs. - A. NICHOLAS GROTH, PH.D



Let’s think in a simple way just to be general. All rapes are assaults and the abuser has assaulted someone. Be it a consensual underaged girl or a non-consensual abuse of anyone. Everything is assault to speak very broadly. This kind of assault is a symptom of psychological dysfunction. One may come from any environment but know in your heart that its psychological. So let’s sit back and think if we are bringing up our children to never abuse a girl. Because we as society maybe the cause of this.



One of the most persistent myths about rape is that the victim in some way was party to the offence: she was seductive or provocative and "only got what she asked for." Even if it were so-that is, if the victim did in fact act seductively or provocatively-she still retains the right to change her mind. There is no law against saying no, but it is against the law not to accept her refusal. A child is a child and law is law. We as a people must come out of this utter ridiculous myth that rape happens because of sexual deprivation. Some even go to the length of saying that legalising prostitution will curb rape. However, the fact of the matter is that prostitution does exist and it offers no solution since, again, the rapist is not seeking primarily sexual gratification. In fact, prostitutes themselves are sometimes the victims of rape, since they may represent everything the rapist finds threatening and resents in women. We sometimes associate rape culture to pornography. Of course any person maybe stimulated by pornography but rape is an act of “fear and anger”, not sexual charge. That does not mean pornography is to be banned or encouraged. Pornograhy does objectify females, support the position that women are legitimate targets of sexual abuse, and does validate sexist attitude. But it is not a direct stimulant to rape from a clinical point of view. What the rapist always does is shift the responsibility of his act to other things like intoxicants, the dress and behaviour of the woman, etc. Anything but the real issue. Himself.



The reason that as a society we must understand these things, adopt it and discuss is because we are limiting a serious societal problem to very meagre excuses with no research. Basically we are leaving the lives of 10,000 victims (“reported” within 4 years) who’s cases were reported within 4 years to simple dismissals. Of course, not counting our daughters who have not complained, and will not complain in the future. Even to attempt curb this problem we must understand the truths, not leave it to assumptions.



The female victims primary goal at a natural level is to survive the abuse. It’s instinct. Thus, many tend to not give a fight thinking “I need to survive this” because they are always under a death-threat, truly or psychologically. Rather than going deep into lasting psychological effects on the victim let’s look at it this way. If a woman is affected, she should rather know the real reasons why this happened to her rather than the mythology which When something is understood, it is less threatening and disturbing than something which appears mysterious, or bizarre, or unexplainable.



Types of rape



1. Power Rape - It is not the offender's desire to harm his victim but to possess her sexually.

2. Anger Rape - Sexuality becomes a means of expressing and discharging feelings of pent-up anger and rage.

3. Sadistic Rape - In a third pattern of rape, both sexuality and aggression become fused into a single psychological experience known as sadism.
 

danieldemol

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Not sure I understand the question, or it’s implications. More pertinently, it
is widely documented that rape is and has been for centuries, a deliberate weapon of war.

The secular Red Army raped it’s way across Germany in 1945, exactly in the manner of all armies throughout history, including those most explicitly aligned to religions. The common thread here is not belief, but the violence of the victor toward the vanquished.
Ok, but was that violence of the victor toward the vanquished justified by a piece of secular philosophy?

For example one could see how numbers 31:17-18 could be interpreted as normalising war rape;

'17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man'

I'm asking are there any examples from secular philosophy were we could see a justification from the philosophy for rape similar to what we see in certain sacred texts?

In my opinion.
 

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
You’ve misunderstood the point about speculation in scientific theories I think; the explanatory element of any scientific theory is by definition speculative because, unlike the empirical foundations of the theory, the explanation is unobservable. Thus for example, Newton’s law of gravitation, being derived from empirical observation using inductive reasoning, is still remarkably accurate in making predictions about orbits etc, but the explanation that gravity is a force of attraction between two bodies along a line intersecting with both, has been invalidated by general relativity.

In other words, the theoretical as opposed to empirical element of any law of science or nature, is by definition a metaphysical construct, and is therefore speculative in that it can only ever be indirectly supported by observation, being generally arrived at through inductive reasoning (itself problematic).

Thanks for the clarification. I do agree with your points above. What it confirms however, is an acknowledgement that we can have empirical observations and from those form empirical foundations for what reality actually is. In addition, any abstract explanation of unobservable causes must at least be rooted and derived from empirical foundations. In other words, can we say that it is more probable that the relative motion between celestial bodies is caused by an invisible force along a line intersecting affected bodies, or that the motions are the result of invisible hands that support and move the celestial bodies along specific paths? I think we can and should evaluate and make distinctions between different theoretical explanations for unobservable causes.

You enjoy using the word speculation, but on its face, a mere speculation can be anything, a wild speculation, an improbable speculation, as well as a reasoned and inciteful speculation. That is why it is important to keep in mind, and give some indication of, our degree of confidence in our abstract theoretical explanations when discussing and referring to them.
 

Semmelweis Reflex

Antivaxxer
In the post I responded to you only referred to the Bhagvad Githa and the Quran, but not the Bible (If I remember right). But even if you were referring to all three books, you cannot bake one book your yardstick and dismiss the others like you did. They are three different genre's.

I was only comparing them as far as readability goes. I find most religious texts, including those three, tedious. My evaluation of them was separate. An opinion of what my impression was of how each of them convey their message rather than the message itself. If you're writing about a subject that is, let's say for example, boring, it's likely to be boring. It isn't necessarily a good idea to spice it up in some way if the intent is to relay the message as concise and accurate as possible. A more casual approach would allow stylistic development.

So, I'm not sure the genre is significant in that context. The post you first responded to started out with: "I think it's true that none are better than the other and that each has something to offer. And it's subjective as well. I didn't like the Quran or Bhagavad Gita." That isn't a textual criticism, it's an opinion of a literary work based upon personal preference. The stuff bores me but that isn't to say there isn't anything of value there, just that it bores me. It's more likely a personal weakness than a weakness of the text. I find the information within the Bible fascinating, but to read it bores me. When you are educating yourself the process is often tedious and boring. The same could be said of anything. I'm a musician but practice and rehearsal bores the left tit right off me. I don't find the message of any other sacred texts fascinating like I do the Bible. But I find them all boring, often officious or pretentious, or nonsensical.

If you take a completely naturalistic approach with all three, no God, nothing divine, just three books written by three different people. The Bible was written by maybe 50 different authors. The Qur'an was written by one individual. The Bhagvad Githa is also the same. One individual.

I'm not familiar with any evidence regarding authorship of either of those. There are allegedly 40+ authors of the Bible. I went into the Quran thinking it was believed to have only one author but from my anecdotal opinion is that it had multiple authors. I don't know about the Bhagavad Gita. It doesn't really matter for any reason I can see. It seems to me almost trivial.

Do you know about the past tense and the present tense usage of the Qur'an? It is Maadhi and Mudhaari. The usage of Mudhaari has present and future tense in it, and not like the English language. For example, the word Muminoon means a person who believes today, and will do so tomorrow. Just a linguistic fashion. In arabic poetry of the time which will have to explain this meaning the Qur'an uses one single word. Like the words used in harsh terms with the letter Ha (as in Ha, Kaf) which has that connotation instead of using another word just to imply the harshness or the severity of the situation. Written this way, with Wakth which means the ending of a sentence, it has been composed for someone to memorise easily. Maybe in order to understand this one would have to read a whole book. to explain it so simply to an absolute beginner is not so simple.

So like you said this ad hoc composition of the Qur'an is just a false assumption of people who don't have simple knowledge of the Qur'an. It is composed for memorisation, and not just to read like a novel or a classic. If you think you have given it a fair examination, it's actually not so true. You have not given any fair evaluation.

Have you ever tried to take a critical approach to the text? What ever text. When I say critical, I don't mean just scrutinising it. Take a biblical approach if you may. Apply form criticism as an example to both text. What is the outcome?

I think it seems to me like what you are saying is that if my criticism of the text were more informed my opinion would be more positive as you see it. Might that be religious bias? As an unbeliever setting out to debunk the Bible nearly 30 years ago my reading of it produced many problems with the text. Some of them, I reasoned, were due to my own ignorance, others were due to there being obvious problems. Had I not personally seen potential there I wouldn't have continued as I did. I might have explored the problematic in a critical light only for the desire to debunk it. As it turned out I saw the potential and explored the problematic in a critical light to either debunk or confirm it. That's the method I've employed since then when studying the Bible. The problem is I don't see the sort of message with any other text worthy of being examined further.
 
Top