Why they are fake?

[Monk Of Reason]

I read a few moments ago about a man who was defending homosexuality! anyway you might think if you're living in a western country that it's not something wrong .. but what makes "something" wrong? .. They used in the past to open the skull if one had a headache! .. it was not something wrong (they thought so because of their ignorance) .. We all know that, of course, there are things in todays world that are identical to what was done in the past .. there is some ignorance nowadays .. I mean, for example why do some people shave their faces? you may think it's a good think, people also thought that breaking their skull would help them recover from their headache .. they thought it was a good thing .. I'll give some more examples then I'll get in the main topic .. Some people are listening to music? they think it's a "healthy" thing! you might think I'm kidding or speaking nonsense, Why do you people listen to music? the answer is pretty clear it's just for fun, they enjoy their time ..

Much of what we thought was "wrong" in the past ended up being just okay. Much of what we thought was "right" in the old days was very very wrong. Nothing is inherently wrong with homosexuality. There are things inherently wrong with bigotry. Thus is an advancement in morality of the world.

All people are looking for their own benefit .. the man who was speaking about homosexuality who I mentioned earlier, he was just looking for their support because he is a politician .. the people who shave their faces are looking for the "fake" love of the people who appreciate that or looking for their respect or anything .. anyway .. are we created to be slaves to people? to look for their satisfaction? is that the main purpose of us in this life?

The next time you see someone who tells you that he loves you .. how would you know? if he really loves you? I need to clarify something before answering this question .. If people are looking for their own good .. then why do people love other people? may be for their beauty or their money or anything else .. but what's the true love? the true love is the love in the sake of god ..

If I analyzed what I mentioned above .. it's clear that their are two ways .. you are looking for your benefit in this life .. or you are looking for the benefit in the hereafter ..

What is the evidence there is a herafter?

If we looked at Islam it's clear in its teachings that one must follow the truth look for it even if the other religions were true a Muslim would follow it .. but there's no religion after Islam .. Jews and Christians in fact if they are real scholars know that Islam is the right religion .. they just want to stick to their religion even if it was false ..

This is greatly unsubstantiated and actually outright wrong. There have been several religions that have come after Islam. By your logic we should all be scientologist or Mormons.

In brief man is created in this life to be tested if he was good or evil if he worshiped god or not .. and it's clear in Surat Al-baqara ..

So, why are people who don't do things in the sake of god are fake?

Because there is no resonable evidence to suggest that god is real. I don't care to change my life to fit something that might exist. Especially since there are an infinite number of things that might exist or nature's that god might have if it exists. What if the version of god you follow is very wrong compared to the real god? What if there are no gods?

 

[Aquitaine]

I read a few moments ago about a man who was defending homosexuality! anyway you might think if you're living in a western country that it's not something wrong .. but what makes "something" wrong? .. They used in the past to open the skull if one had a headache! .. it was not something wrong (they thought so because of their ignorance) .. We all know that, of course, there are things in todays world that are identical to what was done in the past .. there is some ignorance nowadays .. I mean, for example why do some people shave their faces? you may think it's a good think, people also thought that breaking their skull would help them recover from their headache .. they thought it was a good thing .. I'll give some more examples then I'll get in the main topic .. Some people are listening to music? they think it's a "healthy" thing! you might think I'm kidding or speaking nonsense, Why do you people listen to music? the answer is pretty clear it's just for fun, they enjoy their time ..

All people are looking for their own benefit .. the man who was speaking about homosexuality who I mentioned earlier, he was just looking for their support because he is a politician .. the people who shave their faces are looking for the "fake" love of the people who appreciate that or looking for their respect or anything .. anyway .. are we created to be slaves to people? to look for their satisfaction? is that the main purpose of us in this life?

The next time you see someone who tells you that he loves you .. how would you know? if he really loves you? I need to clarify something before answering this question .. If people are looking for their own good .. then why do people love other people? may be for their beauty or their money or anything else .. but what's the true love? the true love is the love in the sake of god ..

If I analyzed what I mentioned above .. it's clear that their are two ways .. you are looking for your benefit in this life .. or you are looking for the benefit in the hereafter ..

If we looked at Islam it's clear in its teachings that one must follow the truth look for it even if the other religions were true a Muslim would follow it .. but there's no religion after Islam .. Jews and Christians in fact if they are real scholars know that Islam is the right religion .. they just want to stick to their religion even if it was false ..

In brief man is created in this life to be tested if he was good or evil if he worshiped god or not .. and it's clear in Surat Al-baqara ..

So, why are people who don't do things in the sake of god are fake?

Another example of things people do nowadays that is identical to ignorant things in the past is using one's own religious beliefs to dictate to others.
Another one is claiming to know the meaning of existence from a religious book.

How can you possibly say with a straight face that the "purpose" of this Universe is so that a bunch of evolved Primates on a tiny planet on the edge of one of it's billions of galaxies can be "tested" if he believes in God or not?

Talk about ignorance....

 

[Looncall]

I wouldn't say the writers were "ignorant." The stories are brilliant in their depth and layers of meaning.

The ancients knew very much less about the natural world than we do now. They were ignorant of things that are now understood. To fill the gap, they made stuff up. Religions perpetuate those errors into our times.

However the bible stories may rate as literature, they are useless as science. Taking Genesis as history is inane.

 

[sojourner]

The ancients knew very much less about the natural world than we do now. They were ignorant of things that are now understood. To fill the gap, they made stuff up. Religions perpetuate those errors into our times.

However the bible stories may rate as literature, they are useless as science. Taking Genesis as history is inane.

I didn't say they were science. But "not writing science" =/= "ignorant."

 

[Vishvavajra]

However the bible stories may rate as literature, they are useless as science. Taking Genesis as history is inane.

This is completely true.

The ancients knew very much less about the natural world than we do now. They were ignorant of things that are now understood. To fill the gap, they made stuff up. Religions perpetuate those errors into our times.

This is more of a distortion. If you spend your time listening to the ravings of creationists, you'll get the impression that Biblical myths are meant to fill in as explanations for the literal facts of the universe, like a poor first attempt at science. But that's not actually their function and never was. All cultures create myths in order to express aspects of the human experience in narrative form. They're not so much geared towards explaining things away as they are about exploring what it all means, in more of a cultural than an individual sense. This is evident in the degree to which most myths really aren't such neat, tidy explanations when you actually look at them. They're actually quite problematic and often end ambiguously, since they're expressions of ongoing problems that don't have easy answers. But human existence is messy and problematic, so it's a faithful expression of that.

Moreover, many myths have no etiological whatsoever. The myth of George Washington and the cherry tree was not a lame attempt to explain how a particular cherry tree in Virginia got chopped down because nobody knew who did it or why. It was meant to express something about his character that was relevant to popular concerns at the time. Similarly, the events of the Iliad aren't meant to provide an explanation for anything in particular, yet that's coming out of the biggest myth cycle in Greek culture. What do the labors of Heracles explain about the natural world? What about the deeds of Gilgamesh? The idea that myth is just a feeble attempt to explain the natural world has never stood up to analysis. It's also based on some rather nasty triumphalist assumptions.

 

[Parsimony]

I shave because I don't like having a beard. It's not to please other people.

 

[Vishvavajra]

If you can't accept that people can hold different belief about God from yours, that is not anyone else's problem but yours. God does not need believers.

...unless God is a mask worn by the insecurities of the man, in which case God desperately needs believers to fill the aching void of existential angst.

 

[Harmonious]

logical fallacies are rules made or created by "man" to judge things made by "man" so it doesn't apply to Quran ..

No. Logical fallacies are faulty arguments, such that the LOGIC in the argument doesn't work.

These aren't specific to any idea, regardless of the truth involved.

We've been trying to show you, sometimes painfully sarcastically, how the same logic you are using to "prove" that your opinions based on your faith, because of the texts you believe are sacred don't work, using either our OWN texts, or using works of fiction, but the same basic logic.

You object, as you should, but you aren't objecting based on logic, and applying the same ridiculous arguments being made to the argument YOU are making. You are arguing the "truth" of the matter, which is something that can't be proven, as it is a matter of faith, and FAITH cannot be proven.

Even if you were right, and I'm not saying that you are, the way you are explaining your point of view does not lead anyone to believe the truth of your argument. You are basically saying, "I'm right. And to prove it, just believe me: I'm right."

Even if you were right, that argument isn't compelling, even to someone who AGREES with you.

 

[Looncall]

I didn't say they were science. But "not writing science" =/= "ignorant."

What I mean by "ignorant" is "lacking knowledge". Nothing more, no perjorative intent at all.

 

[Looncall]

This is completely true.


This is more of a distortion. If you spend your time listening to the ravings of creationists, you'll get the impression that Biblical myths are meant to fill in as explanations for the literal facts of the universe, like a poor first attempt at science. But that's not actually their function and never was. All cultures create myths in order to express aspects of the human experience in narrative form. They're not so much geared towards explaining things away as they are about exploring what it all means, in more of a cultural than an individual sense. This is evident in the degree to which most myths really aren't such neat, tidy explanations when you actually look at them. They're actually quite problematic and often end ambiguously, since they're expressions of ongoing problems that don't have easy answers. But human existence is messy and problematic, so it's a faithful expression of that.

Moreover, many myths have no etiological whatsoever. The myth of George Washington and the cherry tree was not a lame attempt to explain how a particular cherry tree in Virginia got chopped down because nobody knew who did it or why. It was meant to express something about his character that was relevant to popular concerns at the time. Similarly, the events of the Iliad aren't meant to provide an explanation for anything in particular, yet that's coming out of the biggest myth cycle in Greek culture. What do the labors of Heracles explain about the natural world? What about the deeds of Gilgamesh? The idea that myth is just a feeble attempt to explain the natural world has never stood up to analysis. It's also based on some rather nasty triumphalist assumptions.

I mostly agree with this, except that the bible stories are not couched in such terms, they read as literal and our interlocutor is using the genesis story as literal.

I wonder how many times any cleric tells his audience that the bible stories never actually happened. I don't suppose that happens often.

 

[Deidre]

Much of what we thought was "wrong" in the past ended up being just okay. Much of what we thought was "right" in the old days was very very wrong. Nothing is inherently wrong with homosexuality. There are things inherently wrong with bigotry. Thus is an advancement in morality of the world.

What is the evidence there is a herafter?

This is greatly unsubstantiated and actually outright wrong. There have been several religions that have come after Islam. By your logic we should all be scientologist or Mormons.

Because there is no resonable evidence to suggest that god is real. I don't care to change my life to fit something that might exist. Especially since there are an infinite number of things that might exist or nature's that god might have if it exists. What if the version of god you follow is very wrong compared to the real god? What if there are no gods?

This.

 

[sojourner]

What I mean by "ignorant" is "lacking knowledge". Nothing more, no perjorative intent at all.

I don't think the writers lacked knowledge. They were creating mythic accounts, not science-substitute.

 

[Looncall]

This is completely true.


This is more of a distortion. If you spend your time listening to the ravings of creationists, you'll get the impression that Biblical myths are meant to fill in as explanations for the literal facts of the universe, like a poor first attempt at science. But that's not actually their function and never was. All cultures create myths in order to express aspects of the human experience in narrative form. They're not so much geared towards explaining things away as they are about exploring what it all means, in more of a cultural than an individual sense. This is evident in the degree to which most myths really aren't such neat, tidy explanations when you actually look at them. They're actually quite problematic and often end ambiguously, since they're expressions of ongoing problems that don't have easy answers. But human existence is messy and problematic, so it's a faithful expression of that.

Moreover, many myths have no etiological whatsoever. The myth of George Washington and the cherry tree was not a lame attempt to explain how a particular cherry tree in Virginia got chopped down because nobody knew who did it or why. It was meant to express something about his character that was relevant to popular concerns at the time. Similarly, the events of the Iliad aren't meant to provide an explanation for anything in particular, yet that's coming out of the biggest myth cycle in Greek culture. What do the labors of Heracles explain about the natural world? What about the deeds of Gilgamesh? The idea that myth is just a feeble attempt to explain the natural world has never stood up to analysis. It's also based on some rather nasty triumphalist assumptions.

Something occurred to me after I posted.

Do myths often serve as national propaganda? I find that the bible often reads as an attempt to give the Israelites a fictitious glorious history. In reality, they seem to have been a people who were conquered by anyone who happened to come by.

I suppose that sometimes the myths are just embroidered history and served the same purpose.

 

[sojourner]

I mostly agree with this, except that the bible stories are not couched in such terms, they read as literal and our interlocutor is using the genesis story as literal.

I wonder how many times any cleric tells his audience that the bible stories never actually happened. I don't suppose that happens often.

I don't think they "read as literal" at all. I have told listeners on many occasions of the mythic nature of the biblical accounts. Honesty always works best.

 

[sojourner]

Something occurred to me after I posted.

Do myths often serve as national propaganda? I find that the bible often reads as an attempt to give the Israelites a fictitious glorious history. In reality, they seem to have been a people who were conquered by anyone who happened to come by.

I suppose that sometimes the myths are just embroidered history and served the same purpose.

Sure. I think that the myths sometimes glorify history, in order to illustrate the concept that God will save. It's a means of fostering hope.

 

[Harmonious]

I believe it is and you can find that it's mentioned despite some are being hidden
Muhammad in the Torah / Bible | Judaism and Islam – comparing the similarities between Judaism and Islam

Okay. Now you're getting personal, and the kid gloves come off.

I've looked at that site that you referenced, and it is bogus. I'm sure that it works for you, as you've taken the verses to mean what will make the Muslim argument more "authentic," but the verses referenced mean no such thing.

(Dude, you have no idea how weird it is for me to say this to a Muslim. Normally, I go all out like this on Christians who try to "prove" what Jews believe using our own texts. But you crossed the line, telling Jews what we believe, and why it should conform to YOUR beliefs.)

The first source listed in your "compare and contrast" website lists Deuteronomy 18:18 as a proof of "a prophet like Moses." The verse is thus:

A prophet I will establish for them from amongst their brothers like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he will speak to them all that I command him.

This isn't a special reference to Muhammad. This is a reference to the fact that God will send LOTS of prophets, and they will have the authority to deliver God's words to whomever God sees fit, but most particularly Jews.

If it makes you happy to imagine that it references Muhammad, go for it. But that isn't in context, except as you wish it to be there.

The next one makes no sense to me. Your reference suggests that Deuteronomy 33:2 refers to "a prophet from Mecca." That's not what it says, nor is it referenced.

He said: "The Lord came from Sinai and shone forth from Seir to them; He appeared from Mount Paran and came with some of the holy myriads; from His right hand was a fiery Law for them.

Why your teachers have decided that Seir means Saudi Arabia is beyond me.

One way that Jews understand this is that God offered the Law to Esav's descendants (Seir is where they lived), and they rejected it. Then, God offered the Law to Yishmael's descendants (who presumably lived in Mount Paran), and they rejected it. The law was too restricting, and they rejected it out of hand.

Interestingly enough, more modern commentators suggest that Esav is referring to Christians, and Yishmael is referring to Muslims, but that is a comment on a comment. The ultimate point is that they reject the teachings of Judaism and raise up their own teachings and philosophy as truth.

The next one baffled me, as I read it. Your source was Isaiah 42:1-13, in an effort to prove that "the chosen one" is Muhammad.

Behold My servant, I will support him, My chosen one, whom My soul desires; I have placed My spirit upon him, he shall promulgate justice to the nations.
He shall neither cry nor shall he raise [his voice]; and he shall not make his voice heard outside.
A breaking reed he shall not break; and a flickering flaxen wick he shall not quench; with truth shall he execute justice.
Neither shall he weaken nor shall he be broken, until he establishes justice in the land, and for his instruction, islands shall long.
So said God the Lord, the Creator of the heavens and the One Who stretched them out, Who spread out the earth and what springs forth from it, Who gave a soul to the people upon it and a spirit to those who walk thereon.
I am the Lord; I called you with righteousness and I will strengthen your hand; and I formed you, and I made you for a people's covenant, for a light to nations.
To open blind eyes, to bring prisoners out of a dungeon, those who sit in darkness out of a prison.
I am the Lord, that is My Name; and My glory I will not give to another, nor My praise to the graven images.
The former things, behold they have come to pass, and the new things I tell; before they sprout I will let you hear.
Sing to the Lord a new song, His praise from the end of the earth, those who go down to the sea and those therein, the islands and their inhabitants.
The desert and its cities shall raise [their voice]; Kedar shall be inhabited with villages; the rock dwellers shall exult, from the mountain peaks they shall shout. They shall give glory to the Lord, and they shall recite His praise on the islands.
The Lord shall go out like a hero; like a warrior shall He arouse zeal; He shall shout, He shall even cry, He shall overpower His foes.

The Chosen One spoken of is ISRAEL, the entire Jewish people. I'm not sure why this was meant to be any more compelling than many folks telling us that Isaiah 53, talking about the "suffering servant," is talking about Jesus. That chapter is ALSO talking about the Jews, ISRAEL, as a nation, as a unified people, and as one person for whom all that is encapsulated in the chosen verses speak.

The last one comes from Habakkuk 3:3, suggesting that the Holy One came from Paran.

God came from Teman; yea, the Holy One from Mt. Paran, with everlasting might. His glory covered the heavens and His splendor filled the earth.

I'm still not quite sure why Teman is thought of, in Muslim thought (or, at least, according to the website you linked to), as Medina.

In Jewish thought, Teman (here) is Esav, and Mt. Paran is, again, Yishmael.

In none of this do we see Muhammad referenced, except in your own heart and mind.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't think the writers lacked knowledge. They were creating mythic accounts, not science-substitute.

I tend to agree with this. It seems unlikely that ancient writers were much too mistaken about what they were doing exactly.

Myth has a purpose and practical value. It just does not work as a substitute for science.

 

[leibowde84]

I can tell you that it's a fact .. simply why do they believe in their religion and not in Islam?

Because they do not believe that Muhammad was a prophet, and they do not like some of the teachings in the Quran. Christians also believe that Jesus was the Messiah. But, there are many other plausible reasons not to believe in Islam.

For me, I am against the notion that Muhammad's attempt to "unite the world under one religion" was a good idea. He also used force to gain territory for Islam, which I also do not support. I think Jesus' messages in the Gospels were much more "divine". But, that is just my subjective opinion.

I really can't think of ANY reasons why I would believe what Muhammad said over any other self-proclaimed prophet since Jesus, as there were many.

 

[Vishvavajra]

I mostly agree with this, except that the bible stories are not couched in such terms, they read as literal and our interlocutor is using the genesis story as literal.

I wonder how many times any cleric tells his audience that the bible stories never actually happened. I don't suppose that happens often.

You'd be surprised. The idea that the Genesis narratives in particular are meant to be understood literally is a fringe idea in Christianity at this point, isolated to fundamentalist evangelicals and a few other groups. Not one shared by Catholic or Orthodox or mainline Protestant clergy.

As for their "reading as literal," that's just how myth reads. It tells a story. It doesn't stop every few lines to jerk you out of the story and remind you that it's a story. The fact that it doesn't make a lick of sense when taken absolutely literally should be enough of a clue. (Obviously it isn't for some people, but that's a problem with them and how they were taught, not with the stories themselves.)

Do myths often serve as national propaganda? I find that the bible often reads as an attempt to give the Israelites a fictitious glorious history. In reality, they seem to have been a people who were conquered by anyone who happened to come by.

I suppose that sometimes the myths are just embroidered history and served the same purpose.

They're what people had before the relatively recent discipline of objective history developed. And yes, myths are frequently a way of constructing national identity. A huge portion of the Hebrew Bible is actually an attempt by certain people in Judah to craft a kind of history for their nation. That "history" also encompasses their neighbor kingdom of Israel by claiming that they used to be one kingdom (centered in Judah's capital of Jerusalem, of course) before Israel split off. It also includes Mesopotamia by tracing the Hebrew ethnicity's descent from a Mesopotamian named Abraham. And Egypt by positing that they came out of Egypt en masse to settle the land of Canaan, killing and displacing the local Canaanites in the process.

We've known for decades that none of the above is accurate to the historical or archaeological records. The Hebrews appear to have been a branch of native Canaanites whose culture evolved in that place and wasn't imported from elsewhere. There was no exodus from Egypt or Canaanite genocide. And there's no evidence that there ever was a united Kingdom of Israel that included both Jerusalem and Samaria. Those are cultural myths that arose starting around the 7th century BCE, after the northern Kingdom of Israel had been destroyed, and continuing through the 6th century BCE in the period of the Exile.

To a large extent, the Hebrew Bible is a story of how the early Jews came to see themselves in relation to their neighbors and forebears. It's not an accurate account of what happened in a factual sense, but it records what people came to believe happened. Compare the Roman belief that they were descended from exiled Trojans after the destruction of that city by the Greeks, which is another example of one culture's using myth to construct its relationship to another.

These things have a way of getting solidified when set down in writing. But even then, myth is an ongoing, negotiable conversation. And unlike history or propaganda as we know them, it isn't consciously constructed at the hands of just a few people. It grows out of the culture in an organic way.

 

[metis]

But even then, myth is an ongoing, negotiable conversation. And unlike history or propaganda as we know them, it isn't consciously constructed at the hands of just a few people. It grows out of the culture in an organic way.

Yes, and to ask "Did this really happen as written?" pretty much misses the point in large part.