God

Originally posted by Tobodai Because by the admission of even my Muslim proffessor who studies the religion of Islam, much was written after the fact, as it was indeed not written down for some time. Furthermore predicting a winner of a war is always a 50-50 bet.  And many pre modern cultures thought differently than we do now.  One can find a billion cultures with a billion ideas of how mountains are rooted.  I know for example that many Native American cultures viewed mountains as havinf very deep roots.  Many other cultures dont think that at all.  You have a million different folk tales about something origins and eventually youll find a few that happen to be right.

I don't know who your professor was, but that is just wrong. The Koran was narrated by Muhammed (pbuh) to his literate compainions over a 20 year period. Before Muhammeds (pbuh) death, it was double checked twice for errors and has not changed since. If you find  Koran from 700CE, 1500CE or today, they would be identical.
Predicting the winner of that war in 616 was much more a 95-5 bet, in favour of the persians. The romans had been completely smashed, as you would need to be if you were to loose the bulk of your territory and population.
If it is a coincidence that the Koran accurately describes mountains, what about the development of the embyro. The Koran accurately describes the development of the embryo (in the 7th centuary!) this has been confirmed by canadian embryologist Dr. Moore (who converted on that evidence)*
Or the Hadis (saying of the Prophet) that says
If a fly falls into your drink, push it under before removing it.
Counter-Intutive? A study by the University of Cario found that when a fly is completely submerged it releases an anti-bacterial. So Muhammed (pbuh) must have had knowlede of embryology, history, biology, geology, and the future just based on a handful of things I've said

Originally posted by ] Dr. T.V.N. Persaud, professor of Anatomy, University of Manitoba, Canada says: "You have an illiterate person (Prophet Muhammad) making profound statements that are amazingly accurate, of a scientific nature...I personally can't see how this could be mere chance, there are too many accuracies and like Dr. Moore, the embryologist, I have no difficulty in my mind reconciling that this is a divine inspiration or revelation which lead him to these statements".*

*http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type= rarticle&raid=200&sscatid=4

Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival I dont know about the Koran, but the people who wrote the Bible thought the Earth was flat and that the sun revolved around it. How is it logical to believe that they knew sensitive information about an omnipotent God when they clearly knew nothing of something as comprehendible as our own world?  So, if they clearly knew nothing of how earth functioned, how is it feasible that they knew how God functioned? That's one of the things I can't seem to stomach.

This actually leads to the difference between Islam and Christianity. Muslims beleive that Jesus (pbuh) was a Prophet and that the religon he preached was the same as Islam. The bible however was written in 325 CE in the 1st occumencal council of Nicea, which was chaired by the Emperor Constantine, who never truely converted to Christianity.* He mearly joined it as he would join the temple of Jupitor or Venus. That means that there was 300 for other beliefs to enter christianity before it was finally written down. One of the things they did was to adopt  Aristotiles teachings that the world was flat. Jesus never said the world was flat.

*George Ostrogorsky, "History of the Byzantine State"

Originally posted by Kubrat So, what if God created the Universe old?  With fossils, developed life, and an ecological system?

Although possible that God created the universe old I disagree that it is necessay at all. God says that he created the world in 6 days, but a day unto Allah may be 50000 years unto us. Or a 600000, or a billion. The timescale isn't important more that it is 6 great epochs. On the 7th day Christian say He rested, but the Koran says that God enshrined himself over the Laws that govern the Universe. This I believe is the first mention of the fact that Laws govern the Universe, and it is early muslims who are considered the pioneers of modern science.

Originally posted by Ahmed the Fighter I want from you to prove it like a theory.

I agree. I'm up for a rational debate.

According to Wikipedia, the Quran as we know it was compiled in its modern form by Caliph Uthman c. 650 CE:

One of Uthman's actions, controversial at the time, is now the act for which he is remembered. He headed a committee that established the basic text of the Qur'an. Various Muslim centers, like Kufa and Damascus, had begun to develop their own traditions for reciting and writing down the Qur'an. Uthman feared that the nascent Islamic empire would fall apart in religious controversy if it did not have a sacred text recognized by everyone. Sometime during the end of his reign, the committee produced a text. Uthman had it copied and sent copies to each of the Muslim cities and garrison towns, commanding that variant versions of the Qur'an be destroyed, and only his version used. Many devout believers believed that his actions were high-handed and accused Uthman of tampering with the sacred book.

It also mentions that some non-Muslim scholars suggest it was compiled in an even later date, but this position is strongly controversial.

Some recent findings of old Qurans point in the direction that it was actually homogenaized by Uthman, as the divergences are the same ones that the Muslims of that time whined about.


Edited by Maju

I have some questions for all the devout types out there:

1. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, and supposedly above human emotions, then why should he care whether we worship it or not?

2. If God created the universe, and God is omnipotent and omniscient, then why is the universe imperfect? Why are humans imperfect, expecially if we "are created in his own image"?

3. Most religions are oriented around the central notion of sacrifice. Worship more often than not consists of either making a sacrifice (an offering of money, food, an animal, even a human), or celebrating a sacrifice (the crucifixion of Jesus for example). Why is a sacrifice necessary? Why should God demand a sacrifice?

4. Why should God choose to reveal him/her/itself through such a convoluted means as revealing himself or inspiring some chosen persons to write a sacred text (the Bible, Koran, Torah, Bhagavad Gita, etc.) at only one point in time, and then have those people preaching the message to everyone else? If God is omnipotent and concerned with the humans worshipping it, why wouldn't he/she/it choose a more direct way to reveal his/her/its message, to a large audience and continously for that matter? Why choose a way which is subject to distortion and interpretation?

5. Why is one form of worship better than another for God? Refer to question #1.

Originally posted by Kalevipoeg The thing about believers of God is that you can't rationalize with them. You can discuss science with some of them and they are more or less fine about that but whenever you say there is no God, he brings you nonsense arguments like "If you haven't seen God, how can you say he isn't real." and then he grins you in the face and walks away like bloody Aristotle, attaching himself to that thin line of absurdity.

I know what you mean.
From another forum I plagiarize a comment which sums it perfectly: "Debating with a christian is like playing chess with a pigeon. First he knocks down all the pieces. Then he craps on the board and flies to tell he's friends that he won the game"

(this is hjuumour)

Originally posted by Kynsi I know what you mean. From another forum I plagiarize a comment which sums it perfectly: "Debating with a christian is like playing chess with a pigeon. First he knocks down all the pieces. Then he craps on the board and flies to tell he's friends that he won the game" (this is hjuumour)

Can't say it better myself!!! And it's hilarious too

Originally posted by Maju According to Wikipedia, the Quran as we know it was compiled in its modern form by Caliph Uthman c. 650 CE: One of Uthman's actions, controversial at the time, is now the act for which he is remembered. He headed a committee that established the basic text of the Qur'an. Various Muslim centers, like Kufa and Damascus, had begun to develop their own traditions for reciting and writing down the Qur'an. Uthman feared that the nascent Islamic empire would fall apart in religious controversy if it did not have a sacred text recognized by everyone. Sometime during the end of his reign, the committee produced a text. Uthman had it copied and sent copies to each of the Muslim cities and garrison towns, commanding that variant versions of the Qur'an be destroyed, and only his version used. Many devout believers believed that his actions were high-handed and accused Uthman of tampering with the sacred book. It also mentions that some non-Muslim scholars suggest it was compiled in an even later date, but this position is strongly controversial. Some recent findings of old Qurans point in the direction that it was actually homogenaized by Uthman, as the divergences are the same ones that the Muslims of that time whined about.

dont see whats your point there, the Quran was written in different methods but not in a one book when prophet Mohammed was Alive, he memorized it and never forget anything from it so people didnt think of putting the Quran in one book, and when the prophet sends Governors to the new states entered Islam he sents people who memorized the Quran as a whole to teach the people.

when the Prophet died the first Caliph Abu Baker ordered the collection of all the written papers, leathers , stones ..etc of the different chapters of the Quran, and kept these as reference for the future ( he as most of the Prophet companion did memorize the Quran from the time of the prophet and they didnt need a written reference)

the Secon Caliph Omar expanded the Islamic Empire and covered Egypt and persia and syria and palistine many of the Quran memorizers died the Thrid Caliph Uthman thought of putting all the chapters in One book to save it for the Future , so he asked the Prophet's Companions who memorized the Quran to gather to Ensure that the Quran will be put in one book exactly as the prophet said it without having anything less or anything more added to it.

when the book was completed with the complete texts of the Quran, the remaining fragments which some states had ( some aren't complete) were ordered to be destroyed by burning to avoid any confusions that may accure in the future from people not knowing the Complete version of the Quran.

 

So Caliph Uthman didnt write the Quran all he did is putting it in one book.

the Shiea branch of Islam do belive that the Quran is missing one chapter which they belive its the Chapter God appoint Ali as the successor after the prophet. other than that AFAIK all muslims belive that the Quran is the same from the Prophet time and it was not changed. and God saving it from corruption.

 

Originally posted by Decebal I have some questions for all the devout types out there

I'm not exactly devout but I will try to answer anyhow:

1. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, and supposedly above human emotions, then why should he care whether we worship it or not?

"He" actually doesn't care. The only thing, if any, that can benefit God somehow and only in regard to our material plane is that we, as individuals and as collective, are better. The problem comes when we try to define what's "better", so let it be.

In the case of the lesser religions, worshipping is a mean for the people to control the sects to gain power over the believers: if God is to be worshipped and obeyed, they, who are somehow closer to God in their sect's scale, will have more preeminence over the masses and even the "earthly" powerful ones.

Priests and equivalents just get power from all that. With this I don't mean that there is no honest speiritual seekers among them but they also gain power and power corrupts.

2. If God created the universe, and God is omnipotent and omniscient, then why is the universe imperfect? Why are humans imperfect, expecially if we "are created in his own image"?

In fact God didn't create the Universe: God is/was/will be the Universe. The Universe is perfect, just that you see it through partial eyes: you are a manifestation of God but you are not a total manifestation of God but a partial one. God can be understood to be pure only in the very small (essence) and the very big (whole) but in the intermediate scales, significatively our 3+iD Universe and particularly your subjectve perception of it, you may feel it unperfect because it is like the white light when it breaks up in the rainbow: is is fractioned: it is everywhere and nowhere in it. You as "red" maybe don't like much "green" or "purple" but you are essentilly one with them anyhow.

We aren't imperfect, just fractal.

3. Most religions are oriented around the central notion of sacrifice. Worship more often than not consists of either making a sacrifice (an offering of money, food, an animal, even a human), or celebrating a sacrifice (the crucifixion of Jesus for example). Why is a sacrifice necessary? Why should God demand a sacrifice?

I don't believe in the notion of sacrifice, at least in the Abrahamanic sense of it. Anyhow, making symbolic offers may have a deep meaning for the person performin the rite and may be a form of self-discipline that can also yield fruits. What I think is wrong is to believe that the greater the sacrifice the greater the reward: it's not about outer rewards but about inner rewards, if any.

Killing animals is part of the sort of sacrifice that a pastoral society would do. Hence is significative that the Abrahamanic god, the tribal god of a sepherd nation, is pleased with the meat offered by Abel but offended by the vegetables offered by Cain.

But I like more the sacrifice that Tibetans do, freeing a yak in the wilderness. That's more valuable and accord with the true meaning of sacrifice, which after all is nothing but a personal pledge to what is greater than oneself (society, nature... embodied in the concept of divinity).

4. Why should God choose to reveal him/her/itself through such a convoluted means as revealing himself or inspiring some chosen persons to write a sacred text (the Bible, Koran, Torah, Bhagavad Gita, etc.) at only one point in time, and then have those people preaching the message to everyone else? If God is omnipotent and concerned with the humans worshipping it, why wouldn't he/she/it choose a more direct way to reveal his/her/its message, to a large audience and continously for that matter? Why choose a way which is subject to distortion and interpretation?

I fully agree with that. Yet I think that some people can maybe have some sort of personal revelations, not as a message from outside but as an awakening to a previously unknown reality. The people who hear voices are just schizophrenic.

5. Why is one form of worship better than another for God? Refer to question #1.

It is not. In fact that's a common misunderstanding. Green is not better than red, blue, purple or orange... they are just diferent shades and we must learn to live with that. Even if one would be better than the other, how would we know for sure, how would we know if this or that doctrine is better for each specific person? With what reference, knowing as we know that nothing beyond this life is actually known?

Edited by Maju

Originally posted by flyingzone Originally posted by gcle2003 (Though incidentally all of those religions have no difficulty with the existence of evil and suffering, since they don't conceive of an all-powerful god, let alone an all-loving one.) This reminds me of a "theory" that a friend of mine once told me. He believes "god" may in fact be "satan" or the source of all evils ... Don't stone me. I cannot take any credit for that theory.

That's a good one. Your friend my be on something.

Originally posted by Kubrat So, what if God created the Universe old?  With fossils, developed life, and an ecological system? My point is, science can't disprove the existance of a God.  Not right now, anyway.

And it never will. It doesn't even try. Science demonstrates that 'God' is an unnecessary hypothesis, as Laplace admirably summed it up. (Or, at least, is credited with having said.)

Belief in God does not help one iota in understanding the universe and demonstrating that understanding by increasing our ability to predict it and control it. Small as that ability still is, it comes from science, not faith in God.

 

Originally posted by Kian_the_great Originally posted by Fort Brooklyn I am not particularly a believer of a God, per say. To me, death is an lifetime mystery, until I reach it of course. It could mean the end of your life. Or it could mean the start of a new one. I won't know till I reach it. Not a believer in any man-made faith, I'm all for science. But no one can debunk what REALLY happens after death, can they? nerd alerrt

Oh thanks for that. I'm already aware of this.