Anatomy of a Bye Bye

[Michael]

From: Islam and Terrorism

Don't you think it irrational (even childish) to teach people that chocolate flavored ice cream is the ONLY perfect ice cream and all other ice cream flavors are, while ice cream, are inferior?

I'm questioning the ethics and morality of teaching that an Ideology is Perfect. Which I think has led to Terrorism in Pakistan. Muslims are taught to think that the Qur'an is Perfect and so some of the more conservative and violent of them will attack anyone who suggests otherwise. Which is why Baha'i and Ahmadiyya and Sufi Muslims are sometimes murdered.


My POV is that you can shove chocolate in a person's face their whole life, you can even brainwash most into thinking there is such a thing as a Perfect Flavor and it's the flavor Chocolate..... some people will still like vanilla. *shrugs*

It's immoral to teach there is Only One Perfect Flavor of Ice Cream (or Book or ideology for that matter) - an Unnecessary Intolerance.

Indeed it is. Everyone knows that tender coconut is the only perfectly flavoured ice cream

It seems to me that SAM is avoiding addressing the issue at hand: Is it moral or ethical to teach one particular Ideology is Perfect?

'I do not worship that which you worship!

'And you do not worship that which I worship!

'And I will never worship that which you worship!

'And you will never worship that which I worship!

For you is your religion, and for me is mine!

Ahhhh Thank you for FINALLY , after umpteen pages, coming out with it, yes, THIS is the true essence of Sura-108 in the Qur'an - exactly and to a T.

What IS important is thinking the Qur'an is Perfect. That's the part of the message that really resonates. That feeling of superiority: Looking down ones nose at silly Buddhism or silly little people and their painted Elephant-Chicks, or flawed Christianity with it's stupid concept of Trinity, etc.... Well, big surprise there. Lot of bigots like BEING bigots. They like FEELING superior (regardless of how irrational it is). Which is what we have here.

Fine Done.

I never knew Muhammad was trying to make a logical argument for God. He was making a statement.

Agreed.

Unfortunately for Bahai's, the Muslims have always contended the end of Prophethood, the same can not be said of either Judaism or Christianity from their scriptures. But an argument for the end of prophetic tradition with Muhammad can be made from the Quran, and has been made from the Quran throughout Islamic history.

That essentially leaves out the Baha'i prophet from that chain if the argument is about the chain to Adam.

That might be OK except that's not what Baha'i Faith is about.

The Baha'i got around that with the notion of a New Adam. The Qur'an says nothing about there not being a New Adam. It should also be noted that Ahmadiyya interpret the Qur'an to show that Mohammad was not the Last Prophet.



Do you agree that you don't need to teach the meme Perfect Revelation in order to teach the moral lesson? Buddhists, Shinto, Native Amercians, Hindu, Mormons etc... all of these people teach the same moral lesson: Be kind to other humans.

As a matter of fact, it seems Buddhists make Peace and Self-Inquiry as central themes in their religion where as Muslims seem to put Perfect Revelation and Last Prophet as their central theme.

If 786 can point at Christianity and say there's nothing in the Bible that says anything about having a New Prophet, then it's only reasonable that Baha'i can do the exact same to Islam and point out that there's nothing in the Qur'an about having a New Adam. But 786 can't accept THAT logic. Why I wonder? Seems reasonable to me.

So, with that in mind, I ask 786 to address the moral issue of teaching that an Ideology is Perfect (maybe that's part of it?).

Its not a matter of 'need'. A message from God by definition has to be perfect in its revelation- perhaps not in its interpretation.

786 seems to ignores the point that Baha'i have a New Adam?

-- It seems to me that 786 is refusing to address the morality of teaching a singular particular belief is The Worlds Only Perfect Ideology.
-- It really doesn't matter if there is a God (or not) to address this issue. Lets just suppose there ARE NO GODS. Is it immoral and unethical to teach that a particular Ideology is Perfect?

Do you agree that Buddhists, Shinto, Native Amercians, Hindu, Mormons etc... all of these people teach the same moral lesson as are found in the Qur'an?

So, I want to know, does 786 agree that there is nothing in the Qur'an regarding the human condition that isn't expressed in all the other faiths and philosophies? In essence, they are ALL are the same and the Qur'an isn't any more Perfect then a Buddhist next. I'm trying to get 786 to rationally realize that hey, everyone teaches the same moral code regardless of whether it's based on a single God, multiple Gods, life Philosophy or Nature religion. (You'd think that THIS would be easy to grasp for all but the MOST mentally challenged. I mean, if you can type, you can understand this very simple concept).

Right? Wrong.....

Do you agree the general purpose of religion to to teach people a certain way to live on top of other things. Then why wouldn't there be overlap?

It seems to me that 786 again ignores the issue of morality?
786 also ignored the issue of the Baha'i Faith.
786 again answers a question with a question.

I didn't say there wouldn't be overlap. Of course there is.

Are there ANY moral lessons, that you know of (or would think), that are taught in the Qur'an but not taught in the other religions (polytheistic Shinto, Hindu, Native American nature religions or Christianity, Judaism, Baha'i faiths or Buddhist faith)?

So, are you going to answer THIS question?

This question has a historical problem. Islam didn't start with Muhammad. The religion of God has existed from the beginning of Adam. So the morals have already been on Earth for a long time. Thus some other religions having them doesn't mean anything.

So, now the issue of morality "has a historical problem" and my brain hurts ... I just can't even contemplate OTHER people's ideologies could be as good as mine, because ... there's a ... a ... historical problem.

OK, so are there ANY moral lessons, that you know of (or would think), that are taught in the Qur'an but not taught in the other religions (polytheistic Shinto, Hindu, Native American nature religions or Christianity, Judaism, Baha'i faiths or Buddhist faith)?

So, you going to answer THIS question?

Why should there be? Because otherwise this is a pointless question to answer, and I know you love talking about pointless things.

Refuses to answer the question and asks another question again.

Why should there be what?

My question is: Are there ANY moral lessons, that you know of (or would think), that are taught in the Qur'an but not taught in the other religions (polytheistic Shinto, Hindu, Native American nature religions or Christianity, Judaism, Baha'i faiths or Buddhist faith)?

So, 786, you going to answer THIS question?

Okay :bravo:

Peace be unto you

I have no reason to waste my time with you

There's the door, don't let it hit you on the way out :wave:

 

[Adstar]

I just want to make a point here.

Teaching that a book of teachings is perfect does not necessarily lead to violence from those who believe that the book of teachings is perfect.

Only when the ones who believe the book of teachings believe it orders them to enforce acceptance / submission of all mankind to that book of teachings will the teaching that the book of teachings in perfect lead to violence / persecution ect ect.

As for me a Christian. I believe the Bible holds the perfect message Of God and in it i am directed to share it with whomsoever, acceptance or rejection of the message is in the hands of the one who hears the message. As a Christian the Bible Does not call upon me to attempt to enforce acceptance or submission of all mankind to the Bible. The Bible tells me to offer the message and allow mankind to choose it's own reply to it.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[baftan]

According to its followers, a religion is not an ideology. And the separation point is simple for them: Ideology is something designed by humans, but religion comes from God. If a religious person would agree that his/her belief system was an ideology, things would have been different; at least they could apply other type of logic towards the expectations of the doctrine. However, if one believes in something as God's word, don't expect them to question it; you expect them to question the very existence of divinity. Especially Islam warns its believers that if anything comes illogical (or immoral) to their understanding, they should still follow it as Allah has a plan that they possibly can not know.

These people do believe in concepts such as absolute, perfect, eternity, soul, creation, afterlife and God's agenda. How can you convince them on what they know is only another human ideology? Difficult task; maybe the most difficult one in this subject.

 

[Michael]

According to its followers, a religion is not an ideology. And the separation point is simple for them: Ideology is something designed by humans, but religion comes from God.

I agree 100%. It seems to be about human psychology. It's very common for very religious Muslims (who convert from Islam to Christianity) to remain their overtly religiousness if they were originally so. They seem to be able to realize that Islam is illogical (for them) but then dive in just as deep into Christianity (which should be recognized as equally illogical - but isn't?). It's as if they were made to be religious. They brains are wired to think religiously. I know a guy (who ironically is atheist) who would sometimes fill in for a Priest (because he is fluent in the language) and he'd always tell me about how this sort of personality, to him seemed, hard-wired. If they were ultra conservative Muslims, they'd convert and be ultra conservative Christians. From the Priests' perspective these people had "found Jesus". But obviously my friend had a different take on things.

So? What's going on?

I wonder if maybe God-memes are piggybacking on some deeper neural circuitry? Superstitious beliefs are universal - maybe it's wired into a part of our brain that thinks about cause-effect relationship (or not)? I don't want to say things are "hard-wired" as the neocortex is so plastic. But, yeah, something interesting is going on there. I'm also leaning towards a role with the amygdala - due to it's role in regulating role in fear and communicating this "feeling" up to the frontal lobe through projection tracts.

It's difficult :shrug:
I am confident that we will sort it out though.

 

[Michael]

Imagine if this conversation had been about belief in Santa Clause.

If I had asked: Isn't the belief in Santa Clause no different than belief in the Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy?

Seems like a reasonable question. Not for someone who truly believes Santa Clause is 100% real. I can only assume they just ca not think rationally and logically about questioning Santa Clauses existance? Ask the question and all you'll get this....

-- I never knew Santa was trying to make a logical argument for Christmas Carols. Santa was making a statement.
-- Its not a matter of 'need'. A message from Santa (by definition) has to be Jolly in its revelation - perhaps not in its Christmas wrappings.
-- Do you agree the general purpose of Holidays are to teach people a certain way to live (on top of other things). Then why wouldn't there be overlap?
-- This question has a historical problem. Christmas Holiday didn't start with Santa Clause.
-- Why should there be? Because otherwise this is a pointless question to answer, and I know you love talking about pointless things.

Is it just me or does it seem a bit like gobbledegook .... no?