Designer Religion

[superluminal]

The bible and the quran are seen as the moral and guiding foundations of their respective religions. They contain directives for behavior, observations on god, moral guidance, and many other things. And they are viewed by their adherents as the word of god, literal or poetic.

Clearly, among all the other attributes of these books (peace be with you, love thy neighbor, don't hump goats - all good advice), violence and intolerance make up a significant part. Much of it is not even couched in philosophical terms. It is in the form of direct inducements to racism, misogyny, genocide, etc.

Why do adherents to these religions selectively edit these directives from their "interpretations"? Why do they focus on what they percieve to be the "good" parts and basically ignore the "bad" stuff?

How can anyone justify such personal and selective interpretation of the word of god? How does one justify to themselves a belief based on these books - god's words - yet take the overwhelmingly arrogant step of thinking they can just ignore or modify parts they don't like?

This is a major confusion for me in the reasoning, or lack thereof, in the christian, muslim, and jewish mind.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

I do think some of the fundamentalist sects do take this stuff seriously. I say that tongue in cheek because if your a male you've got it made. This gets me thinking as to why the bible and quran don't seem to recognize women as they do men. Why any woman would want to be part of either is mindboggling at best. Perhaps they fear their husband's rath, I don't know.

Tremendous amounts of violence are exhibited by both holy books. In my job I get to enter private residences as well as buildings and I can remember being in the basement of a church once, in the Sunday school section, whereupon I picked up a book entitled the Children's Illustrated Bible. The first page I turned to was an artist's rendition of David holding a spear at his side with Goliath's head impaled on the end of it. Complete with blood, guts and a headless torso.

 

[AAF]

.........Why do adherents to these religions selectively edit these directives from their "interpretations"? Why do they focus on what they percieve to be the "good" parts and basically ignore the "bad" stuff?
...........

That is a very general strategy, which is used
by almost everyone, not just Muslims, Christians,
and Jews.

As a rule, if you like something, you concentrate
instinctively on its bright side, whether that bright
side is real or imaginary. And if you dislike something,
you concentrate instinctively on its dark side, whether
that dark side is real or imaginary.

Therefore, it's the task of the critics of Islam, Christianity,
and Judaism, to make the followers of those religions see
their flaws and shortcomings. And that criticism must be
sustained and maintained for long, long, long time, in order
for it to have positive results.

 

[superluminal]

Right. And I agree. I'm interested in the christians and muslims, and jews response to this. I don't know a single one who denies that these books are the word of god (otherwise, they're not christians or muslims or jews... right?) whether literal or allegorical. So how do they justify their denial of the "dark" parts, and what they are commanded to do in gods name?

 

[S.A.M.]

I'm tired of this...

 

[superluminal]

I'm tired of this...

I can understand that.

 

[(Q)]

I'm tired of this...

You shouldn't be.

If as you say, you've studied your religion and agree with it, then it would be easy for you to explain or refute any of the above without batting an eyelash.

But, if instead you're "tired of this" as in tired of people questioning religion, then you probably didn't ask very hard questions when you originally studied.

And that's prmiarily what you'll see here is the asking of hard questions about religion, whether they appear tiring or not.

Ok, its personal, as you've stated before, but it's also global, affecting the lives of millions. And if we use history to quantify the argument, we find that religion has affected the lives of millions in very negative ways.

Hence, we now have another hard question regarding religion in which our esteemed collegue, superluminal, has presented, one that appears to ponder over the reasonings of those very negative effects history has shown us.

If I were you, I'd demand some examples and then proceed to dissect supers argument to the best of your ability... if you can.

If you think he's spouting hogwash, call him on it, and be prepared to tell him why.

Surely, you can't be tired of this...

 

[Bebelina]

Don't restrain your consciousness to a religion, life is more than that, you know better than that.

 

[S.A.M.]

You shouldn't be.

If as you say, you've studied your religion and agree with it, then it would be easy for you to explain or refute any of the above without batting an eyelash.

But, if instead you're "tired of this" as in tired of people questioning religion, then you probably didn't ask very hard questions when you originally studied.

And that's prmiarily what you'll see here is the asking of hard questions about religion, whether they appear tiring or not.

Ok, its personal, as you've stated before, but it's also global, affecting the lives of millions. And if we use history to quantify the argument, we find that religion has affected the lives of millions in very negative ways.

Hence, we now have another hard question regarding religion in which our esteemed collegue, superluminal, has presented, one that appears to ponder over the reasonings of those very negative effects history has shown us.

If I were you, I'd demand some examples and then proceed to dissect supers argument to the best of your ability... if you can.

If you think he's spouting hogwash, call him on it, and be prepared to tell him why.

Surely, you can't be tired of this...

I get the strangest feeling that you and super are the same...

I'm in the middle of an assignment right now and this, I know is going to be time consuming; maybe after the weekend.

 

[superluminal]

I get the strangest feeling that you and super are the same...

If there's one thing about atheists - at least we're consistent. Right (Q) old buddy? Or am I just talking to myself? :m:

 

[KennyJC]

I doubt very much theists will directly address this issue. Everytime someone brings it up, it is conveniently left out of quotes in which they give their reply.

 

[S.A.M.]

Are we playing chicken ?

 

[superluminal]

I doubt very much theists will directly address this issue. Everytime someone brings it up, it is conveniently left out of quotes in which they give their reply.

I also have my doubts. But I would really be interested to discuss the logic of this. Lately we've been having a lot of threads about the "reality" of god and how deluded theists are (and atheists, from the theists perspective). This has nothing to do with that. The tacit assumption here is, ok, fine. God is real and these are his words, as written by the great prophets and disciples of history. This is all about truth, and self deception. Logic and illogic. I'd like to get a theists views on this.

My main worry is that I'll just get a bunch of rhetoric and be buried in mile-long posts designed to do nothing more than deflect the simple question.

We'll see.

 

[lightgigantic]

Ok here the view of a theist, not for the sake of brow beating atheists, but simply to give them a leg in to a different perspective -

Scripture is considered to be non-different from God (immediately you going to have a problem with that if you have a problem with god -lol) - in other words just as it is impossible for an unqualified person to approach God it is impossible for an unqualified person to understand scripture (they will just walk away from it in a state of confusion).

One who is properly qualified can take scripture and "reveal" it to others - in other words they are intelligent enough (by dint of their purity as opposed to academic capacity)to practically apply the instructions to time place and circumstance therefore they will give different emphasis's to different people at different times - just like for instance a mother teaches her daughter one type of knowledge when the daughter is 6, another type of knowledge when she is 12, another type when she is 16 (which the daughter probably won't listen to -lol) and another type when she becomes a mother herself - of course despite the variety there is one type of knowledge that is the same and which all the other varieties of knowledge depend on - that the daughter maintain a loving connection with her mother (if a daughter hates her mother she won't listen) - in the same way the essential knowledge in religion that remains the same is that one should maintain a loving relationship with god - this is technically called dharma - then there are what are called upadharmas which translates as "nearness to dharma". So upadharmas are things like nonviolence, freedom from envy, etc etc. Upadharmas are variable but dharma is not - Upadharmas can be helpful to dharma but are not essential - This places the essence of religion not in morals but in performing one's duty for god. Morals help one become established in that duty but are definitely not the goal of religion.

In other words there is a proper application for violence, acquiring money by strong endeavour and all sorts of things but it requires a purified and qualified person to apply the injunctions of scripture otherwise otherwise the scenario is just like a sick person going to the chemist and saying "I will have 10 red ones and 2 dozen green ones" without a prescription by a qualified doctor.

Generally people judge the value of religion by the activities of such persons - which is just like judging a genre by its worst stereotype - if theists appear in contention regarding the practical application of theology it is just because they are not properly purified to understand scripture. Therefore for the guidance of people is directed between scripture and saintly persons established with scripture - between saintly persons there are no quarrels of theology, only amongst their followers, but that is mostly due to stepping outside the guidelines of their teachers to begin with.

Hope this wasn't the ten mile long piece you were fearing

 

[superluminal]

Thanks LG.

Unfortunately, you didn't really respond to the question. I understand your position regarding the interpretation and application of scripture as requiring a "qualified" practitioner. I get it.

What I'm after is a bit simpler than that. When the bible or quran gives you a directive to do violence, such as cleansing the earth of infidels or stoning a woman for adultery, or suggests you treat women like property, why do you not follow gods will?

 

[lightgigantic]

Thanks LG.

Unfortunately, you didn't really respond to the question. I understand your position regarding the interpretation and application of scripture as requiring a "qualified" practitioner. I get it.

What I'm after is a bit simpler than that. When the bible or quran gives you a directive to do violence, such as cleansing the earth of infidels or stoning a woman for adultery, or suggests you treat women like property, why do you not follow gods will?

Well here is an example - there is a vedic injunction that when a person hears blasphemy of god they should either kill the offender, cut out their tongue, or in the absence of that kill themselves for it is better to die than hearing such things.

So, as you can imagine, I haven't cut the tongue off anyone or killed anyone (myself included) and its not like I live in a cave so I am open to what ever this popular culture spills out -


But the point is that such scriptural injunctions are commented on by the before mentioned qualified saintly persons and they have also elaborated (by other scriptural quotes) how there are other ways to kill people apart from ending their life- it innvolves counter argument (can you guess which one I opt for). Also cutting one's tongue out can innvolve giving the impression you will cut therir tongue out (not really my portfolio but I have seen it exhibited by 6ft people weighing more than 120kg on people who are drunk, obnoxious and looking for trouble). Also killing oneself can be interpreted as leaving the immediate company of the blasphemer - so one can apply the injunction if one is a monarch, an academic, or even a beggar on the street

- the point is that if one knows what is the principle is and what the details are (in this case "Do not sit idly while listening to atheistic arguments" is the principle and whether you are going to kill them, argue with them or leave the vicinity are details) - then you can apply it to time place and circumstance (again that is the quality of a saintly person - namely their ability to extract principles from scripture as opposed to details)

- You may be committing the error of pulling details out of the scripture and questioning them as principles, which is a mistake that not properly qualified practioners of religion sometimes do, what to speak of atheists -lol

 

[superluminal]

Now we're getting somewhere. Gracias!

 

[S.A.M.]

You know I consider myself a very moderate Muslim, but I'm not going to bang my head against a wall here.

I think I have made my views pretty clear and I doubt I can say much more that I have not said before.

So, this is my very last attempt, you should find everything you need here:

The Myth of Moderate Islam??

 

[superluminal]

You know I consider myself a very moderate Muslim, but I'm not going to bang my head against a wall here.

I think I have made my views pretty clear and I doubt I can say much more that I have not said before.

So, this is my very last attempt, you should find everything you need here:

The Myth of Moderate Islam??

Hey sam. Nice link, but that's not what I'm after. The article explains how various verses should be "interpreted". How do you, or any believer, justify interpreting the word of god at all? Clearly there are passages in the bible and the quran that are very explicit regarding how to respect another, how to treat a person in need, etc. and that are taken very literally, and rightly so. It's pretty clear when you are told to wish peace on a guest and to love your neighbor. But many injunctions to do violence and devalue women are just as clear.

It's obvious that believers are engaged in a form of the "enumeration of favorable outcomes". Count the good stuff, reject the bad. But this is gods word we are talking about here. Why do you get to interpret the directives regarding the treatment of women differently than the quran or bible tells you to? These were perfectly reasonable directives 2000 years ago. Is the word of god sacred and inviolate or not?

I'm not trying to be aggressive here, but when it comes to the word of god, as a believer, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. How could you? Who are any of you to "interpret" what appear to be very clear directions from god as transcribed by the ancient vessels of his word?

 

[S.A.M.]

Hey sam. Nice link, but that's not what I'm after. The article explains how various verses should be "interpreted". How do you, or any believer, justify interpreting the word of god at all? Clearly there are passages in the bible and the quran that are very explicit regarding how to respect another, how to treat a person in need, etc. and that are taken very literally, and rightly so. It's pretty clear when you are told to wish peace on a guest and to love your neighbor. But many injunctions to do violence and devalue women are just as clear.

It's obvious that believers are engaged in a form of the "enumeration of favorable outcomes". Count the good stuff, reject the bad. But this is gods word we are talking about here. Why do you get to interpret the directives regarding the treatment of women differently than the quran or bible tells you to? These were perfectly reasonable directives 2000 years ago. Is the word of god sacred and inviolate or not?

I'm not trying to be aggressive here, but when it comes to the word of god, as a believer, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. How could you? Who are any of you to "interpret" what appear to be very clear directions from god as transcribed by the ancient vessels of his word?

I don't know if this is a cultural difference between East and West or whether there are just differences in outlook; but there is a serious gap in the understanding of what religion means to the average Easterner.

In the West, religion is nominal or absent; but in the East, regardless of whether you are a Hindu, Muslim, Christian or any of the other faiths, religion is very intrinsic to daily life. Most Easterners define themselves by their religion.
Religion is a guide; it provides us with a philosophy by which to lead our life.

The Quran has an overall philosophy. Islam is derived from Salamah or peace. That is the basic philosophy; we greet other "Salaam aleikum" "Peace be with you".

There are many many lessons to learn from any religion; but the most important lesson is to live with people; the whole Quran is devoted to how, when, where, in what manner you deal with people.

Some of the Quranic verses were revealed when the first Muslims were engaged in battle; they became part of the Quran as revelations, but they were revealed in response to a particular incident at a particular point in time and they were qualified by later revelations about the right actions in general circumstances.

When we look for guidance, we read the whole Quran, not just one verse; we are familiar with the philosophy of the religion; when there is a dispute, we go to an Islamic scholar who has perhaps better knowledge of the circumstances under which the verses were revealed and can clarify them in accordance with the philosophy of the religion. What is important to understand is that there are guidelines for every situation from best case to worst case and it foolish to look at the worst case scenario and consider that to be the guideline for all situations. This would not be conducive to the welfare of the individual the community the society or the religion; and ultimately the goal of the religion is to ensure their welfare.

It's like saying, we have nuclear weapons; why bother with dialogue, one nuclear weapon will solve all the problems at once. But having the nuclear weapons and using them are two very different situations.