Supposition

[Michael]

Hey Tiassa great post

One of the first basic luxuries of a society is the difference between sitting high on a rock to escape the big animal that is trying to eat you

too true

From what I understand Mohammad did write some of the Qur'an but he, more or less, played the part of chief editor. There were Jewish converts, Xians, Nestorians, Syrians, Persians and many Arab poets.

 

[Michael]

how about something that moves you only if you follow the instructions?

good point. there is something to be said for that.

 

[codanblad]

of course it's possible for humans to write books, they do all the time. And it may even mean the same thing to, or have the same effect on some readers, as i think many people perceive these scriptures to be just books, but they're not just books when god uses them to teach people and to change their lives and to show himself to them. so it's the presence of god that matters. and i have had him write things through me. poetry that changed someone's life a great deal but i didn't really know why. and the opposite has happened when he's imparted a message to me through someone else, who had no idea what the message meant, or that it was valuable to me...in conversations or in art.

why do you call it god and not coincidence? i mean its the nature of people to discuss/express their fears and passions etc.. if you think it was just too perfect to be coincidence, well you only ever find what you're looking for. how many conversations were just regular old conversations?

sounds like greek mythology to me, gods of war filling men with bravery, apollo blessing them with archery skills. might it have been the god of poetry smiling down upon you as you wrote?

 

[codanblad]

I often doubt human beings stupid enough to write these books could possibly evolved as a result of natural selection.

Perhaps these books are the elusive proof of intelligent design. There's no way someone dumb enough to write this crap could ever have evolved.

well i'm converted.

 

[greenberg]

It really depends on the book. If it's a novel or such then yes I expect to be moved. If it's a science or math book then on how clearly it instructs.

Where do you place religious books? What do you expect from religious books - to be emotionally moved, to be instructed ... ?

 

[Michael]

Depends on the religious book. Why was it written? For what purpose? By whom?

I'd have greatly different expectation from someone writing a book of thought and philosophy compared with someone writing a religious book explaining the alien origins of the human race. In some books I expect myth. I'd expect something different from a monotheistic religous book compared with a polytheistic one.

I'd expect something greatly different of a person who was a religous philosopher and who wrote down their ideas after meditative contemplation than someone who heard voices in his head and/or looked in a magic hat.

 

[Michael]

Just because I'm not religous doesn't mean I think religous people were not very much more clever and insightful than I'll ever be - especially in regards to philosophers who may have also been religous or interpreted things on the back drop of certain religous assumptions. Even Plato was "religous".

BUT, that's a lot different than when Alexander claimed to be half-God and conquored half the known world. Or the Japanese Emperor sitting behind a screen. Or a Prophet looking into a "magical" hat. Or the Pharaohs. Or the Roman Emperor. Or Ron Hubbard.

So I suppose where I put the religous book depends on who wrote it and why.

AND when I make this distinction I do so on the backdrop of being a atheist. Is someone says "I sat down thought about things and here's what I thought" THAT'S a hell of a lot different then "I heard a voice in my head, had a seizure and here's what It told me".

 

[lightgigantic]

the basis of scripture is direct perception of transcendence (the seizure or puff of smoke is optional)
the basis of philosophy is mental speculation

Religion should have philosophical merit, but if it is simply composed of it 100%, it has no merit as religion

 

[Sciencelovah]

I often doubt human beings stupid enough to write these books could possibly evolved as a result of natural selection.

Perhaps these books are the elusive proof of intelligent design. There's no way someone dumb enough to write this crap could ever have evolved.

If you ask: "Is it possible humans wrote these holy books?", likely 100% will
say it is. Perhaps the question should be: "Who could possibly have written
these holy books” with poll options: human or non-human.

 

[Michael]

good point

 

[greenberg]

So I suppose where I put the religous book depends on who wrote it and why.

So you trust this meta-information about the book more than you trust the actual content of the book?


And to go go back to my previous question - What do you generally expect from religious books - to be emotionally moved, to be instructed ... ?

 

[Michael]

So you trust this meta-information about the book more than you trust the actual content of the book?

I see your point. No, of course the contents of the book are what is important about the book, not who wrote it. I meant that different types of people write religous books for different reasons. So a religous Philosopher who has spent a life time pondering the human condition and decided to write these thoughts down - which then may, in time, become a religion. Is a lot different than someone who has a different agenda.

Suppose someone has a fascination in controlling people and is also interested in SciFi. Such a person may write a religous book and maybe they will use many different religous and psychosocial resources only wrap them in an Alien theme and then watch to see what happens.

Or, think of a person thinks they are in touch with the Gods. Perhaps during epileptic fits they have mystical information delivered to them via a spiritual messenger.m (or so they say or think or both)

So, with this in mind I think each book will have a different "flavor".

And to go go back to my previous question - What do you generally expect from religious books - to be emotionally moved, to be instructed ... ?

I see no reason why both wouldn't be included in such a book. And, as pointed out, the one does not preclude the other or may even be needed. For example, perhaps to perform Zen meditation instruction is needed, perhaps only after reaching "Zen" do certain passages become emotionally meaningful?



One thing I would look for in a religous book. Something that is novel and meaningful in regards to the human condition. An enlightened perspective one things, one could say.

If the book is simply a rehash of someone else's ideas - then I really think it's a waste of time. And to say something like "Ron Hubbard" is the Last Prophet may be novel but it's not meaningful. It's just a statement. To take a copy of the "insert religous books" and fix the broken bits and patch on another layer of mysticism may have a lot of enlightened material in it (from the original works the book was based on) but it isn't novel - it's a rehash.


Does that make sense?
Michael

 

[codanblad]

If you ask: "Is it possible humans wrote these holy books?", likely 100% will
say it is. Perhaps the question should be: "Who could possibly have written
these holy books” with poll options: human or non-human.

if you'd offered the complete works of einstein to someone, before einstein was born, mightn't some people tick the non-human box? what plays rival that of shakespeare, 500 years after they were written? how long until someone matches bruce lee's prowess? sometimes people are just really good at stuff. people only think they're non-human when they're clearly linked with religion.

 

[greenberg]

I see your point. No, of course the contents of the book are what is important about the book, not who wrote it. I meant that different types of people write religous books for different reasons. So a religous Philosopher who has spent a life time pondering the human condition and decided to write these thoughts down - which then may, in time, become a religion. Is a lot different than someone who has a different agenda.

Suppose someone has a fascination in controlling people and is also interested in SciFi. Such a person may write a religous book and maybe they will use many different religous and psychosocial resources only wrap them in an Alien theme and then watch to see what happens.

Or, think of a person thinks they are in touch with the Gods. Perhaps during epileptic fits they have mystical information delivered to them via a spiritual messenger.m (or so they say or think or both)

What would you say is your greatest fear in regards to religious books?
Perhaps that you would believe a religious book, but years later find out you've been fooled?

One thing I would look for in a religous book. Something that is novel and meaningful in regards to the human condition. An enlightened perspective one things, one could say.

What are your criteria for recognizing whether a book says something that is "novel and meaningful in regards to the human condition"?

 

[Michael]

What would you say is your greatest fear in regards to religious books?

My Greatest fear? Hmmmm.... I can't imagine a "fear" per say. I think it would be scary as Hell to be in a position where I was at risk of dieing because some religous kook thought he was doing the "will of God". When I see these guys on the news now and again screeching something like lalalalala Allahu Akbar! lalalalalala Allahu Akbar! and then rip through someones throat with a knife - well, I think if I were that guy, yeah, I'd be crapping my pants in fear.

So my greatest fear of a religous book would be how it can be utilized to justify violence against someone else.

But, that aside, lets just suppose I did for whatever reasons (maybe a brain tumor, some weird experience or what have you) converted to Scientology. Then, some 30 years later found out there really wasn't a Xenu - well, I think I'd be more sad or angry than fearful.

There are lots of things I think I know and in reality I am completely wrong about. One of the greatest places to be in life is that spot where you "know" you really don't know shit all. Perhaps having the feeling of "knowing" is comforting and in knowing I don't know shit-all, maybe I'm just trying to reach a new comfort level?

All of that said, I lived with a Buddhist family in Japan for a few months. I really really enjoyed staying there. They live in a temple. Their father is a priest. Really nice guy. I'm pretty sure that the family have some "religous" (supernatural) beliefs. But so what? The father really seems happy. And he is a great person. He has a great family. But, of course he has all the worries of a husband and father. But in general he seems like an enlightened person. He meditates. He continues to study. He's always saying there is so much he doesn't know about Buddhism and so he studies. He traveled to India and funded a temple there that seems to be trying to help people. I sometimes think I may move back - maybe for a few years? But, then I'd be tossing my career out the window. Then again, maybe I could get it up and running there? Maybe not.

My fears are more simple. Goal = Having a nice job, doing something I love and living somewhere I am happy. I think that with those things the rest would fall into place. But, maybe not. Maybe it's the striving that's what I really want? I mean, I could probably have had the life I'm looking for had I prioritized it.

I also fear I will miss out on things I want to experience. I loved living in Japan. Whereas many people I met there missed home I don't. I left the States almost a decade ago. I am going to try to negotiate a job in Shanghai for 3 years. Which will take me further away from my "goal". Isn't that funny? Maybe my goal is really just to try for goals? (then again I have to say I do like swimming in the ocean, if I can live near the water maybe I'll be happy to "settle down")

Maybe I should fear myself

What are your criteria for recognizing whether a book says something that is "novel and meaningful in regards to the human condition"?

Well, that may be difficult. Novelty is a matter of prior art. Being enlightened (for me) is simply to be insightful.

Here's a quick example:

If the Baha'i claim monotheism as a novel concept (one that was first unique to their religion) I'd simply point out previous faiths that had this concept. So monotheism is not a novel concept. Baha'i have a concept of the rebirth of a New Adam - yes that's new. But, is it enlightening? I'd say yes. It allowed the Baha'i to begin to religiously and socially progress again and to do so post-Islam from within an Islamic culture. You see, working within the Islamic system and being able to come up with a new "semi-Prophet" they invented the "Adam" - Very clever indeed. The founder wanted social change, he recognized that Islam had reached it's used by date and was about 1000 years stale and so he invented the concept of the reborn Adam. And then tried to move people forward again. I'd say that meets my definition of insightful.

At least as I see it,
Michael

 

[Kadark]

My Greatest fear? Hmmmm.... I can't imagine a "fear" per say. I think it would be scary as Hell to be in a position where I was at risk of dieing because some religous kook thought he was doing the "will of God". When I see these guys on the news now and again screeching something like lalalalala Allahu Akbar! lalalalalala Allahu Akbar! and then rip through someones throat with a knife - well, I think if I were that guy, yeah, I'd be crapping my pants in fear.

So you're using religion to explain social and political events yet again? Hey, go ahead and believe that if it helps you sleep at night. Simple explanations for simple people.

But, that aside, lets just suppose I did for whatever reasons (maybe a brain tumor, some weird experience or what have you) converted to Scientology. Then, some 30 years later found out there really wasn't a Xenu - well, I think I'd be more sad or angry than fearful.

How did you all of a sudden know that "Xenu" didn't exist?

Maybe I should fear myself

Maybe you should stop obsessing about yourself in a thread dealing with the possibility of human involvement within the creation of certain holy books. If we wanted to know your life goals, we'd read your blog. Okay, so we still wouldn't read your blog, but you get the point ...

 

[Michael]

So you're using religion to explain social and political events yet again? Hey, go ahead and believe that if it helps you sleep at night. Simple explanations for simple people.

I did not - I said that THAT could scare the shit out of me. I read an interview with one of the Sunni trainers/handlers in Iraq. He was atheist. He used naive kids from KSA to carry out attacks and dressed them up to think they were martyrs. But he wasn't. He as just fighting against people he viewed as invaders. My point was that if I was somehow in the hands of someone who was a believer and they were going to kill me. That would scare the crap out of me.

Think Indiana Jones and Temple of Doom

Other than that there really isn't anything about a religous book that is particularly "frightening" to me.

How did you all of a sudden know that "Xenu" didn't exist?

I was thinking, suppose I made it to the top echelons, you know, like Tom Cruise. And then I suppose they take you into this room where Ron is videotaped sitting there saying Congregations you've made it to the top of the CoS and now we will tell you the big secret. I made the whole thing up and this is just a big scam to make money

Why, I'd be shocked! Shocked I tells ya!

Maybe you should stop obsessing about yourself in a thread dealing with the possibility of human involvement within the creation of certain holy books. If we wanted to know your life goals, we'd read your blog. Okay, so we still wouldn't read your blog, but you get the point ...

Haaaa... there wasn't anyone LEFT in this thread except me, greenberg and codanblad!

I'm surprised you're still lurking

Here why don't you answer the question and give an example from you're own beleif.

What are your criteria for recognizing whether a book says something that is "novel and meaningful in regards to the human condition"?

 

[Michael]

So you're using religion to explain social and political events yet again? Hey, go ahead and believe that if it helps you sleep at night. Simple explanations for simple people.

Just out of curiosity Kadark - are you suggesting that religion doesn't play a part? Maybe that's what you need to believe so that you can sleep at night. But, if it didn't play a VERY significant role then why stipulate a Xian President and Muslim PM?

What are your thoughts on this: Protesters burn Indonesian mosque

Around 300 Muslims torched the mosque of some other Muslims just after midnight on Monday. Many Ahmadiyya (an Islamic sect of Muslims) members have sought refuge with friends and relatives nearby. "We heard the attackers chanting 'burn, burn' and 'kill, kill'," Zaki Firdaus, one of the Muslims, told the Associated Press news agency. "It was horrifying." Tensions have increased in recent days since a government-appointed panel recommended that the Ahmadiyya should be banned.


So their we go - a prime example of how a little monotheism in the wrong hands can motive 300 people to go burning and killing some other people. Now, I think we can both agree that if we were in the shoes of the Ahmadiyya and saw some kook running at us with a Qur'an in one hand and a torch in the other screaming lalalalala Allahu Akbar! burn burn burn.. lalalalalala Allahu Akbar! kill kill kill - oh you'd be shit terrified.

Other than that, as I said, there isn't anything in any religous book that has actually scared me. I've been more scared reading Steven King.

 

[Michael]

Indonesia furore at anti-Islam film
Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has called for calm as protests in Jakarta against a Dutch film enter their third day. The film has been described as highly offensive to Islam.


SOBANA: The Dutch embassy in Jakarta has been at the centre of demonstrations this week, as dozens of angry protesters voiced their opposition to an anti-Islam film by Dutch parliamentarian, Geert Wilders.

The protest was organised by the radical Muslim group FPI, or Islamic Defenders Front - with some members calling for the death of Wilders.

PROTESTOR: I call on Muslims all over the world to kill those involved in making this film, their blood is halal.


Again, that would scare me. One could call this PURE politics but I really don't see why the blood of a vacationing Dutch person in Bali is "halal" - Oh that's because it's actually pure RELIGIOUS HATRED. One KOOK Dutch person and his farcical film and one KOOK Indonesian and his farcical religion.

 

[Michael]

Sheikh Sayyid Abul A'la Mawdudi, a Sunni Pakistani theologist and political philosopher who is considered an influential 20th century Islamic thinker wrote this religous book "The Qadiani problem" which led to the murder of about 2000 other Pakistani Muslims because they were "heretical".



Oh, we can EASILY find millions of Xian examples as well.
The Spanish Inquisition comes to mind.


The point is - It's what PEOPLE do with their two-bit brain after reading a religous book that is scary, not so much the book.