The Qur'an
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
You know how you sometimes talk about those people who denigrate their own culture. Like the Jewish person who is antisemetic?
Perhaps Buddhism is the least relevant Indian philosophy. I don't think Socrates is all that relevant to Greece in the 21st century either. So what? We're talking about a superstitious people 2500 years ago - near the dawn of civilization and near the beginning of people even being able to write. One would hope that down the ages these archaic ideas continued to be developed. As a matter of fact, I think the worse thing someone could do is to say that the ideas were "Perfect" and then write them down in a book and think it's now "Perfect" and remain at the level of 2000 years ago. Could you imagine what such a philosophy would have on society trying to move into the modern era? But then again, you don't have to - just read back to Bizza's post's about Blackholes in the magical Qur'an. Or embryology! Haaa! Now that one was funny.
Anyway, of course this Buddha guy was just some dude thinking about things.
Now the Qur'an on the other hand - THIS IS GOD here.
G.O.D.
SAM... we're talking GOD here.
GAWD!!!!!
Xenu!!
Oooo I mean Allah!!! Errrr God!!!
pffff....
I would in no way at all ever never ever think that a mere Indian mortal like Buddha would be anywhere near as deep and insightful and wonderfully wonderful as GAWD - GOD: creator of everything and knower of a thing or two! GOD .... .... And yet.... here we are. It begs the question: What really were the motives of the people who made up the Qur'an 150 years (or so) after the death of this supposed Protagonist named Mohammad? What was their game?
One really does have to ask oneself: Why didn't (and don't) the Chinese or the Europeans find the Qur'an all that insightful? I mean, the Europeans DID find Arab philosophers insightful. They were happy to read their treaties. They did find the Greeks insightful. And the Indians. BUT as for GOD, somehow no one finds GOD insightful. Oh, but then again, that's not really the point now is it?
00110101001001001110010101 There is only One Alien and his name is Xenu.
beep beep/pbuh/beep beep
01010010010010010010111011 Ron Hubbard is His Last Prophet
beep beep/pbuh/beep beep
Does the Qur'an write something new about meditation in respect to the human condition? What's that?
When is the last time you saw some Buddhist Monk running into a crowd of people with a backpack of explosives screaming Buddha is Great!! *BOOM*And lastly I find that the chinese sat down thought about buddhism and then just went to some of the deadliest wars- they understood humanity at a enlightened level A lot of china is full of just wars- one dynasty trying to overthrow another.
It's almost comical isn't it?
You need to understand Religions place in society and the types of people in societies. The people who made up the Qur'an are no where near the same type of people who lead the Mosque. It's ironic isn't it? But it's true, these are two different type of personalities.
So, the Chinese, due to their open plains with little natural barriers have actually one of the lesser violent pasts. People fought in the name of the Emperor. Not in the name of Buddha. Emperors were Prophets. No different than Mohammad. Emperor worship is much more closely aligned with Islam than with Buddhism.
But, that's not the point. The point is you think the Qur'an is wisdom from GOD. Yet, no one else does. Why do you suppose that is? As I said, Europeans were interested in Arab's Philosophies - but not in GOD's Philosophy.
That doesn't strike you as odd? That GOD is crap even when compared with Muslim philosophers?
Michael
Some things need not be new. Thinking is an old concept but it definitely needs to be renewed.. Especially by the folks in this forum.
Apparently you missed the point.... :shrug:
Yes it is.... I've become accustomed to it, knowing that its coming from you.
Peace be unto you
Yes, I agree, things don't need to be new. This is true. If you copy these previous ideas and pretend you came up with them - well, we have a word for that - it's called a Hack. You can easily spot a Hack - they are the ones plagiarizing other people's ideas AND pretending those ideas are theirs. I have no problem with someone making a copy of someone's ideas - but please don't pretend this other person's ideas are your own ideas.Some things need not be new. Thinking is an old concept but it definitely needs to be renewed.. Especially by the folks in this forum.
Another thing interesting about Hack's is that they don't really offer anything new and insightful. They just Hack other people's ideas and pass them off as their own.
For example: Suppose you have a Hack. This Hack says he's in touch with the Gods. Oh Geee he must be too cool ... and the Gods just so happen to be sending him a message. Oh, and gee golly, this message just so happens to be the Sun Tzu's Art of War. Now, anyone with a couple of marbles to rub together would know this guy is a Hack. But, get this, if you raise some little children to Worship this hack like a God - well, then here you are.
So, one thing I was thinking, is if the Hack isn't really a Hack - people (other than the brainwashed) would probably find something new in the Hack's writings. Something novel, insightful. BUT, if the Hack was just a Hack - nothing. They wouldn't bother with his ideas.
You do know that Sun Tzu's work, even 3000 years later, is applied to Business studies at University. It's pretty much become core curriculum. This is because Sun Tzu was not a Hack - but was actually a clever fellow.
Isn't it surprising GOD turned out to be a Hack?!!?? Not even as good as Sun Tzu. You must be very surprised with that 786. Whereas me - it's not surprising in the least that Allah is a Hack. It actually makes good sense why the Qur'an isn't afforded a similar intellectual value as the Art of War .... at Universities.
Last edited:
Its called common sense. To sit down and think is common sense... to attribute to any religion, like Buddhism, is idiotic.
Isn't it surprising that you're acting like someone who has no brain- someone who has to look at buddhism to understand that you should sit down and think... If I wrote 2+2=4 and then few years later you write the same thing, must mean that you plagiarized my answer.... Yes this is possible, you may be dumb enough to need help answering 2+2 = ?
Peace be unto you
I'm sorry 786 but on this case you are wrong. People come up with new ideas and new philosophies all the time. Perhaps you didn't know this, but even Arab Philosophers came up with new ideas. Even Ron Hubbard came up with a new type of Religion - The Great Intergalactic Space Opera. It's pretty common for people to come up with new stuff actually. And if it's good people even teach it to other people at University.Its called common sense. To sit down and think is common sense... to attribute to any religion, like Buddhism, is idiotic.
Isn't it surprising that you're acting like someone who has no brain- someone who has to look at buddhism to understand that you should sit down and think... If I wrote 2+2=4 and then few years later you write the same thing, must mean that you plagiarized my answer.... Yes this is possible, you may be dumb enough to need help answering 2+2 = ?
Peace be unto you
Isn't it odd that Universities place GOD and Mohammad next to Xenu and Ron Hubbard whereas Sun Tzu and Socrates are in more sophisticated intellectually admired categories? Seems to suggest GOD is a Hack.
meh...
Michael
PS: we're not talking about a concept such as Zero - which was independently developed by Indians as well as the Mayans. We're referring to the entire Bible including all of it's stories as well as main Characters. That's called being a hack 786. At least Ron had the the decency enough to make up his own stories.
Oh and as for Buddhism, I'm not a Buddhist. But the fact that their meditation practice and philosophy correlates to neurogenesis and increased hippocampal volume is interesting to me. I often wonder if being Muslim can, in some people, led to aggression directly from changes in certain nuclei of the brain? Once we understand the neuropsychology a bit better, maybe we can figure out with parts of Islam should be changed? That seems reasonable doesn't it?
I'm not here to rebuke you 786. Actually, I'm sure if we were speaking about Ron Hubbard we'd be in complete agreement - unless you were a Scientologist.
To stay on course with the OP:
(1) Why do you suppose that Europeans in the middle ages eagerly read Arab Philosophy but ignored the Qur'an?
(2) Why did the Chinese value Indian Philosophy but ignore the Qur'an?
To stay on course with the OP:
(1) Why do you suppose that Europeans in the middle ages eagerly read Arab Philosophy but ignored the Qur'an?
(2) Why did the Chinese value Indian Philosophy but ignore the Qur'an?
Could you refresh my memory? When did I do this? I find a lot to complain about in my own culture. And I do it in the appropriate threads.
Also I spent $200 fricking dollars on the "art of living" so the knowledge of that bamboozlement is absolutely firsthand.
Meanwhile, like I said, Buddha is mostly irrelevant in India, except under circumstances which the Buddha would most assuredly view skeptically. This is not a criticism, this is an observation.
IMO [not quite humble], if a religious system fails in India, it has no future, if we cannot stomach it, no one else can.
You only have to look around to see what does survive to understand how these things work.
Meanwhile, there are Chinese Muslims, and there will be more as communism gets thrown off.
As for Europeans "ignoring" the Qur'an, do educate yourself
The Masons and the Moors
Last edited:
They were Christian bigots :shrug:
Buddhism and Hinduism came thousands of years earlier. Secondly Chinese were primarily concerned with stuff that was within their territories. Buddhism was taken up by some of the dynasties (this is 1000 year BEFORE Quran) and so they have it.
Islam is now growing in China- also Chinese culture and Islam have many differences such as worshiping ancestors or not- Buddhism on the other hand you can just fit anywhere. So considering that Chinese would have to re-think their way of life if they accept Islam- that would definitely take more time to accept. This is simply human nature- its not easy giving up your norms.
Peace be unto you
There's a similar but smaller scale pattern in the US, which raises interesting questions about the survival vs the success of religions: something like a version of Gresham's Law seems to be operating.SAM said:
The takeover sequence from Anglican (Episcopalian) to Presbyterian to Methodist to Baptist to the recently rising Pentacostal and Evangelical, with side slides into Mormon, Black Muslim, etc - can be viewed as a degeneration, in some ways. Bad faith drives out good.
I'm looking at a somewhat larger time span. A few thousand years. The major problems we have now is with Maoists.
You have no data for survival over that time, let alone success.SAM said:
Was the beef-eating "Hindu" of a few hundred years ago practicing the same religion as the Holy Bovine Hindu of the recent past and present? Has that older Hinduism been "successful"?
But perhaps a study of the smaller scale patterns will inform the understanding of the larger ones.