Wife beating, god and morality
-
Easy nadeem. Thank you nadeem for an excellent post,which i can agree with and follow consistently. I think your description of kufr is excellent,preconceived notions ignoring the reality of nature,observation and cause and effect. In this way at least you can state you have verifiable evidence for what you follow.
Just one point though,i can do all that you said without acknowledging god or the quran,can you tell me why the need for god,unless youdefine god in a different way....I am intrigued as to your resonse. -
Which book?
-
Peace Enquirer,
It's encouraging to hear that you found my insights useful.
There is a need for man to raise his awareness of the realities surrounding him. The man himself needs it, and his fellow human beings needs him to do so to. When entertained by the dance of cause and effect, and dazzled by the consistency of their steps, he elects for himself a governing set of rules that he himself relies upon to dictate for him what to do or not to. As he keeps watching, he adds more rules to this set. He consults this set to make better choices, that are beneficial to him and those around. Isn't this the role god plays in our life? To tell good apart from the bad?
The one who takes his own ego as god - as a criterion between right and wrong - , has no apparatus to tell good from bad. He hasn't bothered to develop it. He has neglected to raise awareness around the rules he needs to follow. He has missed out on the entire dance!
The one who does bother, who doesn't neglect, has by doing so given 'god' a lot of space in his life. It is not necessary for him to call the set of rules (that he found as good) as 'god', 'allah', 'yahwe' etc. It is not necessary for him to say "I believe in god!". If he does believe, it will be self-evident that he does. But in a conversation, for reference purposes, it might be handy to give it a name. Many go with 'god', and for clarity purposes I do to.
To sum it up The source of your guidance, is your god. You can choose the source of your guidance. The Quran encourages you to choose a source - a god - who's signature is seen all over the universe.
You may very well be successful without acknowledging the divinity of the Quran, but as the Quran is a reminder, it contains essential wisdom (which it itself claims merely to have repeated, not authored) which you cannot succeed without. The Quran is one source of such wisdom. If you are able to find such wisdom elsewhere, then I see no reason as to why you should not follow it. The bill of human-rights shares much, if not all, of the same wisdom as the Quran.
Take care,
Nadeem
-
Once again nadeem,i cant fault your post. If this is how you define god then i cant really see much problem,in fact i would say this is one of the best definitions of god i have come across. As a logical consequence i would probably count as a muslim,as would many atheists,agnostics,humanists and liberal people of other 'faiths'. Conversely,mainy 'religonists' would count as kafirs or mushriks.....
Your post restores my 'faith' in this forum,just need more of this kind of discourse... -
Peace Nadeem, some excellent points in your posts.
"god" doesn't simply mean "source of guidance" though, does it? There are infinitely many sources of guidance, but just one god. So the "only true source of guidance?" But guidance for what?
If you're saying that god is our conscience, then I disagree, because our conscience can make us do wrong things. And there's no clear definition of right and wrong.
I think we can just find the truth, and do our best to emulate the attributes of god.This is what I think about "muslim" and "kafir"
muslim= someone who is at peace, which means he is free from thoughts and emotions and so if free to "hear and obey."
kafir=someone who is not at peace, which means he has all these emotions dragging him around, making his decisions for him. Blinded by his emotions, he can't see the truth.I think the concept of god is starting to make sense to me. It's not our conscience, though.
But I think we just have to do things like be merciful (god is most merciful). following the attributes of god get rid of our ego and take us closer to god.And Enquirer, happiness cannot be our criterion!!! If we do everything based on what will make us happy, then we'll do a lot of wrong things!!! People kill others because that makes them happy!!!
as you can probably tell, I didn't read the original post of this thread, but to answer the question in the title, I have no idea.
-
Easy phoenix.That was my signature from 6 months ago,i havent changed it yet.....
But 'sustainable happiness' is a criterion if society as a whole is not harmed by the individual and vice versa....Misues of the criterion of happiness doesnt make it invalid,just like misuse of the word 'justice' doesnt invalidate real 'justice'....Maybe justice is more appropriate than happiness? -
You being vague and sarcastic or you being serious?
-
Yes, I think it's called "Think and Grow Rich", written under the pen name "Napoleon Hill".
Nadeem, excellent point, even if it has been spun by devious people "If he does believe, it will be self-evident that he does"
-
Peace,
@ Enquirer
Once again nadeem,i cant fault your post. If this is how you define god then i cant really see much problem,in fact i would say this is one of the best definitions of god i have come across.
The problems are on their way, in fact, they should be here any minute now...
But, thanks for the kind words. peace
As a logical consequence i would probably count as a muslim,as would many atheists,agnostics,humanists and liberal people of other 'faiths'. Conversely,mainy 'religonists' would count as kafirs or mushriks.....
I find this scenario fairly feasible; it's not static though. We all have our peaks and lows. One may be a muslim one moment, then turn around and do (most likely unintentionally) something wholly antimatteristic to the state of islam. But, as a broken watch is equal to any other clock at least twice a day. Similarly, someone in denial might occasionally succumb to the imposing nature of reality, and find himself observing it just as clearly as those who have been watching it for ages. Then the moment is over, and he is either inspired, or still unconvinced. Hope is there though. These moments keep arriving, and they invite you, and they shamelessly try to compel you. No one, save the one who is consciously being oppositional (for temporal profit) will be able to hold the fort.
@ Lobster
Peace Nadeem, some excellent points in your posts.
Thank you peace
"god" doesn't simply mean "source of guidance" though, does it? There are infinitely many sources of guidance, but just one god. So the "only true source of guidance?" But guidance for what?
'God' means exactly what you want it to mean. I have changed my 'god' many times. When I was young, my god was a strict grampa. Then he became a warmonger. Then he became silent. Now he is the unity which fills the veins of existence. What is causing him to change? I am. I decide how I perceive god, and what I make of him. Yes, the reality - The God - is one and was never a subject to change. The God was never a grampa, nor a war monger, and there is a fairly good chance that The God is not even what I make of him today. Yet he appears in these shapes because I have to percept, by all my senses, in order to find guidance in him. When I percept, I distort (as my knowledge is incomplete). Hence, what I call god is a distortion of The God. Yet it still the best source of guidance I have.
The one in denial thinks too much of himself. He will never admit to having a distorted view. Therefore he never tries to amend and consequently stagnates. In the mean time, the one aware focuses on developing his ability to percept and hunts down his distortions. He progresses. His god - his source of guidance - changes everyday, but only to become more alike The God.
To conclude There is a difference between your god and The God. Your God is whatever you have made of him through study and observation. The God is the what you seek when observing nature; your god is what you have so far found.
Not sure if I'm making any sense. I'm quite new to this my self.
If you're saying that god is our conscience, then I disagree, because our conscience can make us do wrong things. And there's no clear definition of right and wrong.
You can make your conscience your god - your source of guidance. You have not, as you find it misleading. At the moment your god is the attributes you find to be fitting for The God. That is why you say we should emulate the qualities of god. These qualities now constitute your god. Somewhere down the road you may not consider these qualities as 'god' anymore, you may perhaps find them contradictory, and move on to another god. All this time The God is as he has always been, and unaffected by your choices. It is you who change. Everytime you change god, it may be for the better and bring you closer to The God, or for the worse and widen the gap.
This is what I think about "muslim" and "kafir"
muslim= someone who is at peace, which means he is free from thoughts and emotions and so if free to "hear and obey."
kafir=someone who is not at peace, which means he has all these emotions dragging him around, making his decisions for him. Blinded by his emotions, he can't see the truth.Some of this appears correct to me. I don't however subscribe to the thought free idea. How can I remain without thoughts when I'm asked to ponder over the signs? Whenever I learn something new, a battle occurs between my old beliefs and this new information. Sometimes it is a minor battle, sometimes it is major. It is not very peacefull inside my box when this happens.
Perhaps I've misunderstood the concept.
@ OPF
Nadeem, excellent point, even if it has been spun by devious people "If he does believe, it will be self-evident that he does"
Thanks
Nadeem
-
peace Nadeem,
To conclude There is a difference between your god and The God. Your God is whatever you have made of him through study and observation. The God is the what you seek when observing nature; your god is what you have so far found.
I agree with enquirer,lobster, opd.....some excellent points indeed bravo
peace
-
Interesting view, Nadeem, but it is somewhat tautological. Generally, you stated that your concept of God varies over time - of course, it must. But God, the one, does not, as you stated again. Please make this distinction pretty clear to people, otherwise illogical individuals may misinterpret and believe that the prior is what you believe as "God".
-
Peace,
@ Agentxxx
Thanks ;D
@ OPF
Interesting view, Nadeem, but it is somewhat tautological.
Feel free to elaborate.
Generally, you stated that your concept of God varies over time - of course, it must.
It should. Not everyone cares to question or contest their beliefs on a regular basis. Their god, therefore, is often the one they made up as children.
Please make this distinction pretty clear to people, otherwise illogical individuals may misinterpret and believe that the prior is what you believe as "God".
I don't follow. To what does prior refer to?
Nadeem
-
You stated "Your God is your source of guidance". Assuming "God" to be "The one who guides", a la the Quran, Bible (suspect) and Torah, that is a tautological reference to a single quality of "God".
I actually meant something not quite as that, but I forget, that's the closest explanation I could remember.
It should. Not everyone cares to question or contest their beliefs on a regular basis. Their god, therefore, is often the one they made up as children.
In this context, should = must.
I don't follow. To what does prior refer to
Prior, in this context = "ONLY a source of guidance"
In other words, you were being ambiguous That the universal God = ONLY a source of guidance.
-
peace Nadeem,
To conclude There is a difference between your god and The God. Your God is whatever you have made of him through study and observation. The God is the what you seek when observing nature; your god is what you have so far found.
that's true. It's like when abraham looks up in the sky and thinks the sun is god (or something like that) but then the sun goes down and he abandons the idea, and then he repeats that a few times. Basically, we have to do the best we can with what we know, but we have to keep learning and evolving our understanding.
You can make your conscience your god - your source of guidance. You have not, as you find it misleading. At the moment your god is the attributes you find to be fitting for The God. That is why you say we should emulate the qualities of god. These qualities now constitute your god. Somewhere down the road you may not consider these qualities as 'god' anymore, you may perhaps find them contradictory, and move on to another god. All this time The God is as he has always been, and unaffected by your choices. It is you who change. Everytime you change god, it may be for the better and bring you closer to The God, or for the worse and widen the gap.
Yes, that could happen. But the word "god" (in the quran) doesn't mean "source of guidance," does it? but, yeah, you're right, one could think that something is god, when it's not. Speaking of god, I think people place far too much importance in that three letter word.
Some of this appears correct to me. I don't however subscribe to the thought free idea. How can I remain without thoughts when I'm asked to ponder over the signs? Whenever I learn something new, a battle occurs between my old beliefs and this new information. Sometimes it is a minor battle, sometimes it is major. It is not very peacefull inside my box when this happens.
You can't ponder over the signs when you're emotional. Our emotions cloud our judgement and reasoning. How many times, in a fit of anger, have we done things we later had to apologize for? When we are emotional, we get pushed around by our emotions and lose our free will. That's why there's a battle, because your emotions are pushing you in different directions.
And I've heard that we can free ourselves from all thoughts and, instead of learning from outside, intuit knowledge from within.peace Enquirer, you say
Easy phoenix.That was my signature from 6 months ago,i havent changed it yet.....
But 'sustainable happiness' is a criterion if society as a whole is not harmed by the individual and vice versa....Misues of the criterion of happiness doesnt make it invalid,just like misuse of the word 'justice' doesnt invalidate real 'justice'....Maybe justice is more appropriate than happiness?how does one misuse justice?? I don't think you can. Unlike justice, happiness is an emotion. Unlike justice, happiness can be the result of pretty much anything. Justice is more appropriate, but it's just one of many ideals a society should have. That's why "peace" works the best, IMO, because that's where everything starts.
-
Note This thread was split from this thread http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=14390.0Maybe some 'husbands' need a good spell in prison after 'beating' their wives.....Or maybe they can try to see if a man will put up with their cowardly god justified behaviour?
Salam.
I think that some men beat up their wives because they (wives) are right about something or in a better position and men hate that, men are jealous, they can be, i'm a man and i know that sometimes i can get jealous.
I am not married, yet, but i'm planning to be and i hope i will be better then the previous generations, inshaALLAH.
Peace.
-
"Go back to kitchen and bake me a cake!"
No seriously, a friend at school says " your wife, she has to do anything you tell her to do. She must obey you as long as you don't make her disobey or go against God."
Well, is there any truth in it?
I should goback to read the Quran.