AlFathia
-
Furthermore, just believing in the above said principles is not going to produce results. One needs to start acting according to these, which shall produce results confirming the claims of these beliefs. These will provide evidence that these beliefs are truth based and hence the knowledge and not just mere beliefs or opinions.
There is one fundamental flaw in any doctrine based on belief. It fades away once a person either gets dissapointed or his critical mind (and all people are different, some more critical than the other, pure fact, you cannot force it) requires more than a belief. Similar thing happens to the ex-Muslims or ex-Sunnis now qurane aloners. Doubt there is a way back to their previous doctrine again. Hence what would be a tool to follow some teaching without it being sufficiently reassuring? By reassurance/confirmation I mean examining first who a person is before facing them with a specific doctrine.
-
I cannot reply from the position of addressing translation of the Quran based on bkanwars methodology, but if what you care is the 'make sense' part, then any chapter.
Honestly i am not sure which one though, check page 14 on bkanwar2 & me of our discussion of Surah 112 and give a look on our conversation
https//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9610067.msg414933#msg414933
-
There is one fundamental flaw in any doctrine based on belief. It fades away once a person either gets dissapointed or his critical mind (and all people are different, some more critical than the other, pure fact, you cannot force it) requires more than a belief. Similar thing happens to the ex-Muslims or ex-Sunnis now qurane aloners. Doubt there is a way back to their previous doctrine again. Hence what would be a tool to follow some teaching without it being sufficiently reassuring? By reassurance/confirmation I mean examining first who a person is before facing them with a specific doctrine.
The minimum definition of Knowledge is "True justified belief". Knowledge starts with believing. However, it becomes knowledge based upon evidence. Hence, believing these principles after their rationale and logical evaluation and acting upon these will provide the evidence of their truth. There is no way around it.
-
The minimum definition of Knowledge is "True justified belief". Knowledge starts with believing. However, it becomes knowledge based upon evidence. Hence, believing these principles after their rationale and logical evaluation and acting upon these will provide the evidence of their truth. There is no way around it.
Be careful though, there is false knowledge based upon false evidence so better find out which is true and which are false. Just an advice
-
The minimum definition of Knowledge is "True justified belief". Knowledge starts with believing. However, it becomes knowledge based upon evidence. Hence, believing these principles after their rationale and logical evaluation and acting upon these will provide the evidence of their truth. There is no way around it.
The knowledge starts with hypothesis, which may or may not be confirmed. The core minimum difference between dogma and hypothesis is that first is fundamental premise to any belief-bases structure. Once dogma is altered changed or gone altogether then the whole fundamental principle collapses.
On the other hand, hypothesis is a rationale, an assumption which does not break the very fundamental in case proven false. It may even afford being 'half-correct' or 'half-untrue' based on the aim or premise of research and the nature of hypothesis.
In religion, an example of hypothesis is the argument around how many times does Quran tell one to pray, since the issue is abstract and seldom clear, thus hundreds of theories araise, ranging from no praying to 5 to 3 times a day prayers or pray when you want et cetera.
An example of dogma is one god or rather the oneness of god. You cannot speculate on that in a specific monotheistic religion, once you start questioning this you leave the religion, there is no way this dogma may change without the whole concept breaking and requiring fundamental alteration.
The problem with your so far explanation for me is the fact that I am yet unsure what comes first in your presentation of the text, the dogma OR hypothesis and these two are very distinct meanings. There is either two of degrees of 'confidence' so to speak, nothing the middle in the 'seeking'. Knowledge, however, is almost inexistent as a medium, it exists as a concept mainly.
-
Honestly i am not sure which one though, check page 14 on bkanwar2 & me of our discussion of Surah 112 and give a look on our conversation
https//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9610067.msg414933#msg414933
I thought we spoke about chapters with traditional translation, since your question was about which chapters bkanwar had in mind, I guess I incorretly understood your question.
-
An example of dogma is one god or rather the oneness of god. You cannot speculate on that in a specific monotheistic religion, once you start questioning this you leave the religion, there is no way this dogma may change without the whole concept breaking and requiring fundamental alteration.
Salam/Peace dear brother, i am not sure about that example, honestly it's more people who make Allah/God (SWTAY) look very bad through tradition or religion. Just my cent on this. Peace. Edit Forgot to mention that i don't defend the religious version of Monotheism. I don't think that original Monotheism is was religious or traditional or even political at all.
-
The problem with your so far explanation for me is the fact that I am yet unsure what comes first in your presentation of the text, the dogma OR hypothesis and these two are very distinct meanings. There is either two of degrees of 'confidence' so to speak, nothing the middle in the 'seeking'. Knowledge, however, is almost inexistent as a medium, it exists as a concept mainly.
If nobody has understood my hypothesis. Let me word it clearly one more time.
Current understanding of Quran is entirely wrong since it is based upon a hearsay based translation. In order to understand text of Quran in its current form (not older), one needs to apply the linguistic rules written to explain its current text.
The above is the basic hypothesis. Any resulting translation should be evaluated based upon logic and rationale.
-
The knowledge starts with hypothesis, which may or may not be confirmed. The core minimum difference between dogma and hypothesis is that first is fundamental premise to any belief-bases structure. Once dogma is altered changed or gone altogether then the whole fundamental principle collapses.
An example of dogma is one god or rather the oneness of god. You cannot speculate on that in a specific monotheistic religion, once you start questioning this you leave the religion, there is no way this dogma may change without the whole concept breaking and requiring fundamental alteration.
Definition DOGMA
An authoritative principle, belief or statement of opinion, especially one considered to be unquestionable, unfalsifiable, absolutely true and indisputable, regardless of evidence or even without evidence to support it.DOGMA was invented with POLITICAL GOAL in mind.
Commonly found in political ideology a.k.a religion, set forth by authoritative figure / party with military and political power such as Pharaoh, Caesar, Emperor, King, Prophet, Pope, Caliph, Sultan, Great Leader, Dictator, Fuhrer, President etc..Dogma was NOT invented to find the truth, dogma is all about control, an attempt to falsify or even questioning the truthfulness of a Dogma is a punishable crime.
The only one who can change a dogma is the authoritative figure him / herself; Pharaoh, Caesar, Emperor, King, Prophet, Pope, Caliph, Sultan, Great Leader, Dictator, Fuhrer, President etc..
The political power structure might not be necessarily be collapsed if one (or more) dogma is being altered. Such action might be necessary to take in order to save the political power structure itself.
A few example of which was taken by Catholic Church- Dogma of hell condemnation to those who married non-Catholics, until 1818 AD (Now Catholics can marry whomever they wishes)
- Dogma of all non-Catholics will go to HELL! Until 1965 (Now they accept freedom of beliefs and salvation outside of Catholic church)
The above action was being taken to 'save' the power structure itself, in this case the Catholic church and the Catholic religion.
Nonetheless the dogma usually changed or revolutionized when there's a change in the political power itself.
- The dogma of Ramses family as progeny and sole representative of the God Ra was altered when the dynasty was destroyed by a new and replacing dynasty.
- The dogma of Bible as the sole and only book written by God was gradually abandoned when the Church start to lose it's power and influence within the society.
- The dogma of Jiang Zemin and member of communist party cannot do no wrong was altered when Jiang Zemin was replaced by Xi Jinping. The successor definitely replaced the old dogma with a new dogma Jiang Zemin and friends were corrupted and Xi Jinping and friends cannot do no wrong.
Dogma usually are far from truth, that's why it needs a political power which can strike fear to the society in order for the society to 'accept' it, willingly or unwillingly.
While truth does not need any political power or authority to defend it, it is self evident and only need to be discovered and told. There is absolutely no need to threatened anyone (with torture or hellfire) to accept an opinion, IF the opinion is indeed the truth.
https//www.atheology.ca/images/misc/quote_al_qaradawi_yusuf_apostasy.jpg
-
An authoritative principle, belief or statement of opinion, especially one considered to be unquestionable, unfalsifiable, absolutely true and indisputable, regardless of evidence or even without evidence to support it.
Dogma as a statement should be in the context of an idea/ideology. Dogma alone, if no basis is present is called a claim or a statement. To be considered dogmatic the statement has to be made as an absolute within specific ideology. The dogma of oneness of god plays a key part in monotheistic doctrine. It is exactly unquestionable, unfalsifiable, absolutely true and indisputable within monotheism. It was once invented to unite lands under a single Emperor as opposite to many states, today often attributed as the age of "polytheists" or "idol worshippers". Otherwise the nations would rebel under non-native ruler (example Scotland under the Crown), but the idea of a God-chosen Emperor made entities like Empire possible. Roman and Greek cultures were essentially monotheistic and included the foundation of the Mount Olympus, which was ruled by the most High deity, above all other lesser deities.
Source N.Machiavelli 'The Prince', "Why The Kingdom Of Darius, Conquered By Alexander, Did Not Rebel Against The Successors Of Alexander At His Death", "Concerning The Way To Govern Cities Or Principalities Which Lived Under Their Own Laws Before They Were Annexed" etc.
A few example of which was taken by Catholic Church
- Dogma of hell condemnation to those who married non-Catholics, until 1818 AD (Now Catholics can marry whomever they wishes)
- Dogma of all non-Catholics will go to HELL! Until 1965 (Now they accept freedom of beliefs and salvation outside of Catholic church)
This is more like a decree rather than a dogma. A decree may be subject to change. A good example of Catholic dogma would be the status of deity of Lord Jesus Christ, thy Lord and Savior.
Now imagine a change in Catholic Church, which would no longer accept Lord Jesus Christ, thy Lord and Savior as such? It will cease to exist or in the most positive case scenario, will be fundamentally altered.
A good example of Quran-alone dogma is
• God is One
God is Merciful (al-Merciful Especially Merciful, oft-Forgiving)•
It is dogma based on the traditional understanding of the book, with its traditional translation. It is unquestionable, unfalsifiable, absolutely true and indisputable, despite the fact that we may not observe any of those claims to be true, i.e., as you pointed out, it is without evidence.
Source My Ordeal with the Quran, the author besides other issues, analyzes mercy of Quranic God.
https//image.ibb.co/m9NfMn/pic_20180418_224838.png
-
Source My Ordeal with the Quran, the author besides other issues, analyzes mercy of Quranic God.
So what is your view of non-traditional Quranic God?
-
So what is your view of non-traditional Quranic God?
Briefly.
My view is largely based on the fact that at least some people are subject to wordly difficulties in order to learn the ways of a Man. These worldly life of yours is created and is probably subject to its hidden Origin, called God. To understand the truth, a person who is subject to earthly difficulties has to realize what are those common issues that the mankind faces and escape from it by changing.....HIMSELF. Unlike 99% of religious/political doctrines I do not support nor crave for any form of established community and using force to make others subject to your beliefs or to control certain territory or become defensive of one's territory. Thus I do not support defensive wars because it is a part of human genome, which confines you (makes you KFR), by making you subject to the will of external social or political establishment.
I am sure you never heard about anything like that before and if you did you probably thought it is insane not to establish ANY tyranical rules on your territory or protect your capital (note Marxist terminology). Most ideologies teach to establish something and control. My view is based on necessity to change one's biased worldview and overcome the blindness which is in most of us. Truth is, you own nothing and you keep nothing for yourself. You are a guest, albeit it also seems no-one asked your permission for you to enter your existence.
Perhaps not everyone is subject to eartly difficulties and thus does not have an undergoing test for him/her. This is my hypothesis based on some Scriptual research and observation.
Therefore, Quran is a guidance for people to acknowledge what I wrote above and thus lead them on the right course. I can prove you that the mankind, including the so called population of believers are NOT following the right course it is because their suffering does not and will not in the nearest future cease, despite following all the requirements of their religion.
It is also probable that the Quran was sent down/made appear or created by some other way (perhaps inspired) by mystical forces, but so is the Torah and the Enjeel, which of course the current dogma does not allow to accept, for whom these two other are considered corrupted but of course Quran was never altered, despite it remaining one of the most contradictory and unclear products of literature.
My views are based on years of searching. Among my teachers and philosophical specializations are
God - partly a teacher, partly a philosophical specialization
My life - a teacher
Yeshua the son of Miryem - a teacher/Rabbi of Life
The Quran - partly a teacher, partly a philosophical specialization
George Orwell - a teacher
Anarchism (Utopian regime) - a philosophical specialization
Socialism (Utopian regime) - a philosophical specialization
Karl Marx - a teacher at some point, and a philosophical specialization for the most part
Friedrich Engels - a teacher at some point, and a philosophical specialization for the most part
Friedrich Nietzsche - a teacher and a philosophical specialization
Gustave Le Bon - a teacher and a philosophical specialization
Power and everything related to dominance and governance within human species - a philosophical specialization
The curse of Patriarchy - a philosophical specialization
Politics and international relations, the fall of the Soviet block and the problem of Imperialism - a philosophical specialization
Libertarianism, Right wing and Left wing political agendas of the contemporary West - a philosophical specialization
Oligarchy regimes of Eastern Europe and Eurasia (and how the State works) - a philosophical specialization
Who are Women and Men problems of Sex and Gender Two Enemies or Companions - not a name of a book, personal observation, a philosophical specialization
Why most people are dishonest, and why is this NATURAL and not a product of a bad character or environment? - a philosophical specialization
Why Capitalism is most successful and will remain so? - fundamental, a philosophical specialization
Do people have freedom of choice? - a philosophical specialization
What is the world's best job for self-education and personal calmness which requires little education and usually no previous experience and which almost anyone can have? - ask me
and a bunch of other stuff I may have missedYou could say I know quite a bit....I do not say anything unless I've studied something, else I mention otherwise.
Self-educated (quit second education during my master's degree but never ceased development) truth seeker and debater. Can easily spot a liar and have an uncommon sense of justice.
Not very familiar at quantum physics and the STEM but I have people within my circles who are quite good in those so I often consult.
But I do not see the point to discuss my views in bkanwar2 thread.
-
Any resulting translation should be evaluated based upon logic and rationale.
Thanks. What are your core values for your logic? Logic is not an absolute IN HUMANS. There is a logic behind everything, at least behind everything, which is material and can be measured, but people use logic based on their core values, system of beliefs, ethics, level of education etc. Here is a case study of two logical outcomes
-
A bedouin wanders for a week in a desert, walks into a woman, becomes excited and rapes her. Was this outcome logical? Yes, for a number of possible reasons say he could not control his desires, he is a bad person, or something else.
-
A bedouin wanders for a week in a desert, walks into a woman, does not rape her and helps her find a way out instead. Was this outcome logical? Of course, for a number of possible reasons he is God-fearing, he is old in age, he is a person of high moral standards, or something else.
As we may conclude, both hypothetical outcomes here are logical, in one case a person in the case study will follow specific values, and in the other outcome another set of values, which will determine the outcome. The outcome may be also forced by other factors, which are unknown or were not listed (he has erect.dys?).
What are your values which you are basing your translation on? To be more precise, what is it exactly you wish to achieve?
-
-
Prophet is kind of a vague translation and has something almost magical about it, while the Semitic term implies that a person "has a foot inside" or what to say, that person is acquainted with things and the insight has led to knowing the truth about existence.
Please provide evidence for the red. Semitic Root NBA means metaphorically "feeling an inner seed". It means flourish and fruit and symbolizes "seed inside".
Reminds me of certain people who seek to make me change my interpretation of Quran because they want to and to fit it with their hasted conclusions, but when I'm hesitant and am cautious then they grow hostile and averse. Surely I'm not impossible and unreasonable, but the work must be based on solid research and careful conclusions based on much witted reflection.
I have to copy/paste my previous message to you, Man of Faith, and wait for your answer, even though I know you will not provide one, because you cannot provide anything against what is more sound and not based on bare lies than yours.
Why is kafiirun among available definitions refered to the young lion and the farmer AND village? You could say because farmer covers his seeds and bla bla, but why it puts an emphasis on the village itself and its inhabitants? Covered fields? Covered hats? Why lion? Explain it. Unless you can explain it you do not know what are you talking about.
Also provide clear example for in red. Give us an adequate comparsion of your latest Hebrew/Aramatic root choice and the Arabic counterpart. Else, you are labeled as a liar.
I know he never uses anything beyond Lane's.
Unlike you someone actually does research and not only relies on "insight", which you lack on many occasions. So it is always best to use as much tools as possible.
Simple logic tells
muslim - free, sound (and sound by definition is free of defects), complete, wholeness;
kfr - defected, confined, limited, covered in a sense of being dependent on someone, reside under someone's influence or protection and thus lack social freedom, enslaved. It can be social or other forms, like a sick person is dependent on treatment and is influenced by his ailment or disorder.
These two are presented as antonyms, therefore they have to mean the opposite. An opposite of confined/defected is sound. There is no deluded like it or not, refute it if you can, find a definition suitable for it, which is based on evidence and not pure speculation and word twisting.
If anything an opposite of deluded would be knowledgeble or insightful, and this is not a particular case for word siin-lam-miim.
Salamun allaikum means "Soundness to you" i.e. wish you lack of defects/wish you health and peace of mind etc., whereas every human being is defected to some extent, but some are also striving to be muslims, thus they are muslims and kfr simultaneously, to a different extent based on their development. The latest separation is done after a death, probably, the life path is a life long journey for becoming stronger or simply to grow (root rhm). This is because you ought to develop similarly to a fetus developing in a womb, but unlike the fetus, spiritually you have to grow out of personal defects i.e. inner daemons and prejudices taught in school, which confine you. It is so simple only a deluded will refuse to pay attention to these facts.
There is nothing deluded about kafiirun, if anything Manny_E appears to be deluded and not people whom he likes to call deluded.
Regarding the word salata which you mentioned, well, here is a clear proof older Lexicons ARE of use
Similarly to the horse race, where one horse reaches the other, a shadow follows someone.
So again, no clear examples from the so called "Manny_E" and he cannot prove what he talks about.
Yea sure, you demonstrate it clearly by writing an A4 diatribe full of speculation and no evidence and are again easily refuted by available lexical data -X -\
You degrate steadfast, this is evident from your inability to find plausible reference to your word choice and choosing words meanings because you tend to think so and not because lexicons tell so.
I am not even asking him to explain the development of archaic Semitic letters, like aleph or lam or miim and word formation, the tradition of which is also apparent in Arabic. If Arabic is supernatural so is the Semitic tradition, it is pure logic, which Manny_E lacks and appears to be plainly stupid sometimes.
If this is so then you have some clear problems, Manny_E, because I seldom see you exhibit intelligence in many occasions
This is my reply to his post, where he wrote a dietribe, which lacks, aside from calling himself "the most insightful one here on Earth", any proof aside from his biased doctrines https//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9610067.msg415442#msg415442
See how he evades the question because he cannot respond. I am still waiting for him to respond and show adequate example of him "finding that old Arabic lexicons tend to be more accurate than their Hebrew or Aramaic counterparts". He is worthless human being I saw in a while and lacks logic he claims he executes to the fullest, not to mention his perception of logic is flawed as I already demonstrated in the upper post as my reply to bkanwar2.
Manny_E is also an imposter, who hides under a fake name, because he was banned here before. But guess what he calls himself
And I'm not deceiving anyone, I'm someone expected and I'm probably the most insightful person on Earth for the time being, even if I can learn more.
Just to ensure https//image.ibb.co/ekTFnS/pic_20180419_003628.png
Let us see how the most insightful person backs up his upper claim. A simple test for "the most insightful one". Man of Faith, explain me/whoever it may concern the etymology behind
al-naas - he translates it as 'mind'
kafiirun - he translates it as 'deluded'.
These are just two examples of his choices for word meanings, among an abudance of others he takes out of pure blue in his so called translation.
I have clear etymological evidence of kafiirun being limited, confined, restricted and naas have nothing to do with mind in ANY lexicon you will find. It refers to fleeing or changing location. What will he respond?
Let us look what "the most insightful person on Earth for the time being" has to say. Remember what he said, pay attention to this own words
the work must be based on solid research and careful conclusions based on much witted reflection.
Let us see what what his etymology behind the words I proposed is and see what is "witted reflection" according to "the most insightful person on Earth for the time being" D
What's the logic in the Pagan belief of Islam? Please tell me.
There is a clear logic behind Islam, its traditions and a set of beliefs, it is to subject people's will and fears, it is the logic behind most organized religion.
An example is of logic behind giving females less heritage is to make them subject to male providers/protectors so that they have to rely on males.
But apparently Man of Faith does not understand logic if he asks to explain him logic of an organized religion
What a worthless and repulsive joke of a person Man of Faith is. This dude is worse than Sam Gerrans. He is an enemy of common sense and the enemy of the Quran.
-
Peace All.
Everyone has opinions, the important thing is what is the conviction?
What we think, utter and do define who we are. It is obvious that the convictions and values we esteem are an integral part of the identity of our souls; reverent or rebel.
God provided us with the measurement stick that would accurately assist us to determine if our belief in Him and in the Last Day is a true conviction or not. We must believe in Him alone and we must follow Him alone for that conviction to be a true one (2125, 3945, 1636, 1827, 1745-46).
That is why the most crucial test for the human being is spelled out in 6112-113. These verses define the reality.We have permitted the enemies of every prophet - human and jinn devils - to inspire in each other fancy words, in order to deceive. Had your Lord willed, they would not have done it. You shall disregard them and their fabrications.
This is to let the minds of those who do not believe in the Hereafter listen to such fabrications, and accept them, and thus expose their real convictions.There must be a very strong distinction between a conviction and an opinion. Conviction literally means a firm belief based on sound logic and proof. Those who attain knowledge are the ones who have convictions based on rationality and proofs. They are capable of defining, proving and defending what they believe in and they act upon that without hesitance or compromise.
Conversely, an opinion is a personal judgment without sufficient grounds. Therefore, it cannot be defined as a conviction or knowledge and has no relevance to the truth. The struggle against opinions and conjecture is the inevitable consequence of the quest for the truth. It is evident that we are equipped with the intelligence to analyze all evidence and pursue the truth.
So are we reading fancy words, opinions or seeing evidence of what is being said here?
Qoran it seems should be the criteria for checking, that is and always will be open to scrutiny since we are all "translating" our understanding.
There has always been disagreements ,and always will be disagreements on most topics of Qoran.
It is ongoing...
Etiquette of good behaviour and good works are where all the agreements are unilateral in all the religions, does this tell us something?
I am saying posts are getting too deep and I am loosing the aim of the thread?
Just my opinion.
GOD bless.
Peace. -
This is more like a decree rather than a dogma. A decree may be subject to change. A good example of Catholic dogma would be the status of deity of Lord Jesus Christ, thy Lord and Savior.
IF a decree CANNOT be questioned or falsified, any attempt to do so is a crime then it IS a dogma.
The earth was flat, the earth as the center of the universe WAS a Catholic dogma.
And now it is still Wahhabism's dogma.http//1.bp.blogspot.com/-T9TEW2Q9Dz0/VlhoF5cOiUI/AAAAAAAAAHo/Pumql1EgbFE/s640/BwjVzT-IIAA0zWd.jpg
Now imagine a change in Catholic Church, which would no longer accept Lord Jesus Christ, thy Lord and Savior as such? It will cease to exist or in the most positive case scenario, will be fundamentally altered.
Haven't you noticed that they gradually change that as well?
A good example of Quran-alone dogma is
• God is One
God is Merciful (al-Merciful Especially Merciful, oft-Forgiving)•
I add few things
- Muhammad is a prophet and messenger
- Quran was written by God
- Stars adorned the closest heaven as missiles to drive out the devil.
Or any other statements and when somebody makes an effort to punish those who questioned or falsified the above, then it turns into a dogma.
Jafar is the most handsome dude on the planet.
And when those who dare to question or falsify the above statement shall be punishable as crime then the statement of "Jafar is the most handsome dude on the planet" has become a dogma.It wasn't Jesus (Eysua) who created the dogma associated with him, if we're talking about the character called prophet in daily language. He was firm in his views and didn't stand down when threatened and his firmness even led to his execution.
Of course he wasn't, the book of Gospel is one of the most ANTI RELIGIOUS books that ever written.
Within one can read the story about a dude and his cousin who faced crucifixion and beheading just because they decided to put a fight against the dogma instilled by religious authority.But anything can be turned into a dogma.. as I've described above..
The Anti Religious book can also be turned into a dogma by a religious institution backed by strong political / military power.What's the logic in the Pagan belief of Islam? Please tell me.
Don't ask merely "What" but do ask the "Why"...
To instill control over the population, that's the motivation."If you want to control ignorant people, then present falsehood from a religious outlook."
-- Ibn Rushd (Averroes), 12th century AD -
But I do not see the point to discuss my views in bkanwar2 thread.
I was just curious, for a moment i thought you were a bit critical of our Creator but i realized that you were criticizing the traditionalists view of The One God which makes Him look very bad. I did said that makes me sick of the traditionalists & anti-theists unfair assumptions on Allah/God (SWTAY)
-
I was just curious, for a moment i thought you were a bit critical of our Creator but i realized that you were criticizing the traditionalists view of The One God which makes Him look very bad. I did said that makes me sick of the traditionalists & anti-theists unfair assumptions on Allah/God (SWTAY)
Should have also that i also agree with your criticism of traditionalists view of Allah/God (SWTAY). Curse my vagueness
-
IF a decree CANNOT be questioned or falsified, any attempt to do so is a crime then it IS a dogma.
The earth was flat, the earth as the center of the universe WAS a Catholic dogma.
And now it is still Wahhabism's dogma.A dogma by its definition does not include penalty, it is a fixed, especially belief or set of beliefs that people are expected to accept without any doubts, regardless if you are punished or not. It is basically the medium which holds the structure of a belief.
Yes, as I said a dogma is fundamental, so changing dogma inevitably brings fundamental changes to the structure. Since the Catholic Church gave in to science it became politically detached from the state as it once were a unified body of power, i.e. a gradual change took place, the Church eventually had to adjust to the new standards and dogmas of the Enlightenment.
https//image.ibb.co/ebCegn/pic_20180419_091842.png
Haven't you noticed that they gradually change that as well?
No, I haven't, though I haven't paid attention to the Roman Church affairs. Regardless of what is their current stance, their view on Jesus is based mainly on the later additions like the book of Romans etc. As long as these books will be regarded as authoritative the message of Jesus will remain distorted.
-
You really do love Sam Gerrans don't you. (Sarcasm for does who don't know. Not being mean)
