Wife beating, god and morality
-
I see,you post as if your some kind of authority and then refer me to 'google'.......Ive already seen many of the articles for and against,thought you had something to add,obviously you havent....Good day......
ps; i will refer you to the articles on faith-freedom,sam harris and richard dawkins.....Keep at it with that argument, I guess it's awesome ascribing a superiority complex to everyone that disagrees with you.
Maybe when I'm bothered, I'll write on. Now, I'm sure you'll take this as "the irrational believer conceding defeat", but that isn't the case.
-
Another strawman,where did i ascribe a superiority complex to everyone that disagrees with me? I ascribed it to you alone...You dont have to bother,i sussed you have nothing to contribute and are just verbose,naive and a cheerleader.......Im probably a jew according to your mentality hey? How is school?
-
Another strawman,where did i ascribe a superiority complex to everyone that disagrees with me? I ascribed it to you alone...You dont have to bother,i sussed you have nothing to contribute and are just verbose,naive and a cheerleader.......Im probably a jew according to your mentality hey? How is school?
Alright, sorry, I presumed as such. But ascribing a superiority complex = tsk tsk.
I'm somewhat vaguely offended on the last part, that you would think I assumed you were a Jew. I wonder what this "mentality" is...
As for "having nothing to contribute", see other thread. Nice going with the personal attacks.
As I said, I'll bring something, just not yet.
Edit Oh, and this is heavily off-topic.
-
Peace Enquirer,
So the ultimate morality comes from our own reasoning?
Yes, if the reasoning is kept alive and constantly amended, that is.
Reason in itself is not a path to good, or bad. You can reason yourself to where ever it is you want to go. The subjects of 728 also reasoned. If you analyze their arguments, it does contain logic and reason. They reference their forefathers as historical proof for the validity of their ways, a reference which draws upon experience (which always re-enforces ones point). As a topping, they borrow God's authority to prove their point. "Hey, if God said, it has to be true."
So where did they go wrong? They had done addition before multiplication! The Quran quite nicely points out the flaws.
God does not order evil! Do you say about God what you do not know?
One should base oneself upon solid foundations when considering that which is assumed to be good, and that which is accused to be bad. Only when a certain act is confirmed to be good, should one uphold it as a pavement upon the path of god. For every act confirmed good, a brick lengthens the path and brings us closer to god. Only this way does our understanding of god grow. Initially, we are clueless as to who god is, what god accepts, or even if god is. It is by observing cause and effect in nature (including the repercussions of our own deeds), observing consistency and being aware do we gather pieces of the boundless image of god. This is exactly the mean and method god encourages the usage of.
Free Minds 2164
Surely, in the creation of heavens and Earth, and the differences between night and day, and the ships that sail in the sea for the benefit of mankind, and what God has sent down of water from the sky so He brings the Earth back to life after it had died, and He sent forth from it every creature, and the movement of the winds and the clouds that have been designated between the Earth and the sky are signs for a people that understand.A person embodying kufr (denial?) does this from the end to the beginning. He makes up his god first, a god which is at conception no more than mere nothingness with a name. To continue his concoction trip he fills the nothingness - his god - with whatever he finds suitable. This way, he can skip all the fancy observing signs in the nature, and justify to his hearts content and more after that, whatever it is he wishes to justify. For, what use has he of pondering over the ships at sea and the signs in the sky, when he has made up a god after his ego? You can foresee that he'll often get stuck and stagnate spiritually. Because he is walking on an unpaved road, being sucked down the dirt when it's wet. How can such a person realize, even with reason, that he has failed, when his criteria is a god he himself made up!?
I think perhaps I'm being to abstract here, bordering ambiguity. What I'm trying to say is that one is first to find out what is good, and when has done a lot of 'finding', one should understand god on the basis of those findings. One shouldn't first make up a god, because such a god will be a product of your culture and desires. Such a god will authorize whatever it is you want him to allow. But this is exactly what a kafir does (it is necessary for you to drop the understanding usually connoted to the term kafir, for you to understand what I mean).
Therefore, when a muslim "hears and obeys", it is diametrically different from when a kafir "hears and obeys". A kafir hears his own ego, while a muslim hears the verdict of objective observation of nature. A reasoning based on those terms cited in the Quran, and many other texts, will lead to the ultimate morality.
The role of a criterion then, is to function as critic of our reasoning, as a teacher of a supposed superior reasoning, and as a reminder for the necessity of reasoning.
Right or wrong, whatever shape they have taken, I have certainly strayed from the topic D
Nadeem
-
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.