The Koran - Whos Read It?

Rainmaker said:
Bear in mind that other religions view it differently (even the other way around completely; for example it being the MOTIVE rather than RESULT being important). But I digress, as this is about the Muslim/Abrahamic texts. :)
Click to expand...

True, but in the Koran it's much more "what you do" rather then "what you think" as in the Bible, in many ways Islam gives you a little more leeway before you sin. You can have all the bad thoughts in the world but if you don't act on it and are kind to everyone then it's not so bad. But in the bible your thoughts are just as bad as your actions,

e.g. Just thinking about adultery in the bible seems to be just as bad as committing it! Jesus said you tear your own eyeball! Which is a little unfair in my opinion!
 
magick said:
I doubt there would be a negative judgement it and that is an extreme example.

An example of good intentions but creating suffering would be giving a child abuser/rapist/murderer a second chance then he goes and commits more crimes.

Or maybe giving money to a homeless drug addict or sending large amounts of money to third world which instead of eliminating poverty and suffering actualy increases it because it keeps people alive who'll just breed indefinitely.

Or perfect case would be politicians creating wars and dropping bombs on people because it's good to spread democracy and freedom.
Click to expand...

So you're saying people who let people out of jail (wardens, governors, judges, etc) and people who help suffering people live long enough to 'breed' are going to be judged? /backs away from the thread.
 
robgmun said:
Right, i think i understand now, you mean evil itself, Lucifer has influanced these people (Hitler, Saddam Hussain, Roy Keane etc) to do these unspeakable things. You say banned i'm guessing you mean holocaust denial, which in principle i disagree with as it curtails freedom of speech. The reason it's banned is because of man, nothing to do with god, i'm guessing here that god doesn't care if it's not banned as it's up to us to reject the lies told to us and seek the truth. As it's god that's blessed us with freedom of choice.



Good and bad doesn't define heaven and hell, god has defined what heaven and hell is and how to achive getting there. Human feelings and emotions tend to be qutie brutal and left to our own devices we'd probably be pretty bad! (history is littered with proof of this) It's much harder to be good then it is to be bad, otherwise we would never need to punish our childern and teach them right from wrong. They would be born perfect and never be spolit, selfish or mean, which we all know then can be to an extreme!
Click to expand...

Thank you for your opinion but I put this to you:

God may define anything it likes but what god is defined as still rests on human thoughts, therefore heaven and hell in terms of a living entity is defined from morality, morality is defined from social upbringing and acceptance.

Beyond that, no single person living today has any proof of what or if heaven and hell actually exists.

What is to stop a human living on earth becoming a god themselves? why is that not adressed in religeous texts?

Ultimately look at it this way, god is a heirarchical (i know spelling) structure that puts human kind below, if god was so loving and perfect surely god wouldnt be the right choice and humans would not be judged? who judges the judged? and what defines there perfection?

Perfection is a moving target, and who defines it and who defines them? its like looking into a mirror and saying my original reflection is me, point me out.
 
Rainmaker said:
So you're saying people who let people out of jail (wardens, governors, judges, etc) and people who help suffering people live long enough to 'breed' are going to be judged? /backs away from the thread.
Click to expand...

i'm saying that a person can have good intentions but the end result is causing very real suffering .

it's good to give to charity but in the case of people like bono they have good intentions but ultimately cause huge amounts of suffering.

same with politicians who start wars in iraq and afghanistan in the name of libertaing people. they will not be judged on spreading democracy and there good intentions in doing so but on the amount of suffering they caused.
 
Last edited:
101001101 said:
Thank you for your opinion but I put this to you:

God may define anything it likes but what god is defined as still rests on human thoughts, therefore heaven and hell in terms of a living entity is defined from morality, morality is defined from social upbringing and acceptance.

Beyond that, no single person living today has any proof of what or if heaven and hell actually exists.

What is to stop a human living on earth becoming a god themselves? why is that not adressed in religeous texts?

Ultimately look at it this way, god is a heirarchical (i know spelling) structure that puts human kind below, if god was so loving and perfect surely god wouldnt be the right choice and humans would not be judged? who judges the judged? and what defines there perfection?

Perfection is a moving target, and who defines it and who defines them? its like looking into a mirror and saying my original reflection is me, point me out.
Click to expand...

You have so many questions, and yet refuse to read up on the subject or learn more about it. Also, I know we established earlier that your knowledge of religion ends at a brief over-view of the Abrahamic systems (which is fine), but I will add for your reference that actually other religions do address the concept of humans becoming gods in their own right, or merging with God at his own level.
 
magick said:
I doubt there would be a negative judgement in that instance.

An example of good intentions but creating suffering would be giving a child abuser/rapist/murderer a second chance then he goes and commits more crimes. Though thats a very extreme case.

Or maybe giving money to a homeless drug addict or sending large amounts of money to third world which instead of eliminating poverty and suffering actualy increases it because it keeps people alive who'll just breed indefinitely.

Or perfect case would be politicians creating wars and dropping bombs on people because it's good to spread democracy and freedom.

A more down to earth example in the UK are do gooders that champion the rights of gang members and say they are victims of circumstance and not responsible for there actions and seek to defend and inadvertantly encourage there devolutionary behaviour.
Click to expand...

What if the child abuser saw the error of his ways and did nothing but good for the rest of his/her life?

What if, by giving the homeless drug addict some money, they managed to find shelter, get a job and then turn their life around?

In those examples you can't judge the outcome but can only judge the good intentions. If an entity (if one exists) were to judge somone on the outcome rather than the intention then I'm afraid that entity, in my opinion, is flawed.
 
Hades said:
What if the child abuser saw the error of his ways and did nothing but good for the rest of his/her life?

What if, by giving the homeless drug addict some money, they managed to find shelter, get a job and then turn their life around?

In those examples you can't judge the outcome but can only judge the good intentions. If an entity (if one exists) were to judge somone on the outcome rather than the intention then I'm afraid that entity, in my opinion, is flawed.
Click to expand...

In both those cases the results are real tranformation and there would be forgiveness. The outcome of there actions were positive.
 
Thats fine

But the ultimate question is:

Why is religion based on the past and not the present?

Assuming religious "gods" understand the human thirst for expansiion why have the not continued to guide us outside of historic texts today and beyond?
 
Hades said:
What if the child abuser saw the error of his ways and did nothing but good for the rest of his/her life?

What if, by giving the homeless drug addict some money, they managed to find shelter, get a job and then turn their life around?

In those examples you can't judge the outcome but can only judge the good intentions. If an entity (if one exists) were to judge somone on the outcome rather than the intention then I'm afraid that entity, in my opinion, is flawed.
Click to expand...

As I said above, I have to agree. Say I take in a homeless man to feed him and shelter him from a severe storm during a terrible winter, and he goes loco and kills me and my family... I intended nothing other than to serve my fellow man, help someone alleviate their suffering, and to do good. The fact he was a mentalist is unfortunate, but it seems counter-intuitive and lunacy to say that I would be punished for my well intentioned act of charity, because it had unintended bad consequences.
 
101001101 said:
Thank you for your opinion but I put this to you:

God may define anything it likes but what god is defined as still rests on human thoughts, therefore heaven and hell in terms of a living entity is defined from morality, morality is defined from social upbringing and acceptance.
Click to expand...

You have it backwards, or your opinon on god differs from mine. God defines morality not us, and hence defines social upbringing.

Beyond that, no single person living today has any proof of what or if heaven and hell actually exists.
Click to expand...

Of course not, that's where faith comes in :)

What is to stop a human living on earth becoming a god themselves? why is that not adressed in religeous texts?
Click to expand...
It is adressed in religeous texts (or at least it does in the Koran), it's called blasphamy and God really really doesn't like you thinking yourself as a God, fast path to hell there! :D You can't actually become a God because God didn't create you in that way. We can evolve to a much higher plan but never to god's level!

Ultimately look at it this way, god is a heirarchical (i know spelling) structure that puts human kind below, if god was so loving and perfect surely god wouldnt be the right choice and humans would not be judged? who judges the judged? and what defines there perfection?

Perfection is a moving target, and who defines it and who defines them? its like looking into a mirror and saying my original reflection is me, point me out.
Click to expand...
Sorry but it sounds like you tied yourself up in a mental knot there, it's really not half that complex.
 
Rainmaker said:
As I said above, I have to agree. Say I take in a homeless man to feed him and shelter him from a severe storm during a terrible winter, and he goes loco and kills me and my family... I intended nothing other than to serve my fellow man, help someone alleviate their suffering, and to do good. The fact he was a mentalist is unfortunate, but it seems counter-intuitive and lunacy to say that I would be punished for my well intentioned act of charity, because it had unintended bad consequences.
Click to expand...

he'd be punished not you.
 
magick said:
In both those cases the results are real tranformation and there would be forgiveness. The outcome of there actions were positive.
Click to expand...

I'm confused. We're discussing a premise whereby a good intention led to bad results. In the scenario you're replying to a good intention had good results... what's to forgive?

101001101 said:
Thats fine

But the ultimate question is:

Why is religion based on the past and not the present?

Assuming religious "gods" understand the human thirst for expansiion why have the not continued to guide us outside of historic texts today and beyond?
Click to expand...

Many would argue that (s)he/they/it has done just that.
 
Rainmaker said:
As I said above, I have to agree. Say I take in a homeless man to feed him and shelter him from a severe storm during a terrible winter, and he goes loco and kills me and my family... I intended nothing other than to serve my fellow man, help someone alleviate their suffering, and to do good. The fact he was a mentalist is unfortunate, but it seems counter-intuitive and lunacy to say that I would be punished for my well intentioned act of charity, because it had unintended bad consequences.
Click to expand...

...and said homeless man goes to hell, he screams and endures pain to the point that the pain wears off (as it does in actual living form) what then?

The point here is that the homeless man endures the errors of his ways but the remaining billion upon billions of souls do not, why? because each and every experience is just an experience until something new comes along then it is irrelevant, how does religion address this?
 
Rainmaker said:
I'm confused. We're discussing a premise whereby a good intention led to bad results. In the scenario you're replying to a good intention had good results... what's to forgive?



Many would argue that (s)he/they/it has done just that.
Click to expand...

Based on what fact?

Point being you cannot reference a historic text.
 
magick said:
he'd be punished not you.
Click to expand...

But according to what you said earlier, my intention was irrelevant and it was the result that was judged. In this case, my good intentions led to the slaughter of innocents. Why would I not be punished this time? You're contradicting yourself.

robgmun said:
It is adressed in religeous texts (or at least it does in the Koran), it's called blasphamy and God really really doesn't like you thinking yourself as a God, fast path to hell there! :D You can't actually become a God because God didn't create you in that way. We can evolve to a much higher plan but never to god's level!
Click to expand...

As I said above (in the interests of balance), not all religions view it this way and some actually make plain that man can be reborn as a god (eg Buddhism) or else is destined to merge back with/become one with God (several others).
 
101001101 said:
Based on what fact?

Point being you cannot reference a historic text.
Click to expand...

You seem to be tying yourself up in knots asking almost irrelevant questions in some places (with respect). I don't understand how you can profess your ignorance of various religious traditions, stress that you have no interest in learning more to correct this... and then spend all this time asking questions. :confused:

EDIT: Or is this more a case of 'It's all rubbish, even though I clearly don't know much about it. So I'll try to make religion look stupid by asking 'clever' questions even though it just stresses my ignorance of the topic'?
 
Rainmaker said:
As I said above (in the interests of balance), not all religions view it this way and some actually make plain that man can be reborn as a god (eg Buddhism) or else is destined to merge back with/become one with God (several others).
Click to expand...

Yes but God thinks Buddhism is bull**** :D

I'm speaking from the Koran here
 
Rainmaker said:
But according to what you said earlier, my intention was irrelevant and it was the result that was judged. In this case, my good intentions led to the slaughter of innocents. Why would I not be punished this time?
Click to expand...

Because God is clever and the divine courts don't work like the courts on earth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom