Abdur Rasheed - Muhammad wrote: "Being 'gay' is not a sin. It just represents the temptations that we are warned to flee from. Giving into those temptations and performing a 'gay act' is the sin."
What if they get married?
Muhammad Rasheed - There is no verse saying that "sodomy" would cease being "an abomination" if two same-sex lovers get married. There is also no verse saying that the flesh of the swine will cease being "an abomination" if you say Bismillah over it.
Abdur Rasheed - Well what if they wash it first?
If you have a book that you claim is the infallible absolute TRUTH brimming with justice and fairness for all the world to bear witness. I will say, "Wow. Ok. You say Billions of people believe this so it MUST be something to it."
Then you read it and uuuummmmm....DAMN!
Either it IS or IT isn't.
It reads like wisdom from MEN 2000 years ago.
God commanded that David's wife is gang raped in front of everybody to punish DAVID??
WTF???
Slavery?
Selling my daughter???
Stoning my kids?
Mercy on the solder that tortured Jesus because "HE didn't know what he was doing??"
This book doesn't pass the smell test of the sane.
This is how you know...
I posted a passage from the Bible on my FB page and gave credit to the Quran.
"Woooow! That's crazy!"
Me: "Yeah but do want to know what's even crazier?"
Him: "What?"
Me: "That's actually a quote from the Bible."
Him: "Yeah but are you supposed to believe everything you read?"
SMDH
It either IS or it AIN'T.
You would think that GOD would know that slavery is wrong.
He took the time to tell you that butt sex is an abomination.
How about saying something about capturing girls and the HELL they go through at the whims of some scum bag.
I reject that garbage.
Rah
Muhammad Rasheed - Abdur wrote: "You would think that GOD would know that slavery is wrong."
Feeding the poor and freeing the slave are the top good deeds you can do listed in scripture. He listed giving responsible slaves the opportunity to purchase their freedom as the act of a righteous person. Being a slave isn't "wrong" it's just a lame ass position to be in. Now how they got to be a slave is a different thing.
Wayne C Cooper - @ Russell Farmarco:
Could you please explain/show/demonstrate where "Science has disprove the existence of God?" I'd be interested in hearing about that.
Jeremy Travis - Muhammad, is there a difference between what you wrote about slavery/slaves and the following statement?
"Feeding the poor and freeing the kidnapped rape victim are the top good deeds you can do listed in scripture. He listed giving responsible kidnapped rape victims the opportunity to purchase their freedom as the act of a righteous person. Being a kidnapped rape victim isn't "wrong", it's just a lame ass position to be in. Now how they got to be a kidnapped rape victim is a different thing."
Abdur Rasheed - Wayne Cooper wrote: "@ Russell Farmarco:
Could you please explain/show/demonstrate where "Science has disprove the existence of God?" I'd be interested in hearing about that."
I can answer this.
Michael Daniels - By all means Sir ...please share.
Abdur Rasheed - I don't think you're ready.
Abdur Rasheed - The answer is: Your question means that you have no idea how science works and you are trying to make science a bad thing by trying to assume that it's attacking your faith.
No reputable Scientist Ever claimed to be able to prove the non existence of a being that leaves no trail.
Give a genealogist some fur off a tree and a theory that it came from Big Foot and they can tell you what animal it came from or if it's from a humanoid type creature with similar DNA to a human.
Science is simply the theory on HOW things work.
Your FAITH is the answer WHY (because God said so) to you.
If you are good with your answer then be at peace with it and leave the scientists to their work so that they can make you another kind of sweet phone or medicine so that you won't have to rely on prayer to get well.
How's that?
Muhammad Rasheed - Jeremy Travis wrote: "Muhammad, is there a difference between what you wrote about slavery/slaves and the following statement?"
That's a good point. They are absolutely the same. "Slave" is a class. It's not a job description. As a slave you can be delegated to field work, household chores, skilled labor, or sex slave.
Michael Daniels - @Abdur....In that case your real beef is with Russell Farmarco who asked (God) "Why make science disprove your existence more and more as time wears on?"
Pastor Cooper was merely asking Russ to clarify what he meant by this.
Jeremy Travis - 'Slave' may be a class to you and the scriptures, but it is no more a 'class' than is a kidnapped rape victim, it is a form of victimhood. If the best a system can do is make a provision for someone to PURCHASE their way out of victimhood without addressing the origins of that victimhood then that is not a fair and just system at all. If someone kidnapped you, abused you and gave you the opportunity to buy your way out, they haven't done a good thing by you, they have only added another means to subjegate, oppress, and abuse you. A fair and just system would ban the victimization of others, not allow it with the provision that the victim has the option of performing some task in order to win their freedom. There is nothing morally good about that at all.
Michael Daniels - In ancient Hebrew society one became a servant as either a prisoner of war or to settle a debt. Kidnapping was against the Law and punishable by death.
Jeremy Travis - To enslave another, be they prisoner of war or a debtor, is unnecessary and wrong. If you have a prisoner of war, you hold them until the war is over and treat them humanly in the meantime. If someone owes you a debt, you let them pay you back without having to own them. Also, clearly the scriptures state that an enslaved girl or woman can be used like a concubine, this is not fair or just no matter how she came to be enslaved. Further, the ancient Hebrews made slaves of people whose lands they invaded unprovoked and conquered, not just people with whom they had been at war. Regardless of any of that, owning another person, for any reason, under any circumstance, is wrong, and any system that encourages it is just as wrong as well.
Abdur Rasheed - If Jeremy can see how WRONG that is...why couldn't God?
Muhammad Rasheed - Abdur Rasheed wrote: “No reputable Scientist Ever claimed to be able to prove the non existence of a being that leaves no trail.”
Science and the reputable, objective scientist aren’t the issue. It’s the Internet Armchair Atheist Science Fanboy who projects an idealized faith-based version of science that is the issue. And even some actual professional scientists who have that same attitude:
Michael Daniels - @Jeremy....Soooo...you believe it's better to stay in prison indefinitely or be killed outright than to work it off.....Just letting people you're at war with go to come back and kill you is not an option. Also, if I lend you a lot of money and you can't pay wouldn't you prefer the option to work it off. You're obstinately refusing to acknowledge that the servitude back then has very little in common with American slavery and much more in common with the average modern employee. Btw we have the equivalent of both of those situations right now considering people have to work in prison....Prisoner of war=GITMO.....Pay off debt= Unpaid tickets/Income tax evasion.
Abdur Rasheed - Michael wrote: "@Abdur....In that case your real beef is with Russell Farmarco who asked (God) "Why make science disprove your existence more and more as time wears on?"
Pastor Cooper was merely asking Russ to clarify what he meant by this."
I don't have a beef with anyone. I just answered the question directly.
The existence or Non existence of God isn't proven nor disproven as time passes or technology becomes more advanced.
If anything the theory of the existence of a creator is stronger the farther back you go.
A Big Bang couldn't come from NOTHING. Something lit the fuse.
The Big Bang theory says that at first there was nothing and then BOOM there is an ever expanding EVERYTHING.
Ok
From what?
Nothing?
Scientists say, "We don't know yet."
Religions say, "We know exactly how."
A scientist keeps asking questions.
That can't be a bad thing.
Michael Daniels - @Arah...I don't disagree with anything you said here......Russ?
Muhammad Rasheed - Jeremy Travis wrote: “'Slave' may be a class to you and the scriptures but it is no more a 'class' than is a kidnapped rape victim …”
Slave is absolutely a class… the lowest class of all. A kidnapped rape victim is a part of that shitty class, with a shitty job description forced upon them.
Jeremy Travis wrote: “…it is a form of victimhood.”
Sure.
Jeremy Travis wrote: “If the best a system can do is make a provision for someone to PURCHASE their way out of victimhood without addressing the origins of that victimhood then that is not a fair and just system at all.”
Why do you say it is the best the system can do? Where was that written? Newave? That would be a strawman.
Jeremy Travis wrote: “ If someone kidnapped you, abused you and gave you the opportunity to buy your way out, they haven't done a good thing by you, they have only added another means to subjegate, oppress, and abuse you. A fair and just system would ban the victimization of others, not allow it with the provision that the victim has the option of performing some task in order to win their freedom. There is nothing morally good about that at all.”
Those are under the circumstances of war. They certainly had the option of killing the warriors who provided for you and leaving you in that plundered house to your own devices, sure. Or you can now be part of this new household.
Jeremy Travis wrote: “To enslave another, be they prisoner of war or a debtor, is unnecessary and wrong. If you have a prisoner of war, you hold them until the war is over and treat them humanly in the meantime. If someone owes you a debt, you let them pay you back without having to own them.”
These are all options up to the discretion of the person in question. Obviously if they decided to take that High Road it would be credited to their account as a good deed. There is no rule that states you have to default to the worse-case possible treatment of anyone.
Jeremy Travis wrote: “Also, clearly the scriptures state that an enslaved girl or woman can be used like a concubine, this is not fair or just no matter how she came to be enslaved.”
“Can be” being the stand out operating term.
Jeremy Travis wrote: “Further, the ancient Hebrews made slaves of people whose lands they invaded unprovoked and conquered, not just people with whom they had been at war. Regardless of any of that, owning another person, for any reason, under any circumstance, is wrong, and any system that encourages it is just as wrong as well.”
It is clearly allowed, but it is not encouraged, since 99% of the time it is mentioned it is as a way to save your soul by freeing one. The Prophet Muhammad's (pbuh) best friend Abu Bakr, and the First Caliph of Islam used to go around buying up slaves from people and setting them free. There was a reason he was the founder of Islam's best friend.
Muhammad Rasheed - Abdur Rasheed wrote: "The existence or Non existence of God isn't proven nor disproven as time passes or technology becomes more advanced. The Big Bang theory says that at first there was nothing and then BOOM there is an ever expanding EVERYTHING. A Big Bang couldn't come from NOTHING. Something lit the fuse. From what? Nothing? Scientists say, ‘We don't know yet.’ Religions say, ‘We know exactly how.’”
Religions say that it was God’s command that was the activating factor, but God’s command is always the activating factor in everything. The “exactly how” is the detailed minutia of science. Science is the attempt to reverse-engineer how God made all of this and to understand. That was how the Muslim scientists of the middle ages approached it.
Abdur Rasheed wrote: "A scientist keeps asking questions. That can't be a bad thing.”
It’s absolutely not a bad thing.
Abdur Rasheed wrote: "If anything the theory of the existence of a creator is stronger the farther back you go.”
How would that be? Religion said that God created the universe from a single point in the distant past… “Let there be light!” or “Be!” but two millennia ago they didn’t have the “exactly how” data yet. Today the scientists are closer to that than ever. The existence of the Creator is definitely stronger now considering that the more questions were asked, the closer the answers reflected what religion said up front. Before Big Bang they assumed it was an eternal universe that didn’t have a beginning, and assumed that “Let there be light!” was primitive clap-trap from “tribal thinking.” But the more of those questions were answered, the more religion proved to be right. So I disagree.
Jeremy Travis - Michael Daniels wrote: "@Jeremy....Soooo...you believe it's better to stay in prison indefinitely or be killed outright than to work it off..."
No. But first, who's talking about prison? A prison is a place for criminals to be quarantined from a society to which they are detrimental. Those criminals are not the same as people who are taken as property because of a debt they owed or because they are prisoners of war. Second, criminals in prison are given a limited amount of time to serve and are then released. Even if they do work, it is not as a personal slave to any one person and it is not done so that they can purchase their freedom.
"...Just letting people you're at war with go to come back and kill you is not an option."
True, which is why prisoners of war should be released to their native country/land/society after the war is over. Unless, that is, if they would rather defect to the nation where they have been imprisoned, in which case they must be observed for a good long time before treating them as any other citizen, and that's IF the defection is allowed.But there is no need to kill or enslave a prisoner of war.
"Also, if I lend you a lot of money and you can't pay wouldn't you prefer the option to work it off."
Sure, I'm currently working off a debt to the finance company that owns the title to my car, but I am not their personal slave to do with as they wish. They simply allow me to pay back the debt I owe without having to own me. It's a much more simplistic, humane, and sane method as opposed to owning one's debtor.
"You're obstinately refusing to acknowledge that the servitude back then has very little in common with American slavery and much more in common with the average modern employee."
No, sir. When the Biblical system says a slave owner is neither required nor encouraged to use an enslaved girl or woman as a concubine, BUT HE CAN IF HE SO CHOOSES, then YOU are obstinately refusing to acknowledge that the servitude back then has very much in common with American slavery and far less in common with the average modern employee.
"Btw, we have the equivalent of both of those situations right now considering people have to work in prison....Prisoner of war=GITMO.....Pay off debt=Unpaid tickets/Income tax evasion."
I feel like this is deliberate obfuscation, but I'm going to hope that it is not. Legally speaking, the closest we have to Biblical slavery in these United States of America exists solely in the corrections system. However, those are people who, supposedly at least, committed a crime thereby forfeiting their freedom in an effort to keep them from doing further harm and to hopefully reform them. But even they are not to be OWNED as personal property to the extent that they CAN be used as concubines. The work that is done in prison is not done for the sake of purchasing one's freedom but more as busy work and cheap labor, it's not like anyone was told they'd be set free if they pressed a certain number of license plates.
As for your two examples: the detainees at Gitmo can't all even be said to be prisoners since some of them haven't even been charged, let alone convicted, with anything that would be just cause for imprisoning them. Those particular people have essensially been kidnapped. As for proper prisoners or prisoners of war, not even THEY are considered to be personal property. Finally, in regard to paying off tickets or dodged taxation, there is no system in place that stipulates that a debtor must become the property of whomever they owe money. I know this for a fact as I currently have unpaid tickets and I haven't been made to become anyone's property because of them.
Long story short: the Bible allows for the possession, oppression, abuse, and subjegation of people for very mundane and petty reasons, and it is thus not a book from ANYONE, let alone a god, who is concerned with objective moral good.
Jeremy Travis - Muhammad wrote: "Jeremy Travis wrote: “'Slave' may be a class to you and the scriptures but it is no more a 'class' than is a kidnapped rape victim …”
Slave is absolutely a class… the lowest class of all. A kidnapped rape victim is a part of that shitty class, with a shitty job description forced upon them.
Jeremy Travis wrote: “…it is a form of victimhood.”
Sure."
If it is a shitty class that is forced upon people then the good thing to do is prevent it from existing by banning it from being forced onto people, not making provisions for those placed into it to win themselves out of it. That's just ridiculous.
"Jeremy Travis wrote: “If the best a system can do is make a provision for someone to PURCHASE their way out of victimhood without addressing the origins of that victimhood then that is not a fair and just system at all.”
Why do you say it is the best the system can do? Where was that written? Newave? That would be a strawman."
No, it's not a statement or sentiment from Newave, nor is it a strawman, it is a valid question of a system that is supposedly from an infinitely intelligent and infinitely good being and therefore would be expected to be the best moral system by default. If it is the best moral system then why doesn't it treat the forcing of people into a shitty class the same way it does the eating of 'unclean' foods, the wearing of two different types of fabric at a time, or of homosexual acts between consenting adults. SURELY forcing a shitty class onto an undeserving innocent is worse than a consenual relationship or working on the seventh day of the week.
"Jeremy Travis wrote: “ If someone kidnapped you, abused you and gave you the opportunity to buy your way out, they haven't done a good thing by you, they have only added another means to subjegate, oppress, and abuse you. A fair and just system would ban the victimization of others, not allow it with the provision that the victim has the option of performing some task in order to win their freedom. There is nothing morally good about that at all.”
Those are under the circumstances of war."
Not all of the time. Sometimes it was the accepted norm of times of unprovoked invasion, such that people who posed no threat to the invaders were still forced into a shitty class, all because it was allowed by the supposed all-wise, all-good creator of all things.
"They certainly had the option of killing the warriors who provided for you and leaving you in that plundered house to your own devices, sure. Or you can now be part of this new household."
OR, a far more fair and just course would be to 1. Not invade innocent, non-threatening people, 2. Treat prisoners of war as hostile humans: humans to be respected yet quarantined because hostile, 3. Show your enemy a better, more humane way in the hopes that they will learn and adopt your ways, and set them free once the war is over, and if they return with violence after that then do whatever it takes to stop them without making them property.
"Jeremy Travis wrote: “To enslave another, be they prisoner of war or a debtor, is unnecessary and wrong. If you have a prisoner of war, you hold them until the war is over and treat them humanly in the meantime. If someone owes you a debt, you let them pay you back without having to own them.”
These are all options up to the discretion of the person in question."
But they SHOULDN'T be. A person should never 'have the option' to own a person to the point of using them as a concubine. Never!
"Obviously if they decided to take that High Road it would be credited to their account as a good deed. There is no rule that states you have to default to the worse-case possible treatment of anyone.
"But there should be a rule stating that you should NEVER default to the worst-case scenario, especially if you are to adhere to a best-case moral code.
"Jeremy Travis wrote: “Also, clearly the scriptures state that an enslaved girl or woman can be used like a concubine, this is not fair or just no matter how she came to be enslaved.”
“Can be” being the stand out operating term.
Yeah, it's the term you don't seem to understand is the problem. According to Biblical logic, if a man with a wife and daughters owes a debt to me, I CAN, if I so chose, enslave him AND his wife AND his daughters, and I CAN use his wife AND his daughters as concubines. An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being would not allow such a provision, which is how I know that the Bible is not the work/word of such a being.
"Jeremy Travis wrote: “Further, the ancient Hebrews made slaves of people whose lands they invaded unprovoked and conquered, not just people with whom they had been at war. Regardless of any of that, owning another person, for any reason, under any circumstance, is wrong, and any system that encourages it is just as wrong as well.”
It is clearly allowed,"
But it shouldn't be.
"but it is not encouraged,"
>whew!< Thank God for small miracles, right?
"since 99% of the time it is mentioned it is as a way to save your soul by freeing one."
An ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure. Prevent the action that requires one's soul to be saved for doing it, don't make a provision for if it just so happens to occur because it was never banned from the beginning. An omniscient, omnibenevolent being would know and implement that.
"The Prophet Muhammad's (pbuh) best friend Abu Bakr, and the First Caliph of Islam used to go around buying up slaves from people and setting them free."
That's nice. Maybe it would have been helpful for him to have gone around and told them NOT to enslave people in the first place.
"There was a reason he was the founder of Islam's best friend."
Because neither of them could understand that slavery is wrong?
Jeremy Travis - @Michael, @Muhammad, what I find most interesting when talking to you two about this particular issue of slavery is that you at least tacitly admit that it is an undesireable predicament to be in and an avoidable situation to force on another, which is to say that you know that it is detrimental and unnecessary, but you hold fast to the ideas of it being either just in some situations or permissible by virtue of there being a provision for correcting what is essentially a needless, habitual, avoidable mistake. I find that a rather off-putting aspect in what is purportedly the pinnacle of goodness, and a very troubling concept for any person to believe in, espouse, and attempt to rationalize.
Abdur Rasheed - God/Allah was VERY clear on his stance and forbidding on certain things. "Pork, sodomy, Adultery, Bestality, because it's evil and can cause great harm to people even if that person is you and your buddies butt tissue...BUT GOD WOULDN'T FORBID SLAVERY???
It makes NO sense.
Slavery was BIG business.
I call BS.
Slavery must have a powerful lobby back then.
Abdur Rasheed - Abdur Rasheed wrote: "If anything the theory of the existence of a creator is stronger the farther back you go.”
Muhammad wrote: "How would that be? Religion said that God created the universe from a single point in the distant past… “Let there be light!” or “Be!” but two millennia ago they didn’t have the “exactly how” data yet. Today the scientists are closer to that than ever. The existence of the Creator is definitely stronger now considering that the more questions were asked, the closer the answers reflected what religion said up front. Before Big Bang they assumed it was an eternal universe that didn’t have a beginning, and assumed that “Let there be light!” was primitive clap-trap from “tribal thinking.” But the more of those questions were answered, the more religion proved to be right. So I disagree."
I meant LOOKING back. My explanation described me looking back.
We're talking about the same thing.
It also says that the earth was created first in 6 days.
What was a day like without the Sun?
Muhammad Rasheed - Jeremy Travis wrote: “If [slavery] is a shitty class that is forced upon people then the good thing to do is prevent it from existing by banning it from being forced onto people, not making provisions for those placed into it to win themselves out of it. That's just ridiculous.”
There are provisions that enable slaves to win themselves out of it, as well as provisions that enable the owners to free them. But I agree, the best thing to do is for us to ban the practice outright among ourselves.
Jeremy Travis wrote: “<”MRasheed wrote: “Why do you say it is the best the system can do? Where was that written? Newave? That would be a strawman."> No, it's not a statement or sentiment from Newave, nor is it a strawman…”
The only time I’ve heard that “it’s the best that they could do” line was earlier in this thread from Newave, based on her own understanding of scripture. Here you are presenting it as if you expect me to argue for it, despite it not belonging to me, and it not being my own insight. If it’s not a strawman then it sure as heck looks like one.
Jeremy Travis wrote: “…it is a valid question of a system that is supposedly from an infinitely intelligent and infinitely good being and therefore would be expected to be the best moral system by default.”
It is the best baseline level moral system, built upon specific rules and gifts of the Lord bestowed upon us. Follow the strict letter of what He said to do and what He allowed, and you’ll earn reward. But if you strive and compete with one another in righteousness to do bigger and greater works… you don’t just feed the homeless in charity in your neighborhood as you come across them, but you organize a company that feeds and improves the lives of the poor on a scale of tens of millions a year… then your reward will be significantly higher. Using our Free Will, and knowledge of the reward/punishment system He created for us and the rules it functions under, it is the best moral system by default. It’s merit based.
Jeremy Travis wrote: “If it is the best moral system then why doesn't it treat the forcing of people into a shitty class the same way it does the eating of 'unclean' foods…”
Over and over He commands the believers to “come not nigh to shameful deeds, whether open or secret” and to reject evil and do good to one another. Over and over, in order to help repent and purify their souls over some wrong, He bids them to free a slave. God certainly doesn’t glorify slavery and doesn’t encourage it.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jeremy Travis wrote: “…the wearing of two different types of fabric at a time…”
That’s not a part of my belief system.
Jeremy Travis wrote: “…or of homosexual acts between consenting adults. SURELY forcing a shitty class onto an undeserving innocent is worse than a consenual relationship or working on the seventh day of the week.”
The reason why we are here, why we were made, is to worship God. All of those items in which He commands us to set aside time to honor Him rank higher than all other deeds. Note that of all the terrible acts humanity is capable of, the only one God calls “unforgivable” is worshiping something else other than Him. On that basis, the things that seem horrifying to us, that seem as if they should rank the absolute worse don’t fall that way to Him. To understand you must belief in the unseen, in the afterlife, and in His message. Death is not the worst thing, and He credits it as a good deed for you to patiently persevere through hardship. “What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger” is very true in this case if you do it the way the Lord requires, i.e., never complaining, and always focusing on the blessings and the good in life. Fighting if you need to, to save your life, and for your right to worship the One God, but patiently persevering with courage and strength through adverse situations will make the least the greatest in the 'eyes' of God and your reward will be assured. Knowing this it makes 100% sense why He didn’t outright ban the practice Himself. He was providing opportunity. Will the state of being a slave kill you in and of itself? No. Can you catch some deadly disease and die early from eating the flesh of the filthy swine? Yes.
Jeremy Travis wrote: “ Not all of the time. Sometimes it was the accepted norm of times of unprovoked invasion, such that people who posed no threat to the invaders were still forced into a shitty class, all because it was allowed by the supposed all-wise, all-good creator of all things.”
Unprovoked invasion is a sin, as God commanded the believers to be at peace unless they had to fight out of self-defense. People who are attacking innocents because they lust for slaves and treasure are clearly in the wrong. Per the numerous “free a slave” rules as a good deed instructed in the Qur’an, the Muslim World should’ve been slave-free inside a generation or two after the prophet left. Why aren't they? Because the Arab has reverted to type, and has proven that he loves this world more than the next, which is a foolish thing to do.
Jeremy Travis wrote: “ OR, a far more fair and just course would be to 1. Not invade innocent, non-threatening people…”
Agreed. I was talking about in a war in which the believers are the defenders.
Jeremy Travis wrote: “2. Not Treat prisoners of war as hostile humans: humans to be respected yet quarantined because hostile, 3. Show your enemy a better, more humane way in the hopes that they will learn and adopt your ways, and set them free once the war is over, and if they return with violence after that then do whatever it takes to stop them without making them property.”
These were all items performed by the prophet during war in his lifetime. I agree that the body of believers should seek to emulate those acts instead of duplicating trivialities like determining exactly what kind of sandal he wore.
Jeremy Travis wrote: “ But they SHOULDN'T be. A person should never 'have the option' to own a person to the point of using them as a concubine. Never!”
On a world in which we govern ourselves under our Free Will, the only way to take away such options is to create a species of automatons. People have the option to do great good, to do great evil, and varying lesser of each in between. That’s the nature of our existence. You have the option to determine what kind of person you will be in this world, that’s the gift bestowed upon all of us by God. The life you are describing is what is set aside as our reward... drama-free. Here we are to battle it out between us using our moral options.
Jeremy Travis wrote: “ But there should be a rule stating that you should NEVER default to the worst-case scenario, especially if you are to adhere to a best-case moral code.”
“Thou Shalt Not Kill.”
Muhammad Rasheed - Jeremy Travis wrote: “ Yeah, it's the term you don't seem to understand is the problem. According to Biblical logic, if a man with a wife and daughters owes a debt to me, I CAN, if I so chose, enslave him AND his wife AND his daughters, and I CAN use his wife AND his daughters as concubines. An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being would not allow such a provision, which is how I know that the Bible is not the work/word of such a being.”
One of the uses of Zakat is to help those in debt pay their loans. There’s nothing about enslaving folk because they are in debt, in fact, slaves from the pre-Islamic era who were enslaved because of debts were blanket freed. Because of such examples I cannot accept that those references in the previous scriptures are actually from God.
Jeremy Travis wrote: “An ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure. Prevent the action that requires one's soul to be saved for doing it, don't make a provision for if it just so happens to occur because it was never banned from the beginning. An omniscient, omnibenevolent being would know and implement that.”
We’re not here to be automatons; we are exercising our options under a Free Will system. We were commanded to be good to one another and not to slaughter the innocent. Those who take heed and not only obey, but go above & beyond the requirement are the best of us. God’s commands are to guide us and allow us to govern ourselves. That’s the best system. If we f*ck it up because of shortsighted greed and selfishness that’s on us.
Jeremy Travis wrote: “ That's nice. Maybe it would have been helpful for him to have gone around and told them NOT to enslave people in the first place.”
He walked the walk, so to speak. He didn’t feel right commanding something that neither God nor His prophet didn't command. But he could practice the best way, and provide a goodly example, based on his understanding of scripture, which was obviously considerable.
Jeremy Travis wrote: “ Because neither of them could understand that slavery is wrong?”
That doesn’t even make sense, J.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jeremy Travis wrote: “Michael, Muhammad, what I find most interesting when talking to you two about this particular issue of slavery is that you at least tacitly admit that it is an undesireable predicament to be in and an avoidable situation to force on another, which is to say that you know that it is detrimental and unnecessary, but you hold fast to the ideas of it being either just in some situations…”
I don’t consider it just at all considering freeing a slave is one of the Top Ten best good deeds you can do. In war time, human resources are part of the spoils of battle, and traditionally it is a slave-taking situation. God allows it, but clearly doesn’t praise nor encourage it, and with the “freeing the slave” part added, it will clearly be best if the righteous believer who cares about his soul did not take a slave.
Jeremy Travis wrote: “…or permissible by virtue of there being a provision for correcting what is essentially a needless, habitual, avoidable mistake.”
The debt thing?
Jeremy Travis wrote: “I find that a rather off-putting aspect in what is purportedly the pinnacle of goodness, and a very troubling concept for any person to believe in, espouse, and attempt to rationalize.”
I disagree. It does exist in the world, and God doesn’t condemn it outright. But based on how He does feel about it - and about the ever present poor - what it does represent is an opportunity for people with means, who fear God the way they are supposed to and know that they are to return to Him.
Muhammad Rasheed - Abdur Rasheed wrote: "It also says that the earth was created first in 6 days."
In the Qur'an he said He "created the heavens and the earth and all that is between, in six days." I don't think it would be a reasonable position to assume that as anything other than a metaphor (or at least using the precessional long-count calendar).
Abdur Rasheed - Creation of the Universe: Six "Days" or Long Periods of Time
Muhammad Rasheed - Yeah, like that. Thanks.
"The Quran states that "Allah created the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them, in six days" (7:54). While on the surface this might seem similar to the account related in the Bible, there are some important distinctions.
"The verses that mention "six days" use the Arabic word "youm" (day). This word appears several other times in the Quran, each denoting a different measurement of time. In one case, the measure of a day is equated with 50,000 years (70:4), whereas another verse states that "a day in the sight of your Lord is like 1,000 years of your reckoning" (22:47). The word "youm" is thus understood, within the Qur'an, to be a long period of time -- an era or eon. Therefore, Muslims interpret the description of a "six day" creation as six distinct periods or eons. The length of these periods is not precisely defined, nor are the specific developments that took place during each period."
Muhammad Rasheed - Regarding that Adam & Eve section, I completely disagree with the literal interpretation of God creating Adam "from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape" and consider that metaphor, too. He creates all of us out of the same clay He made Adam from... we are all made from the same stuff in the earth beneath our feet. The developing fetus is the act of God molding us into shape.
Abdur Rasheed - "We are all made of 'Star Stuff'" - Neil DeGrasse Tyson
Abdur Rasheed - Scientists say that we are all made out of the same original recycled elements that originated from the big bang.
I hate it when the Hindu's are right!
Muhammad Rasheed - lol That's what everything is made of, including the clay of the earth. It's the same thing.
Abdur Rasheed - Everybody can't be right!
Hindu comes before Muslim AND ISLAM alphabetically soooooo...
Muhammad Rasheed - hahahahahaha
Jeremy Travis - The Bible says that Adam was formed from clay, not 'star stuff'. Quit making stuff up.
Muhammad Rasheed - 'clay' is 'star stuff!'
Jeremy Travis - So are feces and Legos.
Muhammad Rasheed - Of course it is!
Jeremy Travis - So then Adam was formed from poop and Legos. Got it!
Muhammad Rasheed -
Jeremy Travis - ^^^ I read the Bible and think the same thing.
Muhammad Rasheed - We're all made of atoms of star stuff on the most basic level... any and everything here. But we're not all made up of the same combinations of those star stuff components. 'Clay' is very different from marshmallows, or gold, or the nuclear energy of the sun. Everything in the universe is made of 'star stuff,' and humans specifically are made up of the 'star stuff' we call 'clay.'
Jeremy Travis - Irrelevent.
1. The Bible says clay, not stars.
2. The Bible says clay, not evolution.
3. You're trying to change scripture to match scientific findings and your beliefs.
Muhammad Rasheed - You're trying to narrowly define scripture to match your belief about religion.
Muhammad Rasheed - Are you from a Protestant background? That's the way they think about scripture, through a very narrow lens.
Jeremy Travis - LOL. No, I'm taking it literally while you attempt to change it to fit into a more modern understanding.
Muhammad Rasheed - That's how protestants think. Were your family Protestants? The Christians in your family?
Jeremy Travis - You can't say things mean what they literally say when that suits you and your narrative and then say other things are allegory and metaphor when THAT suits you, and then interpret those allegories and metaphors to fit how you think. That taints what you consider to be a divine message, it is intellectually dishonest, and is poor communication.
Muhammad Rasheed - "Bill Nye and Ken Ham will be debating creationism on Feb. 4, and it’s a bad idea for both scientists and Christians. Ham’s young-earth creationism represents the distinct tendency of American Christian fundamentalists to reject science and use their religion to defend economic ideas, environmental degradation and anti-science extremism. But these views aren’t actually inherent in Christianity — they’ve been imposed on the biblical text by politically motivated and theologically inept readers. The solution is not anti-theism but better theological and scientific awareness.
"The vast majority of right-wing Christian fundamentalists in the U.S. are evangelicals, followers of an offshoot of Protestantism. Protestantism is based on the premise that truth about God and his relationship with the world can be discovered by individuals, regardless of their level of education or social status. Because of its roots in a schism motivated by a distrust of religious experts (priests, bishops, the pope), Protestantism today is still highly individualistic. In the United States, Protestantism has been mixed with the similarly individualistic American frontier mythos, fomenting broad anti-intellectualism."
Muhammad Rasheed - Jeremy Travis wrote: “You can't say things mean what they literally say when that suits you and your narrative and then say other things are allegory and metaphor when THAT suits you, and then interpret those allegories and metaphors to fit how you think. That taints what you consider to be a divine message, it is intellectually dishonest, and is poor communication.”
No, that’s exactly how sacred scripture is layered. You would see that if you bothered to read it. There are straight forward “Do this/Don’t do that” verses, as well as similes and metaphors and allegories throughout the text. People who study it know the difference, and even communicate like that themselves. If you are unaware of this, then you should either learn about it, or stand down. You're arguing against something that you barely possess a surface level understanding of, while only believing you know what it is all about. And then you attempt to confine my beliefs to the tiny little box you believe it is. In my experience all atheists do that with only a single exception.
Jeremy Travis - Scripture may have layers to it in some areas, but when it says that the universe was created in 6 LITERAL days, complete with risings and settings of the sun, and that Adam was formed from clay, not 'star stuff' and the like, and certainly not by way of a billion year-long process of evolution, then why would anyone see additional layers to that and why wouldn't it be more clear in its meaning?
The Creationsits and other Biblical literalists aren't the problem, the problem is that the Bible is wrong. You either must continue to preach its wrongness, or you must claim that it's 'layered' and start making things up. Only until science proves religious texts wrong do the followers of those texts start making up 'layers' so that it will all fit. For thousands of years, it was taken literally, but once that was shown to be false, THEN come the 'layers'.
Jeremy Travis - Also, given that EVERY denomination of EVERY religion seems to interpret those layers differently, and they can't all be right, why wouldn't an all-wise, all-knowing god just keep it simple and literal? It makes a lot more sense and is a lot harder to misinterpret.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jeremy Travis wrote: “Scripture may have layers to it in some areas, but when it says that the universe was created in 6 LITERAL days, complete with risings and settings of the sun, and that Adam was formed from clay, not 'star stuff' and the like, and certainly not by way of a billion year-long process of evolution, then why would anyone see additional layers to that and why wouldn't it be more clear in its meaning?”
Because they don’t want to see it and have already determined that it means what they want it to mean. Meanwhile sacred scripture doesn’t work like a throwaway grocery store circular; it is designed for deep meditation and contemplation.
Jeremy Travis wrote: “The Creationsits and other Biblical literalists aren't the problem, the problem is that the Bible is wrong.”
Is that your professional opinion, Jeremy?
Jeremy Travis wrote: “You either must continue to preach its wrongness, or you must claim that it's 'layered' and start making things up. Only until science proves religious texts wrong do the followers of those texts start making up 'layers' so that it will all fit. For thousands of years, it was taken literally, then, once that was shown to be false, THEN come the 'layers'.”
I’m sorry that your view about religion and scripture is wrong. I’m sorry that you’re used to talking about it with people with that Protestant “frontier” mindset who don’t know any better. I’m sorry that you aren’t interested in it enough to really learn what it is actually about, yet have this strong anti-intellectual worldview about it, like your heart is hardened against it artificially. I’m sorry that everything you think you know about Organized Religion and it’s scripture is wrong.
Now we are at an impasse.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jeremy Travis wrote: "Also, given that EVERY denomination of EVERY religion seems to interpret those layers differently..."
Layers. The straight forward parts are simple and a child can get it easily. That's the meat of the message. The other layers are for the more sophisticated, and the people who put in the work to really meditate on it and understand it. "Multi-layered" for different levels of physical, emotional, and spiritual maturity.
Jeremy Travis - Muhammad wrote: "Because they don’t want to see it and have already determined that it means what they want it to mean."
I'm somewhat shocked that you think that the Qu'ran was needed because the message had been misinterpreted by other, yet you interpret it completely differently from what it literally says in favor of a conclusion at which one could not possibly be arrive by using the scriptures.
Muhammad wrote: "Meanwhile sacred scripture doesn’t work like a throwaway grocery store circular; it is designed for deep meditation and contemplation."
It needed by like a grocery circular, it should just be clear and direct. You just posted the other day about a scientist who says that if a topic can't be explained in common, layperson's terms then it is not fully understood. What does it say of a deity who can't do it?
Jeremy Travis wrote: “The Creationsits and other Biblical literalists aren't the problem, the problem is that the Bible is wrong.”
Muhammad replied: "Is that your professional opinion, Jeremy?"
Yes.
Muhammad wrote: "I’m sorry that your view about religion and scripture is wrong. I’m sorry that you’re used to talking about it with people with that Protestant “frontier” mindset who don’t know any better. I’m sorry that you aren’t interested in it enough to really learn what it is actually about, yet have this strong anti-intellectual worldview about it, like your heart is hardened against it artificially. I’m sorry that everything you think you know about Organized Religion and it’s scripture is wrong."
Um, OK. I'm sorry that you can plainly see that the Abrahamic faiths are literally based on untruth and yet you still adhere to them. I'm sorry that reality does not match up to what you want.
Muhammad wrote: "Now we are at an impasse."
I don't think we're at any more of an impasse now than we've ever been in the past.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jeremy Travis wrote: “I'm somewhat shocked that you think that the Qu'ran was needed because the message had been misinterpreted by other, yet you interpret it completely differently from what it literally says in favor of a conclusion at which one could not possibly be arrive by using the scriptures.”
How could you POSSIBLY know from where I am interpreting it since you don’t know anything at all about it? From where would your “shock” even come from? In the article A-Rah just posted they pointed out that the Arabic word “youm” wasn’t used as a literal day in the Qur’an when God said He made the heavens and the earth in six days, that it refers to a very long span of time. The previous scriptures also say “six days" in a similar reference, so that means to me that originally the Old Hebrew “six days” reference was exactly the same as that in the Qur'an, and that over the centuries, once the scribes finally wrote down that message in the book, they decided it was a literal six days from their own understanding because they thought they knew better. They were learned scribes after all in a position of some power and thus, thought they knew everything about every damn thing. The Qur’an set the matter straight.
Jeremy Travis wrote: “It needed by like a grocery circular, it should just be clear and direct. You just posted the other day about a scientist who says that if a topic can't be explained in common, layperson's terms then it is not fully understood. What does it say of a deity who can't do it?”
“Believe in Me, do good, avoid evil. This is the list of items that are righteousness. This is the list of the items that are sin. Repent when you mess up.”
That first layer can fit on a circular pretty well.
Jeremy Travis wrote: “ Yes.”
You’re a professional Abrahamic scripture critic? I guess I should’ve asked for your resume up front, huh? [sheepish]
Jeremy Travis wrote: “Um, OK. I'm sorry that you can plainly see that the Abrahamic faiths are literally based on untruth and yet you still adhere to them. I'm sorry that reality does not match up to what you want.”
I see no such a thing. All I see are items like that Big Bang thing, where science had to come around to what religion said already. I see that you are hard hearted and stubborn about it based on a commitment to disbelief. That’s what I see, the nature of our impasse.
Jeremy Travis wrote: “I don't think we're at any more of an impasse now than we've ever been in the past.”
Well, I was under the illusion that at least we can have a discussion about it, but since you are taking the stance that I don’t know my own book, and that you somehow do even though you don’t read it but are just really passionately opinionated against it, I find that to be unreasonable and there’s no point in talking about it with you. You don’t want to believe and see it from another point of view, and your completely empty viewpoint about it is fundamentally unattractive to me, hence the impasse.
No comments:
Post a Comment