Nothing will convince a dishonest man of the truth, not even his own scriptures.
Printable View
Nothing will convince a dishonest man of the truth, not even his own scriptures.
You are right, Wilson. In fact it is better to be irreligious than dishonest. If I choose between an honest irreligious person and a dishonest and violent religious man, By religious I mean a holder of a particular faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by G L Wilson
I choose to be an atheist rather than a fundamentalist.
I hold strongly that Dharma is necessary. Dharma in Buddhism and in the Vedic society is a little different.
If by dharma you mean law, I see nothing wrong with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by osho
you are very right to say my dear that quran is a great source of wisdom. i like to clear one point here. the source of all religion was one. that is Lord Himself. all moral laws which we have at this time are from Lord through religions. you can find some resemblance regarding moral in different scriptures. the knoweldge was started from Adam.... its completed at Muhammad. in between we can see two major religions that is jews and christians. its long story of prophets. in short all knowledge which was being given partially to different prophets , was gathered in Quran. in the begining human was not so able to have all the knowledge at once. so was given partially to every prophet to teach his nation.Quote:
Originally Posted by osho
after Ibrahim who has two children ishaq and ismail. a chain is started from one child. from him we saw bni israil. all prophets except Muhammad were sent in this nation. but they proved most prejidce and ignorant nation as they specified God only for them. they took Him as some tribes' head. they are not ready to share God with others. when moses brought them from the egypt we seethere were many miracles which were enough at that time to prove the existance of Lord who is the creator of all universes. at that time moses went on mountain to talk with Lord , on his back jews saw other people having idols so they made one of cow. Moses said" O Lord give me shelter from my ignorant nation" after Moses , jesus Chirst came from bni israil, jews were not willing to accept his supermacy coz jews were in power. jesus christ's birth and death and in between there are so many miracles to show a prejudice nation that Lord can do every thing. He is the creator of causes. same crime committed by jews was revised by christians when Muhammad came. Muhammad came from the other son of ibrahim. christians denied to accept Him. jews deny jesus christ and Muhammad. they were more against Muhammad. coz they were proudier to say that we are the best nation as we have serial of prophets. due to their proud Lord sent Muhammad from the 2nd son of Ibrahim.
Lord said in quran He didnt destroy any nation until He sent messengers among them and told them about forbidden things. so by this verse i guess budha was also a messenger, Raam of hindu was also a messenger i think so as i found good teachings which they gave. after their death , generations after generation people made them god. christians and hindus did the same crime. chiristian and jews did larger crime i think they gave families to Lord. gave him wife and childrens!!. but i like to clear that He is pure from all these nonsense. moreover jews and christians changed the words of Lord which were given to Moses and jesus christ. you can find moral and some teachings may b as it is but what is the use to get knowledge from doubted one which are corrupted by human. So Lord said in quran that He will protect each word of Quran Himself. its proved after 1400 years passed. and it will till dooms day. Lord is one , source of wisdom is one. i found prejudice in christians and jews's heart for Muhammad. untill they wash this they cant get the way.
Dear Wilson! its very easy to say without reading that there are contradiction in each book. but Lord said if these verses are from any human'mind than u can find a lot of contradictions. but as it is from Lord ( All wise) so you cant find any contradiction/mistake/error./
I actually have to agree with G L Wilson on this. While books are a great source of knowledge they are not a substitute for living. They may teach us how to live (or how not to) but won't live for us. Remember "there's more to life than books you know, but not much more!"Quote:
Originally Posted by usman.khawar
There's a passage in the Quran that says, if a contradiction is found you're just supposed to take the passage written latest and dismiss the earlier one(s). That said, it doesn't guard against inherently contradictory passages.Quote:
Originally Posted by G L Wilson
would u plz give the reference? verse and chapter ? , i think u cant :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist
so you couldnt..
Mysticism , Fact or Fiction:
There must have been ultimate reality existing under some name in the ancient mythologies and civilizations be it eeshwar,God or bhugwan.Three thousand years ago we had historians like heun sang and fashion who sought the ultimate reality.haripur is a fertile land and the brains here are ever more fertile than its land.when the huns destroyed taxila,at that time 3000 buddhists,despite being capable of resisting the attack,were put to sword.Taxila is a wasteland since then.Every land has its own specialty and all the time are specific.The only indivisible entity is Allah himself,rest of everything is stratified and has defined orders.Humans are superior to lands,likewise some homes are superior to other homes and some men are superior to other of their kind.Allah has determined these order and superiorities and he has also prescribed the course of action to be follow attain those levels.
Then they were some people who started off with the objective of search of reality and the real purpose of life and they spent their entire live seeking Allah’s proximity by making him their beloved these people were those destitute who could not be satisfied by any mundane pleasure and their wisdom had reached its zenith their girth of intellectual capacity encompassed the heavens and the earth and they had known their own self inside out these people underwent masochistic ordeals to muscle their way through to reach their destiny of identity these knowledge and reality and seekers are termed as soofis.
The topic of the truth about of mysticism raises our inquisitiveness to a level where we can question as to what it all is. It also arouses the questions as to which school of thought among the once surrounding us in the society, is right.
Obviously, they must be some parameters and yard sticks which would serf as benchmarks on the bases of which standardization could be made. without those standards, we can not distinguish an act from Godly to un godly one .
Who knows who Allah knower is and who is not? Unfortunately, amid total benightedness sneaking everywhere in the society, the real searcher starts screaming and gets sick and tired at the pseudo-mystics and their monasteries.
He concludes that he heard them speak heartlessly and faithlessly but none of them could satisfy him.
Notwithstanding the heartiest search for doorstep, from village to village and from monastery to monastery, the efforts to fin an Allah-knower ended up in miserable fiasco being unable to find an a real mystic intimately knowing Allah is a reality in today’s world. Such a condition leaves the society bereft of everyone where there is not a single person who can clime that he knows Allah intimately.
Once the holy prophet (SAW) passed by a town which was almost a wasteland with people plunged into miserable conditions running the whole gamut of crippling diseases and other derivation (such as in Pakistan nowadays). The holy prophet SAW) asked if there was not a single person in that town that prays to Allah sincerely for his fellow brethren’s
Socio-economic betterment and physical being. One of the holy prophet (SAW) reads that when one prays for his brother in his absentia then that prayer is granted. It is highly unfortunate for a society where there is not single person who pray for the fellow brethren. the major reason attributable to the all the ills of Pakistan of all sorts is that there not a single person who is sincerely looking for Allah alone; in common parlance there is not single soofi in land.
The showed and cunning intellectuals of today treated mysticism as a deception and deflationary adventure and unanimously and unilaterally decided that the entire knowledge of mysticism is just concept beyond practical implementation, and they also termed it a mirage signifying nothing. For instance, Mr. Ali Abbass Jalalpuri repeatedly cast objections on mysticism, while some equated mysticism. With Greek philosophy and other drew analogies between Hindu yoga and mysticism. However ,what nobody brothered to understand was that mysticism is not something new; rather it has exited in every society it is humanly impossible that this earth remains empty of the people intimately knowing allah .the history of allah mysticism dates of longinus, and then this tradition continued since zino. The stoic of eliia, to Dionysius, the aropagit (a famous mystic of Egypt).we also have st.augustine and Thomas Aquinas as glaring example in the Christian world. before the advent of Islam there never was a time or eon without any mystic or search of knowledge .then knowledge got completed ,human intellect touched its zenith and the mercy of Allah was personified in the form of holy prophet (saw),s appearance in the world .the blessing of knowledge and wisdom reached its culmination .since then we had immediate disciples of holy prophet (saw) in the form of the companions of the holy prophet (saw)and the followers of the companions of the holy prophet(saw) and then the followers of the followers of the companion of the holy prophet (saw) which as a whole constituted the major class of intellectuals. During the times from holy prophet (saw)to the followers of the followers of the companions of the holy prophet (saw),all the societies founded by the Muslims were solidly headed toward Allah .under the direct guidance of the greatest universal teacher, the holy prophet (saw) ,the companion were founding such a society where everyone needed Allah .after the death of the holy prophet (saw),the luxury of direct teaching and training came to an end. Regardless of the fact the companions of the holy prophet (saw) were the best people, but the numeric strength busy in Allah, s search had decreased. It may not be true to everyone, but the fact remains that many embraced Islam because of its bourgeoning grander in power an d geographical increases. Many restored to embracing Islam in order to evade taxes. In a nutshell, the proportion of Muslims really seeking Allah had greatly decreased form what in the time of the holy prophet (saw) and the times immediate after that .succinctly speaking, the search for Allah was considerably confined to a select few. Nevertheless, never did it than the tradition of search for Allah vanquished altogether there were many great teachers simultaneously at one time in the history after the times of the followers of the companions of the holy prophet (saw). On the one hand if we have Imam Hassan Basri, then we also have Khawaja Habib Ajmi .if Rabia Basri appears in the history, then we also see Siri Saqti imparting Knowledge and wisdom to his acolytes. I appear as if the time was never empty of this mystic struggle, but in the passing times the lamps of knowledge, wisdom and understanding seem to fading. Knowledge has plunged into the abyss of decrepitude and destitution. We rarely find some one sincerely yearning for Allah ,s proximity remotely some where in our society .
Many complicated terminologies do not define mysticism; rather it is a very simple knowledge. Knowing Allah is incumbent upon every person professing Islamic faith. Had it been difficult to find and know Allah, the Muslim Ummah would have been exonerated that they cannot find Allah or know the ltimate Reality. Allah has really simplified the task of knowing Himself and getting Himself. Everyone sequences his own mental priorities as they befit his mind, but the one who while in appropriate time in his age using adequate facilities chooses Allah to be his top priority is a real mystic be he of weak capacity or strong capacity. We are grievously mistaken when we isolate the life of a great mystic and see the time when he is on the pinnacles of mystic glory. Our standalone perception discounting the struggle of Ali Bin Usman and Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jilani leads us to think that they were the people of great substance which we could never be. We see them at giddy heights of glory which are considered to be enviably insurmountable for us.
IS God Myth or Reality ??
It is claimed that God is an idea forged in the mind. And observation of the workings of the human mind shows that it has the capacity to produce the concept of a supreme Deity. God is seen as an imagined entity who does not possess real existence, created through the sophistry of words. He is an assumption produced in times of tragedy. it is a strange irony that God has been accepted by whole swathes of humanity and mighty civilisations that gave birth to some of the giants of human thought. The search for God has existed throughout the ages. People have turned to Him to find solutions to the problems of life. The language of every human culture contanis the word 'God' .
The concept of God became so powerful that later intellectual movements were unable to subjugate it. Attempts to refuse it only strengthened it. However, according to some intellectuals, if one peels aways the layers of words surrounding the concept of God, you will be left with just an idea and lots of empty space. This view found favour with many proponents of social justice. Perhaps this was because these people observed that the sublime values contained in God's speech and the divine order had not been fully realised or even partially implemented by those who claimed to speak on behalf of religion. they failed to distinguish between the corrupt followers of religion and the universal realities of religion.
During the limited span of human life we may notice that there is no justice in the world: compassion and kindness are hard to find. This observation gives rise to the argument that if God were real, He would not allow the human race to experience such inequality and injustice. Furthermore, history would not have chronicled in its record stories of slaughter , bloodshed, death, destruction, tyrants and unimaginable atrocities. The truth is that the concept of God is a reaction to such unjust social conditions and a means of escaping the harsh realities of life. If God were realy , would He not grip the hand of the oppressor the moment he lays a finger on the weak and enslaved and downtrodden? Why does He encourage people to question the limits of His power and might because of this failure to intervene ? Is it too much to demand from His Supreme power and unlimited attributes of perfection to create a system which would guarantee compassion and kindness between the inhabitants of planet earth?
To answer this question, however, we need to have some awareness of the framework and principles by which God engages with the world.
To be continued....... 1/6
2/6
To answer this question, however, we need to have some awareness of the framework and principles by which God engages with the world. This is not possible without the study of religion. According to the conceptual outlook of religion, the life of this world is like an examination hall in which candidate are tested. It is not the place or time where decisions are made and results are given. Mankind is being examined in relation to its actions and behavior through a series of life challenges. Any interference and support during an examination would be regarded as unfair and this is not allowed. Matters of life , such as victory and defeat, knowledge and understandings, beauty and ugliness, good and evil are all things which people are tested. These matters are not dependent on the choices and wishes of individuals and nor are they dependent on any individual or organization for the extent of their duration.
Whereas the sphere of accountability of an individual is limited to their lifetime, the period of testing of nations can extend over several centuries. Both individuals and nations are judged according to their individuals and collective response. This is not possible without the occurrence of events and situations by which individuals and groups can be tested fairly. As a result ultimate accountability, feedback and the outcome of the test cannot be given during the period of examination in this life and on earth.
The time for this is the period of life after death, the duration of which is beyond measure. It is not possible to test someone without externally imposing and setting up the appropriate conditions. Mankind can be provided with support and assistance to get through this test, but they cannot be given the power to change the test. All people pass through a pre-defined course of examination by which they reveal their reactions and record their responses to every situation whether good or bad. No final judgment can be reached during this period of life. Circumstances are constantly changing and the balance of power never stays the same; individuals and nations tested in circumstances of poverty and opulence. The identity of the oppressor and oppressed is interchanged. Those in authority are tested by being made into subjects.
The cosmic order of God is totally objective. There is no scope for any subjective interference with it. We can of course, express our transient feelings and put them on record, but we can never change the nature of the test or unfairly influence its results. This is not to say that God has not supported humanity or given them any guidance. For instance, through the agency of the holy Prophets, God has taught Mankind the principles which will ensure stability in society and thereby increase our chance of being successful in the test of life. The test paper of life contains many questions. The biggest and most important question is this: Does Man regard God as a reality or a mere supposition? Does he allow his real creator to play a rightful part in his life? Does his submission to God support his contemplative, intellectual and practical faculties to recognize a goal and meaning to life? Has Man risen to the challenge of utilizing his intellect for its intended purpose? Was he rightfully occupy the status of the ‘best of creation’? Does he live up to the standard of the most beautiful of forms?? This way of thinking, however, is only possible after one accepts God.
To be Continued 2/6
3/6
Religion is the source of every praiseworthy human value. It is the creator of every moral and ethical principle, and the origin of all concepts of what is permissible or prohibited in society can be traced to it. A cursory glance is enough to highlight the fact that self-proclaimed, advanced and civilized societies have insisted on adopting practices which contradict fundamental principles of ethics. The twisted and ego-driven ideas of a handful of individuals led to the production of irreligious sentiments in the minds of unthinking people, gripping them like a deadly virus. Economic progress acted like a catalyst for such thinking. Many armchair intellectuals equated material progress with spiritual progress, and this led them to produce a new vision of society.
The modern conception of society affirms the habits and customs of modern ethics. The ultimate benchmark of every human value and noble character trait is money. The intermingling of wealth and power led to a single response- religion and religious values were declared as outdated and new notions of good and evil, permitted and prohibited, and justice and oppression were promoted. As a result new forms of chaos and corruption began to surface both on land and sea. An ethical system based on commercial interests could only view God and Divine Order as a fairytale made up by backward people. The mechanical age changed the direction of the novel, and alongside this it completely defaced the understanding of spiritual matters. The soul was seen as an unnecessary burden which the body was forced to carry.
Terror-stricken minds shrank back from the hope of tranquility and expression of gratitude. Anxiety, nervous breakdowns and future uncertainty spread to such an extent that dark and agonizing shadows of death began to dominate life. Those who claim to believe are ignorant, since their belief is devoid of certainty. The evidence to denounce such believers as out of the fold of religion is perhaps not sufficient. Nevertheless, their hearts do not lean towards sincere acceptance of God. Mosques and temples are impressive and beautiful monuments, but their worshipers are distracted, restless and without feeling. There are also some insane individuals who have succeeded in defiling religion with their narrative of extremism and violence.
The followers of religion find no joy, and the lives of those without religion feel empty and unsatisfied. People feel trapped in a major crisis of anxiety, uncertainty and helplessness, and are blindly beseeching God for solace. They anxiously wait for a single ray from the sun of certainty to fall on them. Without God, life would be utterly desolate. The scientists who hold the fuses of the atomic and hydrogen bombs are fully aware of this. The culmination of modern intellectual thinking is this: that the scrolls of life should be rolled up and the earth should return to the barren state in which it existed four billion years ago!
To be continued 3/6
saying of God
" I (The self Existing One) was a Hidden treasure i wish to be recogonize so i created."
4/6
I think the Quran was seen as necessary by the Arabs to become independent from the west. They learned from the west and did their own thing. It is not a ripoff from the Jews, but all Arab traditions up to that point were also of the Jews. In fact, the Jews fought against it because they felt they already had their traditions. Many beduins also fought against it but the Jews were able to keep elaborating on their own to establish their religion based on the traditions. Other beduins were unsuccessful. They submitted to Islam.
Islam's antijewish sentiment is not so much to deny the Jews as brothers as it is to protest against the Jews for being the gardeners of the west. The Jews on the other hand were placed between a sword and a hard rock by the Romans, who stole their writings and took the messhianic possibility to actuality with its actual coming. The antijewish sentiment of Islam is of a very different kind. When the Muslims say the Jews don't have the right to exist it's because they feel the Jews are aligned with the west. I know their proposition is violent and utterly ridiculous by the standards of today, but that's where it comes from.
The antisemitism of the west occurs from the moment the Romans want to take over the books and in order to do so, they offer the Jews a place of honor in history. But the Jews are the authors of the original and they do not want the actual coming. To them the hope for it is more edifying than the postulation of God as human.
The rise and fall of nations, their freedom and enslavement, and their poverty or prosperity is not entirely driven by theories manufactured by human minds, such as communism. Even the reign of Prophet kings did not result in the creation of classless society. A truly classless society has never been seen on earth and nor has any single nation on earth ever experienced abundant prosperity and continuous liberty. It is difficult even today to find a situation in which people nurture the dreams of an imaginary paradise on earth. However, there has always been a conspicuous difference in the social history of the east and the west. The nations of the west have suffered many horrific revolutions, but in the east revolution by the masses did not occur. It is difficult to find parallels of popular uprisings such as French revolution, the Russian revolution and the Chinese revolution in the history of the east. All these revolution failed to live up to their ideals. For instance the French revolution began with the proletariat but ended with the most despotic kind of monarchy. Similarly, the Russian revolution was buried in its own shroud without delivering the dream of a classless society. This also happened to the first major communist movement known as Mazdakism (founder Mazdak d.524) which spearheaded a bitter revolt against the rule of monarchy in the reign of Noshirvan.
The ideological success of Marx and Lenin in European culture can be explained by several factors. Russian society had entered the final phase of its decline. Almost all the notable writers of the time, such as Tolstoy, Sholokov, Dostoevsky, Boris Pasternak, Schoenstein and so on, alluded to the cancerous state of affairs of Russian society. This perhaps explains why Russian literature attained a realism which no other literary tradition did. However, the revolution of Karl Marx was short lived. The reason for this is because it was not a revolution of positive ideas, but one of negative reactions against the tyranny of the rulers, nobles and gentry.
The historical analysis of Marx does not have a universal application, and nor can it be utilized in Non-European societies. For instance, in Eastern societies there was no possibility of such a revolution ever occurring. The existence of not one, but two system of social security and welfare ensured that mutual respect, positive dealings and social ethics were never absent from the social fabric. The institutions of Zakat(One of the 5 pillars in islam) and sadaqa (Giving for the sake of God) promoted social stability that gave no reason or excuse for the poor and dispossessed to develop a negative reaction. As far as equality of distribution and treatment is concerned, we find that the kings and sultans of the time did not develop notions of racial or personal superiority, with the result that even slaves who rules Egypt between 1250 and 1517. Similarly, the subservient Seljuq tribesmen of Asia Minor, on the basis of their ability alone were able to gain such power and honor that they became king of Kings, laying the foundations of the Ottoman Empire.
To declare religion as opium is both right and wrong. A glance at the role and character of the religious scholars in the Christian world makes it easy to understand why it is correct to call religion as the opium of the people. For instance, the priests were exploiting the rich and poor alike by distributing ‘tickets, to paradise which could be bought for a meager sum of ten or fifteen pounds. The nobles and aristocrats were devoted to tyranny and despotism. Religion was reduced to a temple whose priests showed an interest in the wealth and status of the worshipers, purely for selfish gain. The situation regarding taxes was such that there was a tax levied on even essentials, such as walking in the street and on baking bread. Killing and bloodshed were common occurrences. Human life was cheap; even shadows had more value.
This atmosphere of oppression and exploitation led to slogans which fanned the flame of hatred against the bourgeoisie, ensuring that this way of thinking became entrenched in the minds of the poor. It was these same negative sentiments which Marx ignited. Like the French revolution, the Russian revolution sowed the seeds of such intense hatred whose embers continued to smolder in Europe long after the event. The French revolution laid the foundations of colonial thought, and the Russian Revolution, because of the negative emotions it unleashed, became the source of fear and apprehension to the world.
To be continued..5/6
Much as I like what you're saying, I think you're skimming the intellectual surface here. To really carry the argument, you have to go deeper.
Perhaps this isn't something you have either the time or the inclination to do - and I respect that, if it's the case - but I think you're on to something.
I tend to agree that the man is on to something. He's got good analytical skills. But he defines the west according to his own liking. He leaves the USA out of it, because when it comes to that, he'll most likely fail to make a case after 1945.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
6/6
In contrast Islamic culture, despite a period of decline, was able to provide two basic values to people. First , justice was never threatened to the extent that social actors gave up all hope of fairness, and second, no group in society ever reached a state where they came to the brink of total annihilation. No doubt, Islamic lands experienced internal struggles for power, and much blood was shed in the fight for the crown. However, the masses did not experience any catastrophic effects as a result of these internal feuds. In some cases sovereignty changed hands several times in a matter of days and months, but this had very little impact on the way of life, morality and social norms of ordinary people. The morals of the ruling class, too, did not exceed the boundaries of God. Even the worst of rulers felt constrained to stay within the confines of the Islamic social and moral order.
This proved to be a stabilizing for society. Even communism and socialism were unable to convincingly attack religion in Islamic societies. Although, in relation to Christianity they did have some success, when it came to the Muslims this ideological clash was faced with a powerful response which defended the moral values of Islam, which compared to Christianity did not have the same level of ambiguity. It was a pure and simple faith, a complete and structured book of law which contained a framework encompassing all the principles of socialism and communism. In fact it went further and offered psychological and spiritual benefits whose outcomes would continue into the next life. Marxism and Leninism failed to make a dent in the power of the teachings of Muhammad the Messenger of God, and when they began to force themselves on Islamic societies and began taking practical steps towards this, they were greeted with a final and crushing blow at the hands of Islam and its followers. In fact, Islam come under attack by three main ideologies: nationalism, secularism and religious extremism. Dealing briefly with nationalism, this did not remain for too long amongst Muslim societies, and the only recognizable outcome of this ideology was the division and separation of the Muslim Ummah. Mustafa Kemal Pasha, the founder of Modern Turkey was a military genius, but he had a limited intellect characterized by a negative and reactionary response. Gaining freedom for Turkey from its enemies was a supreme achievement, but to attack Islam due to the practices of some shortsighted mind. In the same way, Arab nationalism was also a conspiracy devised by certain political and military leaders who aimed to benefit personally from the break-up of the mighty Ottoman Empire. Of course, we must acknowledge the important role which nationalism played in the struggle for freedom from colonial powers such as Britain. However, power hungry politicians were unable to adapt and turn away from nationalism after independence had been achieved. Entangling themselves in the peaks and troughs of power, they sowed the seed of political disunity amongst Muslims, the effects of which live on even today.
The religious extremists, on the other hand, were so impressed with the pragmatic and objective approach of Europe that they swept away the sublime intellectual traditions of Islam and claimed to lay the foundations of an Islamic state based on the outward compliance to the laws of the Shar’ah. This partial view of Islam plunged the Muslims into an intellectual and religious crisis. Centuries have lapsed and bosom of Islam continues to produced long-bearded Mullahs complete with Turbans and religious paraphernalia, but as yet not a single Ghazali , Shaadhli, Alinn bin Usman Hujweri or Abdul Qadir Jeelani has been born. 6/6
A chapter from my teacher's book..
may b on to something but i just wanna to share these info with you. actually this chapter is in the middle and the book moves like a film. next chapter is adjacent to previous one. may b if i get time to write i'll share another one that would be the ist chapter named, Religion: Truth or psychological Complex?Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
.. about cafoline objection of not including USA in comaprison, i just wanna ask has usa succeeded to give classless society? there can b many objections. i think about liberty usa has dual behaviour, like atom bomb on japan, having a lot of atom bombs in reserves and on the other hand banned this on others countries etc and crushing them through power. every country should be given liberty to choose the system or run the show who am i to interfer in other's problems.? may b i m wrong but this what i think that usa has dual behaviour in many cases.
Religion: Truth or Psychological Complex? 1/2
Is Religion a habit or a choice?
The term religion refers to the process by which human beings give meaning to their lives. This includes values, symbols and rituals. It could be argued that all human beings are religious, regardless of whether they subscribe to an organized faith or not: many facets of life contain one or more elements that define religion – even football bears the hallmarks of religion. It is commonly believed that religion involves blind acceptance and that faith cannot be based on reason. This leads many rational people to reject religion as they regard it as incompatible with intellectual analysis. On a personal level, however, many people believe and accept things which cannot be justified by reason. Even intelligent men, such as Ernest Hemmingway, held fast to the belief that their good luck charms brought them good fortune. In fact, the vast majority of the human race holds on to personal beliefs about reality that could never be backed up by scientific evidence. There is something inexplicable in human nature that we find very hard to resist. We inevitably put our faith in one thing or another!
Trust is a deeply rooted human habit: it is strength and a weakness of the human species. The urge to rely and find hope in other people or objects can be traced back to the isolation of prehistoric man. During this period, in a sparsely populated planet, the soul of Man developed trust as a mechanism for survival in a vast, lonely landscape. The same suffocating grip of loneliness can, even today, be felt in a planet of seven billion individuals! Surrounded by threats from all sides, the inner apparatus of early Man arrived at a basic distinction between friend and foe, trust and suspicion. Mistrust of the unknown was hard-wired into the blood and sinew of the human being. Disbelief is the inevitable result of a reptilian instinct whose entire existence centers around physical survival and the fulfillment of animal pleasures. In contrast, the origin of qualities such as sincerity, love and self-sacrifice in man is a mystery that cannot be explained by the ‘survival of the fittest’ thesis. The unrefined reptilian Self, governed by basic instincts, can never produce the traits of intelligence, far-sightedness and concern for the future that are found in the human species.
The power of the ‘survival instinct’ can be seen in all aspects of life, including religion. For instance the faithful followers of religion blindly believe in the existence of a divine reality and are continuously seeking arguments to support their conviction. However, the proofs they produce are themselves inspired and woven from the values of the survival instinct. Reason is left at the threshold of faith. The grip of animal instincts seems to be more powerful than both the intellect and religion. The following Quranic verse alludes to the fact that mankind existed for a long period of time in a state indistinguishable from other creatures governed by instincts and without the faculty of reason: “Has there not been over Man a long period of Time, when he was nothing- not even mentioned? We created man from a mingled drop to test him and We made him hearing and seeing.(76:1-2)”
If the basic instincts of Man are so deep rooted in his psyche, is it possible for him to go against these powerful forces and submit to the authority of reason? Does religion have the capacity to rekindle the higher values of humanity, or is religion an artificial construct centered on the myth of Paradise?
The unity of religion is fractured. Instead of promoting peace and harmony, religion seems to be the driving force that divides nations. The face of religion has taken on an ugly form driven by bigotry. Is such a religion really the purpose of human existence? Some argue that religion is a unifying force, but it seems that all does it unite one group against another in hate. Is this the true nature of religion, or has religion been seized by the sinister ghost of our reptilian instinct? Are we the victims of a sweet and deadly deception, which has taken us up a small avenue of the intellect, a diversionary path which can never lead to the high road of certainty?
Religion seems to be a proposition that appeals to the horror-stricken and devastated faces of Karl Marx’s ‘have nots ’ in society. The effects of religion are similar to addiction to heroin: it shuts down all the faculties of reason and inquiry and awakens all those base instincts and qualities that early Man had relied on for physical survival. This model of religion surely cannot originate from the ‘Guarded Tablet’ (Lauh Mahfooz) of an all-knowing, all-wise Creator of the Cosmos. In truth, it is a religion that represents the psychopathic tendencies of human beings; an outlet for our frustrations. A religion fashioned around our way of thinking, offering human solutions.
To be continued...1/2
If you are going to tell me that there is religiosity in everyone's life, fine. There is. But if you want to monopolize faith and claim that it has to do with religion alone, I can't buy it. Faith in the senses is another possibility. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the famous religious tenet that faith is the evidence of things unseen. As far as I am concerned, faith was, is, and will always occur as the evidence of things seen.
We have discussed about seeing and not seening anyway. :)
It is hard to find within this ‘religion’ a moral essence originating from a sublime source. It feels man-made. This is not the religion of which I speak. Those who say they reject religion are merely expressing their disgust with man-made religion, which is filtered through closed minds. Few make an exerted effort to distinguish this artificial religion from that which comes directly from God. Out of ignorance they reject both. They seek to replace one flawed system concocted by the mind of Man with another of the same ilk. The ethical system promoted by humanist and secularist thinkers is unsustainable, inconsistent and invariable. There is no consensus amongst mankind of it. It is a product of humanity’s psychological tension as it promotes the lesser of two evils. On the surface, this system appears to support human society. In reality, the gulf between theory and practice is so vast that, if allowed to run its natural course, this system of morality would destroy contemporary human civilization, transforming it into the ruins of Pompeii, Mohenjo Daro, Harrapa, Aad and Thamud. Turning a blind eye is not an option. Burying its head in the sand cannot protect the ostrich from being ripped apart by savage, determined-to-kill, bloodthirsty wolves.
An alien observer would struggle to say that as a species we are civilized, caring and with a bright future ahead of us. The world population is brimming with creatures that have a human form, but real human being living the ideals of humanity is rare to find. The wild animal instincts within mankind blind them from seeing reality as it is. Their prestigious institutions of learning mourn the loss of deep understanding. Like the silent, mute statues of Ancient Greece, scholars are only interested in self-worship. Intellectual activity is a prisoner to facts and figures and the domination of physical phenomena. The egotistical nature of education has erected new idols in the East and the West. Knowledge, in the form of research institutes and research fellows, has slowly been led up a blind path, not even the stumbling footsteps of a forlorn traveler can now tread on the road of true knowledge.
Religion and secularism are such close neighbors that each is ready to take the possessions of the other by force. What has gone wrong? How did human thinking get derailed? Are we experiencing a crisis in the concepts of reward and sin, requital and punishment? Has humanity foolishly vowed to struggle against the suppression of a system of tyranny, which it can never resist? Has the prospect of a transient life and a temporary world numbed our minds and senses, or are all these diversions a protest against a short and limited life, an acknowledgement of humanity’s insignificance in a terrifying, uncaring and unresponsive universe?
The human soul is full of whisperings: murmurings of fear and hope fill every moment. Like a small, unknown and insignificant star in an infinite universe, the solitary, small individual human being feels helpless - without a destination, without a reality. Yet this feeling of insignificance is real and powerful, leading him to search for some consolation or distraction. He falls prey to the growing industry of deception. Illusion upon illusion of ignorance is marketed in the form of wisdom. Humankind’s vision is in the grip of an optical illusion that witnesses a plethora of dazzling things: skyscraper, escalators, powerful computers; modes of transport which rip through the skies, travelling at incredible speeds; missiles, space shuttles, the possibility of colonizing Mars; the hope of discovering the gene for longevity, eradication disease, pills for overcoming hepatitis, AIDS and cancer; instruments and machines to reduce the pain of manual labor; the discovery of quantum physics and Relativity; modern concepts of living; the explanation of the Cosmos; and the dream of controlling and subjugating the Universe. We observe a great many things. Can anyone question the progress that Humankind has made? 2/2
• History shows that other civilization also made unprecedented advances when measured against the standards of their time. They all went through the cycle of rise, decline and destruction. If what they achieved was truly progress and greatness why, then, did they disappear into nothingness???
The Next Chapter: The Cycles of History 0/3
The Cycles of History 1/3
Modern Man has made technological progress. This is undeniable and equally unremarkable. History shows that other civilization also made unprecedented advances when measured against the standards of their time. They all went through the cycle of rise, decline and destruction. If what they achieved was truly progress and greatness why, then, did they disappear into nothingness? These were not random events, since history follows a pattern that continuously repeats itself. The task of humankind is to study the cycles of history in order to avoid getting caught in the snares that earlier nations became trapped in. The fact that they are able to keep alive the lessons of the past and learn from their mistakes is what gives human beings superiority over Angels. We are able to use the capacity to better our present situation and leave signposts for the future. Despite this, as a species we have developed collective amnesia with regards to learning lessons from history.
History is also the disastrous lesson which has never been able to guide tyrants and despots. Every dictator ignores the lesson of history and portrays himself as the maker of history. He does not seek guidance from events of the past. If he did, he would notice that time and again the worship of God is cast aside in favor of devotion to idols and heroes. This is the first step towards destruction. How many conquerors fell into the same trap as those before them? The philosophers of Greece and the democracy of Athens were wiped from existence. Even Cicero and Plutarch could not save the gods of Rome. History has failed in restraining the negative aspects of Man that ultimately lead to his downfall. Yet it is full of interest and contains within it the social, economic, and religious values of ancient and medieval times. History is never completely faithful to actual events as it is told through the mouths of critics and opinion makers who come later. But those who will heed the lessons of history are rare to find. Fighting in the thick of the battle and talking about the battle from a comfortable chair in a lecture hall are two different things.
Fossils allow us to establish the chronology of human life and history keeps alive the past achievements of individuals and nations like a blazing star, visible from a distance through the pitch darkness of the past. The distance between the Earth and space seems insignificant, perhaps, because of the numerous stars that shine in the night. Sometimes the recall of a single word or a phrase brings back to life the forgotten lessons of the past. The sense of distance diminishes like each passing milestone. But history is no longer the story of facts. We are keen to give our opinions and totally ignore the lessons of history. The madness of today seems like an embodiment of the mistakes of the past. Before their final demise, few display sings of remorse or regret. Decline is the philosophy that underpins existence. Where are the Kings and Emperors of the past? To many intellectuals, both Hussain and Yazid were victims. There are even some critics of the Holy Prophet who see these blazing Suns of the human Galaxy as dictators who lusted after power!
To be continued ..
2/2
Is this the best their highly developed intelligence can come up with? How can such historians express opinions on history, when humanity has not yet been able to figure out the reasons for the study of history? Is it to have wonderful exhibitions of ancient artifacts in museums? Taking lessons from history is seen as a sign of being old fashioned. Buddha did not mention the name of God out of fear that the name he used would only end up as an extra stone idol in the temple of Brahman. But Ashok, who should have learnt the lesson of history, made Buddha into a stone instead. In places of learning, the teachings of Buddha were replaced with the tradition of rehearsing in detail the works of the enslaved makers of Buddha’s statues.
History demonstrates that not a single nation perished under the cloud of poverty. It was decadence that led to their ultimate downfall. Is it not strange that past nations suffered from unforeseen tragedies only when they were at the height of their progress, glory and quality of life? History has sorted out the facts. But history does not record the fact that a particular nation was destroyed because of their excesses and rebellion against God and human nature. No historian has explained that the earlier and later nations of Aad were destroyed because of their inhumane and corrupt practices. Even if this had been written down the civilized nations today would not have regarded it as worthy of any attention. Have they not given legal protection to explicitly immoral practices? The superficial rationalists have paved the way for the perversion of the natural instincts of Man.
Future historians will record that modern Man did not steer clear from the gross and foolish practices in history and failed to discover the foundations of a better society. History shows that the human race has never united, and harmony of values has never occurred. The sons and daughter of Adam and Eve did not use reason. They divided the earth and parceled out the sky. They shared out bodies, and distributed blood. They fought wars for power and control. They made claims of sovereignty over time and space. With speed they tried to rush towards their ultimate outcome, and this outcome is no different from that of previous nations. I belong to this age (70 years) and can say without hesitation that history shows that sooner or later humanity will find itself on the verge of annihilation. The whole of history is a testament that all the visible evidence is pointing in the direction. This is not a prophecy. It is a historical fact and only a few moments of time remain between now and the final outcome. This is also not despair. It is the same reality that turns away from the concept of miracles. Is it not mythical make-believe to imagine that this time history will not repeat itself? What miracle are you waiting for and whom do you expect this miracle from? Those who seek guidance from Maths, Physics and Geometry cannot accept reality. Think of how many scientific facts have become old fictions, and how many modern scientific concepts have become the subjects of speculations, and the number of ‘settled’ scientific conclusions that have had to be re-evaluated.
History is also a science which has unceasingly repeated its conclusions in time and space, and continues to do so. There is no change in its practice. The same events always lead to the same outcomes. Do you not observe in history the law that if all the conditions and relationships stay the same as they were, then the outcome will be exactly the same as it was before? Is it not clear who is backward and against progress? If the use of reason is the way forward, then the reptilian instincts prefers to go backwards in time when humans were indistinguishable from animals. But is the conduct of backwardness displayed through things or values? Travelling to and from work by car, bus or train cannot be regarded as opposing development. Is reverting to ancient values what is meant by ‘regressive’? Nobody these days will travel a hundred miles on a donkey or horse instead of bus, car or plane. So in the realm of physical facts and objects nobody is against advancement. Maybe the revival of old prejudices is backwardness. Some return to the concept of God, and others turn back to the norms of Sparta and Lesbos. The regression of the East to the time of the Prophet is not doo distance in time. But the relapse of the West is to the lifestyles of Aad and Thamud, which is even more backward!
The primates have clearly begun to take a step towards curiosity and thought. But we, the humans of the present age, want to go back to the age of Zeus. The men want to become Satyrs, Greed Deities of the mountains and woods who spent their time drinking, dancing and partaking in sexual pleasures, and the females aspire to become Nymphs, paragons of feminine beauty. It is astonishing that appliances are the mark of progress, machines dependant on a flick of your finger before they can bring themselves into motion! If instruments alone are progress then there is much truth in what Abraham said. The biggest idol must be the one which annihilates the smaller ones.
Quran,surah 2:verse 106 is what the earlier poster was alluding to. The quran claims it abrogates or wipes out any contradictions from previous books. Pretty convenient that hey! The quran is basically muhammeds metaphysical and political poetry composed over 20 years. A seething mass of dogma and psychological misunderstandings,but it rhymes well!
Chapter 2 verse.126.refers as " And remember Abraham said: "My Lord, make this a City of Peace, and feed its people with fruits,-such of them as believe in Allah and the Last Day." He said: "(Yea), and such as reject Faith,-for a while will I grant them their pleasure, but will soon drive them to the torment of Fire,- an evil destination (indeed)!" "Quote:
Originally Posted by Theunderground
anyone can check anytime online anywhere like http://www.harunyahya.com/Quran_tran...tion_index.php as well about the verse and chapter u mentioned and i clarified. think, research before u speak.
may b u just hear something in which allah referes in quran that the books before quran has been alluded by human mixing so if u like to read the words of God u should consult to quran only and another place God promise that He will protect each word of quran till dooms day.. i have opened this point very brielfly in my another posts about when quran is translated into anyother language.
3/3
What is the ultimate goal that Man can single out in the name of freedom? What does he want? The consequences of some these personal freedoms are apparent in several societies. But other societies have restrained themselves from these freedoms, perhaps because they are ‘backward’. When you think about it, if it were not for this old fashioned self-control then the ultimate notion of freedom to indulge in reptilian instincts would be the death knell of mankind. The Pagans gods Laat, Habal and Mannat are still present today. Circling the Kaaba while naked is ignorance. But how can cultural nudity and striptease be thought of as universal virtues? Today we do not find the statue of Habal, but the statue of Liberty. We seek ‘Liberation’ from our real nature and our creator. The historical form may have changed but the values are the same.
However, reality does not change. The constellation of stars appears the same as they did then, even though our instruments of observation have changed. People ridiculed the message of the Prophets by creating stereotypes. This is true today and many such clichés have become part of modern discourse. They are part of satirical speech. It is said that they break the power of dogma. Thus you are outdated, uncivilized and backward, not fit to be part of the modern age. You are a follower of a pointless religion. You are the victim of low intellectual capacity and are not yet fully refined. Your outward hijab is in reality veiling your intellect. If you were to leave your top button undone then you would feel a fresh breeze. If your eyes are not made up and the locks of your hair are not visible then you will be laughed at. Your language should show your status. Crows and imitation should always follow the lead of the swan. Your speech is balanced and courteous, but such a speech does not possess international prestige. Real conversation should be peppered with broken phrases of foreign tongues and monkey-like gestures. This is a sign of progress and civilization.
You can be a ‘nice’ person, but not a modern one. The clear sparkling waters of a river end up mingling with the rough, murky and hideous waters of the sea. Modernity is like an ocean. Wave after wave, from its deep, dark depths up to its surface, are a perpetual spread of darkness. Not even the clouds of kindness and generosity with their crystal pure, distilled and life-giving rain can purify its water. For thousands of years the efforts of the Prophets could not turn the direction of the decaying and decomposing mentality of Man. The standard of fairness of modern Man is such that even the benchmark of justice of primates such as Capuchin Monkeys is far superior to that of Bush and Blair.
3/3
The next chapter will be: Humanity Let Down by the Gatekeepers of the Knowledge.
Humanity Let Down by the Gatekeepers of the Knowledge.
The nature of human intelligence is a subject which has fascinated me for many years. Early in my life I began to explore questions of epistemology. What is knowledge? What is the nature of the intellect? How can I acquire true knowledge? Who should I regard as intelligent? Who can I take as authority? Such questions are the key to true knowledge. They enable us to understand the means by which we acquire knowledge, how to evaluate its reliability, and more importantly, how to differentiate between real knowledge and mere speculation.
My search has led me to explore the history of human thought from Socrates to Bertrand Russell, to the complex and intricate ideas of the post modern era. I have been left with a sense that all these thinkers have relied on artifice and fabrication, promoting partial and subjective viewpoints, which did not grapple with the core issues of human existence. They succeeded in diverting people away from the fundamental priorities of humanity. Not having attained the full potential of the human mind, these ‘thinkers’ collectively exploited the suggestive nature of ordinary people and established a hierarchy of secondary priorities. Through mutual praise and admiration of each other they ensured that limited models of thought were regarded as the mark of human progress.
Intelligence is the ability to identify appropriate priorities. All these thinkers failed to focus on the fundamental human priorities that would ensure the future of all humanity, enabling it to realize its full potential. Let us take a simple comparison. Prehistoric Man was illiterate and unsophisticated, with few means of survival. His existence was threatened from all sides. In these early stages of human life, the cave dweller who first perceived these dangers to human existence and made them his priority was a genius of his time. Possessing the most basic resources, this ‘uneducated’ and ‘unintelligent’ human being made an accurate assessment of his priorities, ensuring that mankind and the ‘gift of life’ was passed on to future generations. The tree of life, its consciousness dripping in blood, had to endure unimaginable loss and suffering to survive. Our human ancestors endeavored to leave each succeeding generation in a safe environment, the safe guarding of life, the gift of speech and communication, the use of experience and experimentation, living in social communities: these are some of the greatest treasures which early Man passed on to future generations.
Millennia later we witness the devastating effects of the achievements of the educated and all-wise gatekeepers of human life, who belong to the most ‘advanced’ and ‘civilized’ societies known to Man. Knowledge, technology and status have become the tools for exploiting and devaluing people. The duty of safeguarding life has been replaced with the impulse for destruction. On what basis can contemporary, sophisticated society claim superiority over the ‘uncivilized’, backward and simple ancestors of the human race? Pre-historic Man fought and struggled against the grip of his reptilian instincts, trying to collect every grain and drop of wisdom to guide him. Yet modern Man, blinded by his arts and sciences and proud of his inventions and discoveries, is striving to strengthen and spread the self-destructive instincts that early Man was trying to subjugate.
The responsibility for this lies with the long list of scholars and thinkers who deliberately deceived the human race. Diverting people from the basic priorities, they lured them towards glittering, inconsequential theories. Philosophers, sages, politicians and military commanders became the victims of personal pride, driven be the desire for status and glory. Was this as expression of dislike for ethical teachings of the Prophets? Who is more intelligent, those who invite mankind to address their fundamental priorities, or those intellectual hypocrites who have entangled humanity in the complexities of tertiary? The issue is not about religion - whether it is true or even necessary. It is about a basic question that has plagued humanity. What is the purpose of human existence? Why did Fichte and Nietchse not provide a solution to it? Why did the investigations of Wittgenstein and Russell not focus on this most natural of questions?
1/2
I wouldn’t say that it is intelligence but it is wisdom to identify priorities and set up own course of life.Quote:
Originally posted by usman.khawar
Intelligence is the ability to identify appropriate priorities
Hm…..everybody is unique and realizing full potential is diferent for every individual. You can’t blame thinkers for all problem that humanity face. They were seeking own answers and shared it with us but we can reject or accept it. I think that it is more important question we need to ask. Why people follow authority without questioning as any theory is just educated guesswork.Quote:
All these thinkers failed to focus on the fundamental human priorities that would ensure the future of all humanity, enabling it to realize its full potential.
Yes, we may say if we give up using our minds and.......if we want to cultivate a victim mentality. You may say that thinkers deceived human race but don’t you think that human beings have minds to discern and reject theories that don’t work for them. I agree that we have pseudo scientists and pseudo thinkers and it is time consuming and frustrating to identify false theories. But in the end of the day, it is a good mental exercise to do so. As old proverb says, "if we don't use, we loose it".Quote:
The responsibility for this lies with the long list of scholars and thinkers who deliberately deceived the human race.
It is a question that humans have asked for ages. But why people look outside of themselves for the answers. Do philosophers, guru, or spiritual teachers know all the answers? I doubt. They also seek and it may work for them. I think that the issues is the fact that many people have external locus of control. Only the small percentage of people have internal locus of control and are principle oriented. So, it is not about holding thinkers to be responsible for humanity and deceptions but about taking responsibility for our lives into our hands.Quote:
What is the purpose of human existence?
I quoted chapter 2 verse 106,not 126. Are you trying to mislead or something?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theunderground
you are liberal to say anything but what i can smell is the prejudice against Muhammad in ur heart.
Ch 2. 106. "None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?"
wts wrong if God clean His teachings from human mixing before Quran? Before Muahmmad there were many prophets like Moses, Jesus Christ etc..and promise to prevent quran for further dare to change it. ...and about this verse, this is very simple to understand. if u consider it again. well u know about degrees ? good better best like.. anyway every person has his own mind and way to take the things. after completion of quran, there is no chance to delete or add somthing in it. its impossible. if someone wish to dare, still then its impossible u know why? no1 its God's Promissed. no2. 14 hundred years passed and there is no change even a single word.:)
2/2
Humanity Let Down by the Gatekeepers of the Knowledge.
The answer is simple - they did not possess integrating, holistic intellects. Their minds were not developed to a degree that would enable them to identify the priorities of life linked to the purpose of human existence. They possessed inferior and limited thinking which could not go beyond the intellectual confines of society. That is why they focused on mundane matters. The driving force behind their intellectual pursuits was not to discover the truth, but the desire to attain status and glory. They worshiped the splendor of their own intelligence. Consider the cosmologist who investigates the origins of the universe but completely overlooks the fundamental question of human purpose. Even Einstein in his preoccupation with the theory of Relativity ignores the fundamental point of human purpose on Earth.
I have been unable to find an explanation for the total self-disregard shown by these individuals, irrespective of time and place, in dealing with the basic question of purpose. With regret, I have arrived at the conclusion that these big names of human thought appear to be entangled in the spider’s web of intellectual deception. They colluded with each other to deceive the entire human race. Perhaps, these self-deceived individuals insisted on limiting the intellectual capacity of mankind in order to prevent them from using their intellects in an objective manner. Had their followers used their intellect objectively the limited intelligence of these thinkers would have been exposed. Instead, this long line of shallow-minded, unintelligent ‘thinkers’ glorified fundamental human flaws by portraying them as the product of intellect and insight. They led their fellow humans to the point where they do not know who they are, or their true identity as human beings, living aimless, meaningless lives with no destination, and a non-existent future.
The analysis I have presented above has been motivated by the desire to understand the human condition in an impartial manner. By natural disposition I am not a skeptical or a confrontational person. Nor has it been my habit to be envious of the achievements of others. Every step of human progress awakens within me a shared feeling of human greatness. However, the question that has troubled me since my youth is not specific to me. It is impossible for anyone to live a purposeful life without finding an answer to this question: what is the point of an exam in which your answers are not related to the questions?
Next chapter will be: Is Personal Freedom Absolute?
yes you r right :)Quote:
Originally Posted by ftil
Is Personal Freedom Absolute? 1/4
This short life, beginning with birth and culminating in death can be divided into periods. We are all bound by the human life cycle. Those who regard themselves as different and unique are also governed by the phases of the same life cycle. From the temporal to the spiritual, everyone and everything falls within this spectrum. For instance, the pleasure of the flesh and the delights of the mind may seem totally apart but in essence are similar. Even positive and negative responses may seem different but in the final analysis both are the same.
The most widespread division of the stages of life is the Hindu Ashram system, which divides life into four phases. The first twenty-one years is called the Brahmacharya Ashram, the stage of youth. The second twenty one years, from twenty one to forty two is called the Grihastha Ashram or householder phase during which one focuses on family and work. The third phase of twenty one years, from ages forty two to sixty is the Vanaprastha or the hermitage phase where one gradually withdraws from others for contemplation. The fourth and final section from above sixty is the Sannyasa or renunciation phase in which one withdraws completely from the world and dedicates himself to the pursuit of spiritual truths.
This view of the stages of life has influenced almost every society in the world. The outcome of this is that we allocate the last period of our lives to focus on the fundamental and ultimate reality of existence, a stage of life which cannot be guaranteed that we will reach. How can someone who sets aside the final years of his life ( when his sensory faculties become weak and his mental faculties debilitated) to solve the ultimate priority of life claim he is intelligent? Is it not incumbent on the human race to find out how and in which capacity they should live their lives? Instead of focusing on this core question, contemporary thought has become self-absorbed. In this expansive universe we notice only ourselves. We claim that there is no firm evidence pointing to a power greater than Man, a force that could have brought this cosmos into being. We alone matter: everything else is irrelevant!
Our knowledge of the universe is extremely limited and rudimentary. Leaving aside the entire cosmos, we have not even mastered the understanding of phenomena which exist upon Earth and within its atmosphere. But this does not stop us from acting as though we are the inheritors of the universe. Without observing reality in an objective manner, the blind intellectuals of secularism refuse to accept the possibility of a reality lying beyond physical matter, or hints of life beyond the grave. This denial is based on the fact we cannot observe such a reality, therefore it does not exist. However, is it the case that thoughts, ideas and imaginations etc are all based on visible evidence? If it were so, the novelist would not be able to produce a new line of literature, nor could the poet create flights of fancy. The scientist studies the relationships between things. He is totally unaware of the reality of things. Clutching a few facts and figures, like Shylock, Man writes off all metaphysical facts as presumptions. Despite this, he is compelled to accept the noblest qualities of Man, his creative capacities and intellectual ideals, but declares that they have no basis in reality. Secular Man has developed an intellectual schizophrenic disorder that convinces him of his own greatness. He wants to be the final authority on deciding on matters of life and how it should be lived.
However, the credentials of the secular scientific community in fulfilling this role are open to question. There are many whose intellectual standard is below average. Their approach to a range of issues pertinent to life is dismissive, ignores the facts and is at times absurd. No scientist has to this day answered the fundamental question relating to human life: do we possess absolute freedom or are we subject to a higher authority? Consider for yourself, is this not an investigation of vital importance, with major implications for the human race. It is a question of human freedom or servitude. Do we control our entry and exit into life or are these governed by some force external to us?
To be continued... 1/4
I would like to ask you why you believe the quran is unchanged when manuscripts from olden times show a lack of vowelization (tashkeel.) which were added later.There are also variants in dialects still. Historically many of the companions viewed the quran as different from the current version,and Uthman in fact burnt many ofl the variant readings when he was khalifah. During muhammeds life and until Uthman the quran was not complete in a single accepted volume or standardised.
And on your final point,yes i do dislike Muhammed as having 9-11 wives,marrying your step sons ex wife and marrying a nine year old (not to mention the barbaric laws and bloodthirtsy wars.) are in my mind the behaviour of a sick man. If you want to hold 'thinkers' repsonsible for humanitites downfalls heres your man.
I would say these misunderstandings are due to only lack of knowledge of history and religion. There are many points u have mentioned but m sorry there is none of any new but the same old ones which were born by the propaganda to mislead or divert attention. m just holding the explanation due to contunuity of what i have started for You guys..Quote:
Originally Posted by Theunderground
2/4 Is Personal Freedom Absolute?
Assuming for a moment that we have absolute personal freedom, does this entitle us to impose our tastes and ethical outlook on others? If this were the case then life in general would be driven by the basic reptilian instinct of self-obsession, imposing their ideas on others regardless of any higher values. The strong would dominate the weak, resulting in a state of tyranny and perpetual strife. Should this assumption not be scrutinized? Are we really free to do whatever we like or are we answerable to some higher force who has blessed us with all of our faculties? It is the moral and intellectual duty of all human beings to answer this basic question in the early part of their life so that they are able to fulfill the responsibilities which come with being human.
The greatest obstacle in considering this question is the concept of God, as it will determine whether we are absolutely free or have obligations to someone greater than Man. If God exists then we are not free.
We have not shown much interest in finding out about the greatest adversary whose potential existence threatens our freedom, the force which claims to have created the Earth and the skies, a being which, from the genesis of time through to eternity, is upholding and overseeing the order of the Earth, its physical and natural resources, its population, the rise and fall of its inhabitants, and the consequences of war and disputes between them. This invisible intelligence has set up the systems we take for granted; the changing seasons, ethnic and family groupings, children and offspring. It regulates our livelihoods and commercial success, determines our health and sickness, our sadness and joy.
It declares that the devastating gale force winds, the gentle morning breeze, the dazzling dew drops caressing the cheeks of the tulip and rose, the dry and dying bright yellow leaves of autumn, the snow-capped peaks of distant mountains, the mighty clouds bursting with rain, the deep and mysterious oceans, the silent mountains, and the merciless cycle of life and death, all these are just a few glimmers of its influence and control over the universe. In the presence of such a force how can we ever be free? Are we not helpless in front of it? Our power, our arguments, our efforts, our hopes, our knowledge and intelligence, our science or any other human quality or achievement cannot interfere with its control over us.
Has any philosopher, scientist or self appointed spokesman for mankind ever made an attempt to answer the fundamental question at the heart of human self-awareness? Is there anyone who has dedicated their life to the pursuit of God and concluded their research with the declaration “Mankind you are totally free for I have objectively established that God does not exist”. In matters of religion, scientists were mean and frivolous. They were blinded by a very basic caricature of religion and everything associated with it. For instance, they failed to distinguish between the timeless truths of religion and the corrupt gatekeepers of faith who exploited the name of God for their own ends. They cast aside their high standards of objectivity and did not apply these to the realities claimed by religion. It is not uncommon for a scientist to dedicate his entire life researching a single phenomenon, spending twenty to fifty years in the pursuit of one equation. The pharmacologist Alexander Fleming occupied years of his life looking at dishes of bacteria which led to the discovery of Penicillin; and after years of mental and mathematical training Issac Newton was able to formulate the Law of Gravity. We find one scientist spending his entire life engrossed in the motion of heavenly bodies and another obsessed by the search for a fungus which will save lives.
However, when intellectuals and popularisers of science, such as Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) and Carl Sagan(1934-1996) turned to religion they displayed a strange, irrational and reactionary approach to the study of religion. In scientific matters they maintained their integrity and objective approach, but were conspicuously biased when it came to religion. If they were around today one could ask: if the study of a simple phenomenon of nature requires the dedication of a whole lifetime then is it right that the study of the All-knowing and All Wise intelligence and force behind the Cosmos should be left to casual comments, unsupported by research, and an intellectual approach more characteristic of children then sincere scientists? It is even more astonishing that when scientists approach the study of natural phenomena they are strictly opposed to undertaking research clouded by personal feelings, prejudice, hidden assumptions, and subjective reasoning. These things are so abhorrent that any scientist who allows personal biases to influence their research becomes the target of criticism and ridicule. Yet the speed and foolishness of their knee-jerk response to metaphysical realities is beyond belief.
To be continued ...2/4
Quote:
The greatest obstacle in considering this question is the concept of God, as it will determine whether we are absolutely free or have obligations to someone greater than Man. If God exists then we are not free.
How does freedom compare to God?
and
How does Absolute got anything to do with Freedom?
How does and can God determine anything if he/she is not on earth amongst us?
You are only determined through your own actions , words and beliefs.
what's more how can God determine the lives of those do not believe He exist?
Atheist separate themselves from God, so how can you vouch for their freedoms if it is as you say controlled but God?
All the points i mentioned are either from the quran or the accepted islamic hadith. Seems to me that any history not agreeing with your deification of the quran is rejected as 'propoganda'. The quran has really in its totality nothing to offer modern man,unless its intrepeted away. What is the meaning of chopping of the hands of thieves,polygamy,whipping those who have sex without marriage and declaring war on those of a different mindset? Are these laws one can apply nowadays?