Miracles, THE ULTIMATE CHALLENGE

[iBrian]

The problem with Faith is how it is interpreted from doctrine and scripture. For example, Jesus seems to be pretty darn implicit in the Gospels that those who follow with Jesus are not to harm others - even strike others - let alone kill other people. Yet this hasn't stopped self-professed Christians through history getting involved in this practice. I'm not sure what the modern-day self-justification of the IRA is, but I suspect it's something of the "mafia mentality" - that of itnentionally committing "sin" in the belief that you will be forgiven for it regardless.

It's also important not to underestimate the actual social value that organised religion has played in our past - Islam has the principles of welfare built into it's scriptures, and the Quran also highly recommends education and learning for Muslims - which is precisely why Islam made such a point of preserving ancient writings and developing the foundations of European science.

 

[Mohsin]

I would like to make a few comments about extremisum when attached with religion. They do it so that people would not question them, rather their beliefs, or as said, using their beliefs to cover up their acts. The Jews did it, the Christians did it, the Muslims did it and lets not forget the Hindus who did it as well. The point that one should realize is that the teachings of the religion, the Qur'an, the Bible, they do not support these kind of acts. I mean if you just look at the present time, things happening in Karachi. Where does Islam say that you should blow yourself up in a mosque killing the fellow Muslims?
Most of these people do it for political reasons and use religion for backing up. Also, I would like to say that religion is not the only thing used to support the acts of violance. People like Hittler used the evolution theory to support his racial terrorism, and also, racial discremination is observed at many places. When it goes to an extreame, there is again killing and suffering. The point is that people should have knowledge and education. The real truth should be brought forward.

 

[Mohsin]

I have noticed a question at several places that why are'nt we born believers and why are we full of flaws. I gave a few arguments to a friend and they were regarded as satisfying. May be they will help satisfy you people as well.

Firstly, we have a free will. Face it, we can do things with our will. We can eat when we wish to, we can do several things when we want to do them. Thus, we have got some control over ourself. If Allah(the Almighty God) would have made us flawless, we would not have been given this freedom of will. We would have been like angels who only do what Allah(the Almighty God) orders them to do. Also, it is because of the proper use of this will that we would be recieving the so many gifts and rewards that are promised to us in the paradise. I mean, would the paradise be for those people as well who choose not to believe. Thus Allah has created a method to sort out between believers and unbelievers.

Secondly, it is an Islamic belief that every baby who is born is sinless. The baby born is innocent. So, if it dies in its innocence, it is not going to get punished on the day of judgement. Hence, it is afterwords that people grow older and learn bad things that they enter in the life of disbelief.

Thirdly, it comes from Qur'an that for about one thousand years after the Prophet Adam and Eve(P.B.U.T) were sent to this world, all the people were believers. It was afterwords that the people started deviating. Thus, prophets were sent to the people to guide them to the right path. This process continued until Prophet Muhammad(P.B.U.H). And now, there will be the end, the judgement day. No more prophets to warn us and guide us.

I might not be good at explaining this, but I think these will help.

 

[samabudhi]

You know what I love about you Mohsin?
You really try. The lava is pouring down the mountain getting ever nearer, but you are firm. You stand your ground.
It shows conviction, and I appreciate that.
Also, you show such composure in the face of adversity. Someone could have an unstopable argument, but you do not flinch.

Kay. Enough handing out candy, now for the stuff that keeps this forum ticking.

I would like to make a few comments about extremisum when attached with religion. They do it so that people would not question them, rather their beliefs, or as said, using their beliefs to cover up their acts. The Jews did it, the Christians did it, the Muslims did it and lets not forget the Hindus who did it as well. The point that one should realize is that the teachings of the religion, the Qur'an, the Bible, they do not support these kind of acts. I mean if you just look at the present time, things happening in Karachi. Where does Islam say that you should blow yourself up in a mosque killing the fellow Muslims?
Most of these people do it for political reasons and use religion for backing up. Also, I would like to say that religion is not the only thing used to support the acts of violance. People like Hittler used the evolution theory to support his racial terrorism, and also, racial discremination is observed at many places. When it goes to an extreame, there is again killing and suffering. The point is that people should have knowledge and education. The real truth should be brought forward.

I feel you greatly overestimate people's abilities.
You think that simply handing someone a logical argument (not that I agree that your arguments are logical, but the point is that you think they are) is enough to convince them and for them to change their old habits and their mode of life in general. Surely experience has shown you that life is anything this simple. You would do well to investigate psychology, whether it is western or Buddhist, and understand how the brain works.

You see, we're made of two parts really. The subconscious and the conscious, which moreorless relate to the amygdala and the prefrontal cortex.
Now the prefrontal cortex works on logic, and is where we, our personality and consciousness reside. The amygdala is the theatre of our emotions and our subconsciousness. It doesn't work on logic. It works on feelings. You can't argue with it. You can affect it, certainly, but not through rational thought. Now in most people, the subconscious has more power than the conscious. When faced with the choice to do work, for the greater good of the future, or a naked gazelle eyed maiden with bulg..., most would turn to the maiden. This is natural. So all your arguments are futile if you don't address the deeper issues which are the cause of extremism, misinterpretation, malpractice, aversion and negative perception to Islam, heresy etc.

Accountants, mathematicians, physicists etc work with logic their whole lives. They are more prone to flying of the hook (going mad) than most.
Logic is not enough. We are not just consciousness, we are subconscious too. You know, the Theravada (one of the two main divisions in Buddhism) are very much like this as well. They're very austere and extremely pious. Unfortunately, their practice only acknowledges the conscious, rational part of the mind, not the humane, living part. Actually, they do acknowledge the subconscious mind, but that's all. Their practise does not include affecting it.

Being a Muslim, I imagine, is like living off millet and water for your entire life. It's good for you, but damn if you don't feel like shlerping up a big ol' milkshake now and again. Do you remember The Matrix (1), when Cypher just couldn't take it anymore. What he was involved in made sense, it was good and just, but he couldn't take what he had to go through to achieve it. His primitive mind got the better of him and he turned, to the detriment of others. His directives, his purpose and all the explanations were probably perfect. It was neglecting that he is a human being with all the same needs and fallibilities as everyone else that pushed him over the edge.

I see the same thing happening with Islam.

 

[samabudhi]

Firstly, we have a free will. Face it, we can do things with our will. We can eat when we wish to, we can do several things when we want to do them. Thus, we have got some control over ourself.

That's one well laid out argument you have there.
We wouldn't eat if our stomach wasn't complaining. We have a choice, yes, eat or die. Not much of a choice if you ask me.

There is no such thing as free will.

 

[suanni]

If we were born flawless what would be the point of our journey in life?

We were born with flaws for a reason, to grow, to address our flaws.

There is only one flawless and that is the Creator by whatever name your religion calls the Creator.

Education is necessary for mankind, without it we would still be living in caves.

 

[samabudhi]

Education is necessary for mankind, without it we would still be living in caves.

What are you saying?

 

[bananabrain]

There is no such thing as free will.

whoa! back up there, sparky. there are two things going on here. one is mohsin's "i can prove all this is correct" - which you are never going to accept. however, if you are going to make statements like this i think we are entitled to know on what basis - other than what essentially amounts to faith - you are prepared to back them up.

If we were born flawless what would be the point of our journey in life? We were born with flaws for a reason, to grow, to address our flaws.

i think you have to consider the relationship between "flaws" and the ability to change ourselves. for a start, to eat is an instinct, so it's not actually a terribly good example of free will - we are born with certain instincts (to suck, for example) without which we have nothing to build on. infant development is not much of a basis on which to argue over freewill or its alternative. i think the argument probably needs to take place on the "gun to your head" argument. someone puts a gun to your head and says "i'm going to shoot [insert name of loved-one] dead - or i can shoot you. i don't care. choose." you do not have the option to fight - you're tied up or whatever. now, you can argue that you're coerced and that you have no free-will, but actually you do. you can always refuse. of course, you get shot, but you are nonetheless exercising free-will. the point is, unless your entire brain function (and arguably this would have to include all subconscious brain activity) is directly controlled by an external power, you *still have free will*. this is NOT the same as saying you have freedom of ACTION. freedom of action is inevitably constrained by the freedom of action of others and therefore this is determined by trade-offs between these constraints.

the point is that either way, you cannot disprove the influence of a Divine agency on your will. by the very nature of this influence, it is both explicit, in that you know what "The Rules" say and you act upon this - and tacit, in that if the Divine acts in a hidden fashion, there is no way you can get it to show up on the radar you have available in the absence of heavenly voices, miracles, smiting, plagues and so on. even so, all of those can nonetheless be explained away by other means. nonetheless, even the knowledge of what you consider to be the Divine Will does not actually *force* you to comply with it by your knowledge of it alone - you must exercise your own will to act in compliance. therefore, it is possible to rebel against this Authority - and this is the basis of free-will AND sin. without free-will, it cannot be said that sin (as a non-compliance with Divine Command) exists without recourse to theologicial devices such as "original sin" and salvation (which are not jewish). and, furthermore, if free-will exists, it cannot be negated without negating the possibility of "repentance" (by which i mean the exercise of your free-will to decide that you will change in order to comply with the Divine Will), which is why this is called "teshuvah", or "turning around" in judaism. without the possibility to act in this way, how can it be argued that one has the option to fulfil the Divine Will? thus it was that the sages argued that although G!D Hardened pharaoh's heart, pharaoh could nonetheless have exercised his free-will to save his country and himself from tragedy. as it was, he did not; but it was his choice to act or not to act in accordance with the Divine Will.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[samabudhi]

whoa! back up there, sparky. there are two things going on here. one is mohsin's "i can prove all this is correct" - which you are never going to accept. however, if you are going to make statements like this i think we are entitled to know on what basis - other than what essentially amounts to faith - you are prepared to back them up.

Yeah. Noone likes the idea of fate.
Another thread perhaps?

 

[bananabrain]

go ahead! put it in "belief and spirituality" and quote my post above...

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Avinash]

Andrew,

I agree with most of your posting...but "messengers" and "mystics", IMHO, are the same. If a mystic gains spiritual insight, he has a message to deliver. If a messenger's text can not be questioned then that so-called messenger has misinterpreted his own message.

Namaste,
Kurt

Namaskar Kurt,

All carrots are red, but not all red things are carrots. The "special messengers" I refer to are those that are especially made up in certain religions to create the dogma that everything in the text is coming "directly from God". Religious writings do contain some scriptures that were given by mystics and you may call such mystics "messengers" if you like, but I was referring to the fantasized messengers in certain religions.

Andrew

 

[suanni]

What are you saying?

Education is necessary for the furtherment of mankind. I'm not just talking the education given by the various factions of religion, general education.
If we didn't educate the next generation with what we have learned, the discoveries we made when we lived in caves, we would still be living in caves, minus the wheel etc.

The various religious sectors have sought to educate the people. Okay, their main purpose was to educate so that there were priests and the faithful could read the scriptures but in some countries/ cultures man would not be able to read and write if it had not been for the religious instructions they received.
Schools for all in some nations were not introduced until the 19th Century and it was the religious bodies that taught them the rudiments of literacy.

 

[suanni]

I hear what you're saying bananabrain, we do have the will to change ourselves and often when we look at ourselves and with the will of G!D we see the flaws within and in doing so we can change ourselves for the better.

 

[samabudhi]

OK. Just making sure you have nothing against caves or people who live in them.

 

[kkawohl]

Namaskar Kurt,

All carrots are red, but not all red things are carrots. The "special messengers" I refer to are those that are especially made up in certain religions to create the dogma that everything in the text is coming "directly from God". Religious writings do contain some scriptures that were given by mystics and you may call such mystics "messengers" if you like, but I was referring to the fantasized messengers in certain religions.

Andrew

Namaskar Andrew,

"Hear the best with your ears
and ponder with a bright mind.
Then each man and woman, for his or her self,
select either of the two, the better or the bad mentality.
Awaken to this doctrine of ours
before the great event of choice ushers in".
(Zarathushtra's Gathas: Song 3.2)

A mystic or a messenger gains spiritual insight through spiritual revelation. This insight can be considered from a spirit or from God, whichever one wishes to believe. Often religions are created after the message is relayed. These messages are expanded upon throughout the years. The end results are that people will devote time for spiritual reflection. The goal of the messenger or mystic has been achieved.

When is a mystic like a messenger? How are they like carrots? A carrot is the edible orange root, a plant in the parsley family; yet deceivingly they are sometimes also white-, yellow-, and purple-fleshed.

Namaste,
Kurt

 

[kkawohl]

If we were born flawless what would be the point of our journey in life?

We were born with flaws for a reason, to grow, to address our flaws.

There is only one flawless and that is the Creator by whatever name your religion calls the Creator.

Education is necessary for mankind, without it we would still be living in caves.

Here we are given many examples of the structure of God. Our life on earth is to prepare us for the beauty and rapture of the hereafter. We are here to accumulate experiences of feelings and the beauty of every organism that surrounds us; also the misery, pain and death of the body that demonstrates to us the futility of our physical lives. Our spirit can often control the well-being of our body. With inspiration and blessings from the Spirit of God, our spirit very much like the wind, can carry us through our life's journey and experience the beauty of God's creative powers or we can choose to reject the interaction and muddle through life with no purpose, feeling empty, worthless and lonely. We can resonate despondency and gloom or bloom like the wildflower, bringing joy to many who have contact with us and live our lives with joy and the knowledge that we have a reason for living.

The universe is the encompassment of ALL (matter, energy, space, time) that exists in a physical, material, tangible or intangible, natural or unnatural state in this dimension, Our soul contains the records of our spiritual life within the subconscious and it is composed of consciousness, awareness, thoughts, and emotions. Upon physical death the righteous soul/spirit unites with the Ultimate Supreme Spirit (often called God). Man in the physical sense is often way too vicious to be part of God. Righteous living is a part of the cleansing process of the mind that feeds the spirit that a physical person must go through in order for his soul to be a part of God. Physically we are all atoms, spiritually we are all energy.

Today, over 100 planets are known outside our solar system. There are billions of stars with numerous solar systems. Our knowledge of the universe is in its infancy. Within the last 200 years air travel, the automobile, telephone, radio, television, computer, electricity, etc., came into existence. In recent years, we have learned that 95% of the Universe is made of a type of matter or energy that we cannot see nor understand. The earth, moon, sun, and everything that we can see make up less than one percent of the entire universe. Gravity may ripple across the universe in waves, and certain cosmic rays, atomic particles moving at near light speed, possess an energy far greater than that which can be explained by modern physics.

The spiritual realm is the ultimate destiny where order, reason, logic, rationality and common sense prevails. It is illogical to leave the spiritual existence in order to be in the physical world amongst chaos. The so-called heavens are in the spiritual plane where distance and resistance are no obstacles. A spirit can instantly transpose itself to any other location. Physical beings will never be able to interact with the spiritual although our spirit has the capability to connect with the spiritual realm if all our physical senses are totally subdued.

Namaste,
Kurt

 

[bananabrain]

The "special messengers" I refer to are those that are especially made up in certain religions to create the dogma that everything in the text is coming "directly from God". Religious writings do contain some scriptures that were given by mystics and you may call such mystics "messengers" if you like, but I was referring to the fantasized messengers in certain religions.

avinash - do you then demand that all religion submit to the judgement of scientific validation to check that our messengers aren't "fantasised"? because, i can tell you, such a validation is by definition impossible - which is perhaps why some people insist that religion justify itself in these terms. it's the old modernist argument - and people's spiritual lives are the poorer for falling for it. resorting to a metaphor, could you justify art or music scientifically? these all have "rules" of sorts, "texts" and "messengers" - yet we do not know the name of the "artist" who built, say, the reclining buddha or the statues at abu simbel, or who wrote all those "traditional" folk songs.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Mohsin]

Regards to all, especially samabudhi


Sorry for interruption but I really needed to reply to samabudhi.

You think that simply handing someone a logical argument (not that I agree that your arguments are logical, but the point is that you think they are) is enough to convince them and for them to change their old habits and their mode of life in general. Surely experience has shown you that life is anything this simple. You would do well to investigate psychology, whether it is western or Buddhist, and understand how the brain works.

I make logical statements for a few reasons. Firstly, they can be understood quickly as they are somethings that you can easily argee or disagree, no need to go deeply. Secondly, I like to do it, and thirdly, I can do it.
I have come across some people who are afraid of questioning. They have some doubts, but they say that by bringing them forward, it is assumed as if they are offending their religion. That is not the case with Islam. I heard a talk, the topic was "Increasing the faith in difficult times." The scholor said, if you have doubts or questions, bring them forward. DON'T BE SHY TO ASK WHY. I did that, and for several, if not all, I can give some logic. Accepting, not accepting, your problem.
Continuing on that, I would like to tell you about a Muslim lad(Abdullah) who was earlier a Hindu. His interview was brought forward in a publicly given lecture. He made a comment earlier that he would die but not accept Islam(this was when media was all the time going against Islam). But now, he regrets that. He said that he had some major doubts and questions about his religion, but every time when they were brought forward, there was no answer. He started reading the Bible. He loved it, it made a lot of sence, but then again, he had some questions for which there was no logical answer/statements. Once he came across an artical about the harmony between Islam and science, he became very interested in it and started learning about Islam, and now, he is a great Muslim.
The point is, Islam can support logical arguments even where others cannot. Thus, I can use logic for most of my statements and it works for many people.

Being a Muslim, I imagine, is like living off millet and water for your entire life. It's good for you, but damn if you don't feel like shlerping up a big ol' milkshake now and again. Do you remember The Matrix (1), when Cypher just couldn't take it anymore. What he was involved in made sense, it was good and just, but he couldn't take what he had to go through to achieve it. His primitive mind got the better of him and he turned, to the detriment of others. His directives, his purpose and all the explanations were probably perfect. It was neglecting that he is a human being with all the same needs and fallibilities as everyone else that pushed him over the edge.

I see the same thing happening with Islam.

A simple argument to satisfy your question, Islam's belief in the Afterlife. I can have my milkshakes in the afterlife, in the paradise, if my acts/deeds are good enough, but this is what we are here for, to make our deeds/acts worthy enough to recieve salvation. For people like Cypher, life of this world is everything and the onlything. Also, I have noticed that for some people, Islam has got no or less room for recreation, this is totally wrong. Yes we are not allowed many things, but they are in greater or lesser quantity harmful for us.

 

[samabudhi]

I make logical statements for a few reasons.

Nothing wrong with logical statements. It's just that they are not everything, unless your logic is flawless (which means no resorting to faith when confused.)

I have come across some people who are afraid of questioning. They have some doubts, but they say that by bringing them forward, it is assumed as if they are offending their religion. That is not the case with Islam.

I don't know if you've heard of Ali G, the English comedian? Not the most politically correct example, but anyway, he chose his acting name, 'Ali', because he knew that people would be more werey of him with a Muslim name and be so caught up in making sure they didn't offend him that they would totally miss out that they were being taken for a ride.
Just a thought.

Continuing on that, I would like to tell you about a Muslim lad(Abdullah) who was earlier a Hindu.

These sort of stories never hold much ground with me. Firstly, I don't know him from Adam, so his particulars could be anything from 'Used to smoke buckwheat' to 'Is a claustrophobic who was brought up in an igloo.' (I know nothing about him in other words.)
Hindu's aren't exactly the most pious group and they certainly don't have a very clear cut scripture. (Clearly I'm generalising.)
Show me a Buddhist with credentials (very important) and then I'd like to see what happened. In fact, credentials are so important to some Buddhists, that they preserve lineages and only teach to those who prove their piety first. This way, the teachings survive with proper understanding etc etc.

A simple argument to satisfy your question, Islam's belief in the Afterlife. I can have my milkshakes in the afterlife, in the paradise, if my acts/deeds are good enough, but this is what we are here for, to make our deeds/acts worthy enough to recieve salvation.

I sigh whenever I see this argument. It just sounds so much like the fairy tales I was brought up on. In a child's world, this is how things work. You do good, you get reward. For the adults who try to create that rational world for children, life is unfair.
Just think about it. One person, one book and 1400 years. This is what you place your entire life on. I'm sure you always get a kick out of the idea that it's so 'honourable' and 'loyal', but my personal feeling is that those emotions are an illusion. A trap for the ego. You can be loyal to Sadam Hussein. What does it mean? It means you're doing good without having to take responsibility. Sweet deal bru. History speaks for itself.

 

[Mohsin]

Nothing wrong with logical statements. It's just that they are not everything, unless your logic is flawless (which means no resorting to faith when confused.)

True, but at many cases, I can point at faith using logic, especially when a point is regarding to things associated to it.

These sort of stories never hold much ground with me. Firstly, I don't know him from Adam, so his particulars could be anything from 'Used to smoke buckwheat' to 'Is a claustrophobic who was brought up in an igloo.' (I know nothing about him in other words.)

Well, this story was fresh in my mind, and I thought that it was relevent so I mentioned it. You can check it up if you like from this link. http://www.lightuponlight.com/islam/modules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=viewdownload&cid=61

I sigh whenever I see this argument. It just sounds so much like the fairy tales I was brought up on. In a child's world, this is how things work. You do good, you get reward. For the adults who try to create that rational world for children, life is unfair.

Afterlife, a belief that comes with Islam. There are many advantages of it, I mentioned some. Again, I can point with logic to hold this belief strong in me. For one thing, I am not an evolutionest. I believe that Adam(P.B.U.H) was the first man on the earth who was sent down to the earth along with Eve(P.B.U.H). They were sent down from heaven/paradise. The Qur'an and the Bible also tells their story. But lets not argue about it over here. One more benefit which comes with the belief of afterlife, a person, no matter how powerful will think twice before doing something wrong. He might think of getting away with it here, but he will be questioned at the day of Judgement. This thought can keep him from doing wrong.

Just think about it. One person, one book and 1400 years. This is what you place your entire life on. I'm sure you always get a kick out of the idea that it's so 'honourable' and 'loyal', but my personal feeling is that those emotions are an illusion. A trap for the ego. You can be loyal to Sadam Hussein. What does it mean? It means you're doing good without having to take responsibility. Sweet deal bru. History speaks for itself.

Lets rethink what you want me to think. According to me, one person, one book still practical today, several of Hadiths, clear signs from Allah(the Almighty God), and well, Allah(the Almighty God) Himself, always there. For you, it might be an illusion, but for me, something important.
About History speaking for itslef, I want to ask you, why always point at the wrong guys? Saddam did not follow the teachings of Islam, several many points that I can mention. He was not a good Muslim, so why mentioning him? Why not mention those Muslims who were great? Prophet Muhammad(P.B.U.H), the Caliphs, Caliph Umer(R.A) who when in a public gathering mentioned something, and a common woman stated somthing against it. Umer(R.A) decliared that she was right and he was wrong. Salauddin Ayubi, who took back Jerusalem. He showed the best example of tolerance in history. He also sent his personel physicians to help Henry the lion heart when he was there. Also, at that time when the Crusaders were eager on killing Muslims, Salauddin Ayubi used to sent his troops to escort the non-Muslims to several places because they were afraid that the Crusaders might not kill them aswell. Tariq Bin Zayyad, who litteraly burned his boats when he went to take over Spain and he did took it over. History speaks for itself man. But we have been given permission to follow Islam and if our leaders go against it or make us go against it, we can object.