Society Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

[DLord.Van.Buuren]

have you got a favorite verse in the quran? if yes, which one is it?

Well, generally if you ask any muslim he'd say no, because the quran is the word of god, so we don't favor a verse over another, its all perfect, because it came from a perfect being.

Why we think its perfect, because people no matter how hard they tried to come up with something like it they couldn't. that shows why it is a miracle, and that it survived distortion for 1400 years.

 

[shaheer]

you can of course continue, but let me just ask this into the round and especially our muslim members: have you got a favorite verse in the quran? if yes, which one is it?

well this is a tough question for me, I love all verses but if i have to say it would be the first chapter I memorized its chapter no. 112

and i was wondering stuffs about Christianity, what s your fav Biblical verse? and Y do you folks think Jesus (pbuh) is divine?

 

[Akainu]

Well, generally if you ask any muslim he'd say no, because the quran is the word of god, so we don't favor a verse over another, its all perfect, because it came from a perfect being.

Why we think its perfect, because people no matter how hard they tried to come up with something like it they couldn't. that shows why it is a miracle, and that it survived distortion for 1400 years.

so aside from all the people interpreting the words, the text survived just like it was written down so long ago and despite humans copying texts make errors?

well this is a tough question for me, I love all verses but if i have to say it would be the first chapter I memorized its chapter no. 112

and i was wondering stuffs about Christianity, what s your fav Biblical verse? and Y do you folks think Jesus (pbuh) is divine?

Jesus being divine or not is actually a major point of discussion or rather was in the beginning. I'm not that much into it that I could tell you though, but as son of god, he has to be godly doesn't he? and if it isn't for that, there are also lots of "wonders" so, yh... for religious people it's probably easier to argue for that than for someone who thinks he was human ^^'

as for biblical verses ... the revelation which is situated at the end it is probably for me. that's the part with apocalypse and stuff. not like the rest isn't good, especially stories like Job and such, and as I mentioned, the part we historians can draw conclusions from (like garden eden being searched pretty much where the persian/arabic gulf are now)

 

[shaheer]

so aside from all the people interpreting the words, the text survived just like it was written down so long ago and despite humans copying texts make errors?

hmm i suppose you are a bit new in the islamic approach and how things were done, Noble Quran wasnt maintained in text during the first 19 yrs of islam after the prophet(saas) died(well there were some scribes and some text but not as a whole) Muslims are asked to memorize the whole Quran so that its impossible to change.
and that was done from the beginning of islamic era, Noble Quran was memorized from the baa of Bismillah(first word in the Quran) to the thin of naass(last word in the Quran) and the duty wasnt given to some selected few rather every Shaba (companions) did it. So it was impossible to change the content. you can tamper the books but you cant tamper the memorized texts. in order to maintain the text by heart regular programmes of recitation by heart was carried out(that still happens today)
By the 19/20 th yr when Islam spread from beyond the arab nation the ppl s who didnt understand Arabic started to add vowels and other words in the texts that they can pronounce well; for example there is an alphabet 'KHA' in arabic that should come from within those werent in the other language. So to facilitate the readings ppl started to add and subtract vowels, the Caliph at that time became worried because if this continues then it will be a matter of time when the distant folks might be carrying different Quran because of too much tamperings. So He ordered ALL of the scribes who were present from the era of the Prophet to make it into books. 7 such books(with correct vowels) were made and distributed all over and of those 7books 3 remains till today 1 is in turkey other in Egypt(forgot the position of the last one ) and those tampered texts were ordered to be burned because those may create further problems like after long time if some one exhume it then they will start to think that its a lost chapter of the Quran and what not.
So Quran was and is still maintained by memorizing the whole BOOK
further more there is the Quranic Jurisprudence called the Sharia that is maintained in every era, then there is Quranic Banking system that too is maintained in Islamic banking . So Quran had fluid stuffs which was flowing from it like the law and economics so its known to the ppl what the Quran says about this and that. There fore its almost impossible to change the Quran.
some efforts were made like a group started a straw-man Quran called the True Furqan, but that was spotted by the ones who memorized it and proved to be unreliable.
Every copy of the Quran is under gone a check from the ones who memorized it.
and further more the arabic in which the Quran was revealed is still a living language and more than 40 nation has in as their language(its easy to change the stuffs in dead language but not in live because every one knows what the script says without translation..well not every one but the arabic speaking ones knows).
and every copy of the Quran has the Arabic text along with the translation so even if the translation has some mischief one can go to a hafiz(one who memorizes it) and check the arabic text. and we dont consider the translation as the Quran ONLY the Arabic text is considered the Quran.
All of the arabic text allover the world has and had (refffering to the 3 maintained Quran in the museum) 6346 verses and 114 chapters

I'm not that much into it that I could tell you though, but as son of god, he has to be godly doesn't he?

i thought Biblically all peacemakers are the son of god

 

[DLord.Van.Buuren]

so aside from all the people interpreting the words, the text survived just like it was written down so long ago and despite humans copying texts make errors?

Above all the quran is not the word of Muhammud(PBUH), because he was unlettered meaning he doesn't know how to read or write, and there is no way he could write something like that, which means its obviously the word of god(not trinity). God himself said in he well protect it

Spoiler

[15:9] Absolutely, we have revealed the reminder, and, absolutely, we will preserve it.

[56:77-80] This is an honorable Quran. In a protected book. None can grasp it except the sincere. A revelation from the Lord of the universe.

[85:21-22] Indeed, it is a glorious Quran. In a preserved master tablet.

I want you to notice that in the quran you won't find who said the verse, like matthew, or luke, or john, like the bible and in this case mohammed, and we know that muhammud wasn't a god but a prophet and the prophet is still human with feelings and a personality, in the quran none of that exists, I mean muhammud went through a lot in his preaching, and none of that is mentioned in the quran, meaning it doesn't have his personality.

If you read anybook you'll find that it has the personality of the author.

Our surah starts with ''in the name of alllah most gracious most merciful''
and thats it.

There is a scripture which structures how the words should be pronounced and how they should be written, and it was back from the day of the calipha Othman.(RA)

Another thing why the quran survived is because the quran was taught to be taken by heart, and there are people who specialize in memorizing it, and there is even a rule of how it should be memorized.

There is also, how it should be read, there are rules for that and we call that tajwid and the science of reading.

As for the interpretation which we call it ''tafssir'', the quran is still a mystery even if you could find an interpretation for it, for what we know there is an obvious meaning, but there could be a hidden meaning, and doesn't contradict the obvious one.

 

[Roflkopt3r]

Explain to me why intelligent design is not considered science ? I mean its a theory that says the universe had a designer.

Intelligent design... it already starts with the basic idea how they reason their "theory":
"When seeing the complexity of nature, it must be obvious that a directing hand has to be behind it".
That's flawed logics. Very complex things come from random events, while even simplest thing can appear "unnatural".
Here's a fun little comic about it
http://www.stonemakerargument.com/1.html

Well, let's break it down to the logics, which it addresses as well by the way, so I just take their example:
Intelligent design thinking:
1. A camera is complex, thus it is designed.
2. The human eye is complex, thus it is designed.
Flawed logics - following the same principle:
1. A cupcake is colorful, thus it is delicious.
2. A bird of paradise is colorful, thus it too is delicious.

"complex" and "designed" just are not logically related to each other, so the very basic of "intelligent design" already is a weird one.

A little extract of Gunkl's comedy program - yes, this might be considered offensive, but it's art in the end

Spoiler

For centuries, the church said "It is like it was in the bible!". Then other things were said and proven, but the church still did not confess their mistake, but instead changed their old misconception -which for centuries they defended with death sentence- by shrouding it into pseudo science.
"The complexity of nature is unthinkable without a creator."
Well, that's because it requires a little thinking about it...

Given the large size of a human body and the even bigger space on it, it's very unlikely, that our teeth grow in our mouths of all things, and not, for example, on our knees. And given the number of humans, it's even way less likely, that I got my own teeth in my mouth, and not, for example, those of a chinaman.
And that the mouth is especially located at the upper end of the gullet, wow, God really designed that nicely that I don't need an artificial anus for digestion! How surprising that generations of living beeings could digest, and that the races have only features, which ensure their continued existence!

(...)

We cannot that, what we know, embedd, into what we only believe. It doesn't work. When science builds a building which explains the world without a God, then you cannot just take that building to the catacombs under the sacristy and say: "Oh, here we are again, you're totally right and we cannot prove you wrong, BUT we had a much better idea: We just don't care, because whatever you may find out, is only that way, because God made it like that!"
That does not work, those are two different systems which contradict each other, they cannot be combined.
Church on the other hand can perfectly handle interior contradictions. That God sent Noah's flood for example is, as the bible says, because he regreted to have created mankind.
So, either he is the -as the same Bible claimed- omniscient God, so he already knew what would happen when he made men. Or, he made a mistake and is not omniscient, and then he is no God.

So, Intelligent design was created because we, for a long time, could not explain how the world around us was created. "That's too high for us, our mind is not enough to understand it".

When I however, accept that my recognitional and analysis armamentarium has deficits, I cannot with that deficient mind make ultimate claims about the absolute!

I might be restricted in my thinking, but I AM certain, that behind that border of my vision, the ULTIMATE (God) lies?
Whatever exists behind that border of thinking, it might be anything, but whatever it is, I cannot know, because I just accused myself of beeing too stupid to know!

 

[kkck]

^I agree with what you say but there is a bit more to the whole thing. The main issue with adding an intelligent creator to science is that by definition science would reject such a thing. The scientific method used to in science revolves around making observations, developing a model or theory and then making testable predictions that either support or reject that theory or model. If a model is supported by predictions then the model is kept and if a model is not supported then it is discarded as a whole and a better one is developed (for example Newton's gravitational model was replaced by Einstein's). The main issue is that an intelligent designer is not something you can test on and due to that is not falsifiable. There is no mathematical, physical or chemical evidence that god exists and so far there has yet to be a single properly developed scientific theory or fact that actually needs a "god" variable for it to make sense. Basically, since god is not falsifiable as a whole (you can't really proof or reject metaphysical things with science) then the concept of god is inherently outside the scope of what science does. You can say an intelligent designer exists but under strictly scientific terms you can never really make the concept a scientific fact.

 

[DLord.Van.Buuren]

how about this theory http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/atlas_creation/atlas_creation_26.php

 

[Roflkopt3r]

how about this theory http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/atlas_creation/atlas_creation_26.php

What kind of weird stuff is that supposed to be?

A quotation from it:

The brain is a heap of cells made up of protein and fat molecules. It is formed of nerve cells called neurons. There is no power in this piece of meat to observe the images, to constitute consciousness, or to create the being we call "myself". The existence of the soul can clearly be seen from this.

What the hell, do they even mean this stuff serious or are they just trolling?
I bet next they'll try to tell us that computers don't exist, because it only consists of metal and wires and such a thing could never do complex tasks.

 

[DLord.Van.Buuren]

What the hell, do they even mean this stuff serious or are they just trolling?
I bet next they'll try to tell us that computers don't exist, because it only consists of metal and wires and such a thing could never do complex tasks.

Yeah, the brain can't see because its us who sees, you can not convince me that a black room can actually see, when it's totally black in there, do you know what black is ? it means no see

 

[kkck]

Of course the brain does not see, the eyes do that for it.... I don't think I get your point at all lol.

 

[DLord.Van.Buuren]

Of course the brain does not see, the eyes do that for it.... I don't think I get your point at all lol.

No you're wrong we don't see with our eyes .

 

[kkck]

Then what exactly do we see with?

 

[DLord.Van.Buuren]

light enters the eye, goes to the brain where its being processed and turned into and image, who sees that image ?

 

[M3J]

... you make no sense. Without our eyes, we can see nothing. Why don't you gouge out one of your eye or both and see if you can still see without it. We see with our eyes, our brain interprets what we see.

I seriously dislike sites where religious people/organizations try to disprove evolution and/or etc because they're obviously biased and they almost tend to be wrong just to make theories like evolution look bad.

Please stop using religious sites to disprove science as they tend to be pretty biased, closeminded, and wrong on purpose, if not due to lack of knowledge.

 

[DLord.Van.Buuren]

... you make no sense. Without our eyes, we can see nothing. Why don't you gouge out one of your eye or both and see if you can still see without it. We see with our eyes, our brain interprets what we see.

Scientifically speaking, the eye only recieves rays of light coming from a matter, so if its totall black out meaning there is no light while our eyes are totally fine will you then be able to see ? the image that you see is formed in your head not your eyes because they are only a mean.

I also dislike websites that say evolution is totally right and is a fact while they are also biased towards religion and anything else that could prove them wrong.

 

[M3J]

Well, most websites talking about evolution that I've seen have never really mentioned religion or tried propaganda against religion. Yet, religion does that with evolution.

Are you just attempting to come up with a comeback or have you really been on such websites? Unlike with most religious articles discussing evolution, websites discussing evolutions didn't talk about religion just to prove it wrong or something. In fact, in most things I've read, the only time creationism was mentioned was when they told us that people believed in different ways of how things are as they are now: creationism, evolution, etcetc. Even Scientology.

 

[Tsukisama]

The human sensory act of sight involves the brain processing incoming data received through the nervous system stimulated by incoming light received via the eye. While multiple organs are involved in sight, the English verb "to see" generally only references the actions carried out by the eye: taking in light to be processed as visual information.

All of this is wholly beside the point of this thread. So, please stop discussing the mechanics of sight and the semantics of the word "see."

More on-topic, religion is not about proof; it is about belief. Religion cannot disprove science, as that is not its role. Religion is not based in fact. You put your faith into it without confirmation. Science, on the other hand, takes empirical data obtained through perception and seeks to provide explanations of observed phenomena through logical, methodical, and testable means. The two do not fundamentally oppose one another unless you misunderstand what each really is.

 

[saladesu]

Well, most websites talking about evolution that I've seen have never really mentioned religion or tried propaganda against religion. Yet, religion does that with evolution.

That's true. But not always. I have seen a fair number of websites promoting the evolution theory that also try to dismiss religion while they are at it. At the same time, I have seen more than one website (I think 1 was by a pastor who was also a scientist or something like that) that suggest that religion and evolution can "coexist". Ie that an all-powerful God created the Earth and its creatures, but that evolution did take place as well thereafter for those creatures to adapt to the changing face of the Earth.

As a science student and a religious person as well, I subscribe to this theory. In fact, I would say I even see it as that all-powerful God installing an "auto-update" kind of function in his creation, to ensure that they are constantly being improved and up-to-date and best able to survive on the Earth.

Science, on the other hand, takes empirical data obtained through perception and seeks to provide explanations of observed phenomena through logical, methodical, and testable means.

And even so, Science has proven wrong many times. Science may attempt to answer various questions, and has indeed appeared to provide reasons for many phenomena, but ultimately, science is not definite, and neither is it ultimate. Science told my family that my "autistic" brother could never become normal, and for many years, we believed that. Yet, many years later, it was also science that told us that there was hope for him to function normally again, and in fact that the initial diagnosis was wrong (he has autism-like symptoms that are exactly the same as autism, but his is actually caused by an inflammation of the brain by an Epstein Barr viral infection of his brain).

 

[M3J]

I agree with you, science is not definite and never will be. However, it is always changing and evolving, adapting to the time and technology. What may not have been possible a century ago is more than possible now, even students are doing it! However, can religion claim to be the same, always changing with the time? At the end of it, it's all faith and hoping faith will solve things, no?


I never understood why creationism and evolution couldn't be used together. Almost everyone leans to one side or the other, but very few actually come in the middle. Though I don't believe in anything god-like, it's still possible. Science and religion can coexist and it kinda has, no?