FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-04-2003, 08:38 PM   #41
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 5,393
Thumbs down

Quote:
Originally asserted by River
[The Qur'an] may or not promote scientific phenomena...but it certainly doesnt contradict it......(which also explains issues like.... why the average muslim doesnt really care if Evolution is true or false)
The original assertion has now been so gutted by pleas for literary interpretation and equivocations of terminology to the point that if the same license to employ vagaries was granted other written works, one could easily defend any Marvel comic book as an accurate scientific text and any issue of People magazine as a rewritten Shakespearean play.

The defense of the Qur'an on this thread amounts to nothing more than claiming that there are so many ways to interpret the authors' intents that one of them must be pretty close to right.
Dr Rick is offline  
Old 08-05-2003, 03:50 AM   #42
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Required
Posts: 2,349
Default

For one thing, the verses up say that there are seven *different* heavens.

Looking from the outside, God would be able to look into all of the heavens, as all seven are in God's House or domain, and so it is one divided into seven, connected by teh eye of God, God is everywhere or something right?





DD - Love & Laughter
Darth Dane is offline  
Old 08-05-2003, 04:23 AM   #43
TheDiddleyMan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Huh?

Quote:
Originally posted by Darth Dane
For one thing, the verses up say that there are seven *different* heavens.

Looking from the outside, God would be able to look into all of the heavens, as all seven are in God's House or domain, and so it is one divided into seven, connected by teh eye of God, God is everywhere or something right?





DD - Love & Laughter

I fail to see what you are saying and what it has to do with anything....

If it is one heaven to God then why is calling it seven? and either way, if what you are saying is true, it still defeats River's point..

Kevin
 
Old 08-05-2003, 06:40 AM   #44
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: NY
Posts: 3,680
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by echidna

To an outsider the answer seems clear, that when someone has made the premise that the Quran is the Word of G_d, then of course, the interpretation which fits the facts, must be the True one. When you assert that some criticism here is logically flawed, surely you can see how logically flawed your line of reasoning is.

I understand where everygone is coming from. This is due to the popular misconception that the Qur'an can only be extracted Literally. This is not true. Yes the Qur'an is the Literal Word of G-d. But this LITERAL Word of G-d has both LITERAL and allegorical passages and meaning ( as indicated from within the Scripture).
River is offline  
Old 08-05-2003, 06:43 AM   #45
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: On a sailing ship to nowhere, leaving any place
Posts: 2,254
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Magus55
And by what basis do you determine that your observations and experimentations are both valid and accurate? Answers based on observation after all, are only educated guesses, and in no way necessarily tell the truth that you claim to be using observation to find.
Answers based on observation and experimentation are the best tools humanity has in regards to understanding and interacting with our environment. Anything else, including religion, is merely guessing. I readily admit that my knowledge of anything is limited and potentially inaccurate. You, on the other hand, cannot afford to do the same as such an admission would blow your dogma right out of the water.

I don't have to be sure about anything. You, due to your faith, have to believe your bible is 100% accurate, and therefore you have closed your mind to learning anything beyond your religious party's dogma. That's pretty sad, but hey, it's your life and intellect to waste if you so choose.
Demigawd is offline  
Old 08-05-2003, 09:26 AM   #46
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Middlesbrough, England
Posts: 3,909
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Magus55
The Gospel of thomas is one writing/book. The Bible is 66 books. Some books of the Bible confirming other books of the Bible is the same thing as if you went to the book store, found 66 books on one topic, that all verified the claims made in each. Atheists seem clueless of what the Bible actually consists of. You seem to think it is ONE book, verifying itself. The Bible is 66 Individiual bibliographic sources. They were just all combined together for ease of reading so people didn't have to go buy 66 separate books.
So explain to me why St Thomas of Asisi is a gospel and not David Koresh's drivellings. The selection process and critical thinking applied bemuse me. If Revelation can be a gospel, it would seem to me a gospel doesn't need to be based on fact, as even you couldn't argue that Revelation has happened.

If I wrote an account of an incident based on reading someone else's, why would you believe it corroborates the original?

Why select the 66 books that they did and leave out the hundreds of others simply on the basis that they conflict? Why do some bibles have some books that others don't? Why leave out a conflicting account if it could be the true one and the 66 false?

Why is your god so good at creating universes but so crap at dictating letters?

Boro Nut
Boro Nut is offline  
Old 08-05-2003, 11:13 AM   #47
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the land of two boys and no sleep.
Posts: 9,890
Default

Quote:
Magus55: The Gospel of thomas is one writing/book. The Bible is 66 books.
Not all bibles, of course. The Catholic bible has a different number of books that the King James bible.

You can begin by addressing this before tackling why books by female authors were left out, why the Gospel of Thomas or Gospel of Mary Magdelene, or any of an addition 100 or so books were left out.

Quote:
Some books of the Bible confirming other books of the Bible is the same thing as if you went to the book store, found 66 books on one topic, that all verified the claims made in each.
Except your "book store" has been edited to remove sources that so not verify the claims made. So this analogy is far from accurate.

Add to the fact that the books in the bible do not verify the claims made in each.

Quote:
Atheists seem clueless of what the Bible actually consists of. You seem to think it is ONE book, verifying itself.


I'm not sure at who this is directed, but I have two pieces of news for you: 1) many atheists are quite aware of the bible's history and its construction, 2) many Christians are clueless of what the bible consists of.

Quote:
The Bible is 66 Individiual bibliographic sources. They were just all combined together for ease of reading so people didn't have to go buy 66 separate books.


I think you may need a history lesson in this regard. They were not put together "so people didn't have to go buy 66 separate books" (especially since the bible was not available for the common man to read anyway).

They were put together to create a defined source - "Mark, word of god. Thomas, not word of god." Prior to this, many of the books no longer recognized as "valid" were used by the church and in church teachings.
Wyz_sub10 is offline  
Old 08-05-2003, 02:05 PM   #48
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: NY
Posts: 3,680
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Kat_Somm_Faen


But as far as lihgt being anything that reflects light - that is very broad indeed. A lamp is a light source. If we use your definition of "lamp" we arrive at erroneuous conclusion that a mirror is a lamp, a rock is a lamp, a flower is a lamp, a man is a lamp, a dog is a lamp - they all reflect light.



The following article is by Dr. Maurice Bucaille, author of the Bible , the Quran and Science


A man of Muhammad's time could easily distinguish between the Sun, a blazing heavenly body well known to the inhabitants of the desert, and the Moon, the body of the cool of the night. The comparisons found in the Qur'an on this subject are therefore quite normal. What is interesting to note here is the sober quality of the comparisons, and the absence in the text of the Qur'an of any elements of comparison that might have prevailed at the time and which in our day would appear as phantasmagorial.



The Sun and the Moon.

The Sun is a shining glory (diya') and the Moon a light (nur). This translation would appear to be more correct than those given by others, where the two terms are inverted. In fact there is little difference in meaning since diya' belongs to a root (dw') which, according to Kazimirski's authoritative Arabic/French dictionary, means 'to be bright, to shine' (e.g. like a fire). The same author attributes to the substantive in question the meaning of 'light'.

The difference between Sun and Moon will be made clearer by further quotes from the Qur'an.

--sura 25, verse 61:
"Blessed is the One Who placed the constellations in heaven and placed therein a lamp and a moon giving light."

--sura 71, 15-16:
"Did you see how God created seven heavens one above an other and made the moon a light therein and made the sun a lamp?"

--sura 78, verses 12-13:
"We have built above you seven strong (heavens) and placed a blazing lamp."

The blazing lamp is quite obviously the sun.

Here the moon is defined as a body that gives light (munir) from the same root as nur (the light applied to the Moon). The Sun however is compared to a torch (siraj) or a blazing (wahhaj) lamp.


It is known that the Sun is a star that generates intense heat and light by its internal combustions, and that the Moon, which does not give of flight itself, and is an inert body (on its external layers at least) merely reflects the light received from the Sun.

There is nothing in the text of the Qur'an that contradicts what we know today about these two celestial bodies.



Whereas the Bible calls the Sun and Moon "lights" and merely adds to one the adjective "greater' and to the other 'lesser", the Quran ascribes differences other than that of dimension to each respectively. Agreed, this is nothing more than a verbal distinction, but how was one to communicate to men at the time without confusing them while at the same time expressing the notion that the Sun and Moon were not absolutely identical 'lights'?
River is offline  
Old 08-05-2003, 02:15 PM   #49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 719
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by River
Agreed, this is nothing more than a verbal distinction, but how was one to communicate to men at the time without confusing them while at the same time expressing the notion that the Sun and Moon were not absolutely identical 'lights'?
You simply say the moon glows because the sun shines on it (or it reflects the light of the sun). It's not that hard.
Lobstrosity is offline  
Old 08-05-2003, 03:55 PM   #50
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,832
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by River
I understand where everygone is coming from. This is due to the popular misconception that the Qur'an can only be extracted Literally. This is not true. Yes the Qur'an is the Literal Word of G-d. But this LITERAL Word of G-d has both LITERAL and allegorical passages and meaning ( as indicated from within the Scripture).
So how does one decide when to use literal and when to use allegorical interpretation ? The Quran suffers just as equally with the Bible in terms of multiple interpretation & being used to justify slective agendas.

Just how do you plan to go about proving that River's interpretation is the One True Meaning of the Quran ?

Surely such an omniscient and omnipotent being would have left his message a little less ambiguous. Sure as heck I'd be pretty disappointed in myself if my words could be so easily reinterpreted to justify concepts as simple as civilian murder, female circumcision and so forth.
echidna is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:18 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.