9 1 1

[Younes Essouabni]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:

I am infidel (Kafir). I will go to hell, but if I convert to Islam then my all past sins will be washed.
So I will convert in to Islam at the age of 89, when I wont be able to do anything and by converting I will wash my all sins also

ROFL, maybe you thought that nobody thought about it. Maybe you think that like in christianity you may wash your sins just by telling it to a priest. Well you're wrong.
Like I state in previous post, there is different grade in heaven, and if you do so you may earn the last grade. Another thing is that not all the so "called" muslims will go to heaven. Some will go, some won't. some will enter heaven after a purification in hell (ouch)The first three person to enter hell are muslims.
So good luck!

[Mapraputa Is]

Yes. As a matter of fact Russian Communism was regarded by someone as a quasi-religious movement where the concept of Heaven was susbstituted by the Proletariat Dictatorship, and so on.
"quasi-religious movement" - I would say both Communism and Religion are examples of what we call Totalitarianism.

[Younes Essouabni]

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:

Younes and exactly here is the point I disagree.
Quran is a text and can be, was and is interpreted diferently in times and regions, like any text. Even it is a holy text, because it is read by men.
[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]

If you see Coran as a text, it is normal that you will disagree. But muslims see Coran as God word's. By definition, God may foresee everything and don't lie, so if God say this book is valid until the end of days. For muslims it will be valid, and for others it won't. It's all about faith.
Obviously, different people interpret Coran differently. But Coran still is the same for everybody (there is not two differents Coran like you may find several differents Bible). The way people understand the Coran is proper to each person. Hence, you will find different practice around the world, some are valid some are not. Interpretation is just the understanding of the Coran, it is not the Coran. Islam is not the interpretation of the Coran, Islam is the Coran.

[Younes Essouabni]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:

So all who born before Islam will go to hell

Like I said in previous post, 120 rows of people will enter Heaven, 80 of them are muslims. So there is 40 rows for others. Obviously, it will be for pre-islam people.

[Mapraputa Is]

By definition, God may foresee everything and don't lie, so if God say this book is valid until the end of days. For muslims it will be valid
What bothers me in this definition is if you understand the Coran in sense "go and kill 'em" - would you go and kill them?

[Younes Essouabni]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
By definition, God may foresee everything and don't lie, so if God say this book is valid until the end of days. For muslims it will be valid
What bothers me in this definition is if you understand the Coran in sense "go and kill 'em" - would you go and kill them?

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:

What bothers me in this definition is if you understand the Coran in sense "go and kill 'em" - would you go and kill them?

There is people who will and others who won't, but what matters is "is it in accordance to Islam". If you missunderstand or missinterpret, you will carry alone your responsabilty.
As we all know another definition of God is love, in accordance to this definition is it possible that God orders to kill for free? Obviously, no. If someone understand that he may kill freely non-muslim people, it will mean first that he never read the coran and second that he don't know what is God.
So I won't kill anybody. And you ,will you? Or is this question just for mindless muslim?

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by OMAR KHAN:
Similar means so beautiful, so poetic, so modern, so universal, so enlighting ...
Until now nobody was able to.
And for believers it is a proof of the fact that the Quran is the word of God.

You are joking right? I find more beauty in a line of Shakespeare then I do in the stilted language of the Koran. Maybe it just doesn't translate well.

[Thomas Paul]

Who interprets the Koran? Is there an official "Gang of Four" responsible for official interpretations?

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
That I don't get at all. You'll have to explain that in a little more detail.

I was kind of refering back to a comment where one poster seemed to be implying basically that God (Allah in this case) "created" religion and to support this mentioned that the Koran was dictated to man. I also took it to mean that the supporting argument would indicate that God pre-wired us for religion at creation.
What I was trying to get across is that if we were "pre-wired" for religion by God, then we do not follow a religion as a matter of free will. That is, God is directing us to follow a particular religion. I simply reject that, as it would imply that man does not have free will (a topic we already covered exhaustively).

[Younes Essouabni]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Who interprets the Koran? Is there an official "Gang of Four" responsible for official interpretations?

Yes, there is different school. I think they are also 4 of them. But you're free to interpret it as you want, it is multi-plattform

[Tracy Woo]

Originally posted by Younes Essouabni:

If you missunderstand or missinterpret, you will carry alone your responsabilty.

Now this is exactly where you are contradicting with your belief. You are agreeing that it is very much possible that people may wrongly interpret what is given in Coran. (As per our previous posts, this is what is happening in most of all of the Islamic countries.).
This is means it is possible that neither any godman nor any mullah can be an arbitrator in determining what is right and what is wrong because you would never know whether his interpretation is right or wrong. So basically it is irrelevent whether Coran is God's word or Man's because what it means depends solely on ones (man's) interpretation. Also, as you said, the responsibility of correct interpretation lies on you, the final arbitrator is your conscience. Remember, responsibility requires right. If you have the reponsibility to interpret it correctly, you must have the right to decide what it means. And that is exacly why I am so against these priests and mullahs. All they do is manipulate people.
Now, I am not sure whether it is written in quran or not, but stoning a woman to death for cheating on her husband (even if there is no solid proof) is wrong. Cutting hands of a theif is also wrong. It might have made sense centuries ago, I don't know.... but it is wrong for sure now. And that is why, I say, hardcoding oneself to ones religion is wrong.
[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: Tracy Woo ]

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Younes Essouabni:
If you see Coran as a text, it is normal that you will disagree. But muslims see Coran as God word's. By definition, God may foresee everything and don't lie, so if God say this book is valid until the end of days. For muslims it will be valid, and for others it won't. It's all about faith.
Obviously, different people interpret Coran differently. But Coran still is the same for everybody (there is not two differents Coran like you may find several differents Bible). The way people understand the Coran is proper to each person. Hence, you will find different practice around the world, some are valid some are not. Interpretation is just the understanding of the Coran, it is not the Coran. Islam is not the interpretation of the Coran, Islam is the Coran.

A book, even one inspired by God, is nothing by itself. It needs to be understood and interpreted. You say that some interpretations are valid and some are not. Who gets to decide that? Who says that your interpretation is better than mine? Who says that the way people in the next city practice Islam is not the correct way and the way that you practice Islam is?
A book also needs to be translated from one language into another. We have spoken about the issues of translation in MD before. I can guarantee that there is more than one English version of the Koran. This is the same situation with the Bible. There is only one Bible but there are many translations since the Bible was not originally written in English.

[Thomas Paul]

Imagine we have a book that was given to us by God. The book contains exactly one line... "Life is like a bowl of cherries". Soon two schools of thought develop around the message. One believes that God is telling us that life is wonderful like sweet fruit. The other school believes that God is warning us that life is full of hidden dangers (pits). Soon these school divide into new schools of thought dealing with types of bowls and kinds of cherries and sizes of pits. We soon realize that God's message is absolutely worthless.
No matter what God's message is, people need to interpret it and people are amazingly fallible. People are wrong a lot. People use wishful thinking. Look at <anonymous> trying to prove that the Koran predicts fetal development! Unless you have a final infallible arbiter of the meaning of the koran then the koran means whatever you want it to mean whether that is "there are flowers in the sky" or "kill all infidels".

[R K Singh]

OOOOOh that's a good point. As I said ,people change not religion.
And I was thinking that its people who make religion. If there are no people then which religion will survive?? People can survive with out religion, religion can not survive witout people
There is many other "Muslim" country and you won't find any Burqua.
Does not it make society superior than religion.
I am saying religion/society depend on lot of factor like geography, economics, etc....
In fact Islam is the first religion which gave rights to women.
Check your knowledge ....
People don't apply those rules, but Islam has not changed and there is no reason for it to change.
Then what is the use of having such religion which exist on only book ??
[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: Ravish Kumar ]

[R K Singh]

But you came to prove my point, it is not because you did not update your religion that it gets old.

someone said that now people dont follow it. Does not it points you to update it as per todays condition.
[b]Religion is based on books that those prophets lets us.[/QB]
and Prophets are nothing but human. OR you want to say that God only sends prophet, then who has made me and you ???

[Tracy Woo]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Unless you have a final infallible arbiter of the meaning of the koran then the koran means whatever you want it to mean whether that is "there are flowers in the sky" or "kill all infidels".

And unfortunately, there is no such infalliable person. The best you can have is probably a historian who has done extesive research on ancient languages and texts. Even if she is not a muslim, she will probably be better than any mullah or caliph or emir that you might have.
Ever wondered what is the qualification of these religious leaders??? Most of them know nothing except what is written in their holy book. That too, only one version of it, which is in their language (not the actual, God's version).

[R K Singh]

There is one simple point:
All religions are human made. Hell & heaven funda is to improve society so that we dont do so call sin like stealing, etc. which now(if you get caught then )taken care by court.
This all is to make livinghood more lovely and beautiful.
I doubt if any religion in this world says to kill others. That will not survive cause then other will kill you too ....
There is nothing like one path and one book to God. So who ever has not read Quran is not God's child.
Its like saying that who ever is not my brother, is not man?
If you believe in one God then you must also be knowing that he has created everyone including you & me.

[Tracy Woo]

Presence of scientific facts in ancient texts is very common place. Most of the time, mapping of such facts to todays scientific facts is either a coincidence or just a figment of imagination. As I said before, you will never know what was actually going on in the mind of the writer.
The other day, I was reading Ramayana. (It is a sacred book of Hindus. Borders has a very nice picture book of only about 50 pages.) In the end, Rama uses a flying machine to fly from SriLanka to India. This machine is controled by mind and without any fuel whatsoever. I say, he was genious...mankind is still struggling to develop such things.
In the same story, Rama asks his wife to sit on fire to prove that she was untouched by the bad guy. Now, this is sick, at least in todays times.
My point is, you will never know which part of a book is right or wrong...which part is futuristic and which part is barbaric. You have only your conscience to decide.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Younes Essouabni:
ROFL, maybe you thought that nobody thought about it. Maybe you think that like in christianity you may wash your sins just by telling it to a priest.

Even chritianity give you chance to accept your sin and then get forgiveness. (You need lot of will power to do it.)
ROTFLMAO Do you know what are you talking.
Either you are saying that God's messanger had so future vision like any PM that he thought in advance abt this question.
But sorry either you are wrong OR anonyous is wrong. This is from the site http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch2-4.htm

When someone converts to Islam, God forgives all of his previous sins and evil deeds. A man called Amr came to the Prophet Muhammad and said, �Give me your right hand so that I may give you my pledge of loyalty.� The Prophet stretched out his right hand. Amr withdrew his hand. The Prophet said: {What has happened to you, O Amr?} He replied, �I intend to lay down a condition.� The Prophet asked: {What condition do you intend to put forward?} Amr said, �That God forgive my sins.� The Prophet said: {Didn�t you know that converting to Islam erases all previous sins?}

I will still wait for another 63yrs to convert in to Islam
AW why are you preaching all this thing to us ???
We were discussing something else.....
You are agree that no one now follows Islam, but still you are not ready to accept this change. As it is not Islam. Then where is Islam ?? In the book ... what is the use of it then when no one follows its good points.
Isnt it proofs that Islam has also change ??

[omar khan]

Originally posted by Tracy Woo:
You have only your conscience to decide.

I wonder why do you regard conscience so high.
As you already said commonsense/conscience changes according to age and location.
So if we had not a guide that does not change with time and location how can we hope to walk along the straight path?
When you where a kid you considered things normal that now you condider strange, and ten year from now surely your conscience will tell you different things that it tells you now.
Preislamic Arabs considered perfectly normal to kill newborn girls.
Ancient Greeks thought that killing malformed children was perfectly normal.
I can make hundreds of examples...
Conclusion: I do not understand how your conscience alone can guide you if it changes a lot.
Try to explain

[Tracy Woo]

Originally posted by OMAR KHAN:

I wonder why do you regard conscience so high.
As you already said commonsense/conscience changes according to age and location.
So if we had not a guide that does not change with time and location how can we hope to walk along the straight path?

I regard conscience so high because there is nobody whom I can trust 100% to be right. The guide himself has to depend on his conscience.
You keep on asking tangential questions but you've not have replied to points that I raised earlier.

[Michael Ernest]

If to see "equality" from mathematical POV...I am not sure what you mean by "associative", because formally equality doesn't possess such a property.

I meant to write 'transitive' and got distracted.
We can loosely use equality in sentences like "men and women are equal" and spend rest of our time arguing what the heck this mean and whether they are biologically equal or what, because when our terms are ill-defined, then our discussion is what it is - meaningless drivel
My point is that equality itself is more than just a "given" as Eleison stated, it's a useful interpretive construct.

If one chooses another set of definitions and axioms to build his theories on, it doesn't "disprove" the previous ones. Similarly, religions can start from different sets of postulates and then converge, diverge, go in parallels or in circles...
One set of definitions cannot by definition disprove another, but the two sets together can show a fundamental flaw in how we perceive 'reality.'
We have two branches of geomtry that start out with opposing premises. One asserts that two lines can remain parallel to each other infinitely; the other asserts they cannot. It would seem that both could not be true at the same time, which then suggests we've made a mistake in these ideas or that the nature of interpreting reality itself is somehow flawed.
We have infinitely divisible numbers which makes it possible to describe an arrow that never hits its target, but rather than repudiate that assertion we evince another form of calculations from it. I'd call that a useful deception, but a deception nonetheless.
I wouldn't have guessed that I would ever say mathematics is an invention, but this makes sense.

[Shura Balaganov]

Should I, as a US Marshall of this thread (I vaguely remember creating it), take control of this plane and shoot all highjackers? :roll:
Na, I actually like where it's going...
Shura

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Religions such as Islam and Christianity are based on the assumption that there are
absolutes and that these absolutes are spelled out in a book. However, no matter how
absolute a truth may be it still needs to be interpreted
.

Thomas Paul also said:


Tracy, yes I do believe that there are moral absolutes that are true for all time.
Thomas Jefferson and I are together on that one.

-----------------------------------------------
Can you explain to us what seems to be a contradiction in your two statements? do I imply that you beleive in moral absolutes but with the exception that they should not be spelled out in a book (of religion or otherwise) ? If so where can we take a look at those moral "absulutes" that you beleive exist? Can we codify them?

[Shura Balaganov]

Just an observation on "predictions" that people expect to find, like Nostradamus's... Suppose that one predicted a future in a book, and a person recognizes it as a prediction. He/she then can go on to make an effort to distore/destroy the course of events so that prediction never happens. For instance, if a book says that US attacks Iraq on December 1st 2002, and starts WW3 by that, Bush can make a conscious effort to change that (for instance, attack on November 1st). That is, if you believe in free will. Otherwise, no matter how he'd try, he'd still have to attack on December 1st (figurally speaking).
"Predictions" therefore must be so vague and unclear, that a similar event(s) can be found to be interpreted. Which then gives an opportunity for charlatans and blinded believers to say "I told you so" and "it was in the book all the time".
Allow me to make a few predictions, that was passed to me from God:
SHURA
1.1 And there will be fire in the sky and Earth will shake with a terrible noise.
1.2 And the water will stand in the air and swallow the land
1.3 And the ice will melt, and there will be terrible sand storms all around.
Scared yet? Just wait a few hundred years... :roll:
Mathematically speaking, Atheism might just be another Religion, based on axiom that God doesn't exist.
Map: Regarding "Origin of the Universe", I remember Madam Blavatsky was quoted as a big authority
It was quoted as just another alternative theory . Hey, no one said Euclid was always right, not after non-Euclidean geometry was invented... I like this idea of mathematics being an "invention" rather "discovery". What is it other than a model, an attempt to aproximate the reality as close as we can?
Ravish Kumar: Hell & heaven funda is to improve society so that we dont do so call sin like stealing, etc. which now (if you get caught then) taken care by court
Good point, with develped legal system (in theory), religious classes might as well be replaced by simple law classes. The only problem is, people usually look for ways to go around law. There's no fundamental concept of wrong-doing. At least with a sacred book you can tell you kids that there's no way around it, without getting into complicated details why it is so
Shura

[Younes Essouabni]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
There is one simple point:
There is nothing like one path and one book to God. So who ever has not read Quran is not God's child.
Its like saying that who ever is not my brother, is not man?
If you believe in one God then you must also be knowing that he has created everyone including you & me.

I don't get your point, who said you're not God son? Sorry but I can't follow your thinkings.

[Mapraputa Is]

Question to people of all religions:
What bothers me in a notion of religion as such: it looks to me that your "I believe in God" somehow shifts responsibility (moral or other) from you to "superior entity". You do not need to think what is good and what is bad any more, or at least not so hard, because God already said everything - just read. If this is not true, then what is God for you? Can you disagree with her? If you can, what makes God so special, how is she different from Martha Stewart, for example?

[Anthony Villanueva]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Question to people of all religions:
What bothers me in a notion of religion as such: it looks to me that your "I believe in God" somehow shifts responsibility (moral or other) from you to "superior entity". You do not need to think what is good and what is bad any more, or at least not so hard, because God already said everything - just read. If this is not true, then what is God for you? Can you disagree with her? If you can, what makes God so special, how is she different from Martha Stewart, for example?

Let me put my Roman Catholic hat on...
God tells me that X is good and Y is bad. Since I'm only a finite being with limited comprehension (and a short attention span), this setup looks ok to me. Kinda like a sheriff giving expert opinion on Java to a newbie.
What's so bothersome about that?

[Younes Essouabni]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
Even chritianity give you chance to accept your sin and then get forgiveness. (You need lot of will power to do it.)
ROTFLMAO Do you know what are you talking.

I've never said that there is no redemption in christianism.

Either you are saying that God's messanger had so future vision like any PM that he thought in advance abt this question.
But sorry either you are wrong OR anonyous is wrong. This is from the site http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch2-4.htm
I will still wait for another 63yrs to convert in to Islam

If you had read just a little bit more the link that you provided, you will have known that your intentions is quite more important than your deeds. So by telling that you will wait the last moment to convert, you seem to imply that you know the truth but you prefer to wait the last moment. Do you really think that you can fool God?

AW why are you preaching all this thing to us ???
We were discussing something else.....

I am not preaching, but just trying to answer questions. We came to religion because people are searching the source of terrorism in Islam. And i just wanted to say that Islam has nothing to do with Islam. But as I see, you are not debating, just trying to find any arguments you may drop on, it won't make the debate advance.

You are agree that no one now follows Islam, but still you are not ready to accept this change. As it is not Islam. Then where is Islam ?? In the book ... what is the use of it then when no one follows its good points.
Isnt it proofs that Islam has also change ??

It is just what you see of Islam, that change. Islam don't change. And yes, Islam is in the Coran and in the lessons given by the Prophet Mohamed (ss).

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Question to people of all religions:
What bothers me in a notion of religion as such: it looks to me that your "I believe in God" somehow shifts responsibility (moral or other) from you to "superior entity". You do not need to think what is good and what is bad any more, or at least not so hard, because God already said everything - just read.

Firstly, "knowing" what is moral and what isn't does not remove your responsibility of "doing"
what you know. You will still have to constantly
work as best as you can to "implement" what you know is moral. Even the Devil knew God (if you are familiar with this notion)
Secondly, it is not true that religion shifts responsibility of "thinking" what is moral and what is not...you are still expected to constantly think of the best moral form God expects you to be in. But without the general "guidleine" of morality codified by God, how do u expect to have at least an initial directive or idea of which way to go?!

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Question to people of all religions:
What bothers me in a notion of religion as such: it looks to me that your "I believe in God" somehow shifts responsibility (moral or other) from you to "superior entity".

It seems almost like you are asking whether or not a religious person's sense of morality stems from their religion. I can't speak for everyone, because I'm sure for some it does, but for me that would be an emphatic "no".
In my case, my moralities were formed before I believed in God (or admitted to myself I did maybe). I never attended Church as a child, nor did my parents raise me with any religious upbringing. The Catholic Church was always somewhere in the background (most everyone I knew was Catholic, I was baptized Catholic, etc...), but it was never a factor, nor did I really know much about it. So since my moralities predate my belief in God, how on earth could I now shift responsibility to a higher power?
I accept responsibility for my own morals, as I believe man has free will. Accepting that man has free will necessitates that he is responsible for his actions, and beliefs. The Catholic faith (among others of course, just an example) does codify some of these morals, but to me they were always common sense. God has done His part to try to explain to us how a "good" person lives, but when it comes down to it is our responsibility to figure this out and put it into practice.

You do not need to think what is good and what is bad any more, or at least not so hard, because God already said everything - just read.

Well, since God didn't write the Bible, and man did (inspired by God), it is not as simple as just reading. Particularly since for the most part the Bible is interpretive and not literal. I understand this is not the case with the Koran, and the belief is that the Koran was dictated by God.

If this is not true, then what is God for you? Can you disagree with her? If you can, what makes God so special, how is she different from Martha Stewart, for example?

Since man has free will, they can disagree with God, however if they do, by definition they are mistaken.

If you can, what makes God so special, how is she different from Martha Stewart, for example?

Well, from what I hear, Martha makes a pretty damn fine quiche. God being perfect though, makes the perfect quiche.
[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Younes Essouabni]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
And I was thinking that its people who make religion. If there are no people then which religion will survive?? People can survive with out religion, religion can not survive witout people

Oh And i was thinking that god made Islam, christianity and jewish religion.If there are no God which people will survive?? God can survive without people, people can not survive without God

In fact Islam is the first religion which gave rights to women.
Check your knowledge ....

It's done, now tell me which religion( or society) gave to women the right to work and keep all the money for her (without helping her family), which religion (or society) gave the right to women to divorce, which religion (or society)implied women as a complete part of the family (making decision), which religion (or society)gave right to women to make trade? Give me one religion (or society) which gaves all those rights and the many others that you find in Islam at the prophet Mohamed time.

People don't apply those rules, but Islam has not changed and there is no reason for it to change.
Then what is the use of having such religion which exist on only book ??

It is a guide, it is your only choice to follow it or not. If most people don't follow all the precepts in Islam, it don't make Islam useless.
[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: Younes Essouabni ]

[Younes Essouabni]

Originally posted by Tracy Woo:
Now this is exactly where you are contradicting with your belief.
...
This is means it is possible that neither any godman nor any mullah can be an arbitrator in determining what is right and what is wrong because you would never know whether his interpretation is right or wrong. So basically it is irrelevent whether Coran is God's word or Man's because what it means depends solely on ones (man's) interpretation.

Sorry, but I don't see any contradiction, in any religion, you carry the weight of your sins.
There is another dimension that I should have brought. In Islam there is also the concept of responsabilities delegations. It means, that if you don't have enough science to answer your own answers you may lay on a Oulama (translate it to somebody having learn the science of Islam, they usually have learn also others science).
Usually Oulamas agrees on most of Islam concept and interpretations. So, it don't depends on one man, but on severals one (with your own conscious awake, of course).

Also, as you said, the responsibility of correct interpretation lies on you, the final arbitrator is your conscience.

I said

...
If you missunderstand or missinterpret, you will carry alone your responsabilty...

It's not the same. If you decide to interpret by yourself, be aware that you need science. If you do so, you will carry your responsability. But the responsability of correct interpretation lies on Oulama. And yes the final arbitrator is your conscience. It is the concept of free will.

And that is exacly why I am so against these priests and mullahs. All they do is manipulate people.

Ok, so don't listen to them and take your own responsabilities, it is your choice and again i respect it.

[Younes Essouabni]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
A book, even one inspired by God, is nothing by itself. It needs to be understood and interpreted. You say that some interpretations are valid and some are not. Who gets to decide that? Who says that your interpretation is better than mine? Who says that the way people in the next city practice Islam is not the correct way and the way that you practice Islam is?

Nobody, only God judge.

A book also needs to be translated from one language into another. We have spoken about the issues of translation in MD before. I can guarantee that there is more than one English version of the Koran. This is the same situation with the Bible. There is only one Bible but there are many translations since the Bible was not originally written in English.

There is probably more than one Coran version in English, the traduction lay on the traductor and his understanding of the book. But there is only one version of the Coran in arab.
It is not the same situation with the Bible, not only the traductions are various, there is many bible on the market. Because the church tried to update the bible with time, and some people didn't agrees and kept their own version of the bible. You will find different bible with different numbers of chapters, some were declared at one time apocryphal, and not at another time.
So the situation is quite different with the bible, and nowadays we don't know on which bible we may lay.

[Paul Stevens]

Which religion or society thinks it is ok to stone a woman to death for having a child out of wedlock?

[Tracy Woo]

Originally posted by Younes Essouabni:

Ok, so don't listen to them and take your own responsabilities

Do you mean to say that if I listen to a Oulama, I don't have any responsibility???
There are fanatics running after the life of Salman Rushdie and Taslima Nasreen... just because an Oulama issued a fatwah. Now, if one of them really kills Rushdie, do you mean he is not responsible for his act???
Doesn't a person's own conscience say anything in this regard??? If it does, should the person listen to the Oulama or himself?
I say that you can never ever dump the responsibility of your actions on anybody. No matter whom you listen to. You and only you are responsible for your actions.
Since Oulamas hold so much sway over the people, they take advantage of people by making vitriolic speeches. And people are not only listening but they are acting on behalf of such morons. Do you think Islam will allow these people to enter heaven? I don't think so.

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Paul Stevens:
Which religion or society thinks it is ok to stone a woman to death for having a child out of wedlock?

And I could say to that...which religion or society thinks it is okay to make all African Americans slaves?? And which religion or society allows for the execution by the electric chair? And which religion and society prevents children from saying "In God we trust" in schools?
I see ethnocentrism in the air here....
There is no point in judging a society's moral codes using your OWN society's moral codes as a reference!! Define Morality!!!

[Tracy Woo]

Originally posted by <Anonymous>:

And I could say to that...which religion or society thinks it is okay to make all African Americans slaves?? And which religion or society allows for the execution by the electric chair? And which religion and society prevents children from saying "In God we trust" in schools?

1. Americans did it. Arabs still do it. I have read reports that slavery is still popular in Egypt. Arabs "buy" poor Bangladeshi children for camel races.
These things are immoral by ANY standard and any society should make all efforts to get rid of them.
2. No religion allows that. But all societies allow that.
3. I think only Islam prohibits that. They were one of the groups who opposed saying this in schools.
But, what do you want to prove by this?

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by <Anonymous>:
And I could say to that...which religion or society thinks it is okay to make all African Americans slaves??

No religion. American, European, and even African societies believed this was acceptable at one time, over a century ago. Of course these societies came to their senses.

And which religion or society allows for the execution by the electric chair?

No religion that I'm aware of. American society allows this though, others probably. Although in American society only the most heinous of acts (murder for example) allow even the possibility that this sentence be handed down. Not offenses like, adultery for example.

And which religion and society prevents children from saying "In God we trust" in schools?

No religion prevents this, and additionally no society that I am aware of (at least not American) prevents this. Maybe you should try reading more than a headline sometime.

There is no point in judging a society's moral codes using your OWN society's moral codes as a reference!! Define Morality!!!

You seem unable to distinguish between religion and society. I guess that's understandable when they are essentially one and the same in certain parts of the world. That is not the case in the US though, among most other progressive nations.

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Tracy Woo:

1. Americans did it. Arabs still do it. I have read reports that slavery is still popular in Egypt. Arabs "buy" poor Bangladeshi children for camel races.
These things are immoral by ANY standard and any society should make all efforts to get rid of them.
2. No religion allows that. But all societies allow that.
3. I think only Islam prohibits that. They were one of the groups who opposed saying this in schools.
But, what do you want to prove by this?

My point is: Don't judge a society's moral code using your own society's standards of morality, because the logical consequence to that would be the society you are judging will in turn judge your society for morality/immorality by their standards!
You said "These things are immoral by ANY standard and any society should make all efforts to get rid of them." Oh so did u get a universal vote on that? or is this what your OWN society or group of people has signed off on ??
So I see you're now changing your views into beleiveing a fixed set of moral absolutes that should apply to all societies and all times!!! Major change!! That's good, we're making progress...
This is where God and his true Holy books will solve your dilema here of wanting to implement both:
1. as u say "standards" that any society should make all efforts to comply by. Standards that we could say are "moral absolutes"
and also :
2. Not being the person or socirty to make these standards yourself as it would be unfair to those who disagree with your standards or have conflicting standards.
"Moral Absolutes" cannot be defined by any human being or any society, by the inherent meaning of "absolutes" (all time.. all people) Or else they will be whatever a group of people want them to be.
God can define moral absolutes. God is eternal. God is perfect. Whether you beleive in him or not is your problem, but until you do..please don't define morality and set out standards for it..cuz I might just disagree with your definitions!