9 1 1

[Tracy Woo]

Originally posted by <Anonymous>:

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...

Now come on!!! I mentioned that from common sense. Do *you* think that slavery is good? I assumed not. Ok, I made a mistake :roll:

[Michael Ernest]

American, European, and even African societies believed (slavery) was acceptable at one time, over a century ago. Of course these societies came to their senses.
Mmmm...why? Because they chose to reject slavery? Are you suggesting that slavery is an absolutely immoral practice since The Beginning, but only now have we come to see it that way?
I'm inclined to view slavery as an socio-economic practice, and the code it came into conflict with not a correct if belated interpretation of God's Will but a moral one that evolved from human experience, new socioeconomic models, and human spiritual enlightenment.
The Ten Commandments, as a f'rinstance, say nothing about keeping no slaves, which is a practice we regard as vile and criminal in many parts of the world. They do forbid coveting thy neighbor's wife, which I would argue is something held as far less severe a problem in modern cultures. I don't want to hold up the TC as the single best proof of the fallacy of an absolute moral codes (certainly not when people interpret them this way), but there seems to be plenty of evidence that moral codes can evolve.
It used to be quite popular to cite the Golden Rule as an idea which all religions seem to share (at least the ones that profess tolerance): Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You.
It's not as fashionable to repeat as it once was, but I haven't heard any improvements on it.
(I)n American society only the most heinous of acts (murder for example) allow even the possibility that (a death) sentence be handed down. Not offenses like, adultery for example.
Speaking of this, the one cultural code I find most hideous yet still widely held: family honor. It's a disturbing idea when you see people willing to die for it, repugnant when they are willing to kill for it. I still don't get it.
There is no point in judging a society's moral codes using your OWN society's moral codes as a
reference!! Define Morality!!!
I guess that's understandable when (society and religion) 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.
Well, we have a constitutional framework that declares a separation of church from state control, and state from church-imposed guidelines (such as delcaring a belief in God in the text of an oath of allegiance).
The moral perspective I find most useful is tolerance (which, before I get any sideways comments, let me say I do not define as being nice all the time). Many of us or our families came here to live in this country to enjoy that ideal, which possibly is not shared where they came from. True, it's sometimes accepted by people who want toleration for themselves without offering it to others, or simply a free pass to a new life, but that's a matter to save for a completely different hijack.
But we have more than our fair share of confused, ignorant minds at work in the US, and they have no less a vote than the rest of us. I would not like to pretend that our government is always capable of always rising above the lowest common denominator of its peoples' fears and vices. That is merely the ideal.
[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Younes Essouabni:
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.

There are actually two versions of the bible, the Catholic version and the protestant Bible. The difference is that the Catholic Bible contains a few books not included in the Protestant Bible. The so-called Apocrypha are major books, even in the Catholic Church. In fact, they are rarely used for Bible study. The extra books are all part of the Old testamnet.
There are many translations of the Bible on the market but there are only these two Bibles. The vast majority of the Bible (including all the New Testament) is exactly the same in Protestant and Catholic Bibles.

[Mapraputa Is]

Shurik Balaganov wrote: I like this idea of mathematics being an "invention" rather "discovery".
Regarding "invention" rather "discovery", I forget where I heard about it for the first time, but I was feeling giddy: is it invention? Um, not really. "Invention" suggest something arbitrary and what is arbitrary in laws of mathematics? They are logically conditioned. "Discovery"? Perhaps closer to "discovery", but what is it that is being "discovered"? Some of mathematical concepts have nothing to do with real world. Properties of a space of infinitely many dimensions - are they discovered? Probably invented rather than discovered...
What is it other than a model, an attempt to aproximate the reality as close as we can?
These are applications of mathematics, not mathematics as such. For mathematics as such to progress the reality isn't needed. It's often the fact that a theory is created, and the reality this theory "describes" is found many years later. Like with Lobachevsky's geometry, only in XX century they figured for what spaces it will work. Proceed to the next post please...

[Mapraputa Is]

Mikhail Ernest wrote: 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.
"mistake" doesn't really work here, because they are as you said premises - we chose "two lines can remain parallel infinitely" to be true in one theory and false in another.
"It would seem that both could not be true at the same time" - why not? "To be true" in case of such theories means not to produce contradictory statements, and both geometries do not. (This is exactly what was so amazing about the latter!)
"or that the nature of interpreting reality itself is somehow flawed" - perhaps some of mathematical constructions were created to interpret reality, but many I surmise were not. It happened that Euclidean geometry describes our world and thus would seem "true" and non-Euclidean geometry "false", yet later they discovered that it is "true" for special kind of spaces - curved spaces (surface of sphere is a trite example).
This is from Paul Ernest's (what a name!!! ) "Is Mathematics Discovered or Invented?" article.
"Unlike in physics, in which there is just one world to determine what is true or false, mathematics allows the existence of many different interpretations. So an assumption like Euclid’s Parallel Postulate and its denial can both be true, but in different mathematical interpretations (in the systems of Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries). Mathematicians are all the time inventing new imagined worlds without needing to discard or reject the old ones."

[Javed Sardar]

Originally posted by Tracy Woo:

Becoming a Muslim from a Christian will not change the person.

when I was in US, I happened to meet this gentleman who has converted to Islam. His words 'After converting to Islam I have said no to 3 Ps, NO Prostitution, No Porno' and one more I dont remember.

[Mapraputa Is]

No Propagation?

[Javed Sardar]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
No Propagation?

Could not quite understand what you said. Can you please expain.

[Javed Sardar]

Oh, U were refering to the third P I am sorry I was a bit slow. Have to upgrade my hardware.

[Mapraputa Is]

Originally posted by Anthony Villanueva:
Kinda like a sheriff giving expert opinion on Java to a newbie.
What's so bothersome about that?

There are quite a few sheriffs around, and they even can disagree with each other, and some of them even can (theoretically! This can never happen in real life, of course) talk nonsense. If you discover some sheriff talks nonsense (imaginary situation) you are simply saying "I disagree" -- which is not the case with Christian God, as I understand. So what makes you believe "God" is a supreme authority? I am just curious.
And if there is no reliable way to know what God *really* thinks, then what do you believe in? In your own idea of supreme authority?

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Javed Sardar:
His words 'After converting to Islam I have said no to 3 Ps, NO Prostitution, No Porno' and one more I dont remember.

He could have said NO, even being what he was.
So you want to say Islam made him to change.
I would have been much happier if he would have been changed after reading Quran but not converting in to Islam.
I wonder, you convert one person to some other religion and expect their children to follow their father's religion. And at the same time you are saying one person to not to follow your father's religion.
Can you change your mother ??? If you can not then why religion. Both things you get by birth.
Most of here are Islamic cause their father/mother is Islamic.
Did you get a chance to change it? From the time we born, we learn what we see and we see what is in the curent society.
I am still not able to understand, how come Religion & society are different.
You agree that in particular part of world you can find woman in Burqa but in other part you can not find.
Can any one of you tell me why is this so??
isnt is the affect of society over religion??

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by <Anonymous>:
There is no point in judging a society's moral codes using your OWN society's moral codes as a reference!! Define Morality!!!

Society OR Religion .....

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Younes Essouabni:

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.

Who is saying Islam is useless OR not a good religion.
Everyone is saying that all religion are same and lead to same one God but you want to say that Islam is superior to other. To which no one can agree.
Did any Mullah ever tried to know, why people are not following true Islam? Why one should not eat prok now. Why one should not eat meat which is not Halal.
Here comes consiuosness, which says that at that time these things might be true but today I can have pork also and noo-Halal meat also.
Why do you wear underwear with elastic ?? It was not their at the time of Islam? Why do you use computer? I think in Quran if there is any saying abt comuunication then it must verbal OR through peigion OR something else but not computer for 100% sure. WHy dont you usae them still.
Oh.. Actually he knew it but forgot to mention abt computers .
Hold it.... Islam is same(1400 yrs old), but we(Muslims, as per you only people dont follow it) dont follow it, coz now its not worth to follow it. It needs change.
Is this you want to say ??
What is good at one point of time wont be as good at another point of time.
>>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?
Some one talked abt guide. I have a US guide where, I was told that Wipro office is in Twin Tower.
Today I go there, with the same guide. Will I find Twin Tower there.
NO. guides are also needed to change with time.
[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: Ravish Kumar ]

[Javed Sardar]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:

He could have said NO, even being what he was.

True, the point is, he did not.

So you want to say Islam made him to change.

I would rather say that, he came to know what Islam talks about, liked it and adopted it.

Can you change your mother ??? If you can not then why religion. Both things you get by birth.

Are you serious ? You dont have option to select your mother (I hate to compare MOTHER with anything else but this is your example) but religion you are free to choose on your own.
I dont say one religion is superior to another, its ur faith, every religion shows path to the ultimate destination. Its upto you to choose the path.

[Younes Essouabni]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:

Everyone is saying that all religion are same and lead to same one God but you want to say that Islam is superior to other. To which no one can agree.

I've never said that Islam is superior to another religion, even if it's my thoughts. Every religious thinks that his religion is the true one, or he would have change. So you agree that Islam is a good religion, that's good. Again I'm not preaching. Just telling that Islam is not the source of terrorism. If you are transforming my talks we are not debating.

[Younes Essouabni]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:

Did any Mullah ever tried to know, why people are not following true Islam? Why one should not eat prok now. Why one should not eat meat which is not Halal.
Here comes consiuosness, which says that at that time these things might be true but today I can have pork also and noo-Halal meat also.

There is a good reason why men should not eat non halal food. The question is did you made a search to know why? And why does it bothers you that somebody refuse to eat the same food than you?

[Younes Essouabni]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:

Why do you wear underwear with elastic ?? It was not their at the time of Islam? Why do you use computer? I think in Quran if there is any saying abt comuunication then it must verbal OR through peigion OR something else but not computer for 100% sure. WHy dont you usae them still.
Oh.. Actually he knew it but forgot to mention abt computers .
Hold it.... Islam is same(1400 yrs old), but we(Muslims, as per you only people dont follow it) dont follow it, coz now its not worth to follow it. It needs change.
Is this you want to say ??

Islam don't tell you which wears to wear, but how you must wear. It seems like you agree that Islam is a good religion but still you have problems with Islam. What's your problem?

[Younes Essouabni]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:

What is good at one point of time wont be as good at another point of time.

What is bad at one time is often bad everytime.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Younes Essouabni:
What is bad at one time is often bad everytime.

OFTEN .. but not necessarily..
so you agreee that things should change with time.

[Younes Essouabni]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:

OFTEN .. but not necessarily..
so you agreee that things should change with time.

Yes
But not Islam

[R K Singh]

>> If you had read just a little bit more the link that you provided
I read it properly, and what you are talking abt, as per that page all those would apply only when I will convert.
So still I will wait for another 63yrs so that I can clear all my sins in one shot.

>>I would rather say that, he came to know what Islam talks about, liked it and adopted it.
Sorry for my thinking, but it seems that , prev religion was supporting all these

Now I tell you where the diffrence lies...
as per you

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

and as per me ..
Let us assume there are only 3 human on this earth. One is muslim, one is hindu, one is christian. Hindu dies first and you dont know Sanskrit/Hindi, Lord Rama has gone for ever. And whatever good/bad is written in Gita/Ramayan/Vedas are useless. NOw there is no god like Rama.
Then a muslim dies... now there is no Allha and No Quran....
So as per me if I am here God is here.
Can you amazine a kingdom with only king and no public.....
Public makes king and kingdom. vice-versa is not true.
AW for me all religion are equal and preaches love and peace. I dont belive in your God's word theory. But you can enjoy it.
All the best.
Anyone can tell me the meaning of Fanatics ??

[Younes Essouabni]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
Let us assume there are only 3 human on this earth. One is muslim, one is hindu, one is christian. Hindu dies first and you dont know Sanskrit/Hindi, Lord Rama has gone for ever. And whatever good/bad is written in Gita/Ramayan/Vedas are useless. NOw there is no god like Rama.
Then a muslim dies... now there is no Allha and No Quran....
So as per me if I am here God is here.

Well if I was an american President, I would have bombed you the day that the Hindu died, just in case that you killed the Hindu (sorry couldn't resist)
I remember a topic about the dimension of God. If we die all, God may recreate humans or maybe that God has put life on others planet. But al we can do, us (humans) is create fake Gods. So fake gods dies with their believers, but not real God. I let you choose your God.
[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: Younes Essouabni ]

[Tracy Woo]

Originally posted by Younes Essouabni:

Yes
But not Islam

There is no point in discussing with you. You keep on harping on the same tune without countering the points thrown by several people.
Anyway, in my opinion, lack of flexibility in a religion causes fundamentalism and is a leading cause of terrorism. And that's why, I think, religions should evolve with time. If they don't, they become useless to humanity.
World would have been a better place if people gave less importance to religion and more to their own conscience.

[Anonymous]

[B]I am still not able to understand, how come Religion & society are different.
You agree that in particular part of world you can find woman in Burqa but in
other part you can not find.
-----------------------------------------------
For those not following the thread, the quesiton is why islamic society is different from ISlam.
[\B]

I'm sure you're aware of the concept of [B]"nurture"[\B]. The name "muslim" is merely a label. However what this label is "supposed to stand for" is a whole set of practices, beleifs attitudes and way of life, which you could be "nurtured" to have or equally which you could be nurtured NOT to have...in both cases (and unfortunately) keeping the label "muslim". Because the label is what you get at birth.
Now allow me to elaborate a little on the process of "nurturing" or if you like religious upbringing or "socialization". At birth you are not a social being..you're still like a blank piece of paper (theoretically), ready and receptive to be shaped or socialized into whatever society nurtures you into. Your attitudes, behavious, religious practices and your entire personality becomes a function of your family (esp family), your school, your freinds etc.
As a simplified example: when you grow up seeing your father going to the mosque observing his prayers, paying charity and your mother dressing modestly you will be more inclined to be brought up this way. Just like a christian child could be brought up to go to church, and pay charity
and be honest by growing up in a family/surrounding that teaches those values.
And the opposite will probablly lead to the opposite...(but hang on to that..i'm not finished..)
So when you see many muslim women not dressing according to islamic code, don't be so surprized!! As the upbringing has a tremendous bearing on that. A girl may chose not to wear the "Hijab" because her mother and freinds chose not to. Don't say Islam has to change to adapt to those...but rather say those people are NOT practising "THAT" particular aspect of Islam. Furthermore, do not draw the conclusion that Islam is not being followed because it lacks practically or adaptability to today's life. From where did you infer that?
[B]
You say that Islam has to change to adapt to today's life? How about reverse it: How about Today's life should adapt to Islam? How about people adapt to God's way rather than God adapt to people's way? (God forbid) Why are we here in the first place? Why were we created? To worship God and do good and go to paradise and live for eternity there or to have our way here and enjoy some 70 or 80 years here and then turn to dust?? And we are too vain we say God's way has to adapt to us. [\B]
Nonetheless, I cannot possibly imagine the basis for the claim that Islam is not practical for today's life and needs updation??!?
Is it the no-alcohol rule? Read more about the harms of drinking alcohol compared to it''s benefits! Is it the no-pork rule? You probablly know by now relatively speaking how unhealthy pig meat it Is it to dress modestly? MAybe we should read of the damages done to women (and men for that matter)by using them to "sell"...where money defines what's right...if it sells...it's good!

Yet all these issues are tangential compared to the core of ISlam. Islam, without a doubt
embraces change, progress , technology advancement and taking whatever steps necessary to make life easier and a better place to live.(it might be worthwhile to read up on the achievements of muslims in branches of knowledge between the 7th and the 17th century)
Yet change does not mean go astray from the morals defined by God. We can change in all ways we can to please God. But what we cannot do is ask God to redifine what pleases Him, to suit our vain desires. Yet,you are free to chose....

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Younes Essouabni:
Just telling that Islam is not the source of terrorism.

Actually a branch of Sunni Islam known as Wahhabism, particularly what is sometimes referred to as the "New Wahhabi Movement", is a very big source of terrorism. While Wahhabism is only one of many different interpretations of Islam, it has a significant following in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (among others).

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Actually a branch of Sunni Islam known as Wahhabism, particularly what is sometimes referred to as the "New Wahhabi Movement", is a very big source of terrorism.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.... Meriam Webster's definition

terrorism: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.. I'm wondering now if the difinition is absolute or relative...
just on a philosophical note: If you sneak into my house in the middle of the night, and went into my bedroom while I was sleeping and gave me a big "BOOO" to wake me up then you hit me on the head with a frying pan !!! (outch)
Me being all scared and pissed off I might chase you out of the room and run after you with a bucket..and when I'm finally able to catch you I "terrorize" you back with another "BOO" and a smack on the head with the bucket!!!
Now which one of us is the terrorist?? You or me or both of us according to the above definition?
My answer: Whoever gets caught on camera
What do you think?

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by <Anonymous Coward>:
What do you think?

I think a person who yells "boo" at people isn't a terrorist.

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
I think a person who yells "boo" at people isn't a terrorist.

It's not nice of you to call me a coward just because you don't like my ideas I thought we were talking about tolerance here...
anyway I don't hate you man, even when I might disagree with your dieas..

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by <Anonymous>:
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.... Meriam Webster's definition

terrorism: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

I'm not exactly sure what your response means in relation to my post you quoted, however I feel I should point out that the Webster definition of terrorism is not the proper one to apply in the context of international terrorism.
While there are as many definitions of terrorism as there are people who want to make up a definition that fits their agenda, we should stick with a definition that is most often recognized internationally (of course the actual perpetrators of terrorism and their supporters choose to apply different definitions).
The definition used by the US, and also widely adopted across the world, is contained in Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d). The US has used this definition for statistical purposes since 1983.

The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant (1) targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.
The term "international terrorism" means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country.
The term "terrorist group" means any group practicing, or that has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism.

Another definintion is sometimes referred to as the Academic Concensus Definition of terrorism. It was put forth by international terrorist expert Alex P. Schmid in 1988 after consultation with various academic experts in terrorism.

Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by <Anonymous>:

It's not nice of you to call me a coward just because you don't like my ideas I thought we were talking about tolerance here...
anyway I don't hate you man, even when I might disagree with your dieas..

The term "Anonymous Coward" is a term applied to anonymous posters at slashdot, one of the most popular sites on the Internet. Many of the long-time posters here, myself included, have an extremely low tolerance for anonymous posters, specifically in threads such as this. They are often held in very low regard. This is also a topic we have covered repeatedly.
My advice would be to use your normal login, or on the off chance you don't have one that you use already, create one. If you do have a login you normally use, it is pointless to post anonymously because the Sheriffs and Bartenders know who you are anyway. If you do not have one, they are simple enough to create and the rest of us can be assured that we are speaking with the same person, as anyone can post as <Anonymous>.

[Anthony Villanueva]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:

There are quite a few sheriffs around, and they even can disagree with each other, and some of them even can (theoretically! This can never happen in real life, of course) talk nonsense. If you discover some sheriff talks nonsense (imaginary situation) you are simply saying "I disagree" -- which is not the case with Christian God, as I understand. So what makes you believe "God" is a supreme authority? I am just curious.
And if there is no reliable way to know what God *really* thinks, then what do you believe in? In your own idea of supreme authority?

Close enough. Isn't God by definition a "supreme authority"?
Disagreement usually comes from different interpretations of the same reality. If I disagree with someone, I am under the impression that I am right and he is wrong. So if a man disagrees with God, does it mean that he knows something that God doesn't? Isn't always rather the case of the man not knowing enough to draw the correct conclusion? Isn't that what "faith" usually means?
There is a story in Genesis (Gen 22:1-19) about God commanding Abraham in no uncertain terms to sacrifice Isaac to him. Abraham didn't argue nor did he have misgivings, or if he did, it was not recorded. In fear and trembling, perhaps, he resolved to obey. Is this the bothersome thing you were referring to?

[Axel Janssen]

Originally posted by <Anonymous>:
[B]
You agree that in particular part of world you can find woman in Burqa but in
other part you can not find.

As far as I heard the Burga or lesser forms of the same thing had a revival in different arabic societies as Tunesia, Turkey, Egypt.
Many people see it as a visible symbol of a failed development through westernization. This "new islam" is often very simplified, strict and anti-west.

Originally posted by <Anonymous>:
[B]
(it might be worthwhile to read up on the achievements of muslims in branches of knowledge between the 7th and the 17th century)

The question is why the islamic culture stopped to be a fertile ground for achievements in science and knowledge after the 17th century.

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

The term "Anonymous Coward" is a term applied to anonymous posters at slashdot, one of the most popular sites on the Internet. Many of the long-time posters here, myself included, have an extremely low tolerance for anonymous posters, specifically in threads such as this. They are often held in very low regard. This is also a topic we have covered repeatedly.

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Honestly, I'm new to Javaranch and had not yet created an account, and I didn't know that "Anonymous" is looked down-on..I didn't look at it that way, but your explanation makes perfect sence and I will go ahead and open an account...

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Younes Essouabni:
....... but not real God. I let you choose your God.

I think your God is "WalkOnWater" & "FlyInAir" kinda.
But my God is abstract. He gives me power when I need and resides inside me.
AW I am off .... cause I tried a lot to generalize the discussion to all religion but ......

[Tracy Woo]

Originally posted by Anthony Villanueva:

So if a man disagrees with God, does it mean that he knows something that God doesn't? Isn't always rather the case of the man not knowing enough to draw the correct conclusion? Isn't that what "faith" usually means?

You are right, man doesn't have to disagree with God. He should simply obey what God commands.
However, the important point is, how do you know what exactly God is saying or commanding??? By reading a book written 1400 yrs ago? By asking a mullah? person's father? mother? a scientist?Who??? Who will make that call?

[Anthony Villanueva]

Originally posted by Tracy Woo:

You are right, man doesn't have to disagree with God. He should simply obey what God commands.
However, the important point is, how do you know what exactly God is saying or commanding??? By reading a book written 1400 yrs ago? By asking a mullah? person's father? mother? a scientist?Who??? Who will make that call?

Ah, but that is why I'm really an atheist in the first place. God should fire His publicist, if He has one.

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Tracy Woo:

You are right, man doesn't have to disagree with God. He should simply obey what God commands.

A)Ok let me ask you...where do *you* suggest we find God's commands so we can follow them?
However, the important point is, how do you know what exactly God is saying or commanding??? By reading a book written 1400 yrs ago?
B)Are you suggesting that we should somehow "receive' revelations more often (kinda like a monthly peridiodical ..or how about weekly for practicality?) OR are you suggesting
we actively chose what suits us and what doesn't from God's commands?? Which one are you implying?
And if you are implying the latter, then where do we draw the limit as to what we can alter and what we can't? Can we discard the "old" commands all together if we saw necessary? And IF so how do *you* wanna go about "obeying the commands of God" like you say?

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by <Anonymous>:
[B]I am still not able to understand, how come Religion & society are different.
You agree that in particular part of world you can find woman in Burqa but in
other part you can not find.
-----------------------------------------------
For those not following the thread, the quesiton is why islamic society is different from ISlam.
[\B]...........

Though I said I am off... but still...
and still you think Society & Religion are diffrent.....
Just because Quran has not changed.
Again what is the use of Quran when no one follows it.
[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: Ravish Kumar ]

[Tracy Woo]

Originally posted by <Amro-previously Anonymous>:

A)Ok let me ask you...where do *you* suggest we find God's commands so we can follow them?

B)Are you suggesting that we should somehow "receive' revelations more often (kinda like a monthly peridiodical ..or how about weekly for practicality?) OR are you suggesting
we actively chose what suits us and what doesn't from God's commands?? Which one are you implying?

A. In your heart. You have to switch on the search light of your brains to seach in your heart.
B. Once you understand how to look for God's commands in your heart, you will not find the need to go to anybody to ask for God's commands. This mechanism is much faster than weekly, monthly or 1400+ yr frequency of God's broadcast

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:

Do you want to say, Quran only teaches good practises?

Yes the Quran ONLY teaches good practices. But not ONLY the Quran teaches good practices. All religions do.
quote:
Can you give me one example where any other religion doesnt teach good practises?
No I can't. All religions teach good practices! and I did not claim superiority of one over the other.

quote:
You are talking about pork meat & alcohol... then I will recommend you to convert in to Hindu (Alas.. its not possible). For medically proofed that human is a vegetarian and human should not eat meat. Why only pork, you should not eat non-veg also. Alcohol is ban also.
If you have read my post well, you would have realized I mentioned those aspects of Islam not to prove Islam's superiorty over any other religion, but to explain that these aspects of ISlam (the banning of pork, alcohol etc) do not contradict with modern day life, and hence need no updation as some have claimed.
quote:
You tell all good qualities of Islam and I will show you in all other religions also. So how come your God's word is diffrernt from these men's word ???
I know of a software company that writes documents with really good qualities. Does it qualify? Is "good quality" your only single measure? just curious..