Eid Mubarak

[DMD]

Ok, that's fine.

The Qur'an in its literal form means recite/recitation, when its read. The written text is Kitaab literally means Book.

As the Quran was being revealed, Prophet Muhammed (saw) made special arrangements to ensure that it was written down. Although the Prophet Muhammad himself could neither read nor write, he dictated the verses orally and instructed scribes to mark down the revelation on whatever materials were available: tree branches, stones, leather, and bones. The scribes would then read their writing back to the Prophet, who would check it for mistakes. With each new verse that was revealed, the Prophet Muhammad also dictated its placement within the growing body of text.

When the Prophet Muhammed (saw) died, the Quran has been fully written down. It was not in book form, however. It was recorded on different parchments and materials, held in the possession of the Companions of the Prophet.

No doubt I'll be accused of avoiding the question and being argumentative, but I started to write an answer that was becoming an essay, and my memory meant I was leaning on google sites that I couldn't be sure of the credibility of, so I'll limit it to some broad points that can perhaps keep it reasoned, as I'm finding this interesting.

To clarify, are you maintaining that there's no dispute even amongst muslim scholars as to:

the number and content of the various codex?

The direct word of god, wasn't always a word, but could be a bell ringing?

That some companions tasked with remembering and reciting the text died in battle? That some texts were eaten by goats or torn up?

That there are conflicting narratives stating it was and wasn't written before his death?

In collating his hadith, al bakr (sp?) didn't whittle down over half a million narratives to a few thousand?

That the koran doesn't contain contradictions and abrogations? Purely as an example, what does the koran say man was made from? blood (96:2) clay (15:26) nothing. (52:35) sperm (16:4)

 

[Tobes]

That post reminds me of the Adam and Eve question that always makes Jehovahs wince on your doorstep.

Adam and Eve had 2 sons...........so what happened next?

 

[Treble]

Exactly. Faith is faith. You either believe or you don't. If you believe - have faith, you don't question. You accept it for what it is. If you have to question it, you also have to question your faith.

No no no. Just to confirm before I responde, I'm a person of faith and believe strongly that religion is a force for good. In fact, no religion is bad.

But you're wrong mate. Any religion should at its heart be about questioning everything. But what it requires to be a believer is 1) faith, and 2) respect and genuine desire to learn.

If you have neither then the answers won't mean much. And if you're a part of that faith you absolutely have to question.

 

[Treble]

That post reminds me of the Adam and Eve question that always makes Jehovahs wince on your doorstep.

Adam and Eve had 2 sons...........so what happened next?

Homophobe!

 

[NSIS]

No no no. Just to confirm before I responde, I'm a person of faith and believe strongly that religion is a force for good. In fact, no religion is bad.

But you're wrong mate. Any religion should at its heart be about questioning everything. But what it requires to be a believer is 1) faith, and 2) respect and genuine desire to learn.

If you have neither then the answers won't mean much. And if you're a part of that faith you absolutely have to question.

I entirely disagree. You either believe in the basic tenets of your chosen religion, or you don't.
Faith is acceptance, not constant questioning.

 

[Treble]

Only to someone who has a faith, then they wouldn't fall into the same category at all and they'd be highly likely to see that comparison as disrespectful and it'd therefore hardly be conducive to a reasoned discussion on the issue would it?

Barring those who've taken up religion in later life or are converts, then you already know the answer to the second question, they've almost certainly not made a 'choice', as Muslims are largely born Muslims aren't they. So basically you're calling them poorly informed with what is a rhetorical question. I find the motives dubious tbh.

I think @Hull City AFC (DMD) knows this already but I suspect he puts them in the same category deliberately to cause offence while at the same time pretending to "only be asking questions they should welcome".

Stealth wumming tbf and why not, but also a chink of light into Hull's angst and bitterness towards religion. That's where his general sentiment comes from imo. And that too is fine as long as he doesn't mask it as something else. In that sense at least with Comm what you see is what you get.

 

[Treble]

I entirely disagree. You either believe in the basic tenets of your chosen religion, or you don't.
Faith is acceptance, not constant questioning.

There's far more to faith and religion than just believing the basic tenets. I grew up asking all sorts of questions. It didnt weaken my faith, it reinforced it.

Put it this way mate, if you don't question then you become a fundamentalist and join ISIS or the Ku Klux Klan.

 

[Treble]

Anyways...

Eid mubarak you muzlamics!!

Ok what day was it

 

[Tobes]

Homophobe!

I was think more about their Ma tbf.....

 

[NSIS]

There's far more to faith and religion than just believing the basic tenets. I grew up asking all sorts of questions. It didnt weaken my faith, it reinforced it.

Put it this way mate, if you don't question then you become a fundamentalist and join ISIS or the Ku Klux Klan.

I don't see that at all. The basic foundation for any devout follower of any religion is their faith. Faith in its absolute truth.

ISIS and KKK are extremely poor comparisons. These people believe in nothing, except that violence will achieve their aims.

 

[DMD]

I think @Hull City AFC (DMD) knows this already but I suspect he puts them in the same category deliberately to cause offence while at the same time pretending to "only be asking questions they should welcome".

Stealth wumming tbf and why not, but also a chink of light into Hull's angst and bitterness towards religion. That's where his general sentiment comes from imo. And that too is fine as long as he doesn't mask it as something else. In that sense at least with Comm what you see is what you get.

I'm pretending **** all. I would have thought it's obvious that I'm cynical about mainstream religions and genuinely see them in the same category as other claims. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof in my view. I see too many inconsistencies to think the main holy books can be the literal word of god, and think some hide behind 'offence' and "superior knowledge" rather than explore and question. I can also see why some people of faith get bored of being challenged about it.

I'm happy to be proven wrong, as I've seen enough first hand to know that there's more things to existence than science can yet account for. I suppose I want to be able to believe, but see too many flaws in the abrahamic religions in particular. Why would a benevolent creator create disease?

 

[DMD]

I entirely disagree. You either believe in the basic tenets of your chosen religion, or you don't.
Faith is acceptance, not constant questioning.

Do you think that some of the tenets need questioning to inform that faith? If you just accept the 10 commandments, you'd risk falling foul of the 600 or more others. Even for the basic 10, what does "thou shall not kill" mean if taken literally and absolute? Are plants alive, is hell full of soldiers?

 

[NSIS]

Do you think that some of the tenets need questioning to inform that faith? If you just accept the 10 commandments, you'd risk falling foul of the 600 or more others. Even for the basic 10, what does "thou shall not kill" mean if taken literally and absolute? Are plants alive, is hell full of soldiers?

That's not a basic tenet of Christianity.

 

[DMD]

That's not a basic tenet of Christianity.

So you'd accept that the bible is the absolute word of God, without reading and understanding at least the main points, and the consequences.

You'd just accept the doctrine of hell, without knowing what gets you there?

 

[NSIS]

So you'd accept that the bible is the absolute word of God, without reading and understanding at least the main points, and the consequences.

You'd just accept the doctrine of hell, without knowing what gets you there?

There are basic tenets -note the word basic - to any religion.

I'm not a believer myself, nor am I theologist. But I do know that faith is faith. Mostly blind faith where religion is concerned.

 

[luvgonzo]

Grumpy ****ers, I get what you mean about the commercial side but there's no need for debt. You save to give your kids something they would like. It's also a great time to get together as a family without the pressures of work. I love Christmas and don't give a hoot about the Christian aspect of it that is getting more and more lost every year.
Christmas in Norway is amazing.

 

[DMD]

There are basic tenets -note the word basic - to any religion.

I'm not a believer myself, nor am I theologist. But I do know that faith is faith. Mostly blind faith where religion is concerned.

But surely you don't expect people to just accept the titles of the tenets and not understand the implications?

As one of the tenets relate to the bible being the absolute word, some knowledge of the content is explicitly required, not just a faith that it'll be right. The same applies to the key elements of the content, they need to be at least understood in the most basic form, or hell awaits, even if they've never bothered understanding that tenet either.

In fact, an obvious question when told that the bible is the inspired and infallible word of god would be, "what's a bible?"

To not question anything beyond the headline, they may as well just be told that they're christian, end of, and not bother with any more detail..

 

[NSIS]

But surely you don't expect people to just accept the titles of the tenets and not understand the implications?

As one of the tenets relate to the bible being the absolute word, some knowledge of the content is explicitly required, not just a faith that it'll be right. The same applies to the key elements of the content, they need to be at least understood in the most basic form, or hell awaits, even if they've never bothered understanding that tenet either.

In fact, an obvious question when told that the bible is the inspired and infallible word of god would be, "what's a bible?"

To not question anything beyond the headline, they may as well just be told that they're christian, end of, and not bother with any more detail..

You fly off on so many irrelevant tangents.

You either have faith in the basic tenets of your chosen religion, or you are not a firm believer.

The debate was about 'faith'. Faith is exactly that. It does not question, it accepts.

 

[Spurlock]

Anyways...

Eid mubarak you muzlamics!!

Ok what day was it

Monday, we all did it at the same time believe it or not.

 

[Treble]

I don't see that at all. The basic foundation for any devout follower of any religion is their faith. Faith in its absolute truth.

ISIS and KKK are extremely poor comparisons. These people believe in nothing, except that violence will achieve their aims.

I can't understand why you're not getting this tbh. It's so obvious what a fundamentalist is. It's someone who takes the literal written text in its simplest form.

You're confusing faith with the desire to seek a deeper understanding. If for example I read that Moses sent a plague on pharoah's land which ultimately led to the death of his own son, the fundamentalist view is God is ruthless. But a wiser scholar will ask the question why? Where was the justice in that? That doesn't compromise your faith, it helps to provide some deeper meaning. Questioning "how" and "why" are the basic practises of all faith. Church sermons are based upon this!

The whole study of theology is about questioning