The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by SigTerm My original argument was that I personally would not accept religion that treats humans as god's slaves AND that in my opinion even if deity really exists it might make sense to banish/destroy it in certain circumstances. It isn't exactly an argument against religion in general, but a personal disagreement with certain elements that are present in some religions.

I dont know why are you so upset about this. Probably you are not able to distinguish difference between "slave of Man" to "slave of God".

Here slave of God means nothing but fulfilling the order of God with one's full heart. There is no physical or mental torture, no wealth capturing, nothing which can hurt or harm slave in any way... Orders are just how one should live his life so that he make this world a peaceful place for him as well as others to live.

Originally Posted by Anisha Kaul Though I still remember from Ramayana that Lord Ram ate the impure fruit by the hands of a schedule caste woman Shabri (during his exile), and also I remember that Lord Krishna's girlfriend Radha, was a schedule caste woman and his best friend Sudama, was schedule caste too, which when in need of money turned to his friend, and Lord Krishna in return, jumped off his throne to welcome him and washed his feet with his hands, signaling welcome.

We all Indians saw Mahabharat and Ramayan in TV serial, so we know this very well. Let me ask you one simple question. When Ram, Krishna gave so much respect to schedule cast, why still in hindu's temple schedule casts are not allowed to even enter. Infact why schedule cast even exists? Are we not all human beings with same right?

Originally Posted by Anisha Kaul First you cut off my statements in context, then you ask me questions? Didn't you read the last statement which talked about avoiding (if you like) the mythological stories? If you are interested in bed-time stories, then you can very well use Ramayana to lull the babies to sleep. On the other hand one can even try to learn from the life of Lord Ram, that how he was a dutiful son, husband, king, and man, Bharat as a dutiful brother etc. etc.

It was not my intention to take something out of context. I'm trying to understand what qualifies as nonsense. It seems that any of it taken literally would be nonsense, which makes the last sentence regarding filtering out mythological stories strange. It's all mythology, isn't it? Not that myth can't be useful and interesting, stories of all sort are useful and interesting. Shakespeare is useful and interesting and speaks to the human condition, but one doesn't go about building a religion out of it.

My purpose is to show that religion has no special claim on morality or truth, and deserves no special regard outside of the regard we might give any piece of literature. If someone views religion as interesting history and myth and story, but not as something that makes actual claims about the universe or intrinsically deserves a privileged position in society, then that's well and good and I have no trouble with it.

Originally Posted by reed9 It was not my intention to take something out of context. I'm trying to understand what qualifies as nonsense. It seems that any of it taken literally would be nonsense, which makes the last sentence regarding filtering out mythological stories strange.

Please read the posts properly before responding.
In my response to Sycamorex, I referred to Ramayana as an epic.

Ramayana is full of mythological stories, it is up to you how
you read it.

Example:
Story:
Ravan the demon king, came in a "flying" chariot, disguised himself
"magically" as a sage and trapped Sita and "flew" away.
and then Lord Ram using all sorts of tips and forces, managed to
track him down and kill him.

My reading:
Sins like eying someone's wife is never going to be pardoned by the God. Period.

Originally Posted by reed9 My purpose is to show that religion has no special claim on morality or truth,

You can show all that to someone who claims that his god is the creator
of this and that. I haven't claimed anything of that sort.
It all started with sycamorex asking me the reasons of reading a holy
book, to which I responded by saying that filter what you read and
use your own common sense. TIA.

Originally Posted by ShaanAli Let me ask you one simple question. Why still in hindu's temple schedule casts are not allowed to even enter.

May I ask you a simple question? When allah has told everyone around not
to commit sucide, why are so many muslim sucide bombers jumping around?

For your question:
Perhaps asking the priests around there would be more helpful.

And AFA the caste system: It just means that people are divided
on the basis of the work they do. If Lord Ram and Lord Krishna
have no problems with schedule casts, I give a damn to what mortal
priests think.

Offtopic:

You have lowered yourself enough in my eyes. I am bored now.
I purposefully did not respond to your previous post.
It is really enough now.

Originally Posted by Anisha Kaul Please read the posts properly before responding. In my response to Sycamorex, I referred to Ramayana as an epic. Ramayana is full of mythological stories, it is up to you how you read it. Example: Story: Ravan the demon king, came in a "flying" chariot, disguised himself "magically" as a sage and trapped Sita and "flew" away. and then Lord Ram using all sorts of tips and forces, managed to track him down and kill him. My reading: Sins like eying someone's wife is never going to be pardoned by the God. Period. You can show all that to someone who claims that his god is the creator of this and that. I haven't claimed anything of that sort. It all started with sycamorex asking me the reasons of reading a holy book, to which I responded by saying that filter what you read and use your own common sense.

If I have misread what you were saying, my apologies.

But then I see this, "My reading:
Sins like eying someone's wife is never going to be pardoned by the God. Period." or this "I said before too, if I find God talking nonsense there, I won't
be referring to that book again."

It sounds like you are saying there is/are god(s), that there is some connection between the writings of these epics/religious texts and said god(s), and that god(s) have some role in judging what is moral. Which makes my point and criticisms relevant.

Originally Posted by reed9 It sounds like you are saying there is/are god(s), that there is some connection between the writings of these epics/religious texts and said god(s), and that god(s) have some role in judging what is moral. Which makes my point and criticisms relevant.

Can you read the posts in context, PLEASEEEEE?

The discussion between Sigterm, me and sycamorex started with Sigterm saying
that "let's assume that God exists...", and whatever I have
written there is with ASSUMPTION that God exists.

I did not CLAIM anything.

For a change you can start reading here:
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...ml#post4434439

Read my replies to sigterm and sycamorex to know the context (if you are interested).

Originally Posted by Anisha Kaul Perhaps it means you have not followed the thread thoroughly. Assumption about the God's existence started with sigterm asking ShaanAli something like "even if we assume that God exists, how will you know whether he's lying or not", to which I responded, assuming God exists. If we take out the assumption of God's existence, then the discussion won't make sense, since a holy book, is called holy only because it is said to have a connection with God, otherwise we would be calling it a book written by an <author name>, and all these lengthy talks wouldn't have taken place. To be honest and with NO intentions of advertising my religion, I would state again, that I have read complete Ramayana (epic depicting life of Lord Ram),and partial Bhagwad Gita (which constitutes of questions of the human, and Lord Krishna giving answers), I haven't found anything nonsensical/contradictions there, YET. I said before too, if I find God talking nonsense there, I won't be referring to that book again. When I mentioned filtering what you read, I was in a way referring to concepts like heaven/hell/lifeAfterDeath, and mythological stories.

Ok, fair enough, my comments were replies to your posts without taking into account a broader context of this thread.
As I mentioned in my last posts, they also applied to the bible only as that's the only of the holy books I know.
Furthermore, I know next to nothing about your religion so I won't comment on it

Originally Posted by sycamorex Furthermore, I know next to nothing about your religion so I won't comment on it

Even I know ZERO about Bible, so won't comment on that.

Originally Posted by reed9 My understanding is immaterial. The point stands in that different people have different ideas about what religious passages and claims mean or how they should be applied. For example, when the Koran says, "O you who believe! Fight against those unbelievers who are in your vicinity (and pose an immediate threat to you and the preaching of Islam), and let them find in you sternness.28 Know that God is with the God-revering, pious who keep their duty to Him." Should "fight" be taken as literally as physical violence? Should it mean argue against? There is nothing inherent in the text that would allow you to choose between competing interpretations, the individual or community decides what it means, it's all opinion.

When you just pick one sentence and try to understand its meaning, ofcourse it may lead you to several meanings. But when you read same with its context it will make you clear what it means. Its applicable to any book or article. The example you shown is allowing to fight. But it does not mean again that every time you go and fight. Fight used to be consider always the last option.

So let us assume he "caused the violence" through writing a book. Does that justify calling for his death? Is there justification in Islam for harming or killing someone for speaking or writing things critical of the religion? The allegations against him were apostasy and blasphemy. This was what was said, "In the name of God the Almighty. We belong to God and to Him we shall return. I would like to inform all intrepid Muslims in the world that the author of the book Satanic Verses, which has been compiled, printed, and published in opposition to Islam, the Prophet, and the Qur'an, and those publishers who were aware of its contents, are sentenced to death. I call on all zealous Muslims to execute them quickly, where they find them, so that no one will dare to insult the Islamic sanctity. Whoever is killed on this path will be regarded as a martyr, God-willing. In addition, if anyone has access to the author of the book but does not possess the power to execute him, he should point him out to the people so that he may be punished for his actions. May God's blessing be on you all. Rullah Musavi al-Khomeini."

This is really very subjective. I mentioned you early fatwa is non binding. Its upto believers to obey or not. Fatwa issued against him was only from single person in the whole world, it could be several. Killing an innocent is not at all allowed. To understand if he was really innocent or not, we need to read his book. Not only alone him there would be several such writers who might have wrote wrong. I dont think there are fatwas against all of them. We all are human being, most of us are short tempered when it comes to religious. One should think before writing such. Because he is not writing for himself, he is writing for everyone. He is sharing his ideas to others, there should be respect. Very similar incident happened few years back when Danish newspaper published Muhammed (pbuh) cartoons in newspaper and even after so much of protest around world there was no even sorry from newspaper. What was the purpose of that newspaper to publish cartoons of a Phrophet, even whose believers don't have any photo or sketch? An indian muslim artist also did very similar, he draw objectionable images of Hindu's God. He was not supposed to do that. People went to kill him, somehow he escaped and runaway to different country. My point is there should be respect. If someone cross that, there will be unpredictable results. If I publish a book stating very wrong about your family, will you just pardon me?

Originally Posted by ShaanAli This is really very subjective. I mentioned you early fatwa is non binding. Its upto believers to obey or not. Fatwa issued against him was only from single person in the whole world, it could be several. Killing an innocent is not at all allowed. To understand if he was really innocent or not, we need to read his book. Not only alone him there would be several such writers who might have wrote wrong. I dont think there are fatwas against all of them. We all are human being, most of us are short tempered when it comes to religious. One should think before writing such. Because he is not writing for himself, he is writing for everyone. He is sharing his ideas to others, there should be respect. Very similar incident happened few years back when Danish newspaper published Muhammed (pbuh) cartoons in newspaper and even after so much of protest around world there was no even sorry from newspaper. What was the purpose of that newspaper to publish cartoons of a Phrophet, even whose believers don't have any photo or sketch? An indian muslim artist also did very similar, he draw objectionable images of Hindu's God. He was not supposed to do that. People went to kill him, somehow he escaped and runaway to different country. My point is there should be respect. If someone cross that, there will be unpredictable results. If I publish a book stating very wrong about your family, will you just pardon me?

So to summarize, in your estimation it can be appropriate to call for someone's death because they wrote something or published a picture. And that, right there, is why I will spend all of my days fighting against religion. I would publish a hundred "Satanic Verses" type books (if only I had the talent), I would draw Mohammed in the most offensive and indelicate of situations if only because there are people who believe murder and violence is an appropriate response to ideas.

And no, there should not be intrinsic respect for religion. There should be respect for people, but people's beliefs and ideas are fair and proper targets for criticism, even vehement, impolite criticism.

Originally Posted by Anisha Kaul May I ask you a simple question? When allah has told everyone around not to commit sucide, why are so many muslim sucide bombers jumping around?

In other words you mean to say here, priests of temples also dont know their scriptures?

There is no one in society to raise this as a concern and give scheduled cast their right?

And AFA the caste system: It just means that people are divided on the basis of the work they do. If Lord Ram and Lord Krishna have no problems with schedule casts, I give a damn to what mortal priests think.

Its not just thinking, its under practice. Hinduism has divided the God based on Cast, Region, Race, Work etc etc....

Religious books are not just meant to be read and keep in corner. They should be in practice.

The biggest Hinduism problem is they are very far from original scripts. Ramayana and Mahabharata are just epics. Unfortunately no one has time to read Vedas, which are supposed to be read first. I dont know the reason of this.

Offtopic: You have lowered yourself enough in my eyes. I am bored now. I purposefully did not respond to your previous post. It is really enough now.

If you would be asking this (or similar) question to me from Quran, your next line would be nothing but insulting the God. And there would 3-4 more posts afterwards from others clapping your reaction. this is how I got reaction in this thread from day one.

I am sorry for whatever I said wrong. I never intend to hurt anyone. There are some people who think they will be considered as smart if they put others down. I am not one of them.

Originally Posted by ShaanAli I dont know why are you so upset about this. Probably you are not able to distinguish difference between "slave of Man" to "slave of God".

I'm "able to distinguish difference" between being slave and being free. If there is a god and it was god's intent to create creatures that will obey, then the god has messed up and should start over from scratch.

Originally Posted by ShaanAli There is no physical or mental torture,

According to religion, there's hell. Which IS "physical or mental torture".

Originally Posted by ShaanAli Orders are just how one should live his life so that he make this world a peaceful place for him as well as others to live.

"Too good to be true". I see no evidence that would support your "theory". And don't bother quoting quran again - I can always go outside and check how "peaceful" the world has become. There's either no god, or there's "indifferent god", "uncaring god", "inhuman god" or "insane god".

Anyway, this is boring.

Originally Posted by reed9 So to summarize, in your estimation it can be appropriate to call for someone's death because they wrote something or published a picture. And that, right there, is why I will spend all of my days fighting against religion. I would publish a hundred "Satanic Verses" type books (if only I had the talent), I would draw Mohammed in the most offensive and indelicate of situations if only because there are people who believe murder and violence is an appropriate response to ideas. And no, there should not be intrinsic respect for religion. There should be respect for people, but people's beliefs and ideas are fair and proper targets for criticism, even vehement, impolite criticism.

People like this mentality only cause the trouble in world. Mind it.

And you didnt answer my question:
If I publish a book stating very wrong about your family, will you just pardon me?

Originally Posted by SigTerm I'm "able to distinguish difference" between being slave and being free. If there is a god and it was god's intent to create creatures that will obey, then the god has messed up and should start over from scratch.

God messed up or you are messing up, who will decide?

According to religion, there's hell. Which IS "physical or mental torture".

Not for good people.

"Too good to be true". I see no evidence that would support your "theory". And don't bother quoting quran again - I can always go outside and check how "peaceful" the world has become. There's either no god, or there's "indifferent god", "uncaring god", "inhuman god" or "insane god". Anyway, this is boring.

I agree to you there is no peace in world, but did you ever think why there is no peace? Nuclear bomb is biggest threat, who invented that technology? Who is carrying most number of such bombs? Who used that so far in the world? One country is fully destroyed in suspecting of nuclear bomb, who is responsible for that?
Why religion is only getting blamed for any wrong doing. There is no religion which says its followers to go and commit crime. Criminals has no religion. Dont blame God, for our own criminal activities.