|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
Senior Member Location: wherever there is good food
Registered:: February 15, 2007
Posts: 12231
|
Posted
In Abrahamic religions, the categories of good and bad are black and white. Hence we see the serious mien of priests, rabbis and imams. In hinduism, however, there is Krishna..good, yet having a quality that is "wutliss." Is this not a superior view to the black and white dimensions of bad and good?
|
|
Senior Member Location: wherever there is good food
Registered:: February 15, 2007
Posts: 12231
|
Posted
Professor Wilfrid Cantwell smith says: the classical hindus developed religious ideals and practices in richer profusion and subtler intellectual depth with more insistent emphasis and more refined analysis earlier than any other people...I suppose that the religious vocabulary of classical sanskrit is probably the subtlest and most elaborate that man have ever devised.
The meaning and end of religion, p. 56-7. |
|
Senior Member Location: Every action is judged by intention - Muhammad
Registered:: April 04, 2005
Posts: 10270
|
Posted
Don't we need to differentiate between God and His creations? Is it unreasonable to see God as superior while seeing His creations not quite as such? Shouldn't God be that existence that is free from wutlissness?
|
|
Knows the ropes Member Registered:: February 10, 2006
Posts: 8318
|
Posted
That is why man is still today professing over religion, So called leaders of faith. In it self sheer wutlissness. |
|
Senior Member Location: Every action is judged by intention - Muhammad
Registered:: April 04, 2005
Posts: 10270
|
Posted
Man was indeed created weak. It shows everyday. I am not worried about weaknesses as much as I am about wutlissness. I believe that God does not take us to account for our weaknesses but we are responsible for our wutlissness. That is why I don't necessirily buy into the fear tactic that is preached by so many modern imaams. They go against the Qur'an which supports what I said above.
|
|
Knows the ropes Member Registered:: February 10, 2006
Posts: 8318
|
Posted
|
|
Senior Member Registered:: February 28, 2005
Posts: 10445
|
Posted
Sallam bro...how are you ? |
|
Senior Member Location: Every action is judged by intention - Muhammad
Registered:: April 04, 2005
Posts: 10270
|
Posted
Alhamdulillah. Hope all is well your way also. Ma'salaam. |
|
Senior Member Registered:: September 13, 2001
Posts: 14912
|
Posted
That would suggest God did not create man in His image. |
|
Senior Member Location: wherever there is good food
Registered:: February 15, 2007
Posts: 12231
|
Posted
I agree. but the concept of "wutlissness" meaning, humor without getting into sin...is an element that is not explored in any abrahamic religion...and therefore leaves very little room for anything but black and white..hence the alacrity to condemn. |
|
Senior Member Location: wherever there is good food
Registered:: February 15, 2007
Posts: 12231
|
Posted
But he did not. The hebrew is in the plural..and the rabbis have always held image to mean that of attributes rather than physical appearance..misunderstanding this has led to anthropomorphism in lay religion. |
|
Senior Member Registered:: September 13, 2001
Posts: 14912
|
Posted
Presuming of course... that the dogma of your base religion is correct. Otherwise who decides where the misunderstanding lies? |
|
Indiana Jones Location: Alberta, Canada
Registered:: May 02, 2007
Posts: 7202
|
Posted
Similar, according to the Jews, of the word/reference to the "Virgin" birth. According to the Jews, the actual word of that day -- for "Virgin" means/refers to a young woman!! Hence, a mistranslation and current use of the term " Virgin" Mary. |
|
Senior Member Location: wherever there is good food
Registered:: February 15, 2007
Posts: 12231
|
Posted
Good point. IN such case, one goes back to the language of the scripture from whence dogma should be derived, not vice versa. But now coming back to Kaz's point about the diff between the creator and the created: this is essentially an Abrahamic viewpoint, not shared by Hinduism, Buddhism etc. The confusion manifests itself clearly in the divinity ascribed to jesus....that is, that the necc. of separation as a theological pillar is not intrinsic to the faiths themselves, but a later construct. The sufis skirt this by talking about "fana" and then saying the hadith about a human becoming the eyes by which god sees etc... |
|
Senior Member Location: wherever there is good food
Registered:: February 15, 2007
Posts: 12231
|
Posted
Thanks DG. It came from a translation of a translation..the septuagint was translated from Hebrew to Greek, and greek ideas crept in. Same with the rib story. That is from sumerian myth. The word used in hebrew does indeed read as rib, but a rib is also the side, not ONLY the set of bones. The talmud reflects this by saying: she was not created from his foot that she might be a runabout, nor from his eye that she might be a gadabout...nor from his head that she might rule over him...and it leaves you to assume that she was created from his side that she might be his equal. Now this is probably later belief creeping in, but my point is that the whole rib story...was not in the original language. This is why Muslims, Jews, most hindu scholars are so insistent on scripture in the original language. |
|
Senior Member Location: wherever there is good food
Registered:: February 15, 2007
Posts: 12231
|
Posted
Otherwise who decides where the misunderstanding lies?[/QUOTE]
Now you hit it right on. WHo decides? the problem is that we like to "decide" instead of leaving the differences of opinion as equally valid interpretations of religion. IN such difference and allowance to differ lies peace..rather than the urge to create orthodoxy..for then we have the creation of heretics..and i need not get into the history of what has happened historically to those deemed as heretics, of the millions of innocents among them...check a book called "when jesus became god" by R. Rubenstein. Innocents were killed in the purge of those who had "false" belief. |
|
Senior Member Registered:: September 13, 2001
Posts: 14912
|
Posted
Now you hit it right on. WHo decides? the problem is that we like to "decide" instead of leaving the differences of opinion as equally valid interpretations of religion. IN such difference and allowance to differ lies peace..rather than the urge to create orthodoxy..for then we have the creation of heretics..and i need not get into the history of what has happened historically to those deemed as heretics, of the millions of innocents among them...check a book called "when jesus became god" by R. Rubenstein. Innocents were killed in the purge of those who had "false" belief.[/QUOTE]Why do I need to read that book? The issue is blatantly evident all around. The previous point I was trying to get to is that your post itself is guilty of assuming a base reference for which belief is incorrect or not. Who establishes that base? |
|
Senior Member Registered:: September 13, 2001
Posts: 14912
|
Posted
And what does one go back to the scripture for and which particular scripture does one chose? By pointing out the divinity of Jesus are you saying the creators of other religions are not divine? What confusion are you referring to? |
|
Senior Member Registered:: February 28, 2005
Posts: 10445
|
Posted
And what does one go back to the scripture for and which particular scripture does one chose? By pointing out the divinity of Jesus are you saying the creators of other religions are not divine? What confusion are you referring to?QUOTE] I tink Dara is reffering to YOU |
|
Indiana Jones Location: Alberta, Canada
Registered:: May 02, 2007
Posts: 7202
|
Posted
Exactly!! Original text/books rather than translation from translations from yet other translations!! |
|
Senior Member Location: Every action is judged by intention - Muhammad
Registered:: April 04, 2005
Posts: 10270
|
Posted
But only from a scholastic viewpoint. Most Christians will tell you that they are guided everyday through their concience and that although the text is claimed to be unreliable, it does not affect their ability to know and do right. Which brings up the preaching of many of our own that all the charity work that Christians do is meaningless in the eyes of Allah. Two things wrong with that. One is that why would Allah not recognize it as meaningful and secondly, if we are so rightly guided, why are we not motivated in the same way to be more benevolent? These are thing that us Muslims need to ponder on if we are going to free ourselves of this silent hypocricy. It is like toxic air. It is there silently killing us while we are totally unaware of it. |
|
Senior Member Location: wherever there is good food
Registered:: February 15, 2007
Posts: 12231
|
Posted
For scripture: that of his religion. In Xity and Islam, this presents a problem as many don't know their original language. In Xity, it is worse because the Hebrew Bible was translated from Hebrew to Greek, and this later translation formed the foundation for the OLD Testament of Christianity. I am saying that for MOST other religions, the founders are NOT divine. Certainly not in Buddhism, Jainism, Islam and Judaism. Confusion: the argument about Jesus divinity or lack thereof..it signified the departure from Xity's judaic roots and from eastern orthodoxy. |
|
Senior Member Location: wherever there is good food
Registered:: February 15, 2007
Posts: 12231
|
Posted
Kaz: all that you say makes sense, but the idea of morality and ethics from conscience is not a christian peculiarity..the muslims also know that and were actually the first to put it as a philosophical question: BEFORE god's law, did we know good and evil? The mutazilites did this. Others see it as a variant of natural law. U know that I am extremely hard on my fellow Muslims..but when it comes to charity, I will be the first to declare that the charity of Muslims is beyond compare....we hardly know about it because many stick to NOT dec |