PDA

View Full Version : islam dissected


Fragmented
06-02-2006, 02:51 AM
ok since i've been very busy, and haven't had time to really post here

a little about me

i am a proud apostate of islam, left 2005 and have done alot of research into helping other like myself try and leave islam



i've been meaning to start this thread for a long time, my aim is purely and simply to show what islam actually is.

i'd ask if people could politely keep their emotions in check and only post facts and not try and justify their point using propoganda material

1, why islam is completely uncompatable with science

this is a arguement often used, harun yahya has produced many books trying to deal with this issue and trying to adap the qu'ran to prove that indeed islam and science are not only connected but are one and the same

but this is a rather disturbing and vendictive lie let's examine the huge difference between scientific reasoning and quranic revalations

scientific reasoning:

for a discovery to be made and accepted as scientific fact the subject in question has to undergo stringent test sometimes lasting years, decades, and even centuries before something can be establish as a fact, all the time of these test a element of doubt is key to the progress of the scientific evaluation and even after something is test hundred and accept as part of science it is still treated with a element of doubt.quranic revelation:

As revealed in the qu'ranic form descriptions for so called facts are both brief and crude at best, they contain no cross analyse or go into great detail about things work, no form of doubt can be used as this is apparently " the final revelation to mankind berift from any faults
now i'll admite i do not have a phd in biological science, nor do i claim to have anything of the sort, but we can see quite clear differences in the way the world of science work and the way the qu'ran deals with the same issues.

As islam is without doubt, and doubt is a key element of what science is, the two are not only extremely difference but are both complete uncompatable

without doubt

thinking the world is flat would be fact
no evaluation of evidence
no technologyso ask yourself this question, if islam is truely scientific, why does it go against all the priciples of science ?

as a small note i would like to apologise for the standard of my writting, my grammar and the way i expressed myself through this.

hopefully in the next few weeks i'll have time to elaborate much more completely

Prince Rai
06-02-2006, 04:55 AM
to assume Islam to be non scientific ought not be the basis for me to leave this way of life.

Indeed Islam has a different take to sceince which is accepted in the west, but i may also elaborate how Islam, at times perhaps, does support science.

Visionz
06-02-2006, 08:48 AM
The basis of your agrument is that Islam isn't as scientific in nature as you'd like it to be so you should abandon it. But I don't take the Quran into account as a matter of scientific fact but as a matter of faith. They're quite simply two different things.

zeppelin2k
06-02-2006, 10:40 AM
you may not have a phd but I have studied science and what you're saying doesnt really make any sense at all,

real science is measured through falsifiability and is testable and can be proven wrong

you can basically say that all religion is wrong then bc none of it is falsifiable or testable, thats why its called FAITH

you either believe it or not

what religion really is though, is a standard of morality and a philosophy as to how we should live our lives

religion is open to interpretation as well, this is like bashing a religion especially with that crude argument

the strongest argument is the ATHEISTS argument, bc there is no proof of God and they dont believe in God

the fact is believing in God is the equivalent of believing in aliens, ghosts, and leprechans yet many people believe in God

religion is most cases is an attempt to explain what we can not understand, but as for our existence we'll only know if there is something afterwards after we die and I can tell you right now that it wont be exactly like ANY holy book says, it will all also be scientific bc everything is bound to the rules of the universe and we exist and when we die we probably dont cease to exist, but I doubt there is a guy sitting on cloud and a heaven and hell, maybe things that are similar but religion was created by man not by God, last time I checked it was all humans who wrote the holy books

Urban_Journalz
06-02-2006, 04:14 PM
Here we go again, people have more faith in science than they do in the The One who gave science to mankind in the first place. If YOUR faith is weak, then by all means, go on your way. Like the Qur'an says, "There is no compultion in religion." "You to yours, and me to mine." But don't you dare try to take other people with you, on the whims and guesses of a society based on physical knowledge rather than spiritual knowledge. The consequences will be horrific.
Peace

Urban_Journalz
06-02-2006, 04:16 PM
And, if you want a scientific conformation of the scriptures, go to www.arkdiscovery.com that is, if you don't lack the courage.

urban_angel
06-02-2006, 06:35 PM
Peace Fragmented, nice to see you back
peace for the knowledge :)

O:)

1

Fragmented
06-02-2006, 08:31 PM
you may not have a phd but I have studied science and what you're saying doesnt really make any sense at all,

real science is measured through falsifiability and is testable and can be proven wrong

you can basically say that all religion is wrong then bc none of it is falsifiable or testable, thats why its called FAITH

you either believe it or not

what religion really is though, is a standard of morality and a philosophy as to how we should live our lives

religion is open to interpretation as well, this is like bashing a religion especially with that crude argument

the strongest argument is the ATHEISTS argument, bc there is no proof of God and they dont believe in God

the fact is believing in God is the equivalent of believing in aliens, ghosts, and leprechans yet many people believe in God

religion is most cases is an attempt to explain what we can not understand, but as for our existence we'll only know if there is something afterwards after we die and I can tell you right now that it wont be exactly like ANY holy book says, it will all also be scientific bc everything is bound to the rules of the universe and we exist and when we die we probably dont cease to exist, but I doubt there is a guy sitting on cloud and a heaven and hell, maybe things that are similar but religion was created by man not by God, last time I checked it was all humans who wrote the holy books


come on, falsibility is basically doubt, doubt is a key element of why science continues to evolve because nothing remains fact without proper analysis, thing are consistantly being retested. islam on the other hand doesn't deal with scientific explaination, lets look at a example


he was created from a drop (of sperm) emitted proceeding between the backbone and ribs (qu'ran 86 6-7)

clearly this would indicate sperm comes from the kidneys, which is clearly incorrect, this theory dates back 11 centuries before muhammad from the greek physician Hippocrates and at the time was accepted as fact

thats that dealt with :)

next

the qu'ran states that the blood clot was turned to bone and god covered wthe bone with flesh (qu'ran 23: 13-14)

even just a little goggle will tell you that bone is not grown first far from it!!
flesh is the first thing grown bone is a later developement and will continue gaining strength for many years after the births

hmm very scientific :D

thats two little extract quite easily seen for what they're,

Fragmented
06-02-2006, 08:40 PM
Here we go again, people have more faith in science than they do in the The One who gave science to mankind in the first place. If YOUR faith is weak, then by all means, go on your way. Like the Qur'an says, "There is no compultion in religion." "You to yours, and me to mine." But don't you dare try to take other people with you, on the whims and guesses of a society based on physical knowledge rather than spiritual knowledge. The consequences will be horrific.
Peace
actually this is where i disagree, my faith in an exsistance of a creator has never been stronger! i feel science supports the existance of a creator and i feel evolution can support as much. but islam is no message from god,

lets look at some fallacy shall we :)

www.faithfreedom.org/articles/skm/contradictions.html#3

Fragmented
06-02-2006, 08:45 PM
The basis of your agrument is that Islam isn't as scientific in nature as you'd like it to be so you should abandon it. But I don't take the Quran into account as a matter of scientific fact but as a matter of faith. They're quite simply two different things.

thanx for ur take eric,

but there is alot more then just faith to consider, we have to look at everything to do with islam before u can make an accurate choice, or gain "faith". without a solid foundation for faith, it becomes blind faith, and blind faith can cause people to martyr themselves in the belief that paradise awaits them. which is why i think for anything to be a faith, u must know what it is you have faith in.

Fragmented
06-02-2006, 08:51 PM
to assume Islam to be non scientific ought not be the basis for me to leave this way of life.

Indeed Islam has a different take to sceince which is accepted in the west, but i may also elaborate how Islam, at times perhaps, does support science.

thank you for you time rai,

it is not just scientific extract from the qu'ran which i find unsuitable this is the begining and hopefully i'll be able to cover mostly everything i think will show islam for what it truely is.

I'm hoping i can be of help to people

peace

Urban_Journalz
06-02-2006, 09:44 PM
Islam is no message from God. Then that would imply that the messages sent by previous Prophets is held in the same context of nothingness in your eyes.
I shudder to think what you do believe in.
Sounds like nothing.

WuTangWarrior
06-02-2006, 10:01 PM
Here we go again, people have more faith in science than they do in the The One who gave science to mankind in the first place. If YOUR faith is weak, then by all means, go on your way. Like the Qur'an says, "There is no compultion in religion." "You to yours, and me to mine." But don't you dare try to take other people with you, on the whims and guesses of a society based on physical knowledge rather than spiritual knowledge. The consequences will be horrific.
Peace

thank you :)

Fragmented
06-03-2006, 05:01 AM
Islam is no message from God. Then that would imply that the messages sent by previous Prophets is held in the same context of nothingness in your eyes.
I shudder to think what you do believe in.
Sounds like nothing.
actually this is a logical fallacy in itself, by imply that if (and i do) reject islam as the word of god, that i reject all forms of religion or revalations, this would be an idiotic assuption, as assuption are made you must provide evidence that i reject all religion and not just islam as the word of god.

Clearly this is not the case as i have no such admission, because islam is not from god, if you feel otherwise i challange you to prove the validity of islam and state your case against that statement, bring your evidence, verifable by outside sources.

oh and why didn't u read the link and conduct ur rebutle :b

peace

thejesusfunk
06-03-2006, 10:44 AM
1

Fragmented
06-04-2006, 07:42 AM
1. Many great scientists have been Muslim. Explain this.

2. Why is Islam to be judged and rejected by some particular 'science', rather than science by Islam? Explain your epistemology; i.e., how you know what you know. Why does experimental testing 'prove' the truth of something any more than, for example, revelation?

-'Isa Iskandar

name these great scientist that have been muslim ?

any your arguement here, in all honesty lack credibility, science is tirelessly researched, criticised, things added and removed, as new discoveries are made, science is uncomprimising in this respect, can the same be said about islam? didn't think so :) so trying to judge science by islamic standard would be a step back into the dark ages, literally

testing is to conclude result to thoeries if a theory can withstand heavy testing giving identical or 99.9% simularity over a long period of time , this indicates a reliable foundation for something to be established as fact.

if islam took any criticism, it wouldn't survive, thats why people who criticise islam openly are often killled, if we adapt the same practice science uses, then islam would crumble as it isn't fact it's simple a mix of folklore, brutality, narcasism and, what they do try and use as a so called "scientific" core is crude explations which as i have shown are often incorrect, if allah created us then why would his book to us contain wrong information ? there no reason for him to make a mistake is there ?

peace

thejesusfunk
06-04-2006, 08:22 AM
1

My First Timbs
06-04-2006, 01:11 PM
Allah's book contains no 'wrong' information, and Allah has made, and does not make, mistakes, by definition.


this is the very definition of dogma and the religious fallacy of unfalsifiability.

there are inumerable instances in teh Quran where information is presented and interpreted as fact but meanwhile it is glaringly incorrect.

the most famous example (and we have discused this ad naseum in KTL) is the alleged facts of embryology contained in the Quran or Quranic documents.

its a blatant example of unforgivable intellectual dishonesty when one claims that the Quran (or any holy text) is inerrant

My First Timbs
06-04-2006, 01:13 PM
Lastly, Islam is certainly not "simple [sic] a mix of folklore, brutality, narcasism [sic]". It is an holistic religious worldview that deals with science, revelation, faith, intellect - body, mind and spirit. Show me where it is simply folklore, brutality and narcissism, or simply shut the fuck up.

the tone and content of this post speaks volumes about religion and it being contested with reason

thejesusfunk
06-04-2006, 03:47 PM
1

thejesusfunk
06-04-2006, 03:51 PM
1

Urban_Journalz
06-04-2006, 04:21 PM
Dogma Timbs??? Dogma???
You haven't read The Qur'an, so, once again, you're talkin' out of you ass.

My First Timbs
06-04-2006, 04:38 PM
Dogma Timbs??? Dogma???
You haven't read The Qur'an, so, once again, you're talkin' out of you ass.

ive read and studied the quran and almost every ancient holy text on this planet (and most in their original translation)

My First Timbs
06-04-2006, 04:39 PM
Prove that unfalsifiability is a fallacy. What does that even mean?


this shows that any conversation i bring forth is moot because u contest the very principle which u dont even understand or know the definition of

thejesusfunk
06-04-2006, 07:49 PM
1

thejesusfunk
06-04-2006, 08:02 PM
1

My First Timbs
06-05-2006, 05:28 PM
lol

My First Timbs
06-05-2006, 06:46 PM
Prove that the Qur'an presents those 'embryological facts' as facts, precisely, that are meant to be taken literally and in a scientifically biological sense. If they were never meant to be read that way, then it would mean less than nothing that they don't apply to contemporary findings.

The Qur'an does not say, here are some facts on embryology for you. It presents a highly symbolic account of the conception and birth of man, intended to provide us with a sense of our beginnings, NOT to give precise medical details.



if thats the islamic stance all of a sudden, "that the details of embryology are to be read non literally as symbolism"... then my reply is that "they are symbolically incorrect"

symbolism or not,, the order and mechanism is all screwed up.. so its incorrect and thus , could not have been divinely inspired as ppl claim and want so bad



It is a central claim of Islam and the Qur'an itself that it is inerrant. Nearly every Muslim on the planet believes this, as many believers of other faiths believe regarding their scriptures.
...Spiritus.


so is it inerrant or not? if it is and this is admitted to, then all is well and good,,,, but if it is not inerrant, something is fishy, cause its filled with many errors.


Yo Blak !

SubtleEnergies
06-06-2006, 12:55 AM
Religion is a mental illness. Participation in this conversation is a mental illness.

Religion is when people think their viewpoint based on what their ego concludes is right. Union with God is the sublimation of the Ego to connect with the divine.

My First Timbs
06-06-2006, 09:06 AM
in my latest book (that im working on now)

i am focussing on exactly what u state

The title is tentatively : "Why Bad Beliefs Won't Die"
and one of the chapters deals with religion and adherence to religious claims as a form of psychosis that ranges from mild to severe.

Prince Rai
06-06-2006, 02:02 PM
There are more things in life then religions.

thing is, either we believe in a religion so extremely, or we are convinced of its flaws and then "fight to die"- style try to break that religion and its followers down.

thing is, most religions have evolved artificially thus giving room for obvious flaws.
the original core must be researched, and whether you want to subscribe to that original belief if matter of choice.

if one doesnt agree to it, dont mean its not neccessarily wrong.

the truth lies in the angle you view every subject from.

My First Timbs
06-06-2006, 05:05 PM
peace

it depends how one views the world

some ppl view the world as if everything is subjective

some view the world as if things can be perceived thru a subjective lens, however a true objective reality does indeed exist regardless of what we want to believe

man's mind and rational thought is our "tool" for trying to figure out what exactly is objective truth and objective reality.

Prince Rai
06-07-2006, 08:51 AM
peace

it depends how one views the world

some ppl view the world as if everything is subjective

some view the world as if things can be perceived thru a subjective lens, however a true objective reality does indeed exist regardless of what we want to believe

man's mind and rational thought is our "tool" for trying to figure out what exactly is objective truth and objective reality.

absolutely.. and i do pursue life through a rational angle.
rationality often coincides with the use of our senses in order for our brain to perceive reality in the best way, the only little problem is the fact that our senses do not always function 100%, or better, they are prone to weaknesses, illusions, glitches etc. thus our rational recordings may not always be precise.

furthermore, our eyes exhibit the 3d dimensions of the universe, however science has put light on the fact that there exist multiple dimensions that are not viewable with our naked eyes, let alone our senses.

to me this allows me to rationally conclude that there is a possibility therefore, that in unseen parallels, that there may be organisms living there who are superior to us and have attributes to influence us.

Howver the religious view to this all can be quiet vague and empty, science gave more substance to these matters. thats how i make my rational conclusions..

peace timbs

My First Timbs
06-07-2006, 03:52 PM
i agree wholeheartedly

Muslimah
06-08-2006, 12:46 AM
Masha Allah, thejesusfunk, I could not agree more. Definitely a breath of fresh air!

It has been too long since I have seen your postings!

And this quote Masha Allah… so beautiful and so full of secrets…

“Knowledge: There are things we do know and others not; Knowledge of space and time I do not miss. Maybe I do not know what people are, Or what I am; I know that Being is.” - Frithjof Schuon


Jazak Allahu Khairon akhi, truly an inspiring read.

SubtleEnergies
06-08-2006, 03:33 AM
This Timbs dude seems ok.....I don't know about his evolution arguments but he is ok in this thread ;)

My problem with religion is this:
Religious people put the word of other people (who they rarely even know) above their own experience and logic - this is a VERY dangerous thing.

Religious people cling to words such as "Islam," "Chrisitianity," "Judaism," "God," "Allah." And how do they choose which words are for them? Often simply by culture or a brief assessment of what THEY think looks best. Most people can't sort out their everyday lives, do you honestly think that they can pick the best spiritual system?

This type of ideas actually also run contrary to the goal of spirituality. Weakening of the identification with a false concept of a self/ ego. They are also based on desires. Fear and reward.

Also people choose the religion which suits them this is really a form of satanism (Following desires).

Rumi wasn't Muslim, Jesus wasn't Christian, Buddha - try and even find a setence where he admits he exists at all!

Religion is spiritual backwash spat back into the bottle of ignorance by the masses and passed on to the next lot.

Muslimah
06-08-2006, 07:24 AM
This Timbs dude seems ok.....I don't know about his evolution arguments but he is ok in this thread ;)

My problem with religion is this:
Religious people put the word of other people (who they rarely even know) above their own experience and logic - this is a VERY dangerous thing.

Religious people cling to words such as "Islam," "Chrisitianity," "Judaism," "God," "Allah." And how do they choose which words are for them? Often simply by culture or a brief assessment of what THEY think looks best. Most people can't sort out their everyday lives, do you honestly think that they can pick the best spiritual system?

This type of ideas actually also run contrary to the goal of spirituality. Weakening of the identification with a false concept of a self/ ego. They are also based on desires. Fear and reward.

Also people choose the religion which suits them this is really a form of satanism (Following desires).

Rumi wasn't Muslim, Jesus wasn't Christian, Buddha - try and even find a setence where he admits he exists at all!

Religion is spiritual backwash spat back into the bottle of ignorance by the masses and passed on to the next lot.

Do you have a problem with religion or do you have a problem with the people who practice it? There needs to be clear lines drawn in this regard. I do not see the purpose of targeting religion in the way that you have, especially when it is clear that it is the ways in which people interpret religion that bothers you, not religion in itself. The problems you raise however, are not synonymous with religion alone; rather they relate to a much more universal dilemma facing all of humanity today.

I do find it rather ironic that the same thing you charge people who choose to follow religions with, you are in fact doing yourself. You have chosen to not isolate a single religion as that in which you hope to base your life on. Based on what you have just said in your post, isn’t that in itself also following a kind of desire? If not, then what constitutes following desires?

Generally when we make a choice, it I because we desire an intended return. There are of course different roads one can take in order to experience ‘spirituality’ and as such we must always be wary of the judgments we place on others. We can never know what resides within a person’s heart. Most the time, the same judgments we inflict on others are more often then not the same judgements that could easily condemn our own selves. However, what is clear is that in every action there is an intention that lurks behind it. I feel that you need to be more inclusive, because desires are of different degrees. Following a religion is a desire that doesn’t necessarily constitute Satanism. To say so is closed-minded, the same crime you claim to abhor in religion!

As you know me to be a last minute worker, I actually have to go and do a forensic sociology essay now. Exciting stuff really...

peace

NAKHI the SOLORIAN
06-08-2006, 07:35 AM
This Timbs dude seems ok.....I don't know about his evolution arguments but he is ok in this thread ;)

My problem with religion is this:
Religious people put the word of other people (who they rarely even know) above their own experience and logic - this is a VERY dangerous thing.

Religious people cling to words such as "Islam," "Chrisitianity," "Judaism," "God," "Allah." And how do they choose which words are for them? Often simply by culture or a brief assessment of what THEY think looks best. Most people can't sort out their everyday lives, do you honestly think that they can pick the best spiritual system?

This type of ideas actually also run contrary to the goal of spirituality. Weakening of the identification with a false concept of a self/ ego. They are also based on desires. Fear and reward.

Also people choose the religion which suits them this is really a form of satanism (Following desires).

Rumi wasn't Muslim, Jesus wasn't Christian, Buddha - try and even find a setence where he admits he exists at all!

Religion is spiritual backwash spat back into the bottle of ignorance by the masses and passed on to the next lot.



interesting theroy.........

Prince Rai
06-08-2006, 07:39 AM
i agree wholeheartedly

peace timbs, i feel your thoughts very much also!

Prince Rai
06-08-2006, 07:43 AM
This Timbs dude seems ok.....I don't know about his evolution arguments but he is ok in this thread ;)

My problem with religion is this:
Religious people put the word of other people (who they rarely even know) above their own experience and logic - this is a VERY dangerous thing.

Religious people cling to words such as "Islam," "Chrisitianity," "Judaism," "God," "Allah." And how do they choose which words are for them? Often simply by culture or a brief assessment of what THEY think looks best. Most people can't sort out their everyday lives, do you honestly think that they can pick the best spiritual system?

This type of ideas actually also run contrary to the goal of spirituality. Weakening of the identification with a false concept of a self/ ego. They are also based on desires. Fear and reward.

Also people choose the religion which suits them this is really a form of satanism (Following desires).

Rumi wasn't Muslim, Jesus wasn't Christian, Buddha - try and even find a setence where he admits he exists at all!

Religion is spiritual backwash spat back into the bottle of ignorance by the masses and passed on to the next lot.

definitely an intresting take to religion and its implications on individuals..

although i see much sense here, there is one main point you highlight which was that people choose their religion or spirituality parallel to satanism in pursuit of desire.

the term desire needs to be broken down. it is clear that desire both engenders negative and positive attributes and you clearly meant the negative (satanic) aspects of desire.

how about if a person desires to positively elevate him/herself and come closer towards "God", and in pursuit of this, absorbs various teachings by virtue of higher understanding?

peace

SubtleEnergies
06-08-2006, 10:25 PM
I will admit my post didn't fully elaborate what I meant on every point. It's hard to express matters like this briefly.

I will address the questions it has brang up.

Do you have a problem with religion or do you have a problem with the people who practice it? There needs to be clear lines drawn in this regard. I do not see the purpose of targeting religion in the way that you have, especially when it is clear that it is the ways in which people interpret religion that bothers you, not religion in itself. The problems you raise however, are not synonymous with religion alone; rather they relate to a much more universal dilemma facing all of humanity today.

My problem is with both. People wrongly practice religion and this is awful. But also must religions are distorted by the people who have practiced them. I think all religions in their most orthodox forms are faulted. This is because they tend to be dogmatic, at the point they move away from hard and fast dogmatic ideas they no longer strictly fit the definition of religion, therefore not being what I attacked.

On a FUNDAMENTAL level my problem is with people who see religion as a ends and not the means. To quote:
"My words are a raft, once you fcross the river leave the raft behind" - Buddha
"The Sabbath was made for man, man was not made for the Sabbath" - Jesus
When people see their beliefs as right they fail to acknowledge this. True saints are seem to most people to be insane and often end up hanging from a cross (often due to their "blasphemes" in the sight of the religious majorities).

I do agree that the problem is with humanity in general - not just religion. However, I don't believe there is a religion today that is untainted by the ignorant influence of humans. That, is an opinion. The problem with religion however is the empty promises may distract some sincere people from ever making true spiritual progress and this is the greatest tragedy. The only real way to murder a human.

I do find it rather ironic that the same thing you charge people who choose to follow religions with, you are in fact doing yourself. You have chosen to not isolate a single religion as that in which you hope to base your life on. Based on what you have just said in your post, isn’t that in itself also following a kind of desire? If not, then what constitutes following desires?

I have thought of this already. I don't accept some teaching because I like it and then defend it, defying logic and reason to the death. I examine teachings in the light of experience, as every responsible being should, and then decide if I agree, disagree or a bit of both. The difference here is I don't choose what proves true in the light of experience. This isn't what I WANTED. Trust me, my views have made me give up things I never wanted to - you should know that. Also, giving in to a teaching - renouncing all personal responsibility to think and having a concrete truth is VERY DESIRABLE.

I also always bear in mind that I am human, flawed and my spiritual progress is little. In this way I am open to question what I believe since I do not hold them as concrete truths.

Generally when we make a choice, it I because we desire an intended return.

I have read that in Islam, you should reach a state where you don't desire paradise or fear hell, but love God for the sake of it.

although i see much sense here, there is one main point you highlight which was that people choose their religion or spirituality parallel to satanism in pursuit of desire.

the term desire needs to be broken down. it is clear that desire both engenders negative and positive attributes and you clearly meant the negative (satanic) aspects of desire.

how about if a person desires to positively elevate him/herself and come closer towards "God", and in pursuit of this, absorbs various teachings by virtue of higher understanding?

Few are people who will choose something which is "UNCOMFORTABLE." Most people choose religions that already fit in well with what they believe. Few people will endure hardship and challenges for growth. In fact you even see contradictions. Chrisitans eat ham, the bible says not to. They cleverly make up some theory to allow them to continue with their pig consuming life styles. In fact most christians will argue till they are blue in the face no part of the bible says that (despite not having read it themselves).

The desire to follow what is right even if it is hard for you is different to following the desire to be comfortable and gratified. The hexagram "The Army" in the I Ching suggests to us to put our inferior desires under the control of our superior desires. The image is of water under earth, a chaotic force inside, a receptive force outside - like an army. I agree with this idea of two types of desires.

So what differs these two types? One type is interested in gratifying the animal desires of man - survival, sex, food, water, emotional comfort. The other type are interested in the greater good even if it means the individual has to suffer.

Alot of people pick their religions to satisfy their lower desires. Most often the desire to be right. This is why religions (for the most part, usually at least their followers) actually don't see other religions as equal to them. There also alot of other reasons.

Some people enter an orthodx religion and do make genuine spiritual progress. However I think for sincere seekers there comes a point where identification with a word which groups a set of rigid ideas is no longer necessary or practical. How can they be if you don't even see yourself as apart from the whole? Rumi is a good example of this. Muslims still call him a Muslim despite his own words with which I shall finish:

What is to be done, O Muslims? for I do not recognize myself.
I am neither Christian, nor Jew, nor Magian, nor Muslim.
I am not of the East, nor of the West, nor of the land, nor of the sea;
I am not of Nature's mint, nor of the circling heaven.
I am not of earth, nor of water, nor of air, nor of fire;
I am not of the empyrean, nor of the dust, nor of existence, nor of entity.
I am not of India, nor of China, nor of Bulgaria, nor of Saqsin
I am not of the kingdom of 'Iraqian, nor of the country of Khorasan
I am not of the this world, nor of the next, nor of Paradise, nor of Hell
I am not of Adam, nor of Eve, nor of Eden and Rizwan.
My place is the Placeless, my trace is the Traceless

thejesusfunk
06-10-2006, 07:45 AM
1

SubtleEnergies
06-10-2006, 10:45 PM
^ LMAO won't even bother.

SubtleEnergies
06-10-2006, 10:48 PM
I suggest you at least read more Rumi though.

SubtleEnergies
06-10-2006, 10:51 PM
Maybe read the Diamond and Hear Sutra too this will show you what he meant.

thejesusfunk
06-11-2006, 08:48 AM
1

thejesusfunk
06-11-2006, 08:52 AM
1

SubtleEnergies
06-11-2006, 09:42 PM
I never said nothing had to be done. I just said the things to be done are intermediate and eventually no longer necessities.

Thanks, but I am pretty sure I know Muslimah better than you.

Muslimah
06-11-2006, 10:43 PM
Don't be so sure of that SubtleEnergies. I would hope that i have changed radically since the time you knew me.

to everything thejesusfunk has said CO-SIGN! haha. Especially to the part about sisters and their shaolin skills ;)

SubtleEnergies
06-13-2006, 02:09 AM
You still seem EXACTLY the same to me sadly.

Maybe you scare funky jesus but I know you ain't nothing but a giant care bear.:P