Criterion of finding truth in religions and non-religions

The viewers should access the following link to know the context of the discussion; and only then one should form one’s own sincere and independent opinion.

http://jerichobrisance.com/2014/04/02/snapthought-wrested-from-my-hands-by-god/comment-page-1/#comment-6620

paarsurrey says:
April 7, 2014 at :
@(Matt) Brisancian :April 6, 2014

“If you would, please give your criterion for falsifiability of religious texts as either divinely inspired or merely human in origin. However, the criterion cannot be circularly dependent upon the text itself or the author(s).
Your answer will be the beginning of my response.” Unquote

One could be born in any religion or without a religion. It is beyond one to decide where to be born. Wherever one is born; that starts one’s journey to find the truth.

The tools make easy for one to do a job. It is therefore important for one first to find a tool that gives equal opportunity to every religion to search.

Using a tool and then making a comparative study of religions to find which one is the most truthful religion is therefore most reasonable and rational.

I give here a principle of comparative study of religions which was suggested by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad- the Promised Messiah 1835-1908 in an essay that was read in a Conference of Great Religions held at Lahore in 1896; and was later published in a book form titled “The Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam” translated in many languages of the world.

I give below the principle and its explanation in precisely his words:

“It is necessary that a claim and the reasons in support of it must be set forth from a revealed book”
“I consider it essential that everyone who follows a book, believing it to be revealed, should base his exposition upon that book and should not so extend the scope of his advocacy of his faith as if he is compiling a new book.

As it is my purpose today to establish the merits of the Holy Quran and to demonstrate its excellence, it is incumbent upon me not to state anything which is not comprehended in the Quran and to set forth everything on the basis of its verses and in accord with their meaning and that which might be inferred from them, so that those attending the Conference should encounter no difficulty in carrying out a comparison between the teachings of different religions.”

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad adhered to this principle and answered the five important questions set by the moderators of the Conference:

1. The physical, moral and spiritual states of man
2. The state of man after death.
3. The object of man’s life and the means to its attainment.
4. The operation of the practical ordinances of the Law in this life and the next.
5. Sources of Divine knowledge.

One could access the following link to read the book available online, freely:

Click to access Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf

The Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics don’t have a book to follow. They extol science to find answers to all the questions in the world. Although the questions don’t fall within the scope of science and would overburden it; yet they are open to answer with the condition that they quote some standards text book of science for the claims to answers as also to the reasons given specifying the discipline of science that legitimately deals with it.

Please take your time for your journey of search and as to how the criterion is to be applied. Please read the small book mentioned above; that will provide ready-made solution to many questions that arise.

Wish you good-luck.

Thanks and regards

Attributes of Tao: Attributes of Allah: Divinely revealed religions

I would like the viewers of Paarsurrey blog to access the following link to know the context of the dialogue and to form their own independent reasonable opinion:

http://thesuperstitiousnakedape.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/a-reason-to-believe/comment-page-1/#comment-13582

PAARSURREY says:
March 27, 2014 at 6:27 pm

@JOHN ZANDE :March 27, 2014 at 11:52 am
“Tell me, Paar, what are “His attributes,” and how do you know?
NOTE: please don’t say the Qu’ran ” Unquote

I don’t know as to why one has an aversion to Quran.

What harm did it to the Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics/Humanists etc?

Anyway; for the attributes of One-True-God (Allah Tao Yahweh Ahura-Mazda Parmeshawara Eshawara) one may like to read below, no compulsion:

The way of life presented by Lao-tzu (6th century BC), a contemporary of Confucius, is known as Taoism.

In Taoism, eternal truth is embodied in a being known as Tao whose attributes are spiritual and holy rather than material. Tao can be aptly defined as a personification of eternal virtues. They are precisely the same attributes as ascribed to God in Islam and other Divinely revealed religions. Taoism teaches man to completely submit to Truth (Tao), and to strive to modulate Tao. Tao is the model, and Taoism is the way to gain nearness to this model.

The same is the treatment in the Holy Quran regarding the relationship between God and man:

The hues of God! And who is more beautiful in hues than God?—and Him alone do we worship. 2:139
In Islam God is described and introduced through His attributes and the goal set for Muslims is to emulate them to modulate their lives.
The description of Tao, presented by Lao-tzu, is quite similar to the attributes of God mentioned in the Quran. He writes:

‘The great Tao is vast. He is on the left and He is on the right. All creatures depend upon Him, and the care of them tires Him not. He brings creation to completion, without seeking reward. He provides for all His creation, but requires nothing for Himself, so He may be considered small. All creatures turn to Him for their needs, yet He keeps nothing for Himself, thus He may be named ‘the Supreme’. He does not consider Himself great and because of this He is truly Great.’

Again we have another description:

‘Looked for but not visible, such a Being may be colorless. Listened for but not heard, such a Being may be called Silent. Grasped for but not caught, such may be called Concealed. No one can comprehend the ultimate source of these three qualities, but they are found in one Being. Though not luminous yet below Him there is no darkness. Being infinite He cannot be described. All His shapes keep returning to nothingness, thus we can say He is Shapeless; His image is without form. He is beyond comprehension (being the rarest of things). Try to reach His beginning, no beginning can be seen. Seek His end, no end can be perceived. Therefore, follow the ancient ways and improve your present.’
Also, in another verse the description of Tao runs as follows:

‘He is indivisible and His true nature cannot be grasped. All creation originates from Him. He existed before heaven and earth were created. He is One and alone without form or sound. He exists independently without any support. Nothing changes in Him. He is in constant motion, but never tires. He can be called the Begetter of the universe.’

The description of Tao given in the above passages is also found in different verses of the Quran, which when read together, reproduce everything covered by the above quotes. The image of God thus described in the Holy Quran, is summed up by the founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, the late Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad(as) of Qadian (India), in the following words:

‘He is near yet far, distant yet close… He is highest of high, yet it cannot be said that there is anyone below Him farther than He. He is in heaven, but it cannot be said that He is not on Earth. He combines in Himself all the most perfect attributes and manifests the virtues which are truly worthy of praise.’

It is pertinent to note that Chinese philosophy had its roots in religion, but with the passage of time its religious origin was obscured. Its followers adhered to the philosophy itself but thought it unnecessary to have any direct link with the source which had nourished it in the past. Consequently, the image of God was gradually impersonalised and the followers of Tao ceased to cultivate a personal relationship with Him as a Supreme Conscious Living Being.

“Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge & Truth” Mirza Tahir Ahmad
https://www.alislam.org/library/books/revelation/part_2_section_4.html

Regards

PAARSURREY says:
March 27, 2014 at 9:44 pm

@JOHN ZANDE : March 27, 2014 at 11:52 am
“We’ve already proven that Mo” Unquote

When and whence and who proved it?

Please

http://thesuperstitiousnakedape.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/a-reason-to-believe/comment-page-1/#comment-13602

PAARSURREY says:
March 27, 2014 at 9:54 pm

@N℮ÜҐ☼N☮☂℮Ṧ : March 27, 2014 at 8:17 pm
Quote
“even in the coldest day, drops of sweat would fall from his forehead”
“at the moment of inspiration, anxiety pressed upon the Prophet, and his countenance was troubled”
“the muscles between his neck and shoulders were trembling”
Mohammed: “The Revelation is always brought to me by an angel — sometimes the angel appears to me in the shape of a human and speaks to me.” Unquote

Please quote from Quran where this is mentioned.

Will you? Please

“Proof” of God or “evidence” of God : Atheists’ rhetoric

http://triangulations.wordpress.com/2011/01/01/the-myth-of-definitions/#comment-126902

paarsurrey
03/24/2014 at 10:53 am

@ Sabio Lantz
1. “But words are a human creation, a creation of mind and relationship and thus fuzzy by nature.” Unquote

I don’t agree with you here.

Words are not created by humans; humans don’t create any word with the intentions of creating it. They use the already existing words by giving them a little more meaning sometimes. Like a potter gives a shape to clay but does not create the clay; that may some people say the potter has created it; but not exactly.

It is for this that one will not find words that could be traced having been created by somebody, naming a particular human being who has created the word/s.

2. “We need to realize that words are our servants; we should not be the servants of words.” Unquote

I would rather say that words facilitate our communication with one another; it is a bounty bestowed to humans by God; which would have been otherwise impossible.

It happens so often that Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics/ “Humanists”/ “Secularists” ask me to give “proof” of God or “evidence” of God.

I know that they are repeating it as rhetoric of the Atheists; not understanding them exactly. Whatever reason or argument we provide them they would just ridicule or deride it saying it is no argument and or no proof or no evidence.
I ask them to define the words “proof and or evidence” in their own words (not quoting from a dictionary) so that I could understand their personal concept of its meaning to come on the same page for a meaningful discussion.

But they don’t provide it.

Regards

There is no slavery in Quran; absolutely none

http://thesuperstitiousnakedape.wordpress.com/2014/03/17/hermeneutics-2/comment-page-1/#comment-13359

PAARSURREY says:
March 21, 2014 at 9:59 pm

@JOHN ZANDE says:March 21, 2014 at 8:46 pm

“Clearly there must be some sanction somewhere, else Islam wouldn’t have such a vibrant history of slavery. Christianity, of course, is no better. One’s as archaic as the other.”

It is the rulers that do such things; they do things in the name of religion; and exploit people under cover.

Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster, Moses, Jesus, Socrates, Muhammad (and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad- the rightful successor of Muhammad in our present era) gave no teachings to make others a slave. There is no such teaching in Quran; I am absolutely certain about it.

Other founders of religions- the Messengers Prophets of the One-True-God whose names I have given above- their followers are exhorted to defend them in this connection in the first place.

If they fail to defend them; then I will defend them also after purification of their scriptures as per principles outlined in Quran.

Please get help from other Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics/Humanists who have read Quran themselves; to kindly quote just a single verse, repeat a single verse, from Quran in this connection. Please don’t give a list; if one has a list then select ONE verse that justify your viewpoint the most, for discussion here.

One could contact the person who wrote the article on the subject from the link provided by one and get help from him, if he can help.

Thanks and regards

http://thesuperstitiousnakedape.wordpress.com/2014/03/17/hermeneutics-2/comment-page-1/#comment-13372

PAARSURREY says:
March 22, 2014 at 4:59 pm

@BOBBIERILEYJR says:March 22, 2014 at 12:12 am
“Most telling is that slavery is still practiced in the Sudan, Niger, Mauritania and a few other corners of the Muslim world.” Unquote

It has got nothing to do with Quran/Islam/Muhammad. There is no commandment or teaching in Quran to make one a slave.
I think it will be clear to one if one listens the following Friday Sermon from Mirza Masroor Ahmad- the Head of the World-Wide Ahmadiyya Muslim Community.

He is the fifth rightful Successor to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835-1908) – The Promised Messiah – The Second Coming:
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVBxj5rVA8k?feature=player_embedded&w=640&h=360%5D

The original Sermon was delivered in Urdu; its translations are available in following languages:

Urdu, English, Albanian, Arabic, Bengali, Bosnian, Bulgarian, French, German, Indonesian, Malayalam, Russian, Spanish, Swahili, Tamil, Turkish

Please click the language of your choice by accessing the following link:

http://www.alislam.org/friday-sermon/2011-11-25.html

http://thesuperstitiousnakedape.wordpress.com/2014/03/17/hermeneutics-2/comment-page-1/#comment-13382

PAARSURREY says:
March 23, 2014 at 9:19 pm

@BOBBIERILEYJR says: March 22, 2014 at 8:01 pm
“A fatwa” Unqoute

A fatwa means an opinion. Opinions could differ; it could be and is an unsubstantiated opinion and not supported by the context verses of Quran or other verses of Quran.

A fatwa is not a verse of Quran; and is not binding on others.

If a sinful Mullah believes wrongly for his vested interest; he is responsible for it not Quran/Islam/Muhammad.

You have referred to Chapter 23; please read the following four pages in its verse 23:7 for its explanation:

http://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/?page=1781&region=E1&CR=
http://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/?page=1782&region=E1
http://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/?page=1783&region=E1
http://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/?page=1784&region=E1

It will make things clear for you.

Regards

Finding claims and reasons for Truth: Atheists would first be on the run

http://www.is-there-a-god.info/blog/comments/belief/#comment-8857

paarsurrey
MAR 20, 2014 @ 21:43:36

Hi everybody

One could be born in any religion or without a religion. It is beyond one to decide where to be born. Wherever one is born; that starts one’s journey to find the truth. The tools make easy for one to do a job. It is therefore important for one first to find a tool that gives equal opportunity to every religion to search.

Using a tool and then making a comparative study of religions to find which one is the most truthful religion is therefore most reasonable and rational.

I give here a principle of comparative study of religions which was suggested by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad- the Promised Messiah 1835-1908 in an essay that was read in a Conference of Great Religions held at Lahore in 1896; and was later published in a book form titled “The Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam” translated in many languages of the world. I give below the principle and its explanation in his words:

“It is necessary that a claim and the reasons in support of it must be set forth from a revealed book”

“I consider it essential that everyone who follows a book, believing it to be revealed, should base his exposition upon that book and should not so extend the scope of his advocacy of his faith as if he is compiling a new book.

As it is my purpose today to establish the merits of the Holy Quran and to demonstrate its excellence, it is incumbent upon me not to state anything which is not comprehended in the Quran and to set forth everything on the basis of its verses and in accord with their meaning and that which might be inferred from them, so that those attending the Conference should encounter no difficulty in carrying out a comparison between the teachings of different religions.”

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad adhered to this principle and answered the five important questions set by the moderators of the Conference:

1. The physical, moral and spiritual states of man
2. The state of man after death.
3. The object of man’s life and the means to its attainment.
4. The operation of the practical ordinances of the Law in this life and the next.
5. Sources of Divine knowledge.

One could access the following link to read the book available online freely:

Click to access Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf

The Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics don’t have a book to follow. They extol science to find answers to all the questions in the world. Although the questions don’t fall within the scope of science and would overburden it; yet they are open to answer with the condition that they quote some standard text book of science for the claims to the answers as also to the reasons given specifying the relative discipline of science that legitimately deals with it.

Islam fulfills the above Criteria; other revealed religions would find either claims or reasons in their books; not both of them, I think.

The Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics would find none.

Bringing atheists (without ridicule and derision)and believers together for a peaceful dialogue

“the Way?”
“Faitheist – bringing atheists and believers together (book review)”

http://theway21stcentury.wordpress.com/
http://theway21stcentury.wordpress.com/2013/09/29/faitheist-bringing-atheists-and-believers-together-book-review/#comment-2399

paarsurrey
1 MARCH, 2014 AT 1:00 AM

@ unkleE and all others who wrote comments on this blog
I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim; I also support the idea of a peaceful (without deriding and ridicule) dialogue between the revealed religions and non-religions (Atheists, Agnostics, Skeptics; Humanists) all included.

I live in Toronto; can we meet here (or your like-minded friends)?

Atheists, believers, dialogue, without ridicule, without derision, Faitheist, Ahmadis, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Jews, peaceful Muslim, religions, non-religions, Atheists, Agnostics, Skeptics; Humanists

Atheists moving in circles, un-naturally

http://maasaiboys.wordpress.com/2014/01/27/things-that-annoy-me/comment-page-1/#comment-10943

paarsurrey says:
January 28, 2014 at 02:39

“Of course, you’re assuming a god in your response. Turning around and saying that a god must set moral norms because he’s a god, says that you define your god as a moral setter.”
Please don’t mind; you are assuming in this discussion as do other atheists agnostics skeptics that there exists no God; and on the other hand you ask evidences for His existence.

If for natural concepts the atheists ask others for evidences and proofs; and their askance is valid; then why they feel shy for providing evidences and proofs themselves for their un-natural concepts?

I believe in the One-True-God very naturally like I believe in my existence and the existence of my father and mother.

Hence His (the One-True-God Allah Yahweh Ahura-Mazda Parmeshawara Eshawara) being an ethical, moral and spiritual setter is very natural and reasonable.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Note:The viewers are advised to see other posts in the context also

Atheists’ One-sided Moral: “Things that annoy me.”?!

http://maasaiboys.wordpress.com/2014/01/27/things-that-annoy-me/comment-page-1/#comment-10944

paarsurrey says:
January 28, 2014 at 02:45

@makagutu
Why should a believer bother for your or any other atheist agnostic skeptic’s annoyance?
Do you or any other atheist agnostic skeptic bother for the annoyance of the believers?
Why should it be a one-sided moral?
Anybody please

A rubble does not make a building automatically: Atheists to know

A rubble does not make a building automatically.

 

 

• paarsurrey
  July 24th, 2013 at 2:00 pm

  “No rational point against theism has been made.”
  I agree with you; Smalley has failed to make any good argument in it.

  Reply
• paarsurrey
  July 24th, 2013 at 2:07 pm

  “Thus, the act of putting this on a top ten list serves mostly to highlight how little real material exists for Smalley to post in support of his materialistic atheism.”

  Like other Atheists/Humanist/Skeptics/Agnostics; they all attack religion and want to demolish a constructed building thinking that the rubble would make a building for them automatically.

  That will never happen; human conscious would reject the unnatural materialism/atheism (as a way of life).

  Reply
  • Debilis
    July 24th, 2013 at 3:14 pm

    That is a very fitting image. I’ll have to remember that.

Claim Knowledge and Run

Paarsurrey says:

Smalley has generalized all dead and living religions; the polytheist and the monotheists together; not a sensible approach of him for sure.

The title of your post is good and pertinent.

• paarsurrey
  July 24th, 2013 at 1:41 pm

  Reblogged this on paarsurrey and commented:
  Smalley has generalized all dead and living religions; the polytheist and the monotheists together; not a sensible approach of him for sure.

  The title of your post is good and pertinent.

  Reply
• paarsurrey
  July 24th, 2013 at 1:48 pm

  Quoting words from your post:

  “God of modern monotheistic book religion.”

  Quran identifies them as the people of the book; those who have a revealed book to follow distinct from those who don’t have a revealed book.

  What is your concept of “modern monotheistic religion”? Please

  Reply
• paarsurrey
  July 24th, 2013 at 1:50 pm

  “Referencing dead religions as if this were a point in itself is, therefore, a mistake of someone who has read very little theology.”

  I agree with you here.

  Reply
• paarsurrey
  July 24th, 2013 at 1:54 pm

  “the counter that secular views have many discredited relatives wouldn’t be far behind.”
  They are also many factions; some of them are not satisfied even that they should be called Atheists; they prefer themselves to be called Humanists or Skeptics/Agnostics; all negative and meaningless connotations, in my opinion.

  Reply
• paarsurrey
  July 24th, 2013 at 1:58 pm

  “western monotheism”

  What is western monotheism?

  I think East is/was the citadel of monotheism; it did not originate with the West, in my opinion. Please elaborate this point for me.

  Reply
• paarsurrey
  July 24th, 2013 at 2:00 pm

  “No rational point against theism has been made.”
  I agree with you; Smalley has failed to make any good argument in it.

  Reply
• paarsurrey
  July 24th, 2013 at 2:07 pm

  “Thus, the act of putting this on a top ten list serves mostly to highlight how little real material exists for Smalley to post in support of his materialistic atheism.”

  Like other Atheists/Humanist/Skeptics/Agnostics; they all attack religion and want to demolish a constructed building thinking that the rubble would make a building for them automatically.

  That will never happen; human conscious would reject the unnatural materialism/atheism.

Fide Dubitandum

Next from Smalley’s “Top Ten Reasons Why I’m an Athiest”, we have this:

4. Demeter, Jesus, Apollo, Horus, Zeus, Mithra, Yahweh, Tammuz, Ganesha, and Allah are only 10 of the thousands of gods recorded in history. An Atheist is not one that refuses to read religious doctrine; it is often one who reads too many. 

As before, it is very unclear what the argument actually is here. But I suppose that it is something like this:

Belief in any particular religion (presumably, Christianity) is as unreasonable as belief in these other deities.

The first thing to note here is that this is simply not true. Anyone who actually reads a lot of theology would understand that the gods of ancient temple religions are open to a host of objections that wouldn’t remotely address the God of modern monotheistic book religion.

Little, if any, of the case supporting the existence of…

View original post 234 more words