Religion identifies the beliefs that help to know God

http://triangulations.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/religious-syndrome-creating-a-model/#comment-126907

paarsurrey
03/24/2014 at 11:54 am

@ Sabio Lantz

I don’t agree with you.

You have mentioned a medical syndrome; by which you mean, if I have correctly understood, the symptoms and signs to diagnose a sudden illness. Now the symptoms don’t define the medicine.

Likewise the ethical, moral and spiritual symptoms of a person are cured by a religion; the symptoms don’t define the religion.

Religion is the path that leads to God or the beliefs that help one to know God; this is the history of the word from time immemorial.

Isn’t it?

Regards

Science and Religion both essential for living normal life on the planet Earth

http://thesuperstitiousnakedape.wordpress.com/2014/03/17/hermeneutics-2/comment-page-1/#comment-13351

PAARSURREY says:
March 21, 2014 at 12:03 pm

@MYATHEISTLIFE says: March 21, 2014 at 6:29 am

“It occurs to me that this subject is about how the believer chooses their own morality over the dictated word of their deity. When there is a right and wrong way to interpret the text it is by definition not a perfect text and cannot be seen to contain perfect or objective morality.”

Interpretation is done by both Religion and the Science.
The experiments are made on the basis of the availability of certain data at a certain point of time and the results are interpreted and are accepted within a certain range of accuracy; and there is an implied condition always with the results “if other things remain unchanged” (since everything is moving, so other things don’t remain unchanged); the ultimate check of the results is with the Nature- the Work of God. If there is an anomaly detected subsequently in nature with the result of the experiments; then new hypothesis/theory is made and new experiments are made to remove the anomaly.
The same way in Religion; as we advance/change in time and place; the previous interpretation/understanding does not remain valid simply because our understanding, though previously it was thought to be correct; but due to the change of time and place an anomaly is detected; when more thought was applied on the original text of the Word revealed one gets to know the mistake of previous interpretation/understanding; it was not the fault of the Word of God, so to make a new and correct interpretation/understanding becomes necessary.

Science/Nature is the Work of God and religion is from the Word of God; both belong to the same source of One-True-God (Allah Yahweh Ahura-Mazda Parmeshawara Eshawara); both work in different domains for benefit of the humanity; both are complementary to one another and never contradict one another if correctly interpreted.

Science works in the physical and material domains; religion is for guidance of the humanity in the even more sophisticated and intricate issued of ethical, moral and spiritual realms; nevertheless both are essential for living normal life in this planet Earth, peacefully.

Let us see below what Wikipedia says on the usage of interpretation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation

Interpretation

Philosophy[edit]
• Interpretation (philosophy), the assignment of meanings to various concepts, symbols, or objects under consideration
• Interpretation (logic), an assignment of meaning to the symbols of a formal language
• De Interpretatione, a work by Aristotle
• Hermeneutics, the study of interpretation theory
• Exegesis, a critical explanation or interpretation of a text
Math, science and computing[edit]
• Interpretation (model theory), a technical notion that approximates the idea of representing a logical structure inside another structure
• Interpreter (computing), a program (a virtual processor) that is able to execute instructions written in a high-level programming language
• Interpretation function, in mathematical logic a function that assigns functions and relations to the symbols of a signature
• Interpretation of quantum mechanics, a set of statements which attempt to explain how quantum mechanics informs our understanding of nature
• Interpreter pattern, a software engineering design pattern
• Left brain interpreter, the post-hoc construction of explanations by the brain’s left hemisphere
• Interpreted language, a programming language that avoidsit program compilation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation

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.

Atheists always pushing others to the answering end

I wrote a post on the following blog; the viewers are welcome to give their valuable opinions even if they differ.

“UNCONFIRMEDABSOLUTES”
“WHOSE BURDEN IS IT?”

http://unconfirmedabsolutes.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/whose-burden-is-it/
http://unconfirmedabsolutes.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/whose-burden-is-it/comment-page-1/#comment-120

paarsurrey says:
March 15, 2014 at 8:59 pm

UNCONFIRMEDABSOLUTES wrote: Quote “Even then they insist me to give evidences and proofs. I ask them to define as to what they understand from evidence in their own words rather than quoting from some dictionary; they even avoid it.” Unquote

Paarsurrey says: As I said, burden of proof is not an issue with me; I feel no burden of it; and I deny anybody putting burden of it on me. I immediately know that the person is weak in arguments as also his standpoint is weak, hence he avoids to share the ethical and moral burden of a joint discussion.

I want the Atheists to realize that it is not rational or reasonable for them to always be on the questioning end. But they are always like that; never being on the answering end and always pushing others to the answering end; maybe just for convenience. On this important issue of the “Existence of God or otherwise”; they just sit pretty; never giving any positive evidences that “God does not exist”.

If we give proofs or evidences; they just reject them arrogantly saying these are no proofs and evidences. It is for this that I ask them to define as to what they personally understand from the words “proofs and evidences”; only then we could be on the same page for discussion or understanding.

Thanks and regards

Is it ethical or moral to explore God with tools that are incapacitated to find Him?

I have written a post on the following blog of uncleE; the viewers could add their valuable comments here even if they differ.

“Is there a God?”
“How can we know if God exists? Do philosophical arguments help?”

http://www.is-there-a-god.info/blog/clues/how-can-we-know-if-god-exists-do-philosophical-arguments-help/
http://www.is-there-a-god.info/blog/clues/how-can-we-know-if-god-exists-do-philosophical-arguments-help/#comment-8827

paarsurrey
MAR 14, 2014 @ 22:58:01

@ unkleE :MAR 14, 2014 @ 22:15:54

“we shouldn’t make a blanket rule that only science can give reliable information.” Unquote

I think I agree with you here.

I further have to submit.

We are discussing here the existence of One-True-God, an Immortal Being . Science and the scientific method as a tool of exploration has come into the field only yesterday; and it only deals in the things physical and material.

The One-True-God is only attributive; and His existence needs no material or physical or spiritual form. He has created all things that have any material or physical or spiritual form:

[39:65] Say, ‘Is it other gods than Allah that you bid me worship, O ye ignorant ones?’
[39:66] And verily it has been revealed to thee as unto those before thee: ‘If thou attribute partners to God, thy work shall surely go vain and thou shalt certainly be of the losers.’
[39:67] Aye, worship Allah and be among the thankful.
[39:68] And they do not esteem Allah, with the esteem that is due to Him. And the whole earth will be but His handful on the Day of Resurrection, and the heavens will be rolled up in His right hand. Glory to Him and exalted is He above that which they associate with Him.

http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=39&verse=67

The One-True-God (Allah Yahweh Ahura-Mazda Parmeshawara Eshawara) is beyond science to be explored; hence there is no proper faculty of science that could claim dealing in it.

Is there a discipline of science that explores God? Please

Is it ethical or moral to explore the One-True- God with tools that are incapacitated to find Him; and hence to mislead the fellow human beings?

God the creator was not in a hurry to create the Universe and life in a jiffy

Please view Paarsurrey comments on the blog “UNCONFIRMEDABSOLUTES” for your valuable opinion, even if you differ.

“WHOSE BURDEN IS IT?”
http://unconfirmedabsolutes.wordpress.com/
http://unconfirmedabsolutes.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/whose-burden-is-it/

http://unconfirmedabsolutes.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/whose-burden-is-it/comment-page-1/#comment-115

paarsurrey says:
March 12, 2014 at 3:16 pm

@UNCONFIRMEDABSOLUTES

Hi friend

You wrote:

“With regards to being “open”, that’s also where we differ. I am open to anything should the evidence present itself. Needing evidence before believing something is not being close-minded.
If you showed me objective evidence of a god, I assure you, I will believe you. Just like if someone captured the bigfoot and presented in front of everyone in the zoo, and after testing that the specimen is real, I will believe that the bigfoot does exist.
However, I would actually throw the argument of being “close-minded” back on you. You have closed your doors for any other gods, or any other possibilities (such as the non-existence of god, maybe god is not all-loving etc.) other than the one you have now. I watched a show where a creationist said, that if the Quran/Bible says that 2+2=5, he will not question it.
But he will work out how it is true. I think that’s the position you have adopted, by accepting your view as the absolute truth.” Unquote

Paarsurrey says:

I think I did not say that you are a close-minded person. I only told about myself that I am an open minded person; never hinting at you that you are a closed minded person. If I said, I apologize for that.

I don’t agree with those who say if Quran/Bible says (2+2= 5); I will believe that. I will definitely question it; yet it is a fact that Quran never says such untoward things; that is my experience with Quran.

I never adopted such a position. You definitely got me wrong. I accept Quran in ethical, moral and spiritual realms; and that is the purpose of the Revelation of Quran, it is clearly stated in its very beginning:

[2:1] In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[2:2] Alif Lam Mim.
[2:3] This is a perfect Book; there is no doubt in it; it is a guidance for the righteous*,

http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=2
* or truth seekers

In other than ethical, moral and spiritual fields which pertain to religion and not to science i.e. in secular, material and physical matters I will go with the facts and laws of the respective sciences and relative branches of the knowledge to which they specifically pertain.

I am not a creationist; in the sense that I believe that the human beings got evolved in millions of years.

he One-True-God spoke the Word “Be” and lo!, everything in the Universe started taking a shape, a formation, they could not refuse the command of the Creator; maybe it was a big-bang out of a black-hole perhaps but in billions of years, it came to the present form. The process is known as Evolution. The process continues, till the One-True-God speaks the Words “Not to be” and then it would stop; it would come to an end.

Thanks and regards

Does it help?

I follow Quran in ethical, moral and spiritual matters; in scientific matters I follow text book of science

I follow Quran in ethical, moral and spiritual matters; in scientific matters I follow text book of science

“the superstitious naked ape”: “The Moral Autonomy Argument”

http://thesuperstitiousnakedape.wordpress.com/
http://thesuperstitiousnakedape.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/the-moral-autonomy-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-12470

PAARSURREY says:
February 28, 2014 at 4:48 pm

@ DAZ says: February 28, 2014 at 4:26 pm
“Since “it is written in a book” seems to be your criterion for deciding whether something is true or not”
You get me wrong.

In the matters or religion which deals in ethical, moral and spiritual matters, one has to follow the revealed book of one’s religion; so being an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim I follow Quran and hence for all claims (in ethical, moral and spiritual fields), I must quote the claims and gist of reasons mentioned in Quran not authored by Muhammad by the One-True-God.

In secular matters; one has to follow the law of the land one lives in.
In scientific matters I would follow the authentic text books of science, if there is a need to follow. I am an ordinary man in the street, with no claims of any piety or scholarship.
This is my position. Please

Reason and Passion: in religion

Reason and Passion: in religion and government
http://triangulations.wordpress.com/2014/02/06/reason-and-passion-in-religion-and-government/

http://triangulations.wordpress.com/2014/02/06/reason-and-passion-in-religion-and-government/#comment-123860

paarsurrey
02/06/2014 at 11:15 am

I think Sam Harris has not understood the true relationship between the human morals viz-a-viz natural human instincts; which has truly been explained in the book “Philosophy of Teachings of Islam”. Sam Harris should read the question and its answer given by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908 in the above named book. I think he will get convinced and save the prize money also. Sorry for Jonathan Haidt, he may lose.

I give below a passage from the book:

“It is characteristic of the human self that it incites man to evil and is opposed to his attainment of perfection and to his moral state, and urges him towards undesirable and evil ways. Thus the propensity towards evil and intemperance is a human state which predominates over the mind of a person before he enters upon the moral state. This is man’s natural state, so long as he is not guided by reason and understanding but follows his natural bent in eating, drinking, sleeping, waking, anger and provocation, like the animals. When a person is guided by reason and understanding and brings his natural state under control and regulates it in a proper manner, then these three states, as described, cease to remain the categories as natural states, but are called moral states.” Unquote

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

One may like to read answer to the “FIRST QUESTION- The Physical, Moral and Spiritual States of Man” from the above book; about twenty pages in all.

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

Beyond Materialism

Paarsurrey says: Referring to your last line “As such, I’ll be visiting the New Testament in the near future.”

Your argument is good if we adhere to what Jesus believed in; but NT does not present Jesus’ teachings and what he believed in; it presents Trinity of Paul and the Church that Jesus never believed in.

Fide Dubitandum

Thus far, we’ve seen several things that either cannot be explained by materialism or positively contradict it. Contingent objects, the beginning of the universe, moral truth, the foundations of science, and conscious thought are among them.

Assuming one has followed the argument this far, we’re left with a timeless, immaterial, immensely powerful, moral, and personal being. At least, this concept explains those things on the table which need explanation. This, I would argue, simply follows from the facts of reality as we experience it.

This much has been said, meaning that we have reached a being which, most would agree, could reasonably be called God. Setting aside the objections that might be made up until this point, we have yet to address an oft-heard objection:

But which God is it?

Many have pointed out, rightly, that simply stopping with the conclusion of “God” isn’t enough. We need a more specific…

View original post 344 more words