Posts Tagged ‘religion’

Is”Scientific Method/s” invalid in Religion?

October 31, 2017

Thread: “Are there eulogizers of science out of blind-faith? ”
Forum:Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Science and Religion

Post 23: 

———-wrote:
[Replying to post 16 by paarsurrey1]

This is the science and religion sub forum. In the sticky posting the rules for debate one is required to substantiate claims. Perhaps, random ramblings, apologetics , or faith,doctine & dogma would be a better fit for someone who does not wish to support said claims.

That being said I would be willing to consider why I should believe in your proposed creator given you could substantiate the idea.

Paarsurrey wrote:

OK with the rules, I like them. Science deals in the physical and material realms so “evidence” here means that could be “observed” physically and materially or by such instruments that help in this connection and that sets the limits of science:

The University of California, Berkeley
snapshot

Moral judgments, aesthetic judgments, decisions about applications of science, and conclusions about the supernatural are outside the realm of science.

misconceptions
Misconception: Science contradicts the existence of God.

Correction: Science cannot support or contradict the existence of supernatural entities.
It deals only with natural phenomena and explanations.(Read more about it)*.

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

Science doesn’t make moral judgments
Science doesn’t make aesthetic judgments
Science doesn’t tell you how to use scientific knowledge
Science doesn’t draw conclusions about supernatural explanations

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

So, it is meaningless to ask for “evidence”, “proof” based on “observation” in the same manner in the moral and the spiritual realms. Science* has borrowed these words from languages and given specific meaning to them only for use in the science, it is meaningless to insist to talk in the same sense from other realms. Right, please?
Sorry, in religion which is an equal part of the name of this forum, to substantiate the issues related to religion will be not in the same manner as done in science, due to the obvious difference of the nature of both the realms of science and religion. The science here gets incapacitated to start with. Right, please?

Regards

*science did not invent any languages that are spoken by the humans in large numbers.Sc

Post 25: 

Quote:
Originally addressed to friend D———n- his Post 19

Sorry, in religion which is an equal part of the name of this forum, to substantiate the issues related to religion will be not in the same manner as done in science, due to the obvious difference of the nature of both the realms of science and religion.

Paarsurrey wrote:

To add further:

So we in religions don’t substantiate our claims from the so many scientific methods invented for the different disciplines of science differently, as these are all irrelevant in the truthful religion.
Scientific Method/s itself are borrowed by science from philosophy and mathematics while these don’t belong to science per se. Then all the results obtained from following scientific methods have to be verified for correctness with nature that itself is a creation of One-True-God and never created by science or the scientists. Right, please?

Regards

Advertisements

Mohammad as a corrective prophet of God

October 26, 2017

Thread: “Did Paul base creeds on “mystery” or blind-faith? “Forum:
Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma

 Post 59: 

[Replying to post 58 by Elijah John]

Quote:
We really differ on this. Whereas Paul may have replicated Jesus teaching on love, he also taught things that Jesus himself never seems to have taught. Things like blood-atoning human sacrifice, and Jesus having a pre-exsiting “first born or all Creation” state of being.

I see Mohammad as a corrective prophet of God, ignoring the institution of blood sacrifice altogether, and explicitly stating that “God is not begotten, nor does He beget”. And He has no (literal) Son, but rather He is uniquely One.

Muslims honor Jesus as a prophet,

Paarsurrey wrote:

I agree with you on all these truths. Christians usually don’t believe in these.
Can you share as to how you happen to come to believe in these concepts? I really appreciate it.

Regards

Post 60: 

[Replying to post 58 by Elijah John]

Quote:
but where I differ with Islam is their cultural insularity(1), (prayers only in Arabic only (2), the Lunar Calendar etc)(3) their theocratic inclinations (Sharia) (4), and the notion that Mohammad is the final prophet(5). Also, their refusal to acknowledge the name “YHVH” as the name of the God (6) of Abraham.

Also the whole idea of “Jinns”(7) seems strange to me, and a bit superstitious.

Paarsurrey wrote:
cultural insularity

Quran/Islam/Muhammad give no teachings to observe cultural insularity. The followers of Isam avoid “Shirk” making associates of Allah, yet adherents of other religions and even non-religions are to be respected. Islam introduces/advocates no specific culture.

prayers only in Arabic

I understand that in Turkey, some Muslims perform prayers in Turkish or other local languages. There is no restriction on it but we prefer to perform it in Arabic. It is not difficult to learn the translation as the set wording is not lengthy.

Lunar Calendar

The lunar calendar is for the religious events, otherwise, any calendar is OK. And there is a wisdom in it.

theocratic inclinations (Sharia)

Apart from the private affairs in all the secular matters, the law of the land is to be followed, there is a specific commandment in Quran for this.

Mohammad is the final prophet

Final in rank, otherwise in principle prophets could come, but such prophets follow Quran.

the name “YHVH” 

The attributes of God are important, otherwise, any good name of God is acknowledged, if His attributes are the same as of Allah mentioned in Quran.

“Jinns” 

No mythical/superstitious spirits/ghosts/apparitions are in fact in Islam.
https://www.alislam.org/library/books/revelation/part_5_section_3.html

This is in brief, more could be discussed, please.
Regards

Post 61: 

[Replying to post 58 by Elijah John]

Quote:
Other than that, Islam seems a quite Deistic, Monotheistic religion. A frequent refrain in the Qur’an is “These are signs for thinking men”. An appeal to reason, based on the observation of nature.

Islam may not have progressed too far beyond authoritarian and sometimes extremist applications, (as can be seen in many headlines) but in it’s conception it seems quite benevolent and yes, even enlightening.

Paarsurrey wrote:

I appreciate your post.
Regards

Post 62: 

[Replying to post 58 by Elijah John]

Quote:
My theological positions: 

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it’s good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

Paarsurrey wrote:

I appreciate and agree with all of your above concepts with minor adjustments, please.
Regards

Separation of church and State

October 24, 2017

Thread: “Scientific search for what is God.”
Forum: Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Science and Religion

Post 100: 

paarsurrey1 wrote:
One-True-God (He is not Jesus, certainly) cannot be found out by science, and science has never taken this matter for any probe or investigation, formally. The opinions of the scientists in this connection are ,therefore, their personal opinions, need not to be correct, and not of science per se. Science fails in Religion miserably due to its obvious inherent defects. Science is not a function of Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism, so they should not worry. It is a joint venture of believers in God and non-believers. Right, please?
Please correct me If I am wrong with reasonable arguments.
Regards

J——-k wrote:

The thing is that non religious secular science is pushed by government and thereby in the schools and in research, and so science has become the religion of government.

That government sponsorship makes the secular science into a powerful opposition to all forms of religion.

The so-called separation of church and State has been changed into being a weapon of anti Christ.


Quote:
separation of church and State

paarsurrey1 wrote:

Separation of Church and State is a laudable thing, the Truthful-Religion supports it. The Promised Messiah and Imam Mahdi 1835-1908 has made it clear that Islamic Caliphate does not envisage that Caliph should necessarily be a ruler of the State:

[24:56] Allah has promised to those among you who believe and do good works that He will surely make them Successors in the earth, as He made Successors from among those who were before them; and that He will surely establish for them their religion which He has chosen for them; and that He will surely give them in exchange security and peace after their fear: They will worship Me, and they will not associate anything with Me. Then whoso is ungrateful after that, they will be the rebellious.
[24:57] And observe Prayer and give the Zakat and obey the Messenger, that you may be shown mercy.
https://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=24&verse=55

The truthful religion is rich in reason and arguments, it wins hearts and souls with peaceful dialogue, whatever the form of government of a state, it flourishes.
Regards

 

Has a religion ever mentioned the existence of another religion?

July 26, 2017

https://redd.it/6pojdv

Has a religion ever mentioned the existence of another religion within its source material? (self.DebateReligion)

submitted a by gothicrain

[–]paarsurrey responded:

Quran not only mentions other revealed religions but mentions that those religions were truthful in their origin, their founders got Word of Revelations from God and that they were truthful persons. It is incumbent on the followers of Quran/Islam/Muhammad to believe in such founders and respect their revelations in whatever positions these are now. One cannot be a Muslim if one does not believe in the truthfulness of such persons and the messages they brought from God. It is for this that the followers of Quran/Islam/Muhammad respect Buddha, Krishna, Moses, Zoroaster, Jesus, Socrates etc. Regards

javascript:void(0)

OOOOOOOOOO

One may like to join the discussion at https://redd.it/6pojdv or here in this blog please.

 

Scientific Method is useless in religion?

October 20, 2016

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/scientific-method-is-useless-in-religion.191797/

Yesterday at 3:23 PM#1

Paarsurrey wrote:

As its name suggests it is useful in science only. It has not been designed for religion. Right? Please

Regards

Yesterday at 4:40 PM#9

Paarsurrey wrote:

I agree with one.
Comparative study of religions is simply a method . One could say it is an art or equally one could describe it to be science in general terms being rational. For sure it is not a discipline of Science.
Regards

The mute scientific method!

April 6, 2016
Post #175

paarsurrey

I never said that religion is in subordination to science. I always say that religion and science are in different domains, they don’t necessarily contradict one another. Science deals the material and physical domains, religion deals in moral and spiritual domains.
The science deals the temporary, religion deals the lasting truth.
Science deals the relative, religion deals the absolute truth.
Science did not create any word or any iota/atom in the universe, it only borrowed words and symbols or integers without which it would have been mute and have been incapacitated to do anything.
Right?
Regards

ReligiousForums.com

Thread: “Was Muhammad The Greatest Moral Example?”

Post:  #175

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/was-muhammad-the-greatest-moral-example.185227/page-9#post-4702742

Hot Debate : The contributions of Religion to sciences

November 26, 2015
Post #210

viole said:

violeGnostic Atheism
how can Islam promote illiteracy if it commands to read the Koran?

StopS said:

StopS

Excellent question. The Koran itself, the word as such, means “recitation”. It is an oral transmission, which was forced to be written down as the people who memorised it were killed in the various battles.
The Koran does not command anyone to read the Koran. Muhammad was illiterate and was allegedly asked to read by the angel used to transmit the Koran. The book only tells people to reflect, ponder and gain knowledge on the contents of the Koran.
Even today, the hafeez, the one who memorises the Koran is guaranteed a place in heaven. The effect is that the village elders today sit with a Koran and a pointing stick and follow the lines, reciting parts of the Koran. This is considered beneficial, even if nobody in this village can read or write. Only a fraction (~0.001%) of Muslims have studied ancient Arabic, so only very few can actually read the Koran in it’s original form.
So, if you can recite some of it and you know the contents you are eligible to go to heaven, no other education required.
I hope this clarifies it.

paarsurrey said:
[16:99]And when thou recitest the Qur’an, seek refuge with Allah from Satan the rejected.
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=16&verse=98
Regards

Paarsurrey wrote:

The triliteral root qāf rā hamza (ق ر أ) occurs 88 times in the Quran, in four derived forms:

  • 16 times as the form I verb qara-a (قَرَأَ)
  • once as the form IV verb nuq’ri-u (نُقْرِئُ)
  • once as the noun qurū (قُرُوٓء)
  • 70 times as the nominal qur’ān (قُرْءَان)

The translations below are brief glosses intended as a guide to meaning. An Arabic word may have arange of meanings depending on context. Click on a word for more linguistic information, or to suggestion a correction.

Verb (form I) – to read, to recite
(7:204:2) quri-a is recited وَإِذَا قُرِئَ الْقُرْآنُ فَاسْتَمِعُوا لَهُ وَأَنْصِتُوا لَعَلَّكُمْ تُرْحَمُونَ
(10:94:10) yaqraūna (have been) reading فَاسْأَلِ الَّذِينَ يَقْرَءُونَ الْكِتَابَ مِنْ قَبْلِكَ
(16:98:2) qarata you recite فَإِذَا قَرَأْتَ الْقُرْآنَ فَاسْتَعِذْ بِاللَّهِ مِنَ الشَّيْطَانِ الرَّجِيمِ
(17:14:1) iq’ra Read اقْرَأْ كِتَابَكَ كَفَىٰ بِنَفْسِكَ الْيَوْمَ عَلَيْكَ حَسِيبًا
(17:45:2) qarata you recite وَإِذَا قَرَأْتَ الْقُرْآنَ جَعَلْنَا بَيْنَكَ وَبَيْنَ الَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِالْآخِرَةِ حِجَابًا مَسْتُورًا
(17:71:11) yaqraūna will read فَمَنْ أُوتِيَ كِتَابَهُ بِيَمِينِهِ فَأُولَٰئِكَ يَقْرَءُونَ كِتَابَهُمْ
(17:93:18) naqra-uhu we could read it وَلَنْ نُؤْمِنَ لِرُقِيِّكَ حَتَّىٰ تُنَزِّلَ عَلَيْنَا كِتَابًا نَقْرَؤُهُ
(17:106:3) litaqra-ahu that you might recite it وَقُرْآنًا فَرَقْنَاهُ لِتَقْرَأَهُ عَلَى النَّاسِ عَلَىٰ مُكْثٍ
(26:199:1) faqara-ahu And he (had) recited it فَقَرَأَهُ عَلَيْهِمْ مَا كَانُوا بِهِ مُؤْمِنِينَ
(69:19:8) iq’raū read فَأَمَّا مَنْ أُوتِيَ كِتَابَهُ بِيَمِينِهِ فَيَقُولُ هَاؤُمُ اقْرَءُوا كِتَابِيَهْ
(73:20:26) fa-iq’raū so recite عَلِمَ أَنْ لَنْ تُحْصُوهُ فَتَابَ عَلَيْكُمْ فَاقْرَءُوا مَا تَيَسَّرَ مِنَ الْقُرْآنِ
(73:20:49) fa-iq’raū So recite وَآخَرُونَ يُقَاتِلُونَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ فَاقْرَءُوا مَا تَيَسَّرَ مِنْهُ
(75:18:2) qaranāhu We have recited it فَإِذَا قَرَأْنَاهُ فَاتَّبِعْ قُرْآنَهُ
(84:21:2) quri-a is recited وَإِذَا قُرِئَ عَلَيْهِمُ الْقُرْآنُ لَا يَسْجُدُونَ
(96:1:1) iq’ra Read اقْرَأْ بِاسْمِ رَبِّكَ الَّذِي خَلَقَ
(96:3:1) iq’ra Read اقْرَأْ وَرَبُّكَ الْأَكْرَمُ

http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=qrA
The triliteral root qāf rā hamza (ق ر أ) has both the meaning to recite and to read.
Regards

ReligiousForums.com

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/the-contributions-of-religion-to-sciences.181319/page-11#post-4520833

Point of Hot Debate : Scientists (or Historians) specialists in their fields might be quacks in Religion?

November 23, 2015

Post #37

Paarsurrey wrote:

Every religion has a core of the teachings, nothing of that belongs to the physical and or material domains of sciences (the temporal realm), so in fact, religion gives a free hand to the people of sciences to explore things for the benefit humans beings. The founders of revealed religion did not speak anything against the scientists, they need not, as they deal the ethical, moral and spiritual realms the source of which is Word of Revelation based on their experiences (not experiments).
If there is an overlapping, if the specific religious system set by the founders of religion is intact , they do accept it, if it is not intact it may take sometime for acceptance.

Regards

Post #38

Spiny Norman said:

Spiny Norman
A lot of religious people have quacky views on religion undeniably.

ReligiousForums.com

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/scientists-or-historians-specialists-in-their-fields-might-be-quacks-in-religion.181936/page-2#post-4516935

Point of Hot Debate : Scientists (or Historians) specialists in their fields might be quacks in Religion?

November 23, 2015

Post #35

Paarsurrey wrote:

I like many of your points in the post.
Regards

ReligiousForums.com

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/scientists-or-historians-specialists-in-their-fields-might-be-quacks-in-religion.181936/page-2#post-4516889

“Science says so” should not be an atheists ‘get out of jail free’ card

July 30, 2015

<www.religiousforums.com>Thread:”A Suggestion: A Science sub-forum”

Post #10

 Red Economist said:

Paarsurrey wrote:

I liked following points in your post:

  • “Science says so” should not be an atheists ‘get out of jail free’ card.
  • “where’s your proof”
  • Science is Atheism’s sacred cow
  • Science, philosophy and religion were not in conflict until very recently in historical time (particularly after Darwin)
  • science, philosophy and religion are intimately connected with one another

You are a keen observer.
Regards