“I’m trying to post historical evidence that I believe is stronger for Socrates than the “evidence” for Jesus.”Friend Jagella Post 41
One may like to read posts of friend Jagella in the thread :”Is Jesus of Gospels a fiction, Jesus of Quran the reality?” Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Christianity and Apologetics
“I’m trying to post historical evidence that I believe is stronger for Socrates than the “evidence” for Jesus.” Friend Jagella Post 41
Regards
The viewers should access the following link to know the context of the post; and then they should form their own sincere and independent opinion.
PAARSURREY says:
April 4, 2014 at 4:13 pm
@JOHN ZANDE says:April 3, 2014 at 10:58 pm
“Why’s that, Paar? Isn’t the god of the Qur’an (which is the god of the Pentateuch) omnipotent?”
No that is not the perspective of Islam/Quran/Muhammad.
One reason of the revelation of Quran was that the Torah was got corrupted by the Jewish clergy. This is clearly mentioned in Quran. Hence new revelation was needed for guidance.
The other reason was that the Torah at the times of Muhammad did not contain the reason part. Quran provides the reason-content under an elaborate system. It is not commandments only; it is commandment with the wisdom.
We, Muslims are in fact happy that the archaeologists have now proved the points that Quran had mentioned about the Torah.
There is an elaborate system of explanations of the attributes of the One-True-God.
One would observe that invariably Quran provides an attributes of God at the end of a verse; the event hints at the attribute under which action of God took place.
In this meaning the whole Quran explains all attributes of God and as to how these attributes work without contradiction with other attributes; and which attributes overtakes the others.
We can say that God of Moses,Buddha,Krishna, Zoroaster, Socrates, Jesus and Muhammad is the same God in attributes.
Thanks and regards
PAARSURREY says:
April 4, 2014 at 4:31 pm
I think I mentioned these things; but perhaps you did not get it.
Should I quote as to what I wrote about it.
I mentioned that all the archaeological excavations have been done with reference to the cities and places mentioned in the Bible; not with reference to Quran.
There is not a single site that has been excavated with reference to Quran.
Every branch of knowledge has its limitations; archaeology is also not 100% correct.
Regards
paarsurrey
MAR 24, 2014 @ 14:37:36
I think science and religion work in different realm; so there is no contradiction in science and religion if correctly interpreted.
No founder of a revealed religion like Buddha, Krishna, Moses, Zoroaster, Socrates, Jesus and Muhammad ever opposed science or scientific endeavors.
Religious people have served science very much; this fact cannot be denied.
Religion is a path that leads to God; this path is not physical or material; so science has nothing to do with it.
I think everybody reasonable must have to agree with it.
Thanks and regards
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
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
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®ion=E1&CR=
http://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/?page=1782®ion=E1
http://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/?page=1783®ion=E1
http://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/?page=1784®ion=E1
It will make things clear for you.
Regards
I wrote following comments: blog “Enquiries on Atheism” : topic “Religion and the former intellectual capital of the world”; link below:
http://atheistenquiry.org/
http://atheistenquiry.org/2014/02/19/religion-and-the-former-intellectual-capital-of-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-4568
paarsurrey
February 24, 2014 • 4:06 pm
@ ALLALLT
I think you get the phenomenon wrong. Muhammad ;and I don’t deny great personages before him also like Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster, Moses, Socrates and Jesus, they all through Word of Revelation from the One-True-God, opened hearts and minds of the people for love of knowledge and truth and hence there was an explosion of great civilizations through them; later when people lost track of that truthful path revealed on such personages and enunciated by them and concentrated on the worldly and material benefits from the rulers of the time; the treasure of knowledge was lost .
Not all the prophets and messengers of the One-True-God (Allah Yahweh Ahura-Mazda Parameshawara Eshawara) have been named in Quran; only about twenty five of them have been mentioned in Quran by their names; for others general characteristics have been mentioned of a truthful prophet messengers.
It is one of the basic principles of Islam to believe in all the prophets messengers of the One-True-God Allah wherever they have come in the world. One cannot deny any of them as the denial of any one of them may mean denial of the office of prophet- hood and this way denial of all the prophets and messengers; as they all have been sent by the One-True-God.
One such prophet is Socrates.
We give here some of the verses of Quran that give characteristics of a prophet in this connection:
1. [35:25] Verily, We have sent thee with the truth, as a bearer of glad tidings and as a Warner; and there is no people to whom a Warner has not been sent.
[35:26] And if they treat thee as a liar, those who were before them also treated their Prophets as liars. Their Messengers came to them with clear Signs, and with the Scriptures, and with the illuminating Book.
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?submitCh=Read+from+verse%3A&ch=35&verse=25
2. [16:37] And We did raise among every people a Messenger, preaching: ‘Worship Allah and shun the Evil One.’ Then among them were some whom Allah guided and among them weresome who became deserving of ruin. So travel through the earth, and see what was the end of those who treated the Prophets as liars!
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?submitCh=Read+from+verse%3A&ch=16&verse=37
3. [34:35] And We never sent a Warner to any city but the wealthy ones thereof said, ‘Surely, we disbelieve in what you have been sent with.’
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?submitCh=Read+from+verse%3A&ch=34&verse=35
4. [15:11] And We sent Messengers before thee among parties of ancient peoples.
[15:12] And there never came to them any Messenger but they mocked at him.
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=15&verse=11
5. [18:7] So haply thou wilt grieve thyself to death for sorrow after them if they believe not in this discourse.
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=18
It won’t be out of place here that The fourth successor to Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (peace be upon him), the founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community (who believe him to be the Promised Messiah, the grand unifier of the Latter Days) pays homage to Socrates in his marvelous book “Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge & Truth” in the following words:
“He was a prophet among philosophers and a philosopher among prophets. He believed in the unshakeable Unity of God. Of His absolute goodness he did not entertain the slightest doubt. This is what he pronounced during his last speech before the Athenian senate. He believed in God, the possessor of absolute goodness, not merely through his intellectual and metaphysical exercise, he believed because he had personally known Him as such, right from the early days of his childhood.
Nay, he was brought up in the very lap of God with His personal love and care. This was Socrates who also tackled this question with profound logic but it is a logic largely spent on proving the impossibility of any evil originating from God. When it came to the issue of evil and suffering in the world, he dismissed them as human errors, logically impossible to have emanated from Him.
He had to be good, He was good and He could not be anything but good. Hence, evil must have been generated by earthly people, God having no share in their defiled practices. His answer was simple but left room for others to assail him philosophically so that ultimately he could be driven to an indefensible position.”
Ahmad, Hazrat Mirza Tahir – Khalifatul Masih IV. Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge & Truth. (Islam
International Publications Ltd, 1998. 174, 175.
http://www.alislam.org/library/books/revelation/index.html
Hazrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad Khalifatul Masih IV argued further in his book that Socrates was a prophet of the ancient Greeks.
Hazrat Khalifatul Masih IV writes further:
“There must have been prophets before and after him but of them we can only infer from some oblique references by Socrates himself. For instance, he is known to have said that he is not the only one from God who has been the recipient of revelation; there have been great men before who did the same to serve the cause of goodness. Again, he warns Athenians not to put him to death otherwise they would never see the like of him again, except if God so desires to teach the right path to the Athenians by sending someone else.”
Ahmad, Hazrat Mirza Tahir – Khalifatul Masih IV. Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge & Truth. (Islam
International Publications Ltd, 1998). 73.
http://www.alislam.org/library/books/revelation/index.html
For more details on the subject one could read the following article titled “Socrates: Philosopher or Prophet” at the following link.
paarsurrey @ Wetzel
Discussion on Unfundamentalist Christians
I think mocking and belittling is not a good or a moral humane behavior on the part of the scientists, if they do it.
The truthful revealed religions represented by the stalwarts like Krishna, Buddha, Zoroaster, Moses, Socrates, Jesus, Muhammad and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad have never opposed the scientists or the science. If anyone of them have; somebody please quote from them.
These stalwarts and their Revealed Word was to guide the human beings in the ethical,moral and spiritual realms and they confined themselves to these realms.
The scientific and material endeavors have been left free for human inquiry and investigations as these are in the secular realm.
The viewers should click on the date that will take one to the live discussion where it occurred.
One reason of difference in religions is free will; it creates diversity. Humans are diverse; they have no locks on their minds, hearts and minds.
No … the difference in religions is the tailoring of franchises to the local market. Religion is all about wealth and power—the name of the ‘divinity’ is immaterial. No point in trying to establish a ‘Church of the Holy Viracocha’ in Fareham (UK) or Waiouru (NZ) or Mecca (brrrrr~!) … the market there isn’t ready for it.
But that is digression if our topic is Free Will (helps explain me a bit, though).
Muhammad, Jesus, Moses, Socrates,Zoroaster, Krishna, Buddha; none of them amassed any wealth. Do you agree on this?
It’s irrelevant. The wealth and power was amassed by ruthless clever men in their name … do you agree?
I don’t think you are right; all those great men I mentioned they were founders of great religions; they did not deceive anybody; did not take any offensive on others; had good moral; did not amass any riches; were down to earth humble persons; if others did bad things using their names while they died; how should they be held responsible for the bad deeds of others?
It is not, I think, a humanistic approach.
Please review your thoughts.
There ensued a discussion on one of my favorite blogs between me and john zande which could be viewed by clicking the following link:
http://fidedubitandum.wordpress.com/2013/07/09/the-wrong-target/
Reblogged this on paarsurrey and commented:
Paarsurrey says:
All revealed religions in their origin are/were from one source of the one true God; that is the reason for so many similar teachings in them. The differences in religions reflect that when the message from the one true God got diluted due to corruption; the message was again revealed by Him on another truthful messenger prophet of the one true God.
Thanks
Would your mind change to know there was never a revelation to anyone at any time? I’m referring here specifically to the Old Testament.
Why should one restrict to Old Testament? Moses did receive revelation from the one true God.
Krishna, Buddha, Zoroaster, Socrates, Jesus, Muhammad and in our own times Mirza Ghulam Ahmad received revelation from the one true God.
Care to explain then why all these gods have different names, attributes, personalities, messages, languages, moral codes, and varying degrees of authored powers. The Abrahamic god is omnipotent and omnipresent, but the Zoroastrian, Ahura Mazda, in not (it is stressed) omnipresent.
Different languages have to have different names of the one true God; it is very natural.
All good names in whatever language are His names; they belong to the one true God.
Sorry, that explanation doesn’t fly. You are alluding to a universal god, and a universal god should have one name recognised by all. By extension such a god should be able to state exactly what it wants to say and do so free of any and all ambiguity. Its word should be unencumbered by cultural idiosyncrasies and remain unmolested by divergences in language, calligraphy, obscure and dead lexicons, future dialects, exotic morphemes, or even illiteracy and deafness. Its word should contain no contradiction, no absurdity, no oversight or declarations that are in conflict with observed facts. Its word should penetrate all tribal, domestic and international legal code and remain morally true in a timeless continuum. Such an entity should be instantly recognisable to all sentient creatures and its actions should exhibit no fault or favour, no bias, prejudice, second-thought or indeed, if omniscient, no mind-set at all.
How do you know that? Please give your evidence
john zande
July 15th, 2013 at 11:33 pm
It is a claim bound-up in the proclamation of an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient god. I didn’t make the claim; theists, like yourself, do.
paarsurrey
July 16th, 2013 at 12:27 am
But I did not make any such claim; you will admit; if others do, they are free to answer.
john zande
July 16th, 2013 at 1:15 am
Are you insane?
You believe in the Abrahamic god. That god is said to be omni-everything. If you don’t believe in that particular god you’ll have to specifically outline which god you actually believe in… and describe its attributes to me.
So, if its not the Abrahamic god, describe the god you believe in.
paarsurrey
July 16th, 2013 at 1:27 am
I believe in the one true God who always existed irrespective whether Abraham believed in Him. I don’t have to contest with Abraham; he was a truthful messenger prophet of the one true God.
In fact time and space, “nothing” and “something”; are all caused by Him, the one true God.
Please don’t define and limit my God; it is my choice to believe in Him as per the attributes mentioned in Quran.
Please don’t lose patience; I think it is a good attribute of a Humanist.
Isn’t it?
john zande
July 16th, 2013 at 1:41 am
“attributes mentioned in Quran…”
so you believe in the Abrahamic god! There’s no two ways around this. You believe in THAT omni-everything god.
paarsurrey
July 16th, 2013 at 3:28 am
Prophets like Adam, Buddha, Krishna, Socrates, Moses and Jesus etc; all believed in one true God; Abraham was also one such messenger prophet among so many.
Religion is a personal belief; please don’t attribute or define anything which I did not claim.
I think a good Humanist should be careful about others beliefs
john zandeThere you go again about Moses and Abraham…. Dude, they NEVER existed. They are fictional characters. You’re entire belief system is a sham.
paarsurreyGive your irrefutable evidence; please, like a good Humanist.
I already have given you the consensus… evidently you didn’t read it.
Now, you’re boring me.
I don’t think there is any consensus on it.
I think at first you qualified it with the word “overwhelming”; just to add some weight.
Now don’t be angry.
I have read here about Aristotle’s belief in God which is not a Christian God, in my opinion.
Do you have any proof that Socrates also believed in God?
Thanks
There is no particularly direct source from the pen of Socrates to suggest that he believed in God (let alone a soul or anything else) except from the dialogues of Plato. Reading Plato’s dialogues such as Euthyphro, The Apology, and others, you can see that Socrates makes numerous references to “god”. Of course, the very nature of this “god” is something not to my knowledge Socrates ever really expounded upon.
paarsurrey 