Hi Ras111,
As for your question about verses saying that people joining partners to Allah will go to hell. I think it's important to keep in mind the context of those verses. they are general verses with a general message. There are many verses which say people doing this, or people with this characteristic will go to hell. And at the same time many verses saying that people doing that and with those characteristics will go to heaven. This begs the question, what about people who do things from both classes? What about people who have characteristics of both classes? I think the only logical interpretation of these verses is thus, that they are not meant as a tool for us to derive who will go to heaven, and who will go to hell, but that rather these verses were only meant to show which actions and characteristics should be avoided, and which are admirable.
How are they avoided if one is born in a pagan society that does not speak Arabic? I think it's more of a case of someone not being able to make his mind up. If it were as you say then surely this god would have presented it in such a way that could be understood by everyone and made clear. A way that would leave no room for doubt and different interpretation. Many have no problems accepting the fact that people who join partners with this allah are going to hell. An Egyptian friend of mine told me that she was taught during RE that her Coptic friends were going to hell when she was still at school.
Again remember the purpose of the Qur'an is to guide people. So verses saying "these people will go to hell" are not with the purpose of letting us know who'll end up were, but rather are meant to guide us away from a certain type of actions.
Then why did he not present them that way? Why talk about Jews and Christians and polytheists and how they are going to be punished? The Arabic language does allow the speaker to address and audience and tell them what they ought to do and not to do. And we even see in this in the quran when Muslims are told to say this and that.
As for your question on the difference of a woman's testimony compared to a man's testimony. I think you're referring to the testimony on financial transactions right?
No I am referring to general testimony
Well I think that in general men as opposed to woman have a better memory for numbers. That's not to say there might be some woman with exceptionally good memory for numbers, or some men with exceptionally bad memory for numbers. But in general, I do think this is one of these biological differences between men and woman.
And yet this religious edict has proved to be a barrier for many women who were talented with numbers and wished to pursue a career involving numbers. One would have thought that an all knowing god would be lenient in this matter as it is all down to the individual's characteristics and the genetics inherited.
As for the issue of relationships, I think that taking the lead, and having authority are both intertwined, and that you cannot have one without the other. And again, I disagree with your argument that this implies men are superior in value in the eyes of God.
No? Care to tell me why it is the Muslim male that is addressed? Or why nothing is said about how a women may rebuke her husband? Not mention the fact that a man is allowed to marry 4 wives (and more if you're the prophet) and have sex slaves when a woman is not?
In fact many verses in the Qur'an state that men and women are equal in value in the eyes of God.
Such as?
So the issue on leadership in a relation is a practical issue, and not a reflection of their respective value in the eyes of God. Also keep in mind that leadership comes hand in hand with responsibility. So it's not like men get a carte-blanche to do as they see fit.
You give responsibility to those who can handle it and are better endowed than others. It would seem that the god of Muhammad does not have too much faith in the abilities of women other then to be housewives and baby factories.
As for your question on why the Qur'an isn't writen in such a way that it would convince everyone. I can't claim to know the motives of GOd, but my best Guess would be that this would defeat the purpose of testing us.
I see so he writes in a language that few people speak, makes a lot of errors in it and expects us to still believe, in spite of all the contradictions that this word is true. Not to mention the fact that he allegedly already knows who passed and who failed (remember you think he is all knowing). Is that logical according to you? There are people who say that the fossils were placed by god to test people.. your argument sounds quite similar.
Hi Ras111 & Abz,
Since you both brought forth very similar arguments, I'll respond to both of you at once on this subject.
Regarding the criteria for accepting things as truths. You seem to imply that accepting anything without scientific proof is irrational. So what you are saying in a way is that any faith is by itself already irrational, regardless of what the faith is. I think that's shortsighted.
But faith is supposed to be irrational. Faith is believing without proof. How is it short sighted?
First of all, you seem to be forgetting the subtle differences between "knowing" something and "believing"
It depends what you mean by that. It depends whether you can back up what you 'know' with concrete evidence to show why it is so.
Do you know that the quran is the word of allah or do you believe that it is the word of allah, what terms do you use?
something. Secondly, not everything which is true can also be proven,
Then we cannot say that it is true for certain can we? Does that justify believing anything we believe to be true?
However I still consider it rational to accept some things trough these methods from a pragmatists point of view.
By what method? Do you have a mechanism or a way of sorting the chaff from the wheat? You said it yourself that they are uncertain methods, so how can you justify it rationally. There is no room for uncertainty in rationality. You clearly are not being rational here at all.
As I said, some things are simply beyond the scope of science, so I don't think we should limit ourself to accepting only those things which can be proven by science.
And where does the accepting stop then?
Hi Ras111 and Olweasel,
You both asked me a similar questions about the apparent contradiction between predestination and free will. So basically how God can be just, if he already knows who will go to hell and who will go to heaven. I think your problem with this is, that you think if God knows in advance, that means he's responsible, right?
If you can prevent a crime and you don't that also makes you responsible and yes, the person does not have free will and that means he cannot change and to cap it all will be tortured for eternity
Well I strongly disagree and consider that a slippery slope deduction. Just because somebody has knowledge of something, doesn't make him responsible for it.
Yes? Try bring up that one in court if you are charged of willfully allowing a murder to happen when you knew in advance what was to happen.
I believe God created us with free will, but he knew what we'd do with our free will.
So in reality it is not free will, it is destiny. Otherwise it is free will and he does not know our choices and its therefore not all knowing. Which one is it?
Just because he knew, doesn't mean we aren't responsible.
Why? Isn't that what god wished? He knew before hand. Is he not the creator and everything does according to what he wishes? If we had control over our actions and the ability to influence our destiny then god cannot be all knowing. If we can't then he is all knowing and responsible for setting out the script and making the rules that way.
If you have children, have you never had a situation were you knew they were about to do mischief, but rather then stopping them, you let them do it and then afterwards confronted them because you realized that this way they'd learn more out of the experience?
By condemning them to eternal suffering the way your all merciful god does? For offenses such as joining partners with him and being born homosexual? And then on the other hand he allows slavery and people to subjugate others?
Were they then not responsible or accountable for their mischief despite as a parent you knew what they were planning?
You would not know what they would be doing in 10 years time and the punishment is temporary so your argument does not hold.
Topic: convinced rational muslim