Truth

[Supreme]

Hiya;

From my experience and individual research, I have come to the conclusion that no single religion is 'the truth'. Why on Earth do I have Christian as my way of life as opposed to agnosticism, then? Well, from my experience, Christianity may not be the truth, but it is, in my opinion the closest thing to truth. Nevertheless, I do believe that other religions posit some degree of truth (albeit not on the same degree as Christianity), and I view these religions as an equally valid way of life- I appreciate the concept of monotheism as seen in other religions such as Islam, Judaism and Zoroastrianism; I admire the obsession to defend all things sacred that is present in Islam; and I believe there is a lot of truth as found in the teachings of Buddhism, as well.

Now, my point is this: do you believe that Islam (or whatever faith you're a part of) is the total truth? If so, how can you explain the division within your faith? The numerous interpretations of holy texts which may mean something is compulsory or may make it acceptable under certain circumstances? I know Islam places a lot of trust in scholars to make interpretations of the Quran for them, much like Catholics believe the Pope recieves divine instructions from the One and Only. And even then, lots of religions place a great deal of emphasis on authoritarianism- submission to a divine authority and the authority's instructions, irregardless of how inane those instructions may sound in a rational context. How can so many authoritarian religions, all claiming to be the truth, reflect the decisions of a supreme diety? If one religion tells you to submit to God by eating meat and the other asks you to refrain from eating meat to gain God's favour, then something has gone wrong with regard to that truth.

 

[Hugo]

From my experience and individual research, I have come to the conclusion that no single religion is 'the truth'. Why on Earth do I have Christian as my way of life as opposed to agnosticism, then? Well, from my experience, Christianity may not be the truth, but it is, in my opinion the closest thing to truth. Nevertheless, I do believe that other religions posit some degree of truth (albeit not on the same degree as Christianity), and I view these religions as an equally valid way of life- I appreciate the concept of monotheism as seen in other religions such as Islam, Judaism and Zoroastrianism; I admire the obsession to defend all things sacred that is present in Islam; and I believe there is a lot of truth as found in the teachings of Buddhism, as well.

Now, my point is this: do you believe that Islam (or whatever faith you're a part of) is the total truth? If so, how can you explain the division within your faith? The numerous interpretations of holy texts which may mean something is compulsory or may make it acceptable under certain circumstances? I know Islam places a lot of trust in scholars to make interpretations of the Quran for them, much like Catholics believe the Pope recieves divine instructions from the One and Only. And even then, lots of religions place a great deal of emphasis on authoritarianism- submission to a divine authority and the authority's instructions, irregardless of how inane those instructions may sound in a rational context. How can so many authoritarian religions, all claiming to be the truth, reflect the decisions of a supreme diety? If one religion tells you to submit to God by eating meat and the other asks you to refrain from eating meat to gain God's favour, then something has gone wrong with regard to that truth.

I see this account is disabled but the idea of truth is worth pursuing. We know there is a difficulty with faith and reason because in the one case there can be no material evidence, no test we can make and in the other the opposite. For example, if someone tells me there are BEARS and EVIL SPIRITS in the forest overlooking my home then my reason tells me that I will know it when I see a bear and so if I see a bear the conjecture is confirmed and no one in the world would suggest that I am a bit loony for accepting that there may be bears in the forest near me. On the other hand I have no idea what an evil spirit looks like and no one can tell either so I have no way of testing the premiss that there are evil spirits there - I cannot show it not to be true and I cannot show it to be false and neither can anyone else. Many would laugh at me for even considering the conjecture but others would be upset that I don't accept a tenet of their faith even though they cannot provide material proofs either.

That is in a way is the dilemma over truth and it's an issue over faith and reason

 

[muslim787]

The truth is out there and plain for us Muslims to see. Any religion which states it is the truth should show its scripture can be traced all the way back to the prophet who relayed the message. In my opinion The Noble Qur'an and authentic Hadiths show Islam is the only religion to be able to do this.

All the prophets were given Miracles by Allah's leave- Moses pbuh was given the ability to part the sea, obtaining water from a rock, powerful magic etc. Jesus pbuh- the ability to raise the dead, speak as an infant etca. Muhammad pbuh performed miracles with food & water, but his most important miracle was the Qur'an itself and unlike the other miracles given to the prophets, we can actually marvel at this miracle to this very day.

Thousands of Christians each year revert to Islam after examining the truth for themselves.

 

[Hugo]

The truth is out there and plain for us Muslims to see. Any religion which states it is the truth should show its scripture can be traced all the way back to the prophet who relayed the message. In my opinion The Noble Qur'an and authentic Hadiths show Islam is the only religion to be able to do this.

I am glad you said your opinion. Anyone can claim that what they have is a religion and argue it is therefore the truth but any such argument cannot be rational since it appeals to the supernatural and that is beyond any test we might make. Of course one can invent a test as you have done to show it is true but I can invent another test and show it is false. From a rational point of view tracing a message/book back to its source only proves that person was its author. The book of Mormon can be traced to Joseph Smith so on you criteria its also must be the truth. Similarly, many Biblical books can be traced to an author so ipso facto they also are truth. If I write a book and claim it is a revelation that must also be truth.

All the prophets were given Miracles by Allah's leave- Moses pbuh was given the ability to part the sea, obtaining water from a rock, powerful magic etc. Jesus pbuh- the ability to raise the dead, speak as an infant etca. Muhammad pbuh performed miracles with food & water, but his most important miracle was the Qur'an itself and unlike the other miracles given to the prophets, we can actually marvel at this miracle to this very day.

Again you are claiming the supernatural and it is not possible to test any of these claims - we can collect eye witness reports of course as in the Biblical cases but because such events are not 'normal' we can choose to ignore them. You can of course regard the Qu'ran as a miracle but there is no reason why I must and just as you might invent test or reasons to prove your conjecture I can find test and reasons to reject it.

Thousands of Christians each year revert to Islam after examining the truth for themselves.

You may well be right but I don't know any but by the same token there are thousands of Muslims who have come to reject Islam absolutely and there are plenty of books that record their stories and numerous website created by them to record their testimonials.

 

[جوري]

you can only invalidate your personal persuasions of the above.. Indeed it all comes down to which set of beliefs are more believable .. those that cater both to the heart and mind, transcend time and place, offer spiritual guidance as well a complete foolproof system. Only Islam has so offered and continues to do so and as such, there is no question as to why it is the fastest growing religion in spite of desperate attempts of the naysayers.. whereas surprisingly Christianity continues to experience a yearly drop in its adherents. The more people are able to search, reason and understand, the more they see Christianity as a failing collection of fairy tales that defy logic.. which again takes us to the original point, of which set of beliefs are more believable!

8:8 That He might justify Truth and prove Falsehood false, distasteful though it be to those in guilt.

17:81] And say: "Truth has (now) arrived, and Falsehood perished: for Falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish."

 

[Hugo]

you can only invalidate your personal persuasions of the above.. Indeed it all comes down to which set of beliefs are more believable .. those that cater both to the heart and mind, transcend time and place, offer spiritual guidance as well a complete foolproof system. Only Islam has so offered and continues to do so and as such, there is no question as to why it is the fastest growing religion in spite of desperate attempts of the naysayers.. whereas surprisingly Christianity continues to experience a yearly drop in its adherents. The more people are able to search, reason and understand, the more they see Christianity as a failing collection of fairy tales that defy logic.. which again takes us to the original point, of which set of beliefs are more believable!

One cannot validate or invalidate what many people believe, that is what this thread is saying because such things cannot be falsified. One can rationally try to decide if one faith offers a better package but nothing more. All that you can say is that you think Islam is better and I can decide it is nonsense on stilts though we may very well agree on some moral principles and it does not require supernatural intervention to do that.

One might look at beliefs for reasonableness so let us look at some: Mohammed has his heart removed and washed with snow, a women in Heaven brings light and perfume to such an extent it is better than the whole world, in Sura 2 we have Allah striking Moses with lightening and then reviving him just so that Moses would thank him for it, asking God what colour a cow should be then slaughtering it and striking a dead body with it, Ja'far bin Abi Talib was said to be generous and to prove it we have a story of him giving an empty container for someone to lick etc.

Job 21:34 "So how can you [convince] me with your nonsense? Nothing is left of your answers but falsehood!

 

[جوري]

One cannot validate or invalidate what many people believe, that is what this thread is saying because such things cannot be falsified. One can rationally try to decide if one faith offers a better package but nothing more. All that you can say is that you think Islam is better and I can decide it is nonsense on stilts though we may very well agree on some moral principles and it does not require supernatural intervention to do that.

Sure one can merely say so and so is better, but to make the better manifest one merely needs to see a full implementation and decide.. which is better-- you can definitely argue that the dark ages of Christianity are better the same way a shady dealer sells you damaged goods. The ignorant have much to say and much to require but the people of knowledge know of truth when it is manifest to them in clear signs!

2:118 Say those without knowledge: "Why speaketh not Allah unto us? Or why cometh not unto us a Sign?" So said the people before them words of similar import. Their hearts are alike. We have indeed made clear the Signs unto any people who hold firmly to Faith (in their hearts).

One might look at beliefs for reasonableness so let us look at some: Mohammed has his heart removed and washed with snow, a women in Heaven brings light and perfume to such an extent it is better than the whole world, in Sura 2 we have Allah striking Moses with lightening and then reviving him just so that Moses would thank him for it, asking God what colour a cow should be then slaughtering it and striking a dead body with it, Ja'far bin Abi Talib was said to be generous and to prove it we have a story of him giving an empty container for someone to lick etc.

None of those descriptions are where the tenet of the religion lies or what Islam is about-- that differs completely from the religion being based on the death of god and his manifestation unto his nemesis to abrogate his commandments that is if we can actually trace said things as having been said by this god considering the discrepancies of passages, chronological and illogical errors, that if imposed upon itself for witness fails to exonerate itself from the falsehood that has consumed it .. again, most reflective folks are able to pick out what speaks to their heart without having them draw a complete shade over their mind-- that which is manifest from God, and that which your forefathers concocted or concealed!

6:91 No just estimate of Allah do they make when they say: "Nothing doth Allah send down to man (by way of revelation)": say: "Who then sent down the Book which Musa brought? a light and guidance to man: but ye make it into (separate) sheets for show, while ye conceal much (of its contents): therein were ye taught that which ye knew not, neither ye nor your fathers." Say: "Allah (sent it down)": then leave them to plunge in vain discourse and trifling.

Job 21:34 "So how can you [convince] me with your nonsense? Nothing is left of your answers but falsehood!

6:68 When thou seest men engaged in vain discourse about Our Signs, turn away from them unless they turn to a different theme. If Satan ever makes thee forget, then after recollection, sit not thou in the company of those who do wrong.



good luck with all of that!

 

[Hugo]

2:118 Say those without knowledge: "Why speaketh not Allah unto us? Or why cometh not unto us a Sign?" So said the people before them words of similar import. Their hearts are alike. We have indeed made clear the Signs unto any people who hold firmly to Faith (in their hearts).

But surely if Islam is true it would have no flaws anywhere - it would be like a chain where if one link fails then the whole things collapses. You speak of knowledge but you only accept what is in Islam and do that blindly, well you cannot do anything else because nothing can be proved. I gave examples of what to most rational minds would be utter nonsense but you ignored all of them so are you interested in truth or not?

 

[Zafran]

It confuses me when a christian is telling a muslim that he or she is using blind faith?

 

[جوري]

But surely if Islam is true it would have no flaws anywhere - it would be like a chain where if one link fails then the whole things collapses. You speak of knowledge but you only accept what is in Islam and do that blindly, well you cannot do anything else because nothing can be proved. I gave examples of what to most rational minds would be utter nonsense but you ignored all of them so are you interested in truth or not?

I have found no flaws in the Quran, and no else has, so I don't see how any of us can be considered to be following blindly?-- what you consider a 'flaw' it no more than putting full faith in the divine writ equally for the parts that we can't prove as to the parts that are beyond the human scope!

all the best

 

[Hugo]

It confuses me when a christian is telling a muslim that he or she is using blind faith?

If one talks about the supernatural then one is blind. But the point about being blind is not that we cannot use our intellect and consider a given case and in that sense lend our faith support but its when we without question accept everything no matter what it is - do you see the difference and why you and I differ in our outlook?

 

[Zafran]

If one talks about the supernatural then one is blind. But the point about being blind is not that we cannot use our intellect and consider a given case and in that sense lend our faith support but its when we without question accept everything no matter what it is - do you see the difference and why you and I differ in our outlook?

what do you mean the difference? whats the different outlook. All knowledge has foundations in belief or trust anyway - if that is rigrously tested and still stands then its a very sound/ rational belief.

 

[Hugo]

I have found no flaws in the Quran, and no else has, so I don't see how any of us can be considered to be following blindly?-- what you consider a 'flaw' it no more than putting full faith in the divine writ equally for the parts that we can't prove as to the parts that are beyond the human scope!

I have no issue with you saying this but can you even accept that others have found flaws so you assertion is not based on fact? For example, I find it a flaw that the Qu'ran does not match the Biblical accounts, the impossibility of God writing in eternity that one can marry your adopted sons ex wife. You may not see them as flaws but the fact is others do and that is why we differ, you cannot even let yourself see the possibility, you don't have to accept it but you cannot even contemplate it - like the chain, you fear that the whole things will collapse around your ears.

 

[Zafran]

I find it a flaw that the Qu'ran does not match the Biblical accounts, the impossibility of God writing in eternity that one can marry your adopted sons ex wife.

I find this a very odd criteria indeed - because it wont work - in your own biblical accounts you have seriously immoral things taking place (by great men). Marrying the sons ex wife is not immoral - if she is divorced and wants to marry then there realy is nothing wrong with it unlike Lot and the daughters or Jesus pbuh and suicide. Even in christain theology thats immoral yet you accept it as gracious.

 

[Hugo]

what do you mean the difference? whats the different outlook. All knowledge has foundations in belief or trust anyway - if that is rigrously tested and still stands then its a very sound/ rational belief.

No it does not. I don't have to trust or believe the law of gravity because it does not matter at all what I think it will still apply to me. On the other hand if you say Mohammed's heart was removed and washed with snow I can take it or leave it and oblivious it cannot be rigorously tested in any way I can think of. Similarly, if you say the Qu'ran is the very word of God I can totally ignore it and there is no laboratory in the world who can rigorously test that claim because in technical terms it cannot be falsified and it is outside of rationality.

 

[aadil77]

I have no issue with you saying this but can you even accept that others have found flaws so you assertion is not based on fact? For example, I find it a flaw that the Qu'ran does not match the Biblical accounts, the impossibility of God writing in eternity that one can marry your adopted sons ex wife. You may not see them as flaws but the fact is others do and that is why we differ, you cannot even let yourself see the possibility, you don't have to accept it but you cannot even contemplate it - like the chain, you fear that the whole things will collapse around your ears.

LOL thats a first,

Can you not see how desperate your attempts at finding 'flaws' in the Quran have become? Now you've resulting to spouting out pure nonsense - nonsense that not even the stupidest people would come out with, your little crusades against islam are going no where

there comes a time that when you're in a hole you stop digging

 

[Zafran]

No it does not. I don't have to trust or believe the law of gravity because it does not matter at all what I think it will still apply to me. On the other hand if you say Mohammed's heart was removed and washed with snow I can take it or leave it and oblivious it cannot be rigorously tested in any way I can think of. Similarly, if you say the Qu'ran is the very word of God I can totally ignore it and there is no laboratory in the world who can rigorously test that claim because in technical terms it cannot be falsified and it is outside of rationality.

It can be rigrously tested by simply asking who actually wrote it - are the people trustworthy or are they not. If its Muttawir or ahad - if it has abroken chain or not - its like history. Unless the person is an extreme sceptic and doesnt believe in anything at all.

the law of gravity also requires belief as well. There is a problem of induction - so its the best guess work we have. Doesnt mean that its an absolute.

 

[Hugo]

I find this a very odd criteria indeed - because it wont work - in your own biblical accounts you have seriously immoral things taking place (by great men). Marrying the sons ex wife is not immoral - if she is divorced and wants to marry then there realy is nothing wrong with it unlike Lot and the daughters or Jesus pbuh and suicide. Even in christain theology thats immoral yet you accept it as gracious.

Excellent you just prove my point by inventing other criteria and so we can go on ad infinitum because there will never be a test we can agree on. You also miss the point, I am not arguing that marrying your adopted sons ex wide is immoral but arguing that it is a very very odd command for God to have made before time began if you see the Qu'ran as eternal. Again you invent a criteria that say the biblical accounts are corrupted because great men are shown in a bad light but I argue that those stories are a proof that the Bible is true because if anyone wanted to fiddle with the record they would not put those in. Can you see this there is no way to show whose criteria are right

 

[Hugo]

It can be rigrously tested by simply asking who actually wrote it - are the people trustworthy or are they not. If its Muttawir or ahad - if it has abroken chain or not - its like history. Unless the person is an extreme sceptic and doesnt eblieve in anything at all. the law of gravity also requires belief as well.

Gravity does NOT require belief because if you walk off a cliff you will fall down no matter what you belief or how sceptical you are - laws of nature are like that you cannot avoid them. If there is an unbroken chain all it proves is that some person said something it does not make what they said true or from God.

 

[Zafran]

Gravity does NOT require belief because if you walk off a cliff you will fall down no matter what you belief or how sceptical you are - laws of nature are like that you cannot avoid them. If there is an unbroken chain all it proves is that some person said something it does not make what they said true or from God.

It Does require belief how do we know the same test that we did in the past is going to give us the same results in the future - here you have the law of gravity? Its guess work. Read the problem of induction, David Hume talks about it.

The unbroken chain does tell us alot if you can actually link it to the prophet muhammad pbuh and his miracles or meeting angles, then if the transmission is trustworthy then there is a high probabilty of being true expecially if its mashur or muttawatir. Its hows that many people actually saw it.