Loopholes in Religion

[psyah]

Re: Loopholes in Religion

@Southie

Best way to cover loopholes is with long posts.

Confoocius

I answered each item that I could find … I can separate them in to smaller posts if you like … Argue if you think I am wrong and show me where … The length of the post was not due to the over dealing with minutia topics … Nor was I hiding things in to sophistical language … It is clear for you to read and counter.

[Monk]

Re: Loopholes in Religion

@Southie

Best way to cover loopholes is with long posts.

Confoocius

not fair. I was thinking about making you judge to see if the loophole exist or its just paradoxical question or statements being put forward as religious principle.

I think answer have been given, about theology, but its only theology you can still say no.

[Monk]

Re: Loopholes in Religion

@philosophy

oh this discussion is still based on the points raised in the first few posts. think about that. 3-4 points…and 90+ posts. lots of loopholes.

there’s a lot more to come…but it still won’t make sense to you

Cause of first sin was arrogance. In that sense its mother of all problem came after it.
Things people asked had answers, those were just question people asked after thinking like 3 mins. Or those question lingered in their mind since they never thought it was worth to find answers(arrogance )
I don’t think any one from believer side rejected any ones life time of work.. or a phd thesis.

It was bunch of simple questions. Which people did like to talk about, and dont try to find answers.

[Monk]

Re: Loopholes in Religion

@Southie

The esteemed Mr. Monk lobbed a few loopholes towards Hinduism - specifically wrt meditation for prolonged periods spanning tens of thousands of years. But for OP’S intervention, he would have explained his lobs.

By the way, OP, what is your agenda? What is the point of this thread?

southie * mujhy messebat meen daal dia*

First and foremost islam:
Sofism tend to take a different route. Many time it unattached people from basic principles and tell them, to take matter in their own hands… as a result you can see many issue like drugs, exploitation comes into play.

Christianity:
There was this dude, St Paul, his teaching was 180 degree from what Jesus(pbuh) said.
Yet st Paul shaped todays Christianity.

[Captain_Obvious]

Re: Loopholes in Religion

@philosophy

oh this discussion is still based on the points raised in the first few posts. think about that. 3-4 points…and 90+ posts. lots of loopholes.

there’s a lot more to come…but it still won’t make sense to you

First few posts consist of this:

Black magic and all not being repeatable, testable, observable etc. - I already explained why people are able to believe in it, even when we put aside faith–because where science fails to identify the problem or even decide whether or not there is a problem, people have seen their problems solved following “spiritual” treatments.

God created human beings so that they could worship him.
Really? And what does he achieve? Satisfaction? Does he have feelings?

If religion is a reality why do we have so many of them. Real things are undeniable. For example, gravity is real. Everyone on this earth can test it and come to the same conclusion. If religion was real, why isn’t crystal clear like that?

Life is a test from God. People passing the test will go to heaven, others to hell. God loves us 60 times more than our mothers do.
Really? My mother would never send me to a place where I will burn till eternity. No matter what I do. She is selfless and forgiving. She will not knowingly amputate her children just to test them.

Not a single loophole so far.

The poster who raised the latter three himself said:

Some from my side. I am sure, they are not loopholes but just some things I could never understand.

More like something you might not understand but that’s not the definition of a loophole.

[Southie]

Re: Loopholes in Religion

messebat

Freudian slip or clever misspelling?

[Southie]

Re: Loopholes in Religion

@Monk

not fair. I was thinking about making you judge to see if the loophole exist or its just paradoxical question or statements being put forward as religious principle.

I think answer have been given, about theology, but its only theology you can still say no.

OK Mr. Monk. Point taken. Ek aadh baar jokes tho karna hi padtha hai.

[Southie]

Re: Loopholes in Religion

@psyah

I answered each item that I could find … I can separate them in to smaller posts if you like … Argue if you think I am wrong and show me where … The length of the post was not due to the over dealing with minutia topics … Nor was I hiding things in to sophistical language … It is clear for you to read and counter.

Will do!

[MangoMan]

Re: Loopholes in Religion

Salaam Psyah,

Thank you for taking the time to respond in detail. Please find some comments inline.

@psyah

A loophole is an evident weakness in the wording of a law or instruction that people can exploit to evade the intent of that law or instruction.
A blind man may not see the undressed woman in front of him, but it does not belie the fact that she is naked. If the tools to assess Reality themselves are in question then we revert back to the basis above – that some things remain in the Unseen, either permanently or until a point until we have to ability to see them.

Its not the case of ‘A’ blind man. Here, ‘everybody’ is blind, in that sense. While there are dozens of undressed women, one of whom is THE WOMAN. And it is THE WOMAN who has decided to make everyone blind and then test them on their ability to recognize her from all the other women. If they fail, they burn in hell forever.

@psyah

A question is posed about “God Who Created human beings so that they could worship Him” to then lead on the question of “why” and “what God receives from this. In Islam we have our understandings about Allah (SWT) from scripture so we cannot make things up. His Attributes are sufficient to cater for all possible and feasible lines of questioning. Some lines of questioning are absurd because they force logical fallacies to be entertained. So as long as the question leads to somewhere sound there is an answer to it – as far as I have found within the Islamic scriptures themselves.

First of all – We can ask the question “why would God?” but we should ask ourselves first – “why would we need to know the motives of God?” That is a hard question to answer. There is no reason to know why God does anything; merely we need to know what our expectation is from God. By asking the question “why would God …” we are making the assumption that we will understand the motives of God. Since we cannot make that assumption when we do it can cause us to become distant from the original intent. Distant meaning – our faculties may find a reason to move away from our duty to God based on being unable to fathom His motives – which would be a fallacious reason to do so. There is actually a straight forward answer … What does God receive when we worship Him? The answer is … He receives worship. The question is a tautology. Once having established that God Created us and He deserves our worship then we offer worship. This equation of justice need not be any more complicated than that. Justice is present in our own design – we desire justice and we feel the need to meet that justice by acting in accordance with it. If after establishing that God deserves our worship and we fail to do it we harm our own sense of balance and justice. If we make the tacit arrogation that we can understand the motives of God then already this is an inferior concept of God and contradicts the understood Attributes of God and our relationship to Him – at least from the Islamic point of view.

These are the things I find difficult to understand:

@psyah

1. In Islam we have our understandings about Allah (SWT) from scripture so we cannot make things up. His Attributes are sufficient to cater for all possible and feasible lines of questioning
2. Some lines of questioning are absurd because they force logical fallacies to be entertained.
3. First of all – We can ask the question “why would God?” but we should ask ourselves first – “why would we need to know the motives of God?” That is a hard question to answer. There is no reason to know why God does anything; merely we need to know what our expectation is from God. By asking the question “why would God …” we are making the assumption that we will understand the motives of God.

Why do we need to limit the spectrum of questioning? To protect our beliefs? So that the views held by our ancestors for thousands of years do not get shattered? I mean, it does make sense if we are being protective of our religion. After all, we love it. But then lets just say that: No questioning of religious beliefs. Why are we seeking ONE TRUE religion then? If we don’t put a religion to test using all the possible lines of reasoning, how can we convince others of ONE TRUE religion then?
Your reasoning starts from a point where you have already made a conclusion and you are trying to justify it. But what about those who were born with different beliefs? How can they test the validity of religions? And if indeed your religion is THE TRUE religion, then are they not disadvantaged? Because if they are also told that they have their own limited spectrum in which they are allowed to question, then how will they ever find this TRUE religion?

@psyah

Consider then a scenario that she had five such children and one of her children was adamant on killing his siblings, the only way to stop him would be to kill him or maim him, would she not do that despite her love?

Again, I find this analogy a bit too simplistic: an analogy which suits the answer you want to hear, not an analogy you should make in order to understand something and then to be ready to accept whatever is the outcome of the analogy. Here, no children of God is adamant on killing his siblings. Here, God can burn his beloved ‘children’, in hell forever even if they are perfectly fine with each other but just do not recognize him using their ‘limited intelligence’ given to them by him.

[psyah]

Re: Loopholes in Religion

@MangoMan

These are the things I find difficult to understand:

Why do we need to limit the spectrum of questioning? To protect our beliefs? So that the views held by our ancestors for thousands of years do not get shattered? I mean, it does make sense if we are being protective of our religion. After all, we love it. But then lets just say that: No questioning of religious beliefs. Why are we seeking ONE TRUE religion then? If we don’t put a religion to test using all the possible lines of reasoning, how can we convince others of ONE TRUE religion then?
Your reasoning starts from a point where you have already made a conclusion and you are trying to justify it. But what about those who were born with different beliefs? How can they test the validity of religions? And if indeed your religion is THE TRUE religion, then are they not disadvantaged? Because if they are also told that they have their own limited spectrum in which they are allowed to question, then how will they ever find this TRUE religion?

Again, I find this analogy a bit too simplistic: an analogy which suits the answer you want to hear, not an analogy you should make in order to understand something and then to be ready to accept whatever is the outcome of the analogy. Here, no children of God is adamant on killing his siblings. Here, God can burn his beloved ‘children’, in hell forever even if they are perfectly fine with each other but just do not recognize him using their ‘limited intelligence’ given to them by him.

Wa’alaikumuSalam

… Indeed you have asked the question and nothing is happening. In order to gain insight on this - a different part of your faculties of reason need to be employed … not your mind but your heart.

Then do they not reflect upon the Qur’an, or are there locks upon [their] hearts?
Surat Muhammad [47:24] - The Noble Qur’an - ??? ???

Sometimes consulting your heart for a soundness is the sort of thing required. We are asking “What does God get out of worship?” - the answer is clear - recognition of His Majesty by creatures who decided to do so without obligation and without the clarity that other creatures may be given (like angels) … By trying to go further we are making the mistake of assimilating ourselves with God. It’s not that we cannot ask the question … but by asking it we set ourselves up to failure - where we will not be given an answer. Because we have no reference point. We know (or believe) that we were sent messengers so that we can be taught to turn to Him and these were sent out of His Mercy for us. And anything we say about Allah (SWT) must be backed up - or it is just whimsical. But to go further is a form of hesitance with the answer to the previous question.

Discussions like this usually have several points that are rigged by being posed as intertwined… Does God Exist? If He does, then what what is our purpose? Well then why does He need us to worship Him? What does He get out of it? (The last question is an assumption - it fails to recognise that God does not need us)

The point is as we work our way into the minutia we are providing ourselves an “Out” - we are not interested in being convinced - but looking for more reasons not to be … so the line of questioning has already started where ‘a conclusion has already been made’ too. It is the conclusion of resistance. We need to concern ourselves with - Does God exist? Once that is finalised in our hearts then we simply submit to Him. Asking further questions means that we in truth are not content with a simple matter of Existence … It should be stressed - The reason why His Existence is elusive in the sensory meaning is both because our senses just could not fathom Him and secondly then we would not have true choice. So CHOOSE … A or B … It is totally your choice. For sure once I FEEL in my heart that God Exists then the question of “why” He wants me to do certain things is irrelevant.

Regarding the position of Love and Justice - these are to be viewed in parallel … but not dependent. So in the context of Love, love is there for us and in the context of Justice there is justice there too … The position of a true believer is not to be too content with the Mercy of Allah (SWT) that it beats him down to being dormant inactive, second guessing and giving himself excuses, nor should we be people so afraid of His Wrath that it beats us down with despair and we never think that we can be saved. We should be somewhere in between these two positions.

The wisdom behind that is in both cases we are prejudging the Judgement of God - we are taking out of His Authority of Judgement and pre-judging ourselves to being let off or being punished. Let’s leave that part for God? Also both of the positions lead to inaction with respect to our duty to God - whereas the third position (in between) is one of hope; that we will be saved and the hope that we will not be punished. It is a healthy position - providing us the impetus for our design purpose - which is worship.

I can recall little children asking the question “why”, “why” in a sequence to all the responses their mothers give them … at the end the mothers say “it just is - right - no more questions - or you won’t get a sweet” … reason and being reasonable goes hand in hand … yes we use reason to arrive at sound conclusions - but sometimes we need to double take on our own line of questioning - are we being reasonable?

All analogies to the side … We need to recognise that the gravest sin is to deny God … either His Existence or of Him sharing any of His Attributes with another. It is worse than a murder. The One who Created us has the unique authority of defining to us the scale of morality and how good or evil an act is … Our mental faculties and life experiences in the modern world teach us otherwise … they have taken the Attribute of Judge from Him and done shirk with themselves of it … People believe they have the right to decide what is evil or good rather than the duty to know what God has said is the criteria of good and evil.

[Southie]

Re: Loopholes in Religion

What aam aadmi said.

[Southie]

Re: Loopholes in Religion

@ Mango man

Re ur 1st para, you have concluded there is indeed God. But ur only question is who is thee real God (or woman in ur analogy). How did u conclude there is a God?
@psyah - would you worship Guruvayurappa? Or Venkatachalapathi? Or Meenakshi? If yes, you are consistent. If not, why not?

[psyah]

Re: Loopholes in Religion

@Southie

@ Mango man

Re ur 1st para, you have concluded there is indeed God. But ur only question is who is thee real God (or woman in ur analogy). How did u conclude there is a God?
@psyah - would you worship Guruvayurappa? Or Venkatachalapathi? Or Meenakshi? If yes, you are consistent. If not, why not?

Peace Southie

Good question … I would not - I would look for all that I have been told about any candidate for Deity to be internally consistent … So I would say yes - to learn about them … and if I found internal inconsistency - then I would seek clarification. I have already found the concept of God as being “not encapsulated by anything” as being a sound requisite to have for a God candidate - So if any of those deities above take “form” I could not accept them. Also I could not accept Deity being transient or changing or having relations such as sons, spouses, etc.

[diwana]

Re: Loopholes in Religion

@philosophy

oh this discussion is still based on the points raised in the first few posts. think about that. 3-4 points…and 90+ posts. lots of loopholes.

there’s a lot more to come…but it still won’t make sense to you

You do know this is S&T forum do you?

There was a flaw in your question. I pointed out. You could not answer back. Fine.

There IS still another big flaw in your conclusion, as you showed in the title. You made that an eye-catching title for no reason.

On top of that you want to discuss the religion and religious beliefs in S&T ? :no:

P.S. There is a reason why I did not respond to MangoMan posts.

[Southie]

Re: Loopholes in Religion

@psyah

Peace Southie

Good question … I would not - I would look for all that I have been told about any candidate for Deity to be internally consistent … So I would say yes - to learn about them … and if I found internal inconsistency - then I would seek clarification. I have already found the concept of God as being “not encapsulated by anything” as being a sound requisite to have for a God candidate - So if any of those deities above take “form” I could not accept them. Also I could not accept Deity being transient or changing or having relations such as sons, spouses, etc.

Precisely the reason slme could say Allah should nor be worshipoed either. They may find Too many inconsistencies. Any being that punishes people by burning them in Hell - is - to use your phrase - “internally inconsistent”. And some may even argue there are such “internal inconsistencies” among other revered figures in your faith.

We have done this dance before several times. The difference I see between Monk and you is - Monk truly appreciates other religions. I have seen your debates. You don’t appear to respect other belief systems.

Discussions such as this are always circular. With uniters such as Monk, there is always that feeling he gets other belief system. But with you, one always comes up against that proverbial brick wall.

[psyah]

Re: Loopholes in Religion

@Southie

Precisely the reason slme could say Allah should nor be worshipoed either. They may find Too many inconsistencies. Any being that punishes people by burning them in Hell - is - to use your phrase - “internally inconsistent”. And some may even argue there are such “internal inconsistencies” among other revered figures in your faith.

We have done this dance before several times. The difference I see between Monk and you is - Monk truly appreciates other religions. I have seen your debates. You don’t appear to respect other belief systems.

Discussions such as this are always circular. With uniters such as Monk, there is always that feeling he gets other belief system. But with you, one always comes up against that proverbial brick wall.

Peace Southie

First is to establish the Existence of God, then we need to look at the Attributes of God then we look at the acts of God within those Attributes. We can compare such things to other deities too … Many times we are warned about hellfire … So if we didn’t actually believe that God could send us there then we have been internally inconsistent.

[ajazali]

Re: Loopholes in Religion

@MangoMan

…
Its not the case of ‘A’ blind man. Here, ‘everybody’ is blind, in that sense. While there are dozens of undressed women, one of whom is THE WOMAN. And it is THE WOMAN who has decided to make everyone blind and then test them on their ability to recognize her from all the other women. If they fail, they burn in hell forever.

…
…

It’s not like everyone is blind here. Quran mentions that we have the ability to distinguish between right and wrong. You cannot claim that you dont know what is wrong and what is right, can you? In fact, if you put sincere efforts to find the moral truth, it will lead you to need for believe in God.
Furthermore, belief in God is not the minimum requirement. Instead, you have to follow His guidance throughout your life to save yourself from hell.

[Southie]

Re: Loopholes in Religion

@psyah

Peace Southie

First is to establish the Existence of God, then we need to look at the Attributes of God then we look at the acts of God within those Attributes. We can compare such things to other deities too … Many times we are warned about hellfire … So if we didn’t actually believe that God could send us there then we have been internally inconsistent.

Peace Psyah.

This post depends on establishing the existence of God.

[Southie]

Re: Loopholes in Religion

@ajazali

It’s not like everyone is blind here. Quran mentions that we have the ability to distinguish between right and wrong. You cannot claim that you dont know what is wrong and what is right, can you? In fact, if you put sincere efforts to find the moral truth, it will lead you to need for believe in God.
Furthermore, belief in God is not the minimum requirement. Instead, you have to follow His guidance throughout your life to save yourself from hell.

And we have the perfect circle.

[MangoMan]

Re: Loopholes in Religion

@Southie

@ Mango man
Re ur 1st para, you have concluded there is indeed God. But ur only question is who is thee real God (or woman in ur analogy). How did u conclude there is a God?

I only make this assumption since this is the starting point of most of the religions that I am aware of.