11 ms·

I am not religious or anything, but I think some of the religious rules come from their leaders realizing that making them "rules from God" would benefit their

I am not religious or anything, but I think some of the religious rules come from their leaders realizing that making them "rules from God" would benefit their people and give a better chance of survival: - kosher rules are pretty much there to prevent people from preparing food in unsanitary ways or eating potentially dangerous stuff (eating pork will kill you by worms growing in your gut) - the 10 commandments are basic community rules to ensure they don't end up fighting and killing each other, helping the race to survive. - fasting on Ramadan was probably created by a religious leader who felt better after doing it himself and though it to be a good idea for everybody else to do it.

halflings 12y ago
>> - fasting on Ramadan was probably created by a religious leader who felt better after doing it himself and though it to be a good idea for everybody else to do it. That religious leader would be Muhammad. That's one way to see things and how I explain part of my belief in Islam to non-religious people: Worst case scenario, I'm just doing things that I believe are pretty smart (fasting, praying, helping the poor and oprhan, keeping a strong sense of family, etc.); best-case scenario it's actually God that told us to do those things. Actually, it's mainly because I believe all those recommendations are pretty darn smart and coherent that I believe it might well be God's message. (Muhammad was an illiterate shepherd after all, hardly who you'd expected to come with these things)
- vladtaltos 12y ago
  you're supposed to 'believe' to benefit from the best case scenario dude :) just rationalizing about it is not supposed to be enough... and additionally, fasting was around before it was introduced in islam; check it's versions in judaism, christianity... actually, it was also around before that. people used to fast during equinoxes for a very long time for all sorts of different ceremonies...
  - axotty 12y ago
    If God exists, I doubt he cares if we beleive in him or not. I like to beleive he would not be that insecure.
    - shawndumas 12y ago
      for the sake of argument let's assume there is a God. and let's say He was better than all the things He created. better than that awesome sunset that you saw that took your breath away; better than that favorite meal you love -- you know the one. love is giving the object of your love the best... the best you've got. what if God giving Himself was Love defined? just for argument's sake...
      - hueving 12y ago
        That's a bad assumption to start with because there is no evidence of such a thing. "just for the sake of argument, let's assume there are invisible horses everywhere. (followed by explanation of how these horses are responsible for love)"
        anglican1549 12y ago
        Your epistemology and categories are already flawed, as if there's an analogy between a thing (like a horse) and the Ground of Being (classically called "God"). God in classical theism is not a "thing" among things. If you think classical theism posits deity the same way people posit horses, of course you'll want "evidence" that is empirical. So wouldn't it be helpful, for the sake of the thought experiment proposed by shawndumas, to at least see where his reasoning leads? The premise ("There is a God") might not be true, but an a priori exclusion of such a being seems no more based on logic than the counter claim. What is helpful, I think, is if by looking through those lenses we see if God gives the world more explanatory power than by not looking through those lenses.
        hueving 12y ago
        >God in classical theism is not a "thing" among things. Neither is an invisible horse. These all fall under the category of things that there is no physical evidence for. >So wouldn't it be helpful, for the sake of the thought experiment proposed by shawndumas, to at least see where his reasoning leads? No, because his entire premise is based on the existence of something that follows no logic or physical laws. Something that violates the laws of logic cannot be reasoned about.
- stefantalpalaru 12y ago
  > Muhammad was an illiterate shepherd after all An illiterate shepherd? He was a merchant until he was 40 and then became a warrior.
  - halflings 12y ago
    He was indeed a merchant, and later worked as Khadija's accountant (before he married her) when he received the revelation. But he was a shepherd during his youth and was illiterate (even when he received the revelation and was a merchant/accountant, this is a period where a lot is based on oral communication). Not sure about that "became a warrior" part (although he was what you could call a political leader, which included -in that time- participating in wars)

halflings 12y ago

>> - fasting on Ramadan was probably created by a religious leader who felt better after doing it himself and though it to be a good idea for everybody else to do it. That religious leader would be Muhammad. That's one way to see things and how I explain part of my belief in Islam to non-religious people: Worst case scenario, I'm just doing things that I believe are pretty smart (fasting, praying, helping the poor and oprhan, keeping a strong sense of family, etc.); best-case scenario it's actually God that told us to do those things. Actually, it's mainly because I believe all those recommendations are pretty darn smart and coherent that I believe it might well be God's message. (Muhammad was an illiterate shepherd after all, hardly who you'd expected to come with these things)

vladtaltos 12y ago
you're supposed to 'believe' to benefit from the best case scenario dude :) just rationalizing about it is not supposed to be enough... and additionally, fasting was around before it was introduced in islam; check it's versions in judaism, christianity... actually, it was also around before that. people used to fast during equinoxes for a very long time for all sorts of different ceremonies...
- axotty 12y ago
  If God exists, I doubt he cares if we beleive in him or not. I like to beleive he would not be that insecure.
  - shawndumas 12y ago
    for the sake of argument let's assume there is a God. and let's say He was better than all the things He created. better than that awesome sunset that you saw that took your breath away; better than that favorite meal you love -- you know the one. love is giving the object of your love the best... the best you've got. what if God giving Himself was Love defined? just for argument's sake...
    - hueving 12y ago
      That's a bad assumption to start with because there is no evidence of such a thing. "just for the sake of argument, let's assume there are invisible horses everywhere. (followed by explanation of how these horses are responsible for love)"
      - anglican1549 12y ago
        Your epistemology and categories are already flawed, as if there's an analogy between a thing (like a horse) and the Ground of Being (classically called "God"). God in classical theism is not a "thing" among things. If you think classical theism posits deity the same way people posit horses, of course you'll want "evidence" that is empirical. So wouldn't it be helpful, for the sake of the thought experiment proposed by shawndumas, to at least see where his reasoning leads? The premise ("There is a God") might not be true, but an a priori exclusion of such a being seems no more based on logic than the counter claim. What is helpful, I think, is if by looking through those lenses we see if God gives the world more explanatory power than by not looking through those lenses.
        hueving 12y ago
        >God in classical theism is not a "thing" among things. Neither is an invisible horse. These all fall under the category of things that there is no physical evidence for. >So wouldn't it be helpful, for the sake of the thought experiment proposed by shawndumas, to at least see where his reasoning leads? No, because his entire premise is based on the existence of something that follows no logic or physical laws. Something that violates the laws of logic cannot be reasoned about.
stefantalpalaru 12y ago
> Muhammad was an illiterate shepherd after all An illiterate shepherd? He was a merchant until he was 40 and then became a warrior.
- halflings 12y ago
  He was indeed a merchant, and later worked as Khadija's accountant (before he married her) when he received the revelation. But he was a shepherd during his youth and was illiterate (even when he received the revelation and was a merchant/accountant, this is a period where a lot is based on oral communication). Not sure about that "became a warrior" part (although he was what you could call a political leader, which included -in that time- participating in wars)