6 ms·

>> - 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

>> - 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.
        anglican1549 12y ago
        But an invisible horse is referencing a thing simply without the accidents of visibility, but a finite thing nevertheless. You're still trapped in a category Christians (or any traditional Theists) don't believe about God. We're asserting X, you're attacking Y.
  - anglican1549 12y ago
    Why does insecurity come into play? Couldn't there be other reasons for God being adamant about what a person believes (i.e., worships)? What if man's nature really is best nurtured by and finds its completion in (his telos) the Being called God? If your kids insist on eating cotton candy (which works against their health) amid a veritable feast (that is delightful and nutritious), wouldn't your ire be justified?
    - axotty 12y ago
      Disclaimer: This is my personal belief, it seems it seems to offended some passionate dissenters. I understand, I've been there before too. God is often depicted as moody and chronically concerned with what we think of him. I think that's a ridiculous projection of our own human insecurities. If a creator like God existed, he would be billions of orders of magnitude more intelligent than us. Why would he care if we were skeptical? Humans are arrogant and we project our own humanness onto everything. I doubt God, if he existed, would stop loving me even if I hated him. He would be above all that, in my view. If there is a creator or God, I personally believe he doesn't care if we believe in him. He's too intelligent and mature for that to ever matter to him Side note edit: It has always been interesting to me that moderate agnosticism is always the most drowned out religious view. I would be better off as a militant atheist or familiar, friendly theist if I cared about internet points.
      - anglican1549 12y ago
        "God is often depicted as moody and overly worried about what we think of him." Moodiness? I can give you human examples of this trait; but what specifically do you have in mind about God that portrays Him as such? This way I know we are communicating about the same thing. "Overly worried" - I know of no text in all of the Bible that portrays God as anxious about anything. Maybe you mean to say "chronically concerned with" what people think? The categories of love and hate as you are discussing seem to require a little work. Whenever we see God's unchanging love discussed, at least Scripturally, to what does it refer? And if God chose not to love, would that make Him less than divine somehow? I'm asking these questions (not attacking! I value your response!) because whenever we go into the "my personal belief is..." it seems prudent to examine whether such beliefs have rational warrant, or are they simply another way of wishing the world worked that way? "Humans are arrogant and we project our own humanness onto everything" -- that is utterly true. Thank you for acknowledging it. But could it be you are projecting your own preferences of what God would be like if He existed? How do you escape this human flaw while the rest of us can't or won't? By the way, if God turns out to be real and He is preeminently concerned with what you think about Him, what grounds would have to object to His preoccupation with making you see how ultimate and satisfying He is?
- arjn 12y ago
  Correct , there are many other religious groups that fast - Hindus, Jains, Christians etc. I've found that fasting practices among Coptic Christians is more intense/severe than any other religion I have seen (so far at least)
- halflings 12y ago
  Well, Islam does recognize the other prophets and their religions (so that includes Judaism and Christianity). And I don't agree with the fact that "it was around even before that", as people didn't fast regularly and in the same fashion as jews/christians/muslims do. And IMHO, belief doesn't have to be totally separate from reasoning. We're human beings, our beliefs are definitely influenced by what our reason (among other stimuli) dictates us. I started my comment by saying that this is one way to see religions, a way that I sometime present to curious non-religious friends. There's also a more philosophical (and comprehensive) way to see them that I can discuss with people that are just more "into that". And of course, as a religious person, I do believe in God but that doesn't mean that it needs to be a blind belief without any reasoning.
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)

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.
        anglican1549 12y ago
        But an invisible horse is referencing a thing simply without the accidents of visibility, but a finite thing nevertheless. You're still trapped in a category Christians (or any traditional Theists) don't believe about God. We're asserting X, you're attacking Y.
- anglican1549 12y ago
  Why does insecurity come into play? Couldn't there be other reasons for God being adamant about what a person believes (i.e., worships)? What if man's nature really is best nurtured by and finds its completion in (his telos) the Being called God? If your kids insist on eating cotton candy (which works against their health) amid a veritable feast (that is delightful and nutritious), wouldn't your ire be justified?
  - axotty 12y ago
    Disclaimer: This is my personal belief, it seems it seems to offended some passionate dissenters. I understand, I've been there before too. God is often depicted as moody and chronically concerned with what we think of him. I think that's a ridiculous projection of our own human insecurities. If a creator like God existed, he would be billions of orders of magnitude more intelligent than us. Why would he care if we were skeptical? Humans are arrogant and we project our own humanness onto everything. I doubt God, if he existed, would stop loving me even if I hated him. He would be above all that, in my view. If there is a creator or God, I personally believe he doesn't care if we believe in him. He's too intelligent and mature for that to ever matter to him Side note edit: It has always been interesting to me that moderate agnosticism is always the most drowned out religious view. I would be better off as a militant atheist or familiar, friendly theist if I cared about internet points.
    - anglican1549 12y ago
      "God is often depicted as moody and overly worried about what we think of him." Moodiness? I can give you human examples of this trait; but what specifically do you have in mind about God that portrays Him as such? This way I know we are communicating about the same thing. "Overly worried" - I know of no text in all of the Bible that portrays God as anxious about anything. Maybe you mean to say "chronically concerned with" what people think? The categories of love and hate as you are discussing seem to require a little work. Whenever we see God's unchanging love discussed, at least Scripturally, to what does it refer? And if God chose not to love, would that make Him less than divine somehow? I'm asking these questions (not attacking! I value your response!) because whenever we go into the "my personal belief is..." it seems prudent to examine whether such beliefs have rational warrant, or are they simply another way of wishing the world worked that way? "Humans are arrogant and we project our own humanness onto everything" -- that is utterly true. Thank you for acknowledging it. But could it be you are projecting your own preferences of what God would be like if He existed? How do you escape this human flaw while the rest of us can't or won't? By the way, if God turns out to be real and He is preeminently concerned with what you think about Him, what grounds would have to object to His preoccupation with making you see how ultimate and satisfying He is?
arjn 12y ago
Correct , there are many other religious groups that fast - Hindus, Jains, Christians etc. I've found that fasting practices among Coptic Christians is more intense/severe than any other religion I have seen (so far at least)
halflings 12y ago
Well, Islam does recognize the other prophets and their religions (so that includes Judaism and Christianity). And I don't agree with the fact that "it was around even before that", as people didn't fast regularly and in the same fashion as jews/christians/muslims do. And IMHO, belief doesn't have to be totally separate from reasoning. We're human beings, our beliefs are definitely influenced by what our reason (among other stimuli) dictates us. I started my comment by saying that this is one way to see religions, a way that I sometime present to curious non-religious friends. There's also a more philosophical (and comprehensive) way to see them that I can discuss with people that are just more "into that". And of course, as a religious person, I do believe in God but that doesn't mean that it needs to be a blind belief without any reasoning.

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)