The Muslim Brotherhood & The World

[phydra]

Every religion, in some way, exhorts its followers to the following traits:

• Kindness
• Compassion
• Unconditional Love
• Tolerance
• Acceptance
• Forgiveness
• Awareness (conscious effort toward application of these traits)
• Understanding

And yet, all these arguments and wars (and many things besides) continue.

If this doesn’t demonstrate that it isn’t the religion, but the humans who twist it (on all of any set of “sides”), then I reckon the matter is more denial than anything.

We all know that philosophy, politics, and ruling power have had their impact on these various systems over time… so why is it so difficult to accept that maybe, just maybe, it isn’t about the differences at all, but the similarities… and we’re ALL just completely missing the point?

[Madaras]

Woah woah woah. Backup phydra. You’re starting to lose credibility. EVERY religion has the following traits. I enjoy delving into the many religions of the world and I can tell you your list is far from the norms of “every religion”. While many religions do teach kindness and compassion as virtues. Unconditional love and forgiveness are actually a rarity. Tolerance is more common than that.

Allow me to fill in the blanks

Kindness: Buddhism, Confucianism, Christianity, Shinto, Various Hindu Sects

Compassion: **Buddhism, Confucianism, Christianity, Shinto, Various Hindu Sects **

Unconditional Love: Christianity

Tolerance: Buddhism, Confucianism, Christianity

Acceptance: (a little vague, but I’ll try with what I think you’re aiming for) All Religions

Forgiveness: Confucianism, Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism (but that’s more about forgiving
yourself)

Awareness: Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism

Understanding: (Once again too vague) All Religions

I hope this helps with understanding religions. Also how they’re different.

[thiomay]

that is some serious miss quoting above.
So this is the complete list of religons? It’s not just various Hindu Sects that could be split up into multiple things. Can religion even be properly defined? Can you properly tell religon apart from Philosophy and Ideology?

A right granted by man can be revoked by man a right granted by God cannot be revoked by man. This is good for all humans regardless of if you believe in God or not.

Like the Quran? that can not be reformed for this very reason? I assume you are in a church that has already decided to ignore many things that used to be seen as Gods laws. Morals is just an other word for Customs and Conventions just because it is of roman origin doesn’t make it mean more. Clearly there will always be some form of laws and customs with or without “religion”.

[tunak]

Morals is just an other word for Customs and Conventions

Perhaps.

I strongly believe (for it is probably just a belief) in some kind of daimonion of Socrates (or moral law of Kant etc.) - some conscience immanent to human. (Or at least about two thirds of humankind - czech popular neuropathologist Koukolík quotes a research that claims about two thirds of people are altruists and the remaining third consists of parasites.)

Of course the major flaw of every single religion is the “carrot and stick approach” - it teaches you to “behave” (quite “conventionally” - exactly as you have said) and offers you a reward for your proper behavior. This is of course highly problematic in many ways. It definitely tends to result to the indulgentia (for example catholicism - by coincidence during the game’s time frame, budhism, judaism, islam…).

Socrates or Kant would on the other hand argue (I am higly simplifying) that you should do what is proper (in fact what is proper in your opinion, not conventionally) and you should do it not for a reward of any kind but simply because it is proper. And in the same breath they would invite you to contemplate what “proper” means.

Alas many of us would still need some guidance - that’s the social role of every religion.

---

Sticking to the topic every form of Islam that accentuates the sunni/shia schism is simply laughable and don’t deserve to be taken serously. That said I highly respect some basic concepts of islam (for example zakat).

[Madaras]

I assume you are in a church that has already decided to ignore many things that used to be seen as Gods laws.

Well you know what they say about assumptions.

So this is the complete list of religons?

No, just a list of some of the major ones. With the point being that not all religions use those traits as tenets of their faith. If you want an exhaustive list of all religions there are places you can find them.

Clearly there will always be some form of laws and customs with or without “religion”.

True, however take a look at some of the more secular countries around the world these days. You don’t see a lot of basic human morality in them.

Lastly[quote=“thiomay, post:123, topic:17925”]
that is some serious miss quoting above.
[/quote]

You’ll need to be more specific there are a lot of things “above”

[rustypup]

Then you either don’t pay attention to the world around you or you’re blinded by prejudice.

Fair point. As an ex-Catholic maybe I don’t have positive views of selective delusions. Maybe having my Christian wife threatened with expulsion from her study group for being married to an atheist - on more than one occasion - left me questioning the group sanity of “believers”. Maybe being hounded to join in the delusion by various cult members has left me wondering if sanity is the delusion.

Sorry to break the news but when it comes to supporting and instilling irrational prejudice you could do worse than the local church/synagogue/mosque/what have you.

human’s aren’t very good at being moral without an authority greater than them

Can I be frank. If someone can’t behave morally without the threat of hell and damnation I, personally, wouldn’t let them near my pet rock let alone listen to anything they have to say. Because they’re fundamentally broken.

Religion is not required for moral behaviour.

[tunak]

If someone can’t behave morally without the threat of hell and damnation I, personally, wouldn’t let them near my pet rock let alone listen to anything they have to say. Because they’re fundamentally broken.

Religion is not required for moral behaviour.

Exactly. Very well said.

[phydra]

@Madaras - Let’s just say I like you too much to embarrass you as badly as I would to correct you.

So… instead, this:

Oh, and this, too…

[thiomay]

thiomay said:
I assume you are in a church that has already decided to ignore many things that used to be seen as Gods laws.

Well you know what they say about assumptions.

Okay that was poorly phrased. You said “a right granted to God cannot be revoked by man.” I assumed that you are some form of Christian because you’re amarican and take the “christian side” a lot in this argument. To me it’s obvious that all the rights granted by “god”, like a monachs right to rule, where made up by humans. Clearly there are lot’s of different opinions on the matter. Depending on what point of time you look at there would be different belives what rights “god” grants to who. So I don’t know did “god” revoke the monarchs right to rule? Is the US full of heretic rebels? Or did humans change or reinterpret gods law?

It’s also good to have Inalienable rights granted by God, such as in the united states, because that means no man no matter his position has the power to take those away from you.

But I may have miss understood, I have ofcourse no idea how current US laws are connected to “god”.

You’ll need to be more specific there are a lot of things “above”

I meant the obvious one (122) right above my , but ofcourse it isn’t an issue unless you start reading with that one.

No, just a list of some of the major ones. With the point being that not all religions use those traits as tenets of their faith. If you want an exhaustive list of all religions there are places you can find them.

There can never be a compleat list or any true assumtion about religion generally while only referencing those few currently practised by a lot of people. At the same time each of these religons could be divided into countless sects from different periods so it’s hard to generalize what there about too.

True, however take a look at some of the more secular countries around the world these days. You don’t see a lot of basic human morality in them.

May I ask what this is based on? Obviously you don’t mean secular countries because it’s mainly islamic countries that actually have an offical state religion. If we are talking about how religous the inhabitants are than I still won’t be judging the customs of different places but they aren’t drastically different in the Czech Republik or eastern Germany just because there are more non religous people there.

[Madaras]

I assumed that you are some form of Christian because you’re amarican and take the “christian side” a lot in this argument.

I take the side of objectivity and reason based on history, guided by experience. The best “religious” classification of myself would be that of a Buddhist-Christian Monk. I believe in being introspective and accepting of reality. I believe there is a divine creator though one we cannot prove or disprove within this current age, but still a God that kind be found through scientific discovery. So to find God the human species must “Evolve”. (and no I do not adhere to the faith of macro-evolution, that is still the biggest superstitious malarkey I’ve heard from supposed smart people).

I though I don’t believe in religious institutions because, as they’ve been tangentially stated here, they do like to manipulate people to further their own ends. Just like a person cannot deny the benefit of Vitamin C so can one not objectively deny the benefits of religion physically, emotionally, and for a community on both a micro and macro scale. Also, yes God is a large part of the founding of the USA. That is undeniable. The US was not founded and was never intended to be a “Secular” nation. Because our founders were very aware that people will always seek power over others so they broke the powers of government into three branches (kind like the Tri-force) and put the rights of the people in the hands of God not government (pretty much from a secular point of view they’re set in stone and may not be changed).

Yes many religions do divide into sects (I actually can’t think of one that doesn’t) though for the most part they’re disagreements are minor. Hinduism has many different sects and there aren’t always clear similarities between them. Christianity has many different sects, but mostly they’re similar (minus Catholicism another religion I deem evil along with Islam) though there are a few real fanatics (normally small in number of about 25-100 per sect/congregation) the west borough baptist, 7th day Adventist, and Jehovah witnesses would be some of the more popular. Still in spite of being so far out from the mainstream Christian the worst you’ll experience is a protest at a funeral and more commonly you just get some numb skull knocking at your door.

[Madaras]

I don’t see anything embarrassing or correcting here. For one I’m incredibly glad to hear Zak Ebrahim’s story. I did note he never claimed to be Muslim. Where Karima Bennoune reinforces what I’ve stated in regards to Islam. True believers kill the “false” believers because they are as much Infidels as any other religion. I don’t deny facts, and I change my beliefs only based on facts. I’m incredibly open minded in that regard. I will never state something I don’t believe as truth and I’ll never believe in something that’s proven false, out of “fatih”. There’s no greater evil, in my opinion, than ignorance, most especially intentionally ignorance. An example of intentional ignorance would be the steadfast belief in macro evolution or “man-made global warming” just the same as a “Christian” who would hate in the name of their religion or would refuse to find out why they believe what they believe, if what they believe is worth believing in.

Also I could give a damn, but don’t, that Karima thinks that people who state the truth of the Quran are being “offensive” and/or “wrong”. The book is everywhere one can read it for themselves, and a religion that has as part of its teachings the quotes I posted above (and the many that I have not) can be seen in no other light if one is to be a person of logic and reason.

-Edit for a personal reply to @thiomay

that is some serious miss quoting above.

Oh I see what you were saying. I thought people understood what I did there, it wasn’t a misquote, but to avoid confusion for people jumping in late into the convo I deleted the quote part.

[Dushin]

Allow me to break up this post in two bits.

Just like a person cannot deny the benefit of Vitamin C

Neither can someone deny the benefit of drinking water, sleeping and breathing. All these are proven to benefit human health and extend life expectation but I fail to see how this relates to this second bit.

so can one not objectively deny the benefits of religion physically, emotionally, and for a community on both a micro and macro scale.

I suppose religion has tangible benefits for people’s spiritual needs but Existentialism could fill this need just as well. Therefore I would hardly say religion is as essential for life as a vitamin that we need to stay alive.

Scurvy takes approximately six weeks to set in when you stop eating foods containing vitamin C. Depending on various other circumstances you will be bedridden within another few months and death sets in not shortly after that.

Now let’s see what a lack of religion does. If you ascribe Nietzsche’s breakdown to lack of religion than it would be 1.5 years between onset of symptoms and death. Camus? Estimates vary between 5 and 18 years.

In conclusion I would say that I believe vitamin C is at least twice if not five times more important than religion.

[Madaras]

I suppose religion has tangible benefits for people’s spiritual needs but Existentialism could fill this need just as well.

Existentialism: a philosophical theory or approach that emphasizes the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent determining their own development through acts of the will.

No, it doesn’t contribute to the unification of a community/society Also it lacks the moral safeguards of a religion. Though people are naturally existentialist even within a religion (to varying degrees), to fully put it upon each individual to in essence “raise” themselves is not very human. Because also by nature we require a person to look after us during our childhood until we are strong enough to be out on our own. (Age of 12 in my opinion) At which point one can truly practice Existentialism.

[thiomay]

Christianity has many different sects, but mostly they’re similar (minus Catholicism another religion I deem evil along with Islam)

That explains a lot. When I think of christians I think of catholics first of course, they are the lagest part and they are by far the most present in my imediate area.

[tunak]

Just like a person cannot deny the benefit of Vitamin C so can one not objectively deny the benefits of religion physically, emotionally, and for a community on both a micro and macro scale.

It is rather sad that people still need superstitious self deceit to accept the need of morality for human as a “zoon politicon” (quite an od concept, isn’t it?) or to give themselves the ontological consolation.

I mean - why do you need to postulate the existence of some transcendent divine entity? Why not to accept that such thing is - as it seems - highly improbable?

Also, yes God is a large part of the founding of the USA. That is undeniable.

Of course, especially Thomas Jefferson was an avid believer. To claim that the constitution of USA is based on God or God’s will is simply misleading. It was clearly an attempt to create a ideal state based on the needs of mankind, not God. It was based on the ideas of the Enlightenment - period characterized by lost of human belief in God or at least in church and organized religion. USA was based on universal human and citizen’s rights - a direct attack on christian theology which advocated the dying feudal order as a reflection of the divine order in a rather peculiar neoplatonic way.

That Americans don’t know almost anything about the origin and context of ideas that preceded and enabled the Declaration of independence is rather sad. Undoubtely it is one of the reasons of spectacular failure of this enlightened experiment.

Still in spite of being so far out from the mainstream Christian the worst you’ll experience is a protest at a funeral and more commonly you just get some numb skull knocking at your door.

Or Anders Breivik.

[tunak]

Indeed it does. To claim that christian sects are similar - with exception of catholicism - is horribly misleading or uneducated.

[Madaras]

@tunak I’m made stupid by your brilliance. Oh such wise words, such information the likes of which I’ve never seen. Lo, I’m blinded by your radiant light of wisdom!

Now in seriousness to not realize the stark differences of Catholicism and Christianity, much less the founding shows your profound amount of ignorance, then to act as though you are aware by claiming “Indeed it does. To claim that christian sects are similar - with exception of Catholicism - is horribly misleading or uneducated.” which is not a point I’ve seen thiomay make, and I don’t know if he/she agrees with you or not, but projecting your beliefs upon someone else is something idiots do to comfort themselves in their ignorance.

Though I’m not surprised as you’re horribly mal-educated on both the enlightenment as well as the founding of the USA I doubt you even know when the constitution was first drafted (without the help of Google) and if you question God’s role in the drafting you have only to read the declaration of independence as well as the reason we have a bill of rights. You should read transcripts of the debates. Not read some googled half-wit written wiki.

If you want to pretend to be someone who’s informed then take the days and months and years of research to constitute being one. Or you can simply stop being a fake and admit that you don’t know much on the subject. Or be like the majority of reasonable people who don’t comment when they aren’t educated.

[Dushin]

No, it doesn’t contribute to the unification of a community/society

Why not? Philosophical ideas often find support from a large group of persons, people unified in disbelief of a certain thing or unified in the believe nothing happens after life.

Also it lacks the moral safeguards of a religion.

Religious moral safeguards don’t prevent massacres, murders or unethical behavior and neither does the lack of a religious moral safeguard promote unethical behavior. If I look at the ten most atheist nations in Europe I tend to notice they countries roughly coincide with the highest HDI, Happiness, best countries for kids to grow up in and pretty low on the violence scale.

to fully put it upon each individual to in essence “raise” themselves is not very human.

I think you take the term raise to literal when you refer to nurturing a child. I don’t really see what you are trying to get at here.

[Madaras]

First it appears you miss the point of what Existentialism is. Second, religion does not prevent massacres outright. However, a proper religion helps minimize them. Think of all the school shootings in the U.S. There is a common theme. They believed in two things “There is no God” and “Believe in Evolution, survival of the fittest” Now please list those atheist nations you mentioned so that we might verify that claim. Because we all know the secular china and north Korea (governments) find mass murder more than a little fun.

[tunak]

Ad christianity / catholicism: maybe you have heard about The Great Schism. Or maybe you are aware there are much older christian churches of the eastern rite - the armenian, georgian, coptic, ethiopian etc.

Ad Declaration of independence / constitution: of course, I am mal educated. Therefore I assume that “We the people of the United States… etc.” means the constitution is based on the will of the US nation. I am so blind I don’t understand that it means " by the will of God" etc.
And I of course I am not in my overwhelming stupidity able to sea the obvious emphasis on god in: "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…
Please notice the substitution of “God” for “Creator of Man/Mankind”. That is typical for the period of enlightenment. The accent is on the Mankind.

Or I can simply stop being a fake and start believing in God. Maybe I could be just in time to enjoy benefits of prolonged stay in purgatory. Who knows.

Edit: I don’t want to attack christianity or especially your personal faith. I didn’t meant to offend you. But please respect the other’s right of opinion as well as I respect yours.