Unifying spiritual practices to save the world

[Veritas Aequitas]

For example of Quran at odds with natural morality

Where is the definitive text for natural morality? Since it is not possible to document natural morality, your claim is unsubstantiated.

What is morality and Ethics is inherent with human nature that is why its concepts are so ubiquitous within human activities.
From the empirical evidences of human activities since human emerged, morality is the common pattern of the elimination of evil to enable good to emerge spontaneously.
What is evil is that which is negative to the well being and flourishing of the individual[s] and humanity.
One mode of avoiding evil to promote morality is empathy.
Empathy is driven by mirror neurons which exist in the human brain.

Neuroscientists such as Marco Iacoboni have argued that mirror neuron systems in the human brain help humans understand the actions and intentions of other people. In addition, Iacoboni has argued that mirror neurons are the neural basis of the human capacity for emotions such as empathy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

The above is very rough [need refinements], but the existence of mirror neurons is an indication that morality is inherent in all humans that support the thesis of natural morality.

Islam on the one hand suppress empathy for non-believers and treat them as dehumanized object which can be dispensed with.

In contrast, Christianity's constitution within the Gospels has an overriding pacifist moral maxim

So, you are trying to judge Islamic morality by using Christianity as a benchmark?

Lemma: Given two moral theories A and B with their difference | A - B | non-empty, it is trivially provable that:

(1) A is immoral in the context of B
(2) B is immoral in the context of A

The point is that the lemma does not apply to natural morality, because natural morality cannot be documented and therefore the difference | A - B | cannot be computed.

You make two cardinal mistakes:

- You somehow believe that you have a copy of natural morality, while you obviously don't.
- You fail to understand that according to the lemma your claim which compares Islam with Christianity is always true for any two different moralities and is therefore vapid.

Conclusion:

- You somehow believe that you know, while in reality you know f-ck all.
- You are arrogant and that is why you sound so stupid.

Christianity's moral model support natural morality that is related to empathy for the 'other' while Islam do not exercise empathy and compassion for non-believers.
Point is there is no real God, but those humans who compile the Gospels and found Christianity has the intuition for natural morality.

[attofishpi]

From the empirical evidences of human activities since human emerged, morality is the common pattern of the elimination of evil to enable good to emerge spontaneously.
What is evil is that which is negative to the well being and flourishing of the individual[s] and humanity.

..and animals.

One mode of avoiding evil to promote morality is empathy.

Well said. For me, love & empathy are the two most important words in the English dictionary. (ME_PATH_Y?)

Empathy is driven by mirror neurons which exist in the human brain.

Interesting, do you have a link re that?

Islam on the one hand suppress empathy for non-believers and treat them as dehumanized object which can be dispensed with.

Certainly not all Muslims are of the nature, my regular taxi-driver for example. However, some of those of the Gaza strip are know to teach their children HATE which is absolutely abhorrent.

Christianity's moral model support natural morality that is related to empathy for the 'other' while Islam do not exercise empathy and compassion for non-believers.
Point is there is no real God, but those humans who compile the Gospels and found Christianity has the intuition for natural morality.

I wish you'd stop saying that, because mate, you are so wrong. ..and you were doing so well up to then.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Empathy is driven by mirror neurons which exist in the human brain.

Interesting, do you have a link re that?

You missed it? Again;

Neuroscientists such as Marco Iacoboni have argued that mirror neuron systems in the human brain help humans understand the actions and intentions of other people. In addition, Iacoboni has argued that mirror neurons are the neural basis of the human capacity for emotions such as empathy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

[Age]

From the empirical evidences of human activities since human emerged, morality is the common pattern of the elimination of evil to enable good to emerge spontaneously.
What is evil is that which is negative to the well being and flourishing of the individual[s] and humanity.

..and animals.

And the plants, the environment, the earth, and the Universe.

And, the ONLY thing that is negative to all of these things are you adult human beings "yourselves".

As evidenced and PROVED IRREFUTABLY True by your Wrong and ABUSE behaviors. Which will NEVER GET RESOLVED while you ALL continual 'trying to' HIDE the Fact that you ALL DO Wrong, and ABUSE.

One mode of avoiding evil to promote morality is empathy.

Well said. For me, love & empathy are the two most important words in the English dictionary. (ME_PATH_Y?)

U-NOT-DO. And, U-NOT-KNOW-True and Right, Accurate, Correct PATH

Empathy is driven by mirror neurons which exist in the human brain.

Interesting, do you have a link re that?

OF COURSE NOT.

Islam on the one hand suppress empathy for non-believers and treat them as dehumanized object which can be dispensed with.

Certainly not all Muslims are of the nature, my regular taxi-driver for example. However, some of those of the Gaza strip are know to teach their children HATE which is absolutely abhorrent.

LOL
LOL
LOL MISSING THE MARK ONCE AGAIN.

you HATING others, like U-DO, IS and HAS BEEN TEACHING children to HATE, AS WELL.

The IRONY, here, is BLINDING.

Christianity's moral model support natural morality that is related to empathy for the 'other' while Islam do not exercise empathy and compassion for non-believers.
Point is there is no real God, but those humans who compile the Gospels and found Christianity has the intuition for natural morality.

I wish you'd stop saying that, because mate, you are so wrong. ..and you were doing so well up to then.

you AND "veritas aequitas" are SHOWING that you HAVE NO 'empathy' when you speak and write as you two are, here.

LOL The very thing you two say 'the other' does NOT HAVE you two ARE PROVING that it is you two who does NOT HAVE 'empathy'.

[Age]

Empathy is driven by mirror neurons which exist in the human brain.

Interesting, do you have a link re that?

You missed it? Again;

Neuroscientists such as Marco Iacoboni have argued that mirror neuron systems in the human brain help humans understand the actions and intentions of other people. In addition, Iacoboni has argued that mirror neurons are the neural basis of the human capacity for emotions such as empathy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

This one, OBVIOUSLY, STILL, does NOT YET KNOW the DIFFERENCE, here.

[puto]

Veritas Aequitas, you are hilarious. You do not get it.

[Belinda]

It means your religion is perfected . It does not say your religion will no longer be up for discussion and review in the light of new challenges.

Throughout the first five Islamic centuries, the practice of ijtihad continued both theoretically and practically amongst Sunni Muslims. The initial dispute surrounding the exercise of ijtihad and the existence of mujtahids emerged in its nascent form around the beginning of the sixth/twelfth century.[6] By the 14th century, development of Islamic Fiqh (jurisprudence) prompted leading Sunni jurists to state that the main legal questions had been addressed and the scope of ijtihad was gradually restricted.[2] In the modern era, this gave rise to a perception amongst Orientalist scholars and sections of the Muslim public that the so-called "gate of ijtihad" was closed at the start of the classical era.[2][7] While recent scholarship established that the practice of Ijtihad had never ceased in Islamic history, the extent and mechanisms of legal change in the post-formative period remain a subject of debate.[8]
Therefore Islam, adapted to the challenges of this year, can still be the unifying force.

Whatever is final with Islam is dictated ONLY in the Quran and no where else i.e. the direct words of Allah as sent to his prophet via Angel Gabriel of which a copy is in the hand of God somewhere in heaven.

The practice of Ijtihad is reasoned from the exegesis of the Quran's 6236 verses and there are likely to be tons of variations of interpretations subject to the infinite psychological states of the believers adapted to different environments. There is no central authority to decide the right or wrong interpretations.

Ijtihad is the use of reasoning to establish laws on earth for humans by humans and because humans are being-human, comprised the good and the evil, fallible, bias and has self-interests, their interpretations are not likely to align with Allah intentions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ijtihad

Allah had sent the Quran which was made easy to understand; there are many verses to support this point, here's one;

verse 17 of chapter 54, Surah Al-Qamar (The Moon):
Yusuf Ali
"And We have indeed made the Qur'an easy to understand and remember: then is there any that will receive admonition?"

The majority of Muslims are naturally good human beings and thus they tend to twist the verses of the Quran to suit to their basic goodness.

The Quran is inherently evil and is loaded with evil laden verses, thus the evil prone will interpret it as intended, take for example Q5:33:

Q:33 Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and spread mischief [fasad] in the land is death, crucifixion, cutting off their hands and feet on opposite sides, or exile from the land.

The term English term 'mischief' when read within the verse is very misleading.
"Fasad" in Arabic is taken in general to be 'bad' as any threat to the religion, i.e. extend to the slightest but very psychologically impactful to believers which include even disbelieving, drawing of cartoons, blasphemy and the like. This interpretation is confirmed in many tafsirs [interpretations] by many popular and influential Islamic clergies. Btw, there is no central authority to decide they are right or wrong but literally and culturally they are right.
If these popular clergies could influence merely 10% of believers to this 'true' interpretation, there would be a potential 150-200 million of them who are inclined to carry out Q5:33 in its full extent and this is already so evident throughout history since the emergence of the religion.

Now, if a believer were to kill [caused death to one, group or a genocide] those who commit fasad [even the slightest] to the religion, e.g. for being a disbeliever*, commit blasphemy, drawings of cartoons of the P, will he be punished by omniscient Allah on Judgment Day for his compliance with God's word in Q5:33?
Your answer?

*'Disbelievers' are a threat to the religion [it is inherent very insecure], especially when they convert believers out of the religion thus potentially weaken or destroying the religion.

Those Muslims [the majority] who are good human beings will try to interpret Q5:33 as applicable only to very 'serious' evil crimes against the religion or ignore it, but they are misinterpreting the verse's obvious meanings and has sinned if they do not comply with Q5:33 upon the intended scenario happened.

There are tons of such verses in the Quran.
Wars, just, unjust, in self-defense is inherently immoral, as such should not be included in an immutable holy texts till eternity.

In contrast, note Christianity contingent upon the Gospels has an overriding pacifist moral maxim with no room for evil at all as a STANDARD, i.e. love all, even enemies, give the other cheeks.
Being humans, not all Christians will comply with the above, thus the non-compliant has sinned and need to ask for forgiveness or be sent to hell.

[Quran 6:114] Shall I seek other than GOD as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book fully detailed? Those who received the scripture recognize that it has been revealed from your Lord, truthfully. You shall not harbour any doubt.

But you can't have it both a priori and also at the same time a posteriori. In the above sura the first sentence is reasoned a priori, the second sentence is reasoned a posteriori, the third sentence is a priori again.
The closing of the Gates of Ijtihad was historical. If a posteriori reasoning is ruled out then you have idolatry, or at least risk idolatry. The Koran is extremely strict against idolatry despite also ruling that the Koran is a priori truth.

NB please remember idolatry is more than belief that graven images are gods.Islam is idolatrous as long as Muslims worship the Koran a priori. Muhammad is not a Messiah , he's a prophet, and a book is an artefact.

Christianity cant be idolatrous because Christianity is founded upon an actual life of an actual man, so the Christian can always tell the good fruit from the bad fruit, a posteriori.

I claim that Islam , once the Gates of Ijtihad are opened again, can be a force for global unification including unification of the several Islamic sects within Islam. I point to the strong tradition within Islamic history to revere and explore God's creation, nature.

[puto]

Veritas Aequitas is a dogmatist. Not a skeptic but a troll. Veritas Aequitas, you believe you make no mistakes, but in reality you data dump. Veritas Aequitas, you live a vulgar life. Enough said, I found out what you really are a distasteful essence. Good riddance to you.

[Belinda]

Veritas Aequitas is a dogmatist. Not a skeptic but a troll. Veritas Aequitas, you believe you make no mistakes, but in reality you data dump. Veritas Aequitas, you live a vulgar life. Enough said, I found out what you really are a distasteful essence. Good riddance to you.

Maybe Va's data dumping is not data dumping but legitimate objections from the literature . VA makes me think and then express my thoughts.
You yourself, Puto, may never have written your enlightening objection to data dumping had it not been for VA's style.
You see--God moves in mysterious ways

[puto]

Belinda, I hold the position of being taught analytics in college. Mystery is an absence of knowledge. God is a title not a name. What God are you referring, too? Many interpretations of Jesus, but with the same seeing eye. Yes, I am skeptical even of my own JTBs. The more I learn the less I seem to know, but the beliefs are changed. My search is truth and Pontius Pilate asks it best in the Bible.

[godelian]

What is morality and Ethics is inherent with human nature that is why its concepts are so ubiquitous within human activities.
From the empirical evidences of human activities ...

Natural morality exists. This is indeed what most people believe. In Islam, natural morality is called "fitrah".

The problem is not the existence of natural morality. The problem is that it is encoded in our genetic material and that we do not have the technology to read it. Hence, we do not have a documented copy of natural morality.

You do not have access to a precise transcript of humanity's natural morality as encoded in humanity's genetic material but you incessantly claim to know exactly what it contains. That is an arrogant point of view.

Christianity's moral model support natural morality that is related to empathy for the 'other' while Islam do not exercise empathy and compassion for non-believers.

Again, without access to a transcript of humanity's natural morality as encoded in humanity's genetic material, you cannot know any of the above with certainty. You cannot possibly justify such knowledge because you do not have such knowledge. Believing that you know when you obviously do not, amounts to being arrogantly stupid.

[attofishpi]

Belinda, I hold the position of being taught analytics in college. Mystery is an absence of knowledge. God is a title not a name. What God are you referring, too? Many interpretations of Jesus, but with the same seeing eye. Yes, I am skeptical even of my own JTBs. The more I learn the less I seem to know, but the beliefs are changed. My search is truth and Pontius Pilate asks it best in the Bible.

What's this about Pilate that speaks to you of truth? Could you provide the verse(s)?

[Fairy]

”There is no real God”

This is true.

If God is the creator of life and everything that is life. Then God must also be the creator of human conceptual language.

Language informs that something is evil, or hellish. So if God is real, and is the creator of everything including human conceptual language. Then God created evil, and hell.

God the creator of everything couldn’t have been a God of Unconditioned Love for all creation. If that were real, and true, then any action would be permitted, every action would have been unconditionally allowed to happen without consequences.

[attofishpi]

”There is no real God”

This is true.

If God is the creator of life and everything that is life. Then God must also be the creator of human conceptual language.

Language informs that something is evil, or hellish. So if God is real, and is the creator of everything including human conceptual language. Then God created evil, and hell.

God the creator of everything couldn’t have been a God of Unconditioned Love for all creation. If that were real, and true, then any action would be permitted, every action would have been unconditionally allowed to happen without consequences.

Oh my word, I'm impressed.

You are actually attempting to reason something out in an intelligible manner. It's still a fail from me, but at least you have a crack.



I'll start with the same premise:

”There is no real God”

This is false.

God is the creator of life and everything that is life. God MAY then also be the creator of human conceptual language.

Language informs that something is evil, or hellish. So since God is real, and is the creator of everything POSSIBLY including human conceptual language. Then God created evil, and hell, and good and heaven & Earth.

God the creator of everything is not a God of Unconditioned Love for all creation. The very fact that GOD laid down commandments is proof of that. Thus, since that is real, and true, then any action would be permitted, every action WILL have immense consequences.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The Quran is inherently evil and is loaded with evil laden verses, thus the evil prone will interpret it as intended, take for example Q5:33:

Q:33 Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and spread mischief [fasad] in the land is death, crucifixion, cutting off their hands and feet on opposite sides, or exile from the land.

The term English term 'mischief' when read within the verse is very misleading.
"Fasad" in Arabic is taken in general to be 'bad' as any threat to the religion, i.e. extend to the slightest but very psychologically impactful to believers which include even disbelieving, drawing of cartoons, blasphemy and the like. This interpretation is confirmed in many tafsirs [interpretations] by many popular and influential Islamic clergies. Btw, there is no central authority to decide they are right or wrong but literally and culturally they are right.
If these popular clergies could influence merely 10% of believers to this 'true' interpretation, there would be a potential 150-200 million of them who are inclined to carry out Q5:33 in its full extent and this is already so evident throughout history since the emergence of the religion.

Now, if a believer were to kill [caused death to one, group or a genocide] those who commit fasad [even the slightest] to the religion, e.g. for being a disbeliever*, commit blasphemy, drawings of cartoons of the P, will he be punished by omniscient Allah on Judgment Day for his compliance with God's word in Q5:33?
Your answer?

Your answer to the above?

[Quran 6:114] Shall I seek other than GOD as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book fully detailed?
Those who received the scripture recognize that it has been revealed from your Lord, truthfully.
You shall not harbour any doubt.

But you can't have it both a priori and also at the same time a posteriori. In the above sura the first sentence is reasoned a priori, the second sentence is reasoned a posteriori, the third sentence is a priori again.
The closing of the Gates of Ijtihad was historical. If a posteriori reasoning is ruled out then you have idolatry, or at least risk idolatry. The Koran is extremely strict against idolatry despite also ruling that the Koran is a priori truth.

NB please remember idolatry is more than belief that graven images are gods. Islam is idolatrous as long as Muslims worship the Koran a priori. Muhammad is not a Messiah , he's a prophet, and a book is an artefact.

Christianity cant be idolatrous because Christianity is founded upon an actual life of an actual man, so the Christian can always tell the good fruit from the bad fruit, a posteriori.

I claim that Islam , once the Gates of Ijtihad are opened again, can be a force for global unification including unification of the several Islamic sects within Islam. I point to the strong tradition within Islamic history to revere and explore God's creation, nature.

I don't see Quran 6:114 refer to a priori not a posteriori.

Q6:114 meant:
Those who received the scripture [fully detailed] recognize that it has been revealed from their Lord, truthfully, they should not harbour any doubt in seeking the Law other than from God.

Whatever is revealed in the Quran to the prophet via angel Gabriel are the words of God and are immutable which all believers must comply with. The Quran as it is, is the constitution of Islam. There is no question of idolatry on the imperative of obeying God's words.

Shirk (Arabic: شِرْك, lit. 'association') in Islam is a sin often roughly translated as 'idolatry' or 'polytheism', but more accurately meaning 'association [with God]'.[1][2][a]
It refers to accepting other divinities or powers alongside God as associates.[4][5]
In contrast, Islam teaches that God does not share divine attributes with anyone, as it is disallowed according to the Islamic doctrine of tawhid.[6][7]
The Quran, the central religious text of Islam, states in 4:48 that God will not forgive shirk if one dies without repenting of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirk_(Islam)

Ijtihad which is by fallible humans is vulnerable to idolatry where the original meaning in the Quran as God intended could be changed to suit human interests.