Observing Religions as a Theory that evolved

[painted wolf]

Even before "Shaman kings" there were spiritual leaders. Most of the time they were quite distinct from the secular leaders.

Human society has been extremely diverse since its beginings... I seriously doubt there were ever any 'original gods'.

wa:do

[fantôme profane]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

I didn't say it was supported by the text. It's something historians and theologians pointed out on a PBS program. (From Jesus to Christ, I think.) Sorry, but I think I'll take their understanding over yours unless you're a specialist in the area.

Well you have three options here.

1) Take the word of the PBS experts.
2) Take my word
3) Think for yourself.

I would personally recommend option number three, but it does come with a significant drawback. If you choose to do your own thinking you will have come up with your own reasoning to support it. It can be a lot of work. So the choice is yours.

[little_monkey]

Originally Posted by Bishadi

In that it seems, that from many periods in time, new additions and progressions to the belief systems, share that the words of religious teachings evolved over time.

How it is that if religious books are the words ‘by God’ that in the evolution of the very beliefs continue to evolve over time?

If the words found in the literature of religious orders are the ‘creation’ of God, then why the changes over time?

Same with debating the evolution of species; if man was ‘created’ in God’s image, then why was the serpent capable of deceiving a God?

Then if life was created and just planted on this earth by God, then why are there dinosaur bones in the soil?

SO the idea of the thread is, if we as people can see evolution in just about every step we take in nature and knowledge; then why is evolution so firmly denied as a pattern of progression, quite similar to the ‘golden ratio’ shared in the structures of living things?

Perhaps, we should all go back to honoring Zeus on a thrown and forget the so called prophets who contributed to the evolution of knowledge and be faithful to the original Gods of mankind?

Since humans evolve in their thinking, and God is a human invention, then it follows that the concept of God and religion will evolve.

[tariqkhwaja]

Originally Posted by Imagist

I have already explained this but I will attempt to be more clear.

There are two things that are important when wrongdoing occurs:
1. Reparation (return or repair of lost, stolen, or destroyed goods, fixing the wrongdoing).
2. Protection (prevention of further wrongdoing for the safety, security, and wellbeing of the victims of wrongdoing and others who might become victims).

These should be enforced by a neutral third party when possible. Obviously if no neutral third party is available the victim has no choice but to take matters into his/her own hands, especially if protection is needed (this is known as self-defense).

"Turn the other cheek" entails not seeking reparation or protection.

"An eye for an eye" is neither reparation nor protection, but is instead retribution/revenge. If person A loses an eye because of person B's actions, taking out Person B's eye does not help person A (reparation) or prevent person B from taking person A's other eye, or taking the eye of someone else (protection).

The ONLY result of "an eye for an eye" is harm (to person B). In contrast, both reparation and protection result in good, not harm.

Person A is allowed to ask for a judge to determine whether reparation or protection are necessary. Person A might ask for a judge out of vengeful reasons, but that is irrelevant: the ENTIRE REASON for a judge is to prevent Person A's desire for vengeance from affecting the distribution of reparation and protection, because in most cases the victim WILL have vengeful feelings toward the wrongdoer.

I pretty much agree with you. And how this differs with what is stated in the Quranic verses I don't understand.

The statement that forgiveness should be meted out only if this will not encourage the wrongdoer is what is stated in the verse I showed. But should the victim insist that exact revenge be taken upon the wrongdoer then fine. There is no injustice in that. But according to the Quran it might not always be the best option. But it is not a wrong option ... that is the key. If you slap me it is not wrong for me to slap you back ... regardless of the reason for which you slapped me. If it was a mistake it would make more sense that I let you go. But it would not be wrong to mete out the same punishment to you.

As far as nuetral judge is concerned the verse seems neither here nor there. There are other verses of the Quran that mention judges and nuetral parties in a biparty agreement.

[Imagist]

Originally Posted by tariqkhwaja

But should the victim insist that exact revenge be taken upon the wrongdoer then fine. There is no injustice in that. But according to the Quran it might not always be the best option. But it is not a wrong option ... that is the key. If you slap me it is not wrong for me to slap you back ... regardless of the reason for which you slapped me. If it was a mistake it would make more sense that I let you go. But it would not be wrong to mete out the same punishment to you.

This is exactly where we disagree: revenge IS the wrong option.

What good comes of the loss of a criminal's eye, or of you slapping me? These behaviors merely continue the violence without addressing the problem.

It is EXACTLY this kind of thinking that is perpetuating the conflict between Israel and its neighbors. Both sides react to violence with revenge, and the violence continues. I'm not saying that if one side lay down their arms the other would stop attacking, but I AM saying that insisting upon revenge ensures that the other side WON'T stop attacking.

As long as a religion holds on to this idea of an eye for an eye, it is not a religion of peace. Such a religion fundamentally misunderstands peace. This includes both Judaism AND Islam.

[LuisDantas]

Originally Posted by little_monkey

Since humans evolve in their thinking, and God is a human invention, then it follows that the concept of God and religion will evolve.

Actually, even if God were real it would follow that human understanding of society and nature would allow (even demand) religion and the concept of God to improve over time.

That's one of the main reasons why fundamentalism is a diservice to any religion.

[tariqkhwaja]

Originally Posted by Imagist

This is exactly where we disagree: revenge IS the wrong option.

What good comes of the loss of a criminal's eye, or of you slapping me? These behaviors merely continue the violence without addressing the problem.

It is EXACTLY this kind of thinking that is perpetuating the conflict between Israel and its neighbors. Both sides react to violence with revenge, and the violence continues. I'm not saying that if one side lay down their arms the other would stop attacking, but I AM saying that insisting upon revenge ensures that the other side WON'T stop attacking.

As long as a religion holds on to this idea of an eye for an eye, it is not a religion of peace. Such a religion fundamentally misunderstands peace. This includes both Judaism AND Islam.

No Imagist. For you to consider revenge (equal or less) WRONG is a point I must disagree with. Again, it might not be the best option but it is certainly not wrong.

You are holding kindness above justice. For a victim to not respond to being slapped is his kindness. For a victim to respond more is injustice. But, surely, for a victim to respond equally is justice.

Remember, kindness is a step better than justice. But kindness must not contradict justice. Caring at the cost of Rights is wrong. If someone inflicts me with certain torture it becomes my right to inflict him with equal torture.

Of course, Islam encourages us to go for the best option. The thing that I believe is the only way Israel and Palestine (and so many other conflicting nations) can make peace today. To forego their rights. Unfortunately neither of the two is willing to do this and, unfortunately, there is no peace.

Al-Nahl Chapter 16 : Verse 91
"Verily, Allah enjoins justice, and the doing of good to others; and giving like kindred; ..."

Justice comes first. Kindness second. And treatment like that of kindred third.

[Imagist]

Originally Posted by tariqkhwaja

You are holding kindness above justice. For a victim to not respond to being slapped is his kindness. For a victim to respond more is injustice. But, surely, for a victim to respond equally is justice.

It is not justice, it is revenge. Justice entails reparation of damages and/or protection from further wrongs. Your concept of justice does nobody any good, and does a great deal of harm in many situations.

Furthermore, while I am all for kindness, it has nothing to do with this situation. Reparation and protection are not kind to the wrongdoer; in fact they are usually UNkind.

Remember, kindness is a step better than justice. But kindness must not contradict justice. Caring at the cost of Rights is wrong. If someone inflicts me with certain torture it becomes my right to inflict him with equal torture.

Of course, Islam encourages us to go for the best option. The thing that I believe is the only way Israel and Palestine (and so many other conflicting nations) can make peace today. To forego their rights. Unfortunately neither of the two is willing to do this and, unfortunately, there is no peace.

Al-Nahl Chapter 16 : Verse 91
"Verily, Allah enjoins justice, and the doing of good to others; and giving like kindred; ..."

Justice comes first. Kindness second. And treatment like that of kindred third.

The only evidence that you have presented is an unwillingness to question the Quran. My very argument is based on the assumption that the Quran is incorrect, so your argument essentially amounts to "you are wrong" - hardly a valid argument.

I have stated that your concept of justice does no good for anyone, and indeed often does a great deal of harm. Please respond to this point.

Don't bother quoting the Quran unless you are going to prove that it is correct; the Quran is not evidence any more than the Bible or The God Delusion is evidence. Unless you can provide actual logical proof for your beliefs, they are incorrect, scriptural "evidence" notwithstanding.