Did you read Quran neutrally?

[paarsurrey]

As neutral as possible would mean not caring about it at all.
Which is to say, not bothering to read it.

I meant with an open mind.
A word has so many meanings in every language, the context sentences decide what meaning should be taken.
Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

I meant with an open mind.
A word has so many meanings in every language, the context sentences decide what meaning should be taken.
Regards

That is not neutrality, but rather a predisposition to accept what it says as valid.

That is not even the sole or most natural reading of "open mind", either. An open mind is supposed to be receptive to letting go of tradition, and therefore of traditional religion.

 

[psychoslice]

I meant with an open mind.
A word has so many meanings in every language, the context sentences decide what meaning should be taken.
Regards

Yes and so we all should keep our own opinion's to ourselves, be cause who the hell is really right ?.

 

[LuisDantas]

Here, @paarsurrey , let me tell you what I sincerely think of as reading the Qur'an neutrally and with an open mind.

A neutral reading sees that it is a book about how we should rely on the truth of the existence of a Creator God and the need to believe in him. Then it decides that it is a waste of time to insist on it. Then the reading ends.

An open mind reading of the Qur'an, by contrast, does much the same thing then forgets all about the text proper and begins to speculate on what could have brought such a religion into being. It is a fascinating anthropological subject matter.

 

[Milton Platt]

I meant with an open mind.
A word has so many meanings in every language, the context sentences decide what meaning should be taken.
Regards

You should have said that in the beginning, then. That is not the same thing as being neutral. I try to read everything with an open mind. It is a big part of why I have been an atheist all of my life.

 

[paarsurrey]

@ LuiDantas Post #200
"As neutral as possible would mean not caring about it at all.
Which is to say, not bothering to read it."
Here my friend took the meaning of neutral as given in the lexicon:

disinterested, indifferent.​

OP did not mean to read Quran in a disinterested way or indifferently.
So, I said with an open mind taking a clue from:

Impartial (open-minded, equitable,even-handed,fair, fair-minded, just), unbiased, unprejudiced, equitable​

I think that was the intention of the OP ( friend moegypt) as defined by him "without pre-concepts from media or anything else".
I think it is fair.
Regards

 

[Milton Platt]

@ LuiDantas Post #200
"As neutral as possible would mean not caring about it at all.
Which is to say, not bothering to read it."
Here my friend took the meaning of neutral as given in the lexicon:

disinterested, indifferent.​

OP did not mean to read Quran in a disinterested way or indifferently.
So, I said with an open mind taking a clue from:

Impartial (open-minded, equitable,even-handed,fair, fair-minded, just), unbiased, unprejudiced, equitable​

I think that was the intention of the OP ( friend moegypt) as defined by him "without pre-concepts from media or anything else".
I think it is fair.
Regards

I can accept impartial and/or open-minded. But I maintain that that is not the same as neutral. Nonetheless, no point in arguing any further over semantics. I understand your meaning.
I want to point out, however, that it is impossible for someone who believes in the god postulated by the Quran to read it with an open mind. He has already decided that the god exists and that the Quran is a reflection of this god's intent and desires, and is just looking for confirmation of what he wants to believe.

The question is what level of evidence would be required to first establish the existence of said god. That would be necessary prior to deciding if the Quran somehow represented this god's wishes. All claims are not equal, and so all requirements as to evidence are not equal. I will once again use a tired old example for your friend, moegypt, to see what I mean (I assume he is reading these responses?)

Let's say you came to me and said "I have a car in my garage". I would probably accept your word without any further evidence required. I have seen both garages and cars and I know that people do indeed keep cars in garages.
If you came to me and said "I have a priceless vintage Rolls Royce in my garage", I would probably probe you about the car to see if I can determine if you really do own it. if I am not satisfied with your answers, I would want to see the car and then perhaps look it over to be sure it is not a "kit car" instead of the real thing. I might want to see the registration. I would then decide based on that evidence whether to believe your claim or not.

But what if you came to me and said that you have a fire-breathing dragon in your garage? Would I just assume you are telling the truth and not demented, deceived, or lying? No, most certainly not. No amount of description or pontification about it's supposed characteristics would ever convince me that you do indeed have this creature. I would demand that you show it to me and have it demonstrate it's ability to breath fire. Your response might be to tell me that it is invisible, that it only reveals itself to those it chooses. You might tell me that if it showed itself, it would remove my supposed "free will" to believe. I would protest that I cannot believe you have this creature without evidence. You would respond that belief is a matter of faith.

What should I do......believe on faith (lack of evidence) that you have the dragon? I would be incredibly foolish to do so. And yet, the claim of an all powerful, all knowing invisible, supernatural, outside-of-space-and-time creator of all that exists is infinitely more unlikely than the dragon, but you are wanting me to accept the same flimsy evidence for it.

Do you see where I am coming from???

To read the Quran without preconceived notions (impartiality) would be to assume it is just a bunch of myths and fictional stories. I would start without assuming that a supernatural god exists, therefore the book is just another book. I do not think that is what your friend is aiming at.

edit: Is your friend reading this in the English, or are you having to translate and pass along the posts? Just curious as to why he is not posting himself......

 

[paarsurrey]

I do not think that is what your friend is aiming at.
edit: Is your friend reading this in the English, or are you having to translate and pass along the posts? Just curious as to why he is not posting himself......

I don't know of which ""friend" are your referring to.
Every poster of RF is a friend of mine, but I am not translating and passing anything to anybody in English or any other language. I write for myself as do others. Please get your mind clear about it. Thanks
Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

I believe @Milton Platt misunderstood you calling @moegypt your friend in post #206, @paarsurrey .

I did not understand it as you implying that you are keeping contact with him and translating posts from this thread, but it seems to be that Milton might have.

Not that it would be in any way wrong if you did, of course.

 

[paarsurrey]

I believe @Milton Platt misunderstood you calling @moegypt your friend in post #206, @paarsurrey .
I did not understand it as you implying that you are keeping contact with him and translating posts from this thread, but it seems to be that Milton might have.
Not that it would be in any way wrong if you did, of course.

Thanks for clarifying the things.
I don't know friend moegypt personally. I just read the topic and starting writing on it.
I agree with moegypt that one should read Quran "without pre-concepts from media or anything else".
Is that a bad thing to do?
If one ignores that fair advice, even then I have no objection to it.
Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

Thanks for clarifying the things.
I don't know friend moegypt personally. I just read the topic and starting writing on it.
I agree with moegypt that one should read Quran "without pre-concepts from media or anything else".
Is that a bad thing to do?

Not a bad thing at all. But not very likely to give the results you seem to be expecting.

It seems to me that preconceptions about Holy Books tend to protect the perception of worth of the Qur'an at least as often, and a lot more strongly, than they tend to predispose people against it.

 

[Milton Platt]

I don't know of which ""friend" are your referring to.
Every poster of RF is a friend of mine, but I am not translating and passing anything to anybody in English or any other language. I write for myself as do others. Please get your mind clear about it. Thanks
Regards

LuisDantas is correct. I thought you were communicating to him outside of the website and passing things back and forth from him to me and visa versa. I do not conceive that I have enemies here, but don't style all as "friends". Not that they can't be, but I reserve that term for more intimate contacts. No problem, though. Glad it got cleared up.

However, I still can't conceive of somebody not having any preconceived notions about the Quran. Might prove me wrong in individual cases, but I think it holds true as a generality. Hard to find someone who does not know that book is associated with Islam.

 

[paarsurrey]

LuisDantas is correct. I thought you were communicating to him outside of the website and passing things back and forth from him to me and visa versa. I do not conceive that I have enemies here, but don't style all as "friends". Not that they can't be, but I reserve that term for more intimate contacts. No problem, though. Glad it got cleared up.
However, I still can't conceive of somebody not having any preconceived notions about the Quran. Might prove me wrong in individual cases, but I think it holds true as a generality. Hard to find someone who does not know that book is associated with Islam.

It is OK, now.
I don't have anything against any body. I only comment on the ideologies of the persons here and never against the persons.
It is possible to read scriptures, any scripture, with an open and neutral mind. I have read Jewish, Christian scriptures from cover to cover, Bhagavad Gita of Hinduism, Yasna of Zoroastrianism, Gospel of Buddha and Dhammapada of Buddhism, and enjoyed reading them all.
The religious scriptures are a different category, comparing them with books of fiction or text books of science or with manual of procedure is fallacious and misleading.
Regards

 

[Milton Platt]

It is OK, now.
I don't have anything against any body. I only comment on the ideologies of the persons here and never against the persons.
It is possible to read scriptures, any scripture, with an open and neutral mind. I have read Jewish, Christian scriptures from cover to cover, Bhagavad Gita of Hinduism, Yasna of Zoroastrianism, Gospel of Buddha and Dhammapada of Buddhism, and enjoyed reading them all.
The religious scriptures are a different category, comparing them with books of fiction or text books of science or with manual of procedure is fallacious and misleading.
Regards

I disagree....the books are either, factual, fictional, or a blend. If fictional, they are entertainment. If supposedly factual, they must correlate with what we actually know about the universe from scientific observation and testing. I have not found that they do.
If a blend of fact and fiction, then there is no reliable way to separate the two, so they are pretty much useless as a guide for your life. You may as well get your inspiration from Harry Potter.

And in any case, the books themselves do not provide the necessary evidence to support a belief in a deity. Just because the book says it is speaking for the deity does not mean that it actually is.

What if, for instance, there were a deity that was malevolent and the things in the book were just a ruse.....a cosmic joke.....and you were being totally deceived? How could you plumb the depths of an infinite mind to know it's true motives? Can you outsmart a deity?

 

[icehorse]

Hi paarsurrey,

You said:

The religious scriptures are a different category, comparing them with books of fiction or text books of science or with manual of procedure is fallacious and misleading.

It seems to me you are trying to have it both ways! If you want us to read with an open mind, or neutrally or whatever, then you CANNOT at the same time claim that the book is in a different category.

 

[Muffled]

No my friend
God told him to marry her
And it is God who blessed this marriage
You should consult verse
So you know who is who declared the marriage and who is so blessed to marry
That's why I do not believe in God advocated by Islam

Can you quote a Qu'ranic verse where God told him that? If it is from a Hadith I don't believe Hadiths are the word of God and often enough have false information.

 

[Muffled]

The requirement is as neutral as possible.
Regards

Neutrality means not taking one side or the other. When I read the Qu'ran there was no such conflict. No-one had told me that Islam was an opponent of Christianity so in that sense I was neutral.However that does not mean that I was reading without a bias towards Christianity. Basicly my bias was that if there appeared to be a conflict between the Bible and the Qu'ran then it was the Bible that was true and the Qu'ran false. However I read with help from the Holy Spirit so He was able to show that the supposed conflicts could be resolved and both were true.

 

[Muffled]

Yes and so we all should keep our own opinion's to ourselves, be cause who the hell is really right ?.

I believe I am.

 

[Milton Platt]

I

Can you quote a Qu'ranic verse where God told him that? If it is from a Hadith I don't believe Hadiths are the word of God and often enough have false information.

I agree with you but he has about as much evidence for the truthfulness of his books as do you for yours.

 

[paarsurrey]

Neutrality means not taking one side or the other. When I read the Qu'ran there was no such conflict. No-one had told me that Islam was an opponent of Christianity so in that sense I was neutral.However that does not mean that I was reading without a bias towards Christianity. Basicly my bias was that if there appeared to be a conflict between the Bible and the Qu'ran then it was the Bible that was true and the Qu'ran false. However I read with help from the Holy Spirit so He was able to show that the supposed conflicts could be resolved and both were true.

It is OK.
Regards