Let's try to understand those people who are trying to change the game

[Hammzah]

Let’s play a game called “Let’s not condemn those people, let’s try to understand those people”. And, If I’m at fault, then please let me know because I’m just a player like you. For the purposes of this question, feel free to substitute the word "game" with "religion" or ”sport” if that better suits your perspective on things. I ask this question because as a believer, I'm aware that there are people who are not part of Islam who are trying reform Islamic religion.

So why exactly are they trying to change the game? Well, some theorists believe that humans by nature are selfish. We don't do things to be nice; we do things because it serves some sort of selfish need - even if that is to make us feel good about ourselves.

Imagine if someone wants to change to lengths and the width of the field of your favorite sport. If they do succeed at changing it then it would be a completely different sport, right? Not only a different sport but a different name. So basically, according to this theory, they are not trying to change the game, they are trying to kill the game, because it serves some sort of selfish need. It could mean that the reason why people are trying to reform or change the game is because they don’t know how to play, afraid to play and they want to feel like winners.

So, according to this theory, the reason why people are trying to change religions like Islam is for selfish needs. And, they will always will try to change the game because it will never be good enough for them because they don’t know how to play the game or how to be competitive.

 

[LionLooking]

Let’s play a game called “Let’s not condemn those people, let’s try to understand those people”. And, If I’m at fault, then please let me know because I’m just a player like you. For the purposes of this question, feel free to substitute the word "game" with "religion" or ”sport” if that better suits your perspective on things. I ask this question because as a believer, I'm aware that there are people who are not part of Islam who are trying reform Islamic religion.

So why exactly are they trying to change the game? Well, some theorists believe that humans by nature are selfish. We don't do things to be nice; we do things because it serves some sort of selfish need - even if that is to make us feel good about ourselves.

Imagine if someone wants to change to lengths and the width of the field of your favorite sport. If they do succeed at changing it then it would be a completely different sport, right? Not only a different sport but a different name. So basically, according to this theory, they are not trying to change the game, they are trying to kill the game, because it serves some sort of selfish need. It could mean that the reason why people are trying to reform or change the game is because they don’t know how to play, afraid to play and they want to feel like winners.

So, according to this theory, the reason why people are trying to change religions like Islam is for selfish needs. And, they will always will try to change the game because it will never be good enough for them because they don’t know how to play the game or how to be competitive.

Using a sporting analogy, the ancient English game of football has spawned many other games though people changing the rules - Rugby Union, Rugby League, Aussie Rules Football, American Football etc. Through it all, the original game of football is still played - and it's the most popular sport in the world.

Using a religious analogy, Christianity has spawned thousands of sub-sects which may even be viewed as brand new religions. The original Christianity is still there though.

Stick with your faith and let others find their own is my two penn'orth

 

[sayak83]

Let’s play a game called “Let’s not condemn those people, let’s try to understand those people”. And, If I’m at fault, then please let me know because I’m just a player like you. For the purposes of this question, feel free to substitute the word "game" with "religion" or ”sport” if that better suits your perspective on things. I ask this question because as a believer, I'm aware that there are people who are not part of Islam who are trying reform Islamic religion.

So why exactly are they trying to change the game? Well, some theorists believe that humans by nature are selfish. We don't do things to be nice; we do things because it serves some sort of selfish need - even if that is to make us feel good about ourselves.

Imagine if someone wants to change to lengths and the width of the field of your favorite sport. If they do succeed at changing it then it would be a completely different sport, right? Not only a different sport but a different name. So basically, according to this theory, they are not trying to change the game, they are trying to kill the game, because it serves some sort of selfish need. It could mean that the reason why people are trying to reform or change the game is because they don’t know how to play, afraid to play and they want to feel like winners.

So, according to this theory, the reason why people are trying to change religions like Islam is for selfish needs. And, they will always will try to change the game because it will never be good enough for them because they don’t know how to play the game or how to be competitive.

This assumes that there exists some authentic form of the game out there. Nothing like that exists in reality. There are simply people constructing horrid and regressive versions of the game and trying to fool people into playing it by screaming that theirs is the authentic one.

 

[HonestJoe]

So why exactly are they trying to change the game? Well, some theorists believe that humans by nature are selfish. We don't do things to be nice; we do things because it serves some sort of selfish need - even if that is to make us feel good about ourselves.

I don’t think it’s that simple. We are fundamentally selfish but that doesn’t prevent altruism or a desires to bring wider benefits to other people. The underlying motive might be because we feel it will benefit ourselves in some way but the outcome can still be beneficial to many others. There’s also the element of social exchange, where I might do something that benefits you today in the knowledge that you’re more likely to do something to benefit me tomorrow. That’s really the fundamental basis of all human society.

So, according to this theory, the reason why people are trying to change religions like Islam is for selfish needs. And, they will always will try to change the game because it will never be good enough for them because they don’t know how to play the game or how to be competitive.

I don’t think the sport and religion comparison quite works here. In general, changing a sport will only impact those who take part – players, fans, clubs, etc. Religion can have a direct impact on those not involved, often quite intentionally, so people outside a religion have a perfectly legitimate interest in how it works.

In fact you could easily reverse your argument to talk about how some religious people seek to change laws, social practices and the individual lives of everyone else. Some people would ban the hijab because they oppose religion, some people who ban same-sex marriage because their religion opposes it. Is there really any moral difference between the two?

 

[LuisDantas]

Sorry, but the OP is entirely wrong and, in fact, misleading.

A significant part of it comes from the particularity that Islaam as a doctrine explicitly resists innovation to a remarkable degree, to the point that it is an actual accusation that Muslims sometimes direct at each other. Islaam is not typical on that regard. The truth of the matter is that any true religion needs innovation in order to remain or become informed, relevant and constructive. A doctrine that rejects innovation has no claim at being an actual religion.

Then there is the premise that there are selfish as opposed to altruistic or even enlightened motives behind any attempts at inovation and reform. That premise is itself entirely disconnected from reality. More than that, it is irresponsibly alienated and dangerous.

The plain fact is that Islaamic doctrine is seriously flawed and needs reconsiderations, much as it forbids itself from considering such examination.

It is doubtful that Islaam can actually survive the reexamination that it sorely needs in a recognizable form, though. That is not a problem, but instead a solution. The problem is the unhealthy attachment for rigidity for rigidity's sake that Islaam so nurtures.

 

[Sunstone]

Let’s play a game called “Let’s not condemn those people, let’s try to understand those people”. And, If I’m at fault, then please let me know because I’m just a player like you. For the purposes of this question, feel free to substitute the word "game" with "religion" or ”sport” if that better suits your perspective on things. I ask this question because as a believer, I'm aware that there are people who are not part of Islam who are trying reform Islamic religion.

So why exactly are they trying to change the game? Well, some theorists believe that humans by nature are selfish. We don't do things to be nice; we do things because it serves some sort of selfish need - even if that is to make us feel good about ourselves.

Imagine if someone wants to change to lengths and the width of the field of your favorite sport. If they do succeed at changing it then it would be a completely different sport, right? Not only a different sport but a different name. So basically, according to this theory, they are not trying to change the game, they are trying to kill the game, because it serves some sort of selfish need. It could mean that the reason why people are trying to reform or change the game is because they don’t know how to play, afraid to play and they want to feel like winners.

So, according to this theory, the reason why people are trying to change religions like Islam is for selfish needs. And, they will always will try to change the game because it will never be good enough for them because they don’t know how to play the game or how to be competitive.

It seems to me that your notion that people who try to change religions they themselves are not members of are selfish completely ignores the fact that most people who try to change religions they themselves are not members of are doing so because those religions make claims on them -- despite their not being members of them.

For instance, some forms of Islam advocate imposing a tax on non-believers for being non-believers. Again, some forms of Christianity try to limit or abolish the rights of LGBT people even though those people might not belong to those forms of Christianity.

Once a religion reaches beyond it's own members to say that even people who are not members of it must conform to its rules or teachings, that religion has given up any right it might have once had to claim that "outsiders" should not attempt to change it.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

Let’s play a game called “Let’s not condemn those people, let’s try to understand those people”. And, If I’m at fault, then please let me know because I’m just a player like you. For the purposes of this question, feel free to substitute the word "game" with "religion" or ”sport” if that better suits your perspective on things. I ask this question because as a believer, I'm aware that there are people who are not part of Islam who are trying reform Islamic religion.

So why exactly are they trying to change the game? Well, some theorists believe that humans by nature are selfish. We don't do things to be nice; we do things because it serves some sort of selfish need - even if that is to make us feel good about ourselves.

Imagine if someone wants to change to lengths and the width of the field of your favorite sport. If they do succeed at changing it then it would be a completely different sport, right? Not only a different sport but a different name. So basically, according to this theory, they are not trying to change the game, they are trying to kill the game, because it serves some sort of selfish need. It could mean that the reason why people are trying to reform or change the game is because they don’t know how to play, afraid to play and they want to feel like winners.

So, according to this theory, the reason why people are trying to change religions like Islam is for selfish needs. And, they will always will try to change the game because it will never be good enough for them because they don’t know how to play the game or how to be competitive.

Your hypothesis is correct, imo.
The religion of Islam is derived from the Quran.
The religion is perfectly fine in its original form.
Should a person claim to be a follower of the Quran, then that person should follow it.
Once changed, it is not the same religion, it is a new one based on that person’s beliefs. Or selfish, as you say.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

Your hypothesis is correct, imo.
The religion of Islam is derived from the Quran.
The religion is perfectly fine in its original form.
Should a person claim to be a follower of the Quran, then that person should follow it.
Once changed, it is not the same religion, it is a new one based on that person’s beliefs. Or selfish, as you say.

To continue, I believe that the changes made to Islam, through the ages, by various people, have not only created something different, and new, but also something not as good.

This has definitely been the case with Christianity as well.
Even to a worse extent. Since most of Christianity only borrows His name, but it’s precepts are not of Him.

Fallible humans think they know better than a perfect God. Very sad.

 

[`mud]

Games and worship of the invinsable, what ball is in use here ?
I think this is to be an important thread, having no game or religion myself.
My `religion` is `life` and all it's `stuff`, but the `stuff` is a religion itself.
This Earth and all it's `stuff` become new entities every day,
just like the leaves falling from the oak tree outside my window.
And the window itself, sometime in the future, if we wait enough.
I think I will be not here though, nor the leaves, maybe also the religions.
The beliefs of all people will persist, to some intent, forever,
if we indeed survive as a whole, good luck with your choice.

 

[Nakosis]

Let’s play a game called “Let’s not condemn those people, let’s try to understand those people”. And, If I’m at fault, then please let me know because I’m just a player like you. For the purposes of this question, feel free to substitute the word "game" with "religion" or ”sport” if that better suits your perspective on things. I ask this question because as a believer, I'm aware that there are people who are not part of Islam who are trying reform Islamic religion.

So why exactly are they trying to change the game? Well, some theorists believe that humans by nature are selfish. We don't do things to be nice; we do things because it serves some sort of selfish need - even if that is to make us feel good about ourselves.

Imagine if someone wants to change to lengths and the width of the field of your favorite sport. If they do succeed at changing it then it would be a completely different sport, right? Not only a different sport but a different name. So basically, according to this theory, they are not trying to change the game, they are trying to kill the game, because it serves some sort of selfish need. It could mean that the reason why people are trying to reform or change the game is because they don’t know how to play, afraid to play and they want to feel like winners.

So, according to this theory, the reason why people are trying to change religions like Islam is for selfish needs. And, they will always will try to change the game because it will never be good enough for them because they don’t know how to play the game or how to be competitive.

The idea is that all actions are done ultimately for self interest. Even acts of compassion are done out of self interest.

Selfishness implies what is done lacks any concern for anyone other than oneself. While this could certainly be the case not everyone who tries to change the game does so for selfish reasons.

For example this idea of heaven and hell lacks compassion I feel. Some people through no real fault of their own happen to be believers of the wrong religion get to be punished in Hell. So some, not willing to believe a loving God would commit such an atrocity changed their belief to something more compassionate. While this could be a matter of self interest, it not an act of selfishness.

 

[Hammzah]

Games and worship of the invinsable, what ball is in use here ?
I think this is to be an important thread, having no game or religion myself.
My `religion` is `life` and all it's `stuff`, but the `stuff` is a religion itself.
This Earth and all it's `stuff` become new entities every day,
just like the leaves falling from the oak tree outside my window.
And the window itself, sometime in the future, if we wait enough.
I think I will be not here though, nor the leaves, maybe also the religions.
The beliefs of all people will persist, to some intent, forever,
if we indeed survive as a whole, good luck with your choice.

If the life is a show, then the ball is to act.

The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “You will not enter Paradise until you believe and you will not believe until you love each other. Shall I show you something that, if you did, you would love each other? Spread peace between yourselves.”

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

The idea is that all actions are done ultimately for self interest. Even acts of compassion are done out of self interest.

Selfishness implies what is done lacks any concern for anyone other than oneself. While this could certainly be the case not everyone who tries to change the game does so for selfish reasons.

For example this idea of heaven and hell lacks compassion I feel. Some people through no real fault of their own happen to be believers of the wrong religion get to be punished in Hell. So some, not willing to believe a loving God would commit such an atrocity changed their belief to something more compassionate. While this could be a matter of self interest, it not an act of selfishness.

Why no compassion in heaven and hell?
My concept of hell is much different than that preached in some religions, but that’s another topic.

 

[Nakosis]

Why no compassion in heaven and hell?
My concept of hell is much different than that preached in some religions, but that’s another topic.

Sometimes you just don't want to see other folks suffer. I never really saw any form of punishment as a workable means of changing a person's nature. It's more a way for any victim to satisfy their need for revenge.

Punishment is more a means to try to prevent someone from doing something they'd normally do. So they avoid the action not because their character has changed but because the threat of punishment outweighs the desire to act.

So I don't see punishment for the sake of punishment as a means of rehabilitation.

 

[LuisDantas]

@Hammzah , I find myself wondering what would qualify as a doctrine similar to Islaam for the purposes of the OP.

Islaam is, after all, remarkable on its explicit calls for rejection of innovation; of being the rescuer of the true, original messages of Judaism and Christianity; of being divinely assured of completeness, perfection and immutability.

It seems to me that it is awfully hard for any doctrine to be similar to Islaam without being also a direct competitor and, ultimately, a challenger that must be "false" unless Islaam itself happens to be false.

Maybe you could clarify or give some examples of such similar doctrines? Religions, unlike Islaam, often welcome innovation to some degree without seeing a need to feel guilty about it.

 

[Hammzah]

@Hammzah , I find myself wondering what would qualify as a doctrine similar to Islaam for the purposes of the OP.

Islaam is, after all, remarkable on its explicit calls for rejection of innovation; of being the rescuer of the true, original messages of Judaism and Christianity; of being divinely assured of completeness, perfection and immutability.

It seems to me that it is awfully hard for any doctrine to be similar to Islaam without being also a direct competitor and, ultimately, a challenger that must be "false" unless Islaam itself happens to be false.

Maybe you could clarify or give some examples of such similar doctrines? Religions, unlike Islaam, often welcome innovation to some degree without seeing a need to feel guilty about it.

I don't really understand what you are trying to ask me but I will try to answer you in the simplest possible way.

What would qualify as a doctrine similar to Islaam?

Well, how about an alarm clock or one of those reminders on your phone? Islam can assist as a reminder for people because people tend to forget.

Islam just like any community has driven people and resistant people.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Imagine if someone wants to change to lengths and the width of the field of your favorite sport. If they do succeed at changing it then it would be a completely different sport, right? Not only a different sport but a different name.

Heh... I can think of at least five different sports called "football," all with different field dimensions and rules.

(Edit: and that's without considering sports where the name includes some sort of modifier: flag football, indoor football, arena football, etc. There are at least five sports or variants that are just called "football.")

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I'm aware that there are people who are not part of Islam who are trying reform Islamic religion.

There are also those part of Islam trying to reform the Islamic religion. I am very good friends with someone like that, who is studying to become a scholar. He is quite progressive.

 

[Hammzah]

There are also those part of Islam trying to reform the Islamic religion. I am very good friends with someone like that, who is studying to become a scholar. He is quite progressive.

And what exactly is he trying to reform, do you know?

 

[Buddha Dharma]

And what exactly is he trying to reform, do you know?

I shall ask him for the full details. I know one thing he is big on advocating for is Qur'an emphasis. He is doubtful toward the Hadiths.

 

[LuisDantas]

What would qualify as a doctrine similar to Islaam?

Well, how about an alarm clock or one of those reminders on your phone? Islam can assist as a reminder for people because people tend to forget.

I was expecting a doctrine, you know, since that seems to be what you describe in the OP.

Does that comparison make sense to you? It certainly doesn't make any to me.

How can Islaam be compared to any form of reminder when it is so prescriptive as opposed to reminder-like?

Islam just like any community has driven people and resistant people.

Islaam, in many very significant respects, is very much unlike "any" community. It actually prides itself of it, as I am sure that you know.