The Holy Quran

Pfft. Proprietary, lad.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Pfft. My work's even noveller than yours. And it's proprietererer as well.
So there!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Double pfft!

Them words you used is also unique.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And novel.
But not proprietary. You may use them as you wish.

 

So you are of the mind that the Qur'an offers nothing novel?

- The Four Noble Truths were a novel and philosophical insight into the human condition. While I'm not Buddhist. I haven't had an "epiphany" about suffering. I can recognize that this was a well thought out novel approach to viewing humanity and human nature.
- Democracy was a novel philosophical system of government formed in Athens and written about at great length by Plato. I don't recall anyone ever writing treaties on democratic philosophy prior to Plato.
- Emanual Kant: "Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind". Again, a well thought out contemplation on the human condition and in particular how human knowledge is derived from both empiricism together with reason.
- Einstein’s mathematical equation E=MC^2 is, IMO, is itself a philosophical insight into reality itself. Don't let the numbers scare you - there's knowledge in them there hills (See: Kant

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So, where were we? Oh yes, Greed is Bad. OK, I agree. Greed is Bad. This isn't novel.

 

Yes,
in the context of there isn't any stories that have not been heard before.

No,
in the context of rethinking a story to pull new meaning out of it.

i would buy Einstein as novel...

thats probably the most recent example,is there any others in more recent history?

one of my points is basically 'there is nothing new under the sun' everything has been here all along, we just had to look at it..
is it novel if it has been around forever,and we are just now looking at it?
this is one area where i think god works, he opens our eyes..

would it be novel to think of greed applying to something you would not think of it applying to?

 

Au contraire.

Pandora's fine box of truth continues to open, no matter how hard religion tries to put a lid on it and close it.

 

religion is just stupid that way..

how many 'eureka ' moments have scientist had?
how many are left?

 

I'm not sure if you and I agree on what I mean as novel.

What I mean by novel is something that hasn't been done or thought of before. In this case, a philosophical treaty. There are novel novels coming along everyday, though, maybe many aren't all that novel. Sure, any philosophy will be based on on previous ideas (language itself for example). Even E = MC^2 was built from many earlier ideas (numbering aside, prominent theoretical German mathematicians come to mine). Yet, and this is the key, E = MC^2 was still novel. Do you think Plato was novel? Kant? Descartes'? If I copy Plato and change a few of the character names, retell the exact same morals using slightly differing parables - I'm a hack. If I learn from Plato and build a new philosophical paradigm, I'm a Philosopher. Surely God, with His infinite Wisdom and Timeless perspective could do as good as Kant?

So, Gods' Philosophy is somewhere in the Qur'an. As a matter of fact, the Qur'an is supposedly "Perfect". Plato, Kant, Descartes', Einstein - their Philosophies should pale in comparison to the immense intellectual prowess of "Gods". Well, Chi said he wanted to discuss The Philosophy of the Qur'an. OK then, let's discuss. So far we have this: Greed is Bad. There may be more to that parable, I'm still waiting. As for now, that's where we are. And that's not novel.

 

all we know of what has been done or thought before is only what has been recorded,
what about all those who though about it, but didn't record it?

um..god influenced Kant..(sorry,you stepped into that one, couldn't resist)

then comes the argument of how are we supposed to know the intellectual prowess of god? God can be rated a 100 (intellectual prowess) and humans only 50, IOW we are not capable of understanding everything there is about God, we always try to translate it into human terms, and God is not human..

i think chi ran away..

bring the text back and lets discuss..

 

Religion and belief has to be stupid, for it writ all its dogma in stone on the first day.

Many 'eureka's.

And new ones and "ah, ha's", as when two ideas are linked together, such as in quantum cosmology, in which it was seen that the tiny quantum wrinkles were writ large across the sky…

How many 'God' 'eurekas'? None.

"Greed is bad" came but from human culture.

 

good point.
without humans there would be no greed?
animals can be greedy..
but then we get into the semantics..

is God greedy? but there we go trying to assign humanistic characteristics to God..God is better than human.

 

Since there's no God, we cannot describe the emotions of.

The made-up Guy they wrote about in the Old Testament seems to be a good candidate for Prozac.

 

True. So, we will have to limit ourselves to what has been recorded. It may have been possible that someone 2500 years ago conceived of E = MC^2, however, as they never recorded it anywhere, we'll have to resign ourselves to recorded ideas. That said, this actually works in FAVOR of the Qur'an.

As there is no evidence for that, we'll have to (again) resign ourselves to what we do have evidence of - that being Kant

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

According to Chi the Qur'an is the Voice of God herself. So, we must assume She knew what She was doing when She choose that particular medium of communication.

Actually it when like this, She told an Angel, who told Mohammad (in his head), who told some people, who later told some other people, who wrote it down on bark, then along came some other people who wrote it down on paper, then along came some guy who picked and choosed his way through all this paper, sorted the chapters from shortest to longest and codified what he thought would support his policies and his rule pitching anything that didn't.

If that is the case, I wouldn't really be all that surprised. It's much much easier to post an incoherent plethora of statements than discuss any one idea coherently. Also, Theists, due to the nature of Theism, generally don't like thinking too deeply about this concept.

Done:

 

keep in mind i believe God can utilize you whether you believe in him or not,IOW God may have influenced Kant, whether he acknowledged him or not..

this is where i voice my concern with ppl who take the bible too literal..

carefull, i consider myself a theist.

and the verse would help to have the context of the chapter, (verses before and after) as it stands it is pretty generic..

 

It's true that believers don't think or go beyond the word 'God'.

They would have it that our being requires His Being, but then not continue with the great plan and have BEING required for His Being, etc. They have begged the question. Being, of any kind, can't come first.

 

it is funny no one has caught the 'Persian flaw' in my argument..
i say God had created us with the ability to choose,that we can choose to believe in god or not,i also agree with those who posit that a person shouldn't rely on God to get things for them, this is by design, lots of verses in the bible to back this up..

the flaw..is that all my positing does not require an active God..my posits still stands if god had created us then disappeared from existence..

 

The flaw is "just saying" things to begin with.

(Looks like old Chi has a month off.)

 

I don't need to study the product to see that it makes its consumers sick. Consuming poison is a personal choice and if you want to advertize the poison as being "good for you" then you are no different then say the tobacco industry.