this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2024
267 points (82.2% liked)
Asklemmy
44169 readers
1335 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Apologies for my assumption of your holy book of choice. You realise the Qur'an is the "sequel" to the Bible, which was itself derivative of the Torah, which was based on more ancient myths, etc etc. All of them passed down verbally for generations before written, all of them changed to suit the storytellers' needs, and all of them FAR from flawless. Historical and scientific inaccuracies aside, none of them are even internally consistent. I have difficulty believing you have applied objective, critical thought to any religious text.
They are incomparable.
The Torah is a collection of stories coming from an oral tradition or songs. The earliest manuscripts are the dead see scrolls dating one or two thousand years after Moises, peace be upon him. The Jewish don't recognise thesemanuscripts attributed to heretics.
The Bible according to scholars is a collection of books from anonymous authors who used the names of disciples as pennames. There is no consensus amongst the different denominations regarding what books are part of "the" Bible. The earliest complete manuscript dates about 400 years after Jesus, peace be upon him, and shows differences with today's text.
The Qur'an is proven to be preserved, even by western non-muslim orientalists. There are carbon dated manuscripts from the time of Muhammad, peace be upon him, and the book is mass memorised by millions letter by letter with a proven chain tracing back to Muhammad. It is not possible to change the text when millions know it cover to cover by heart. Even the understanding of the meaning is not open to interpretation because there are set rules and relied upon books from the disciples, again with a tracking chain, that tell us how it was explained by the prophet and understood at the time of revelation.
So this was an assessment of the text before delving into what it actually contains.
Now I assume you read the Torah and the Bible, which is why you know about the internal and external contradictions.
This is not the case for Qur'an even when it talks about various things from history to natural phenomena. I really encourage you to go past prejudice and critically study it yourself from reputable sources to actually know what it is and what it says.
The Clear Qur'an is a good English translation. Read it and if you have any question don't hesitate.
I don't have to read a religious text to know it's not true, and though you may have been lucky enough to grow up untainted by society, these books have not. The issue with going to sources so entrenched in studying religious text is that they are already tainted by the need to keep the text alive. Should they cast any doubt at all their livelihood will vanish.
No religion has ever offered verifiable proof of any supernatural claim. Once they do I will pay attention.
How can you give an opinion or hold a position on something you refuse to assess?
Here you are making assumptions about the sources maybe because of Christianity and Judaism. The sources like I said are the contemporary ones and there is no room for reinterpretation in the exegesis to twist it in a way or the other due to conflicts that arised later on.
Same can be applied to atheism which is positing that God does not exist. I assume you hold that position. If so you are not consistent in your approach.
Should one not objectively scrutinize the claims of both sides before holding a position?
Atheism is the rejection of an assertion that there is a god or gods. If any theists were able to prove the existence of a god, an atheist would (hopefully) change their mind. Rejecting all gods until their existence can be proven is hardly inconsistent.
I reject as true books that say the X-Men exist. Those are first hand sources, but that does not mean the stories they contain are true, even though they are more morally consistent than most popular religious texts. I have not read the X-Men but that is no reason to assume they are true.
Extraordinary assertions such as a devine being existing require extraordinary proof. No religions have managed to provide more than heresay, anecdotal evidence, and assumption to support their claoms. Religious reasoning is as best motivated, and hardly consistent itself.
My opinion is based on how world religions are used by their followers and those in power. All I see is religion used as a tools to control, intimidate, otherise, and war with any group considered "not us" - no matter the religion. I have read summaries of the Bible, Quaran, and Book of Mormon. There is nothing of note in any of them. Any possible good advice or dictate has long since been rephrased, refined, and adopted by society. The beauty of a thing is in its utility, and the use I see religion put to buy those in power is ugly. I want nothing to do with poisonous dogma, and instead choose to try making life better for those around me by direct action. Not by wishing for a god to do so, or wasting this precious life gambling that their might be something better after it ends.