On 05 Jun 2014, at 09:24, Samiya Illias wrote:
We also believe that though the previous scriptures have suffered
human interpolation and may have errors, the Quran ( Arabic text)
is protected, and we cannot nitpick with the it.
But you did, when asking if the Quran is correct on insect genders.
I did what? Please explain.
OK. Here is the paragraph related by "see below" above.
What are the reason to look if the Quran was correct on the gender
of bees?
If not to verify the "discourse of God"?
I know that somehow, you want to advertize us the scientific
correctness and perhaps foresee of the Quran, but that would not
been an evidence for God. Tuns of other explanation remains
possible, no more nor less "crazy" than an actual acting personal
god, like
1) Written by a gifted guy
2) Written by a Alien
3) writen by a time travellers
4) etc.
[Al-Qur'an 4:82, Translator: Pickthall] 'Do they not then meditate
on the Quran? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would
have found in it many a discrepancy.'
OK. But in which fields? Since a long time, non confessional theology
has been banned from academy. A fact which might be regrettable with
the biotechnological and theotechnological opportunities on the horizon.
Not finding a discrepancy in a theory is not an argument of veracity.
Eventually it is about what you assume publicly.
In the light of the above verse, and many other verses exhorting us
to reflect / meditate / study, I ask that we then verify using
science as our tool.
Including the theological sciences? What if the theological science
shows that in a very deeply non literal sense, those text belongs to
G* \ G. That is truth which get wrong when communicated or justified.
You compare texts like if one was 100% correct and the others are 100%
wrong. Why not try to consolidate your faith in what is common in all
texts, and be careful to not commit the sin of saying "I know the
truth". (except intimates).
I don't think texts like bibles, or Quran have the "standard" to be
compared with the kind of proposals science studied today, and I
suspect you do have an Aristotelian theology, with a creator and a
creation.
There have been others who have studied the Quran viz a viz science,
Which science? In theology most scientists believe in mechanism and
materialism, and so are "inconsistent" or "not aware of the mind-body
problem", as locally it looks like they think it is.
Sacred texts and scientific texts belongs to different genre.
and one of them was the study of the Bible and the Quran by Dr
Maurice Bucaille, prompted by the discovery of the drowned Pharoah's
body, which is mentioned in the Quran that his body had been
preserved.
One can find many links to web pages of more recent studies as well,
a few of which links I had sent earlier. However, I find that the
presentation of their findings are in assertion form, leaving many
questions unanswered. Hence, I am using a slightly different
approach of asking questions and quoting different sources with
links for reference.
I prefer not based my faith on contingent facts, interpreted in a
conception of reality which might be inconsistent with the small
amount I can understand.
Assuming computationalism (and the plotinus lexicon/definition), there
is no *last* public sacred texts, although there might be a last
private sacred text. May be even a first person plural. I don't know.
It is delicate to say, but the chance of human religion to survive the
universal machine discovery might consist in reconsidering its
partially neoplatonist origin more seriously, like some part of their
traditions did (Sufi, Cabbala, Augustin).
Good texts can genuinely help in some context, but all texts only
scratch "God's" surface and eventually become obstacle for deeper
exploration/contemplation.
You can take the following as a joke, or not, but the true ineffable
is so much ineffable that *any* proposition about it will miss the
point.
In the best case it will be ignored. In the worst case it will be
misleading.
I would certainly not claim having a definite opinion, but the
Abramanic text, IF taken literally, might commit the "blaspheme" in
asserting a factualness of the divine in the observable reality (even
if true, that is in G* / G,. If you have "seen/intuited" it you know
it is beyond all texts, and vain to communicate).
As a platonist I am already skeptical about what I see, a fortiori of
reports of what others see.
The truth is in yourself and you have to fundamentally trust yourself,
and only yourself, on "that", I think.
Bruno
Samiya
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
