*emphasis mine*BountyHunterSAx wrote:I believe that the copy I have is word-for-word identical to the 'copy' that God revealed. I do not believe that the Qur'an EVER was to be interpreted 100% literally. And I base this 'disbelief' on the fact that the Qur'an includes a verse that specifically states some verses are 'muhkamaat' and others are 'mutashaabihaat'. Without delving too deeply into translation and arabic word-roots, this verse is saying some verses are 'clear' in meaning and others require interpretation/are not. If you were analyzing the Qur'an literally, you'd have to conclude you were doing it wrong; hence my belief that it's a mix. So the direct answer would be 'yes' this is exactly the copy that God wanted.
So, you have a "word-for-word" copy of what God revealed, yet some verses still need interpretation. This begs some questions.
1. Who is suited to interpret the verses that are not to be taken literally?
You? Every reader of the Qur'an? Some highly "enlighted" priest?
2. Who determines which verses need interpretation and which are to be taken literally?
3. Isn't it unfair of God, to make it so confusing? Some verses yes, some no, some maybe. Isn't he letting to much chance for failure and misinterpretation, if his actual purpose was that we use his word as law?
As Muslim you do belief in the prophet Moses and the prophet Jesus Christ right? That are two + Mohamed = 3.BountyHunterSAx wrote:And as a final reason for belief: to my mind, belief in God is a larger quandary than belief in the Qur'an. More accurately - if I believe in an omnipotent yet stays-out-of-things God; then why should I doubt His ability to preserve His word?
He actually had to intervene three times to dictate laws. Do you call that "stay-out-of-things"? And what does it say about his ability to preserve his word when he needed three prophets and not one to "get it right"?
Like I said above. Doesn't it seem unjust to you, that there are some verses to be interpreted and other to take literally? Wouldn't it be easier, more effective and less prone to mistakes to do it one way?And about his ability to preserve his word, like I said he didn't just had one prophet. What makes you think he did it right with Mohamed and not with the other two?BountyHunterSAx wrote:I believe in God's ability to do this; and I see no incentive for Him NOT to preserve His word. To judge people for their success or failure in obeying His commands and following Him; and then to simultaneously provide them an erroneous holy book.....well I at least feel that would be unjust.
My fault, I meant both things, error or corruption.BountyHunterSAx wrote:If by that you mean 'do i belive there has been a window of opportunity in which human error could have occurred'? Sure I do. But things don't 'magically' forget themselves. Human error is different from intentional corruption; which would be more likely.
For example, how can you know that Mohamed didn't made it all up, you were fooled and the true word of God is what Moses said? And that is just an extreme assumption. But there could be so many chances for corruption in little laws.
How can logic overcome faith, if faith can't be reasoned? The only way to defeat faith is try to find a common ground to discuss upon, that ground being backing up your claims with PROOF, also called burden-of-proof. But guess what, faith is defined by not needing any proof, that's why it's called faith.BountyHunterSAx wrote:Faith overcoming doubt =/= Faith overcoming logic. And if it is, then someone help me redefine these terms or show me how that's the case. You can have doubt where something is not provable nor disprovable. Where, in fact, we have no means whatsoever to even attempt an analysis of any sort. Logic does not dictate that we believe ANYTHING about such an object. The rules of debate and argument dictate that we should treat it as not there till we can prove it (ie: burden of proof is on the claimant), but if my heart 'feels' it then I would be logical in having faith in it. That is, if and only if I believe my heart to not be in error at the time.
I think logic overcoming faith is a good thing. But for that to happen, the logic has to be able to disprove the faith, not simply put the burden-of-proof on the faith. Putting the burden of proof on the one with faith is sufficient to tell him, "Stop preaching since you can't prove shit". But for logic to overcome faith, you have to show that the thing the person has faith in necessarily cannot be, or necessarily violates logic to believe in. I don't think that faith in the unseen is necessarily illogical if you have some reason to believe that the unseen exists.
If you don't think Santa Clause exists, you are not "doubting" his existence, you are just applying logic. That is why it's logic (proof) vs faith, because they are both the opposite. Even a religious people can doubt some things, dogmas and so on. Mostly this doubts will start when you actually start using logic.
As for feeling the truth with your heart. How come you have this sixth sense and a lot of people don't. Then it's like God's own fault for not providing us all with this sixth sense, it would be like God talking to me when I am deaf. Even if other guy is writing what he says, it's not the same, because I had not only to believe God but that other guy too, don't you think.
Now, my question to you. Even if believing in God is illogical, but let's say that you feel him, so it's true to you. It's even more illogical by lengths that you believe in a religion made by PEOPLE that are prone to mistakes.
