Merged What the quran really says.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Kumar
Different levels can only be a reason to aurguments/fight.

I shall here forbear to make the obvious and correct comments appropriate to the given statement.

What is an aurgument??????????? I cannot find any definition on line - even in the dictionaries. In all fairness were you thinking of an auger?


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/auger

 

[acbytesla]

My question is why should we care what Quran really says? Why not the Bhagavad Gita, the Kojiki, the Zend Avesta, the Guru Granth Sahib, the Agamas, the Kitáb-i-Aqdas or the Satanic Bible?

Seriously. Why not the Lord of the Rings? One nonsense book after another. At least the Lord of the Rings was entertaining.

 

[Craig B]

My question is why should we care what Quran really says? Why not the Bhagavad Gita, the Kojiki, the Zend Avesta, the Guru Granth Sahib, the Agamas, the Kitáb-i-Aqdas or the Satanic Bible?

Seriously. Why not the Lord of the Rings? One nonsense book after another. At least the Lord of the Rings was entertaining.

If everyone was of that opinion there would be no difficulty. Baron Munchausen creates no problems for society; but his book would soon do so, if hundreds of millions of its readers persuaded themselves that it is the unerring word of God.

 

[acbytesla]

If everyone was of that opinion there would be no difficulty. Baron Munchausen creates no problems for society; but his book would soon do so, if hundreds of millions of its readers persuaded themselves that it is the unerring word of God.

I've come to the conclusion that people are morons. That man is barely smarter than chimpanzees. Time and time again, I see people gravitate to the convenient answer from someone ignorant as opposed to any idea that is view altering from the highly educated.

 

[Belz...]

Answer to my question should be just ABC of anything or of any Philosophy or of any science. Refer, one story given be me in other topic. We need to check what shall we be getting by our choice. Just walking, an old car, an intermediate car or a latest car. Everyone will have its own merits and demerits.

I'm sure this is a puzzle of some sort. Let me try something.

question just getting of anything or of any will have any science. Refer, one story check what shall we in other topic. We need to Answer to my be ABC by our choice. Just walking, an old Philosophy or of car, an intermediate car or a latest car. Everyone should be its own merits and given be me demerits.

...Damn. That sounds just as rational.

 

[Kumar]

I'm sure this is a puzzle of some sort. Let me try something.



...Damn. That sounds just as rational.

Yes, it is not rational but mine is not so irrational.

Why can't behavior of followers can be attuned in accordance to theological suggestions? Truthful= truthful, Rational=rational, Irrational = irrational

 

[Peregrinus]

Yes, it is not rational but mine is not so irrational.

Why can't behavior of followers can be attuned in accordance to theological suggestions? Truthful= truthful, Rational=rational, Irrational = irrational

You begin suggesting there might be degrees of irrationality, then try to claim irrational=irrational, a 1:1 correspondence. Of course, this would lend some tenuous credence to your obsession with A&F which has innumerable times in innumerable threads by innumerable posters been shown as a fantasy.

 

[Kumar]

You begin suggesting there might be degrees of irrationality, then try to claim irrational=irrational, a 1:1 correspondence. Of course, this would lend some tenuous credence to your obsession with A&F which has innumerable times in innumerable threads by innumerable posters been shown as a fantasy.

That was just cause and effect related not salvation/liberation of soul(A&F) related. A question pls;

What is the nature of nature and what is the nature of society/Civility? Is just violence vs peace?

 

[Kumar]

I'm sure this is a puzzle of some sort. Let me try something.



...Damn. That sounds just as rational.

A question pls;

What is the nature of Nature and what is the nature of Society/Civility? Is just violence vs peace?

 

[Peregrinus]

That was just cause and effect related not salvation/liberation of soul(A&F) related.

Suddenly, as from nowhere, just like your other blatherings, we have salvation and soul possibly linked with A&F. And there's not a shred of evidence for any of it.

A question pls;

What is the nature of nature and what is the nature of society/Civility? Is just violence vs peace?

Nature is the nature of nature. Deal with it. Society, civility, violence & peace are all human abstractions with not firm referent in reality.

 

[Kumar]

Suddenly, as from nowhere, just like your other blatherings, we have salvation and soul possibly linked with A&F. And there's not a shred of evidence for any of it.



Nature is the nature of nature. Deal with it. Society, civility, violence & peace are all human abstractions with not firm referent in reality.

Then, why can't we think that few religions are derived nature's rules, so based on nature whereas others derived Society, Civility, Peace etc. rules so based on these? Both can hold their validity even though they support violence, cruelty and other odds of nature provided nature support it?

 

[Peregrinus]

Then, why can't we think that few religions are derived nature's rules, so based on nature whereas others derived Society, Civility, Peace etc. rules so based on these? Both can hold their validity even though they support violence, cruelty and other odds of nature provided nature support it?

Name a religion based on "nature's rules." Just one. Name a religion based on civility. Just one. A religion "derived" from peace yet supports violence? Gonna get lots of Trump supporters but not much else. Whatinthehell does "hold their validity even though they support violence, cruelty and other odds of nature" mean? If anything? And just which "both" are your incoherent statements referring to? Is there some Rosetta Stone that can aid in deciphering your gobbledygook?

 

[Kumar]

Name a religion based on "nature's rules." Just one. Name a religion based on civility. Just one. A religion "derived" from peace yet supports violence? Gonna get lots of Trump supporters but not much else. Whatinthehell does "hold their validity even though they support violence, cruelty and other odds of nature" mean? If anything? And just which "both" are your incoherent statements referring to? Is there some Rosetta Stone that can aid in deciphering your gobbledygook?

I feel, you should have been able to easily understood it by my these discussions and discussions in other topic. First we need to justify, whether anything can happen beyond the nature. If no then whatever happen, done or preferred is a part of nature. So "all nature/natural" will be the absolute fact. Whether any being can do independent of nature is a big thought. Difference among different things should only depend on its level of its basis--whether prime/basic or gross, whether basic natural or gross natural(or social/civil). Both way, it still can hold validity. Moreover nature is not just one sided approach. It can support both creation and destruction for its balance.

 

[JJM 777]

Rules of nature: Kill or get killed. Eat or be eaten. Attack is the best defense.

Rules of society and religion: Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not eat human flesh. Thou shalt not attack others.

 

[Kumar]

Rules of nature: Kill or get killed. Eat or be eaten. Attack is the best defense.

Parents-children & companions relations don't do it. Nature should not be just one sided i.e toward destruction, otherwise we would have not existed.

Rules of society and religion: Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not eat human flesh. Thou shalt not attack others.

It is also not one way. Otherwise there would have been no need of police, army, weapons etc.

Whatever, main sense is, since nature and society(gross nature) can be both sided, anything on any side, can still justify in nature or in society.

 

[Peregrinus]

...since nature and society(gross nature) can be both sided, anything on any side, can still justify in nature or in society.

So, then! Once again, all bets are off.

 

[sackett]

You're paraphrasing good old Dr. Moreau!

Rules of nature: Kill or get killed. Eat or be eaten. Attack is the best defense.

Rules of society and religion: Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not eat human flesh. Thou shalt not attack others.

What is the law?

"Not to go on all fours! Are we not men?"

What is the law?

"Not to go naked! Are we not men?"

WHAT IS THE LAW?

"Not to eat meat! Are we not men?"

u.s.w. A&F. TTTT. OMFG.

 

[Kumar]

So, then! Once again, all bets are off.

Yes, probably nothing is odd.

 

[Peregrinus]

Originally Posted by Peregrinus:
So, then! Once again, all bets are off.

Kumar's reply:
Yes, probably nothing is odd.

There are three possibilities here (at least):
You're trolling.
You're playing both sides.
You have no ability to recognize irony.

Possibly all three.

 

[Kumar]

Originally Posted by Peregrinus:
So, then! Once again, all bets are off.

Kumar's reply:
Yes, probably nothing is odd.

There are three possibilities here (at least):
You're trolling.
You're playing both sides.
You have no ability to recognize irony.

Possibly all three.

Just considering both sides.