Re: Yet another Jefferson quote

"1MAN4ALL" <forahmad@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:forahmad@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote in
message news:1143944103.516293.189470@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The Chozen Few wrote:

Whether all-able or all-powerful or both, God (*if* He exists) *could*
prevent all evil. In fact, how could evil even come into existence unless
God (ditto) wanted it to happen? And *why* did He want that?

Those were both rhetorical questions, btw.

You once again ignored my point that "all-powerful" or "all-able" does
not mean that God also exercises that power.


Again, I don't ignore it -- I simply disagree that it's relevant to whether
an all-able, all-knowing God is *responsible* for the evil in His/Her/Its
creation.


I think you now agree but
don't want to acknowledge it, so let's move on.


Whether or not *you* move on, my disagreement still stands.


Your two question are
1). If God can prevent evil, why doesn't He do so? And 2). Why does God
want evil to exist? Let me ignore the part about "rhetorical" and treat
these as actual questions.


Not surprising that you would be presumptuous enough to try to answer
questions about God's motivations.


The answer is very simple: God does not prevent evil because life is a
test of one's character and actions.

[22.53] So that He may make what Satan casts a trial for those in whose
hearts is disease and those whose hearts are hard; and most surely the
unjust are in a great opposition,
[22.54] And that those who have been given the knowledge may know that
it is the truth from your Lord, so they may believe in it and their
hearts may be lowly before it; and most surely Allah is the Guide of
those who believe into a right path.

God would assist you in whatever you want. If 'you' choose good, you
would be guided; if you choose evil, even in that endeavor you would be
helped, until it would be clear to you that evil leads to death and
destruction. As Quran says, "[43.36] And whoever turns himself away
from the remembrance of the Beneficent God, We appoint for him a Satan,
so he becomes his associate.

Now the question is, why would God want that? The answer is the same:
Life is a test.


I'm sure that for a small child, slowly dying under a pile of earthquake
rubble is quite a test.


Okay, but putting people through challenges in life is not unkind.

Here's a "challenge" for you:

http://www.easypersian.com/Iran_earthquake_pictures/earthquake_photos.htm


I'll grant that the young lady in the bottom photo doesn't seem to be
suffering much, though.

As I stated in one of my recent posts, God has created death, which is
passage to another existence, and He has created numerous ways which
bring about death. Death, by itself, is not a "punishment" or God being
"unkind". In some cases, it's a blessing. You must have watched the
comedy movie, "Death Becomes Her," starring Meryl Streep and Goldie
Hawn, in which two women find immortality treatment and no matter what
injuries they suffer, they don't die. That was hilarious.


Much more hilarious than the small child slowly dying under a pile of
earthquake rubble, I agree.


For the survivors, however, natural calamities are challenges,
opportunities to learn, a time to rebuild, and a natural outcome of
unpreparedness.

In
case you are confused, kindness does not necessarily mean moral
guidance or being unjust to favor somebody.

In case *you* are confused, a major earthquake in a city is evidence that
God is certainly *not* kind to all people.

See my comments above.


Ditto.


If you see a homeless
person on a road and give him some money, you 'are' being kind, even
though you could try to persuade him to change his lifestyle.
Similarly, as a judge, you can be kind and sympathetic towards a
convicted criminal and still sentence him to death, hoping that by
paying for his crime he would another chance in the next life.

Which leaves wide open the question of how eternal torment can possibly
be a
justly deserved fate for any human being, no matter how criminal and/or
depraved.

As I promised, I would address it in another thread.


If you're referring to your most recent post in the "Mad Scientist Analogy"
thread, I'm also responding to that there. Here I'll just again mention Sura
4:56:

"Those who reject our Signs, We shall soon cast into the Fire: as often as
their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for fresh skins, that
they may taste the penalty: for Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise."

Whether or not that "penalty" is actually eternal or only indefinitely
repetitive, I don't believe that a righteous and compassionate deity would
even torture someone like Hitler or Stalin in such a way, much less a common
disbeliever.


Both your and my argument is based on the premise that God exists.

No, mine in this context has been based (*very* hypothetically) on the
premise that the God of *some* parts of the Quran exists.

If He exists for some parts then He exists for all parts!


You can't even prove that He exists for *any* part, much less that He
exists for *all* parts.

As I have stated many times, that kind of "proof" has to do with
trust, consistency and personal experience. The things that are truly
provable are a priori, which are all abstract and based on reason
alone, such as 2+2=4. Everything else is dependent on a posteriori
knowledge and therefore, ultimately, unreliable. What's achievable in
this world, with our limited perspective, is not "proof" but
'sufficient' evidence, which is highly subjective, For example, if
am broke but still thanking God for His blessings and then suddenly
find a $10 bill right on my prayer mat, which is enough to get me
through one more day before the next paycheck, that is sufficient proof
that God exists. For you it wouldn't be; it would simply be a
coincidence. The universe that I see through my pinhole you cannot see
unless you stand where I stand.


If you want to believe that anyone can see "sufficient proof" of something
or someone as unlimited as God allegedly is through your "pinhole" or any
other, that's obviously up to you. But I don't consider that to be a
rational belief, even (or maybe especially) if the "anyone" was a medieval
desert warlord.


Okay by me, but that would take the discussion well outside the
context
of
the Quran, or any parts thereof.

Into what context would you put it in?

Epistemology.

But that by itself would not satisfy you as you would once again be
faced with the choice of accepting a posteriori knowledge as sufficient
or insufficient in proving the existence of God.


My objective is to be rational, not satisfied.


Let me ask you: If I propose to you that all criminals in your
correctional facility be turned over to people like Gandhi and Mother
Teresa, what would your answer be?

My answer would be that they'd both probably be incompetent to run a
prison,
or would soon be fired even if they were competent. Though I've never
known
any prison staff as evil as some I've seen in movies, I've also never
known
any worthy of mentioning along with Gandhi and Mother Teresa.

Then I guess you are conceding that Gandhi and Mother Teresa were fit
to help only certain kind of people.


What I'm "conceding" in this context is that some people are *probably*
beyond helping even by the likes of Gandhi and Mother Teresa, at least in
this life. But fortunately such criminals are a relatively small percentage
of the population throughout most of the world nowadays (though they may
well have been relatively much more prevalent in medieval Arabia). And
whatever their relative numbers may be in any milieu, again, I don't believe
that even they (much less people whose only "crime" is to be disbelievers in
God) deserve the kind of after-life punishment promised in some parts of the
Quran.


I have done some work for prisons,
including one juvenile facility, and I know that granting or denial of
privileges, and in some cases, fear, are powerful and necessary tools
in corrections.


Wherever I've worked, we've generally been able to manage even the worst
offenders without threatening to roast them repeatedly (again see Sura
4:56).


That is why almost all religions have a doctrine of
rewards and punishments to keep their adherents on a straight path. The
point that I am making is that although one can appreciate the great
humanitarian work of Gandhi or Mother Teresa, the contributions of
teachers, policemen, judges, and prison guards are just as important.


And to think, I've never even carried a pitchfork. ;o)


Regarding your question, I am sure every Muslim country has
philanthropists and aid workers who have done much for suffering
humanity. They are not well known in the West but it doesn't mean
that they don't exist.

They're also not well known to you, evidently.

I live in the US, so my knowledge of great humanitarians,
philanthropists or aid-works in Muslim countries is very limited. But I
was able to find one on the Internet who I think would meet your
expectations:

Abdul Sattar Edhi of Pakistan
http://www.telmedpak.com/ngos.asp?a=Edhi_Foundation
http://pakistan.wikia.com/wiki/Edhi_Foundation

He probably has done 100 times as much as Mother Teresa but because he
is a Muslim, I don't think you will ever hear about him in the
mainstream American press.


Certainly among the greatest of men, no matter how great or little his fame
may be. But apparently being a Muslim *woman* is an even greater impediment
to fame, since the two links you provided didn't even mention Bilquis Edhi,
his wife and career partner:

http://www.jazbah.org/bilquis.php

Karsturba Gandi has never gotten much notice either, but she was reportedly
a much less willing and active partner than Bilquis in her husband's
endeavors, at least in the beginning.

In any case, WRT to his Muslim homeland, Abdul Edhi has said, "our
whole system needs to be changed. What can be expected from a nation that
has no conscience, no morals left? We lack the ability to seek the truth and
show goodwill to others. We have not progressed even one step since
independence. What we need is a welfare system like Britain's or Canada's.
All the industrialists have rummaged this country on one pretext or the
other. Nobody has done anything for the nation. First of all, we must do
away with the Hudood ordinance which is very discriminatory against women.
As far as the Shariat Bill is concerned, it should not be implemented under
any circumstances. The women is this country are already exploited and face
much discrimination."

http://www.themodernreligion.com/women/w_pak.htm

A note above that article states, "Below you will read what happens to a
nation when they do not rule by what Allah has revealed." Maybe, but that
doesn't explain why Edhi finds Britain and Canada (who also don't rule by
what Allah has allegedly revealed) to be superior WRT their governmental
provisions for their needy citizens, nor why Edhi was speaking against the
Shariat Bill.


But it's an interesting topic and perhaps I
or somebody else should do some research and highlight contributions of
these people.


I'll take that to mean you also can't think of any Muslim worthy of
mentioning along with Gandhi and Mother Teresa.


See above.

In what way is your "mad scientist" same as what is depicted in
Quran? Compare your description with the 99 attributes of God given in
Quran.

My description may be found earlier in this thread, and I won't bother
repeating it. Below are the attributes which I think are most obviously
applicable (from the list at http://www.jannah.org/articles/names.html):

**************************

Al-Jabbaar (The Compeller, The One that nothing happens in His Dominion
except that which He willed).

Al-Bari' (The Evolver, The Maker, The Creator who has the Power to turn
the
entities).

Al-Musawwir (The Fashioner, The One who forms His creatures in different
pictures).

Al-Khaafid (The Abaser, The One who lowers whoever He willed by His
Destruction and raises whoever He willed by His Endowment).

Ar-Raafi^ (The Exalter, The Elevator, The One who lowers whoever He
willed
by His Destruction and raises whoever He willed by His Endowment).

Al-Mu^iz (The Honorer, He gives esteem to whoever He willed, hence there
is
no one to degrade Him; And He degrades whoever He willed, hence there is
no
one to give Him esteem).

Al-Muthil (The Dishonorer, The Humiliator, He gives esteem to whoever He
willed, hence there is no one to degrade Him; And He degrades whoever He
willed, hence there is no one to give Him esteem).

Al-Mughni (The Enricher, The One who satisfies the necessities of the
creatures).

Al-Maani^ (The Preventer, The Withholder).

Ad-Daarr (The Distresser, The One who makes harm reach to whoever He
willed
and benefit to whoever He willed).

An-Nafi^ (The Propitious, The One who makes harm reach to whoever He
willed
and benefit to whoever He willed).

**************************

You can do the comparisons yourself, or not.

I tried but frankly I don't see the relevance, especially if you
include other attributes that you have omitted.


As I said, the mad scientist in my analogy only resembles the God of *some*
parts of the Quran. I fully agree that he doesn't resemble Al-Ghafoor (the
All-Forgiving) or Ar-Ra'uf (the Compassionate). But then, the God who will
allegedly roast disbelievers over and over again in the afterlife (again see
Sura 4:56) doesn't resemble those attributes, either.


If you really can't see the contradiction between passages like 2:256
("...And Allah guideth not those who reject faith") and 81:29 ("But ye
shall
not will except as Allah wills..."), I don't know anything I could
possibly
say to improve your vision.

2:264 says:

[2.264] O you who believe! do not make your charity worthless by
reproach and injury, like him who spends his property to be seen of men
and does not believe in Allah and the last day; so his parable is as
the parable of a smooth rock with earth upon it, then a heavy rain
falls upon it, so it leaves it bare; they shall not be able to gain
anything of what they have earned; and Allah does not guide the
unbelieving people.

And 81:29 says

[81.29] And you do not please except that Allah please, the Lord of the
worlds.

I don't know how many times I have to explain to you that God's
refusal to guide or to 'seal' somebody's heart comes AFTER that
person's refusal to listen to reason. Quran describes very clearly
WHEN God places a "seal" on somebody' heart:

You can "explain" it as many times as you like, but that still won't
change
the plain meaning of other passages in which human will is portrayed as
being utterly dependent (either for good or bad) on God's will.

And you can refuse to acknowledge as many times as you want but the
fact remains that God is alluding to the 'system' that He has
created not to specific acts for which you keep finding Him
responsible. As I keep stating, the Holy Quran has to be viewed
holistically, not sum of individual verses which one can interpret
independently. Otherwise, you would be led astray.


Before the parts of something can be interpreted holistically in a
*rational* way, they must be clearly seen for what they are *as parts*.
Otherwise, the holistic interpretation is likely to be no more than an
elaborate edifice of wishful thinking and hypocritical apologia.


[63.2] They make their oaths a shelter, and thus turn away from Allah's
way; surely evil is that which they do.
[63.3] That is because they believe, then disbelieve, so a seal is set
upon their hearts so that they do not understand.

So first you need to understand that God seals a person's heart ONLY
after that person has turned away from the truth. The "seal" is NOT
set upon their hearts PRIOR to their wrongdoing or turning away.

Verse 81:29, I already explained, has many interpretations but if you
read it with couple of lines before it, it would be obvious that Quran
is a "reminder" for those choose to be guided and once they have
made that decision----they believe---God allows that to happen.


Okay, here's 81:27-29:

"Verily this is no less than a Message to (all) the Worlds:
(With profit) to whoever among you wills to go straight:
But ye shall not will except as Allah wills,- the Cherisher of the
Worlds."

Again, "explain" all you like, but the meaning is plain.

The question you need to ask is, What does Allah will? As I stated
earlier, God's guidance is a form of 'subscription,' which can be
cancelled for non payment of proper attention. Let's say that you
want Hotmail. By just wanting it---willing it---you you are not going
to get it! Microsoft has to agree to give it to you, and if you don't
it use for some time, your account would be cancelled, even though you
had willed that it remain open. Similarly, when you will to "go
straight" (to find proper guidance), God has to agree, or be willing
(depending on your sincerity), to give it to you, and if you are not
making use of that guidance, it would be withheld from you--your
heart/mind would be 'sealed'. That's all it means. You are deriving
meaning which doesn't fit the context.


As much as Microsoft has alienated me on occasion, nowhere in any of its
user manuals have I found any threat to repeatedly roast those who don't
believe in the company and comply with its instructions. If you want to
call such threats in the Quran "guidance," that's obviously up to you. But
even *if* I believed in the deity depicted in such parts of the Quran, I
*still* couldn't worship it without losing all respect for myself, nor can I
see why anyone else would worship it except out of fear of the threatened
consequences for not bowing down and sucking up.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Mohammad Sidique Khan was not clever
    ... >>> What makes you an authority on the Quran? ... >> Neither Rock nor I, nor anyone else for that matter, needs to be ... >> would not have written anything so evil as the Koran (we can read ... I don't know any better than you if God begat a son or not. ...
    (uk.religion.islam)
  • Yet another Jefferson quote
    ... For somebody to complain that God should have stopped ... him or her from committing evil is a silly excuse and contrary to the ... as an alternative analogy. ... different from *some* of the ways that the Quran claims that God uses His ...
    (alt.religion.islam)
  • A Source of Guidance
    ... irrefutable, inimitable Word of God. ... Prophet himself had no role in authoring the ... Quran, he was merely a human secretary, repeating the dictates of the ... Whoever seeks guidance ...
    (sci.energy)
  • A Source of Guidance
    ... irrefutable, inimitable Word of God. ... Prophet himself had no role in authoring the ... Quran, he was merely a human secretary, repeating the dictates of the ... Whoever seeks guidance ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • A Source of Guidance
    ... irrefutable, inimitable Word of God. ... Prophet himself had no role in authoring the ... Quran, he was merely a human secretary, repeating the dictates of the ... Whoever seeks guidance ...
    (misc.fitness.weights)