[Split] Bible discussion split from Iranian woman to be stoned for adultery

[spiteface]

I should add, it refers to an ostrich egg I believe.

[oilyfan]

Originally Posted by spiteface

Very nice of you to make assumptions. You seem like a neutral person to converse with... But allow me to reply to you:

"The heavens, We have built them with power. And verily, We are expanding it" (51:47). This is not just a small sentence, and if you think so, then so be it.

The Holy Quran states too, that the earth is roundish in shape. Flat? No, it states this earth is vast and spread for the humans, but it specifically states the shape of the earth as almost egg-shaped, which is in fact true.

The word "expanding" only appears in the English translation, read it in arabic and it is nowhere near that connotation. Are you just spouting information that you have been told by somebody, maybe try to do some original research?

Also if Mohammed had this information so much earlier than anyone else how come it did not come to light till scientists proved? He didnt do a very good communicating the word of god then.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by spiteface

I think to make an assumption of how this universe shall end is not fair as we cannot say with 100% certainty what can or will happen, when it does happen.

Nothing is apsolute certainty but I live my life under things that I can see, are probable and most likely. I believe there is a .99999% chance that there's a smart alien race out there but I give it very little chance of me meeting one.

I just feel sorry for people who live there lives for religious gods because there's a .99999% chance you'll never meet one dead or alive.

[spiteface]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

The word "expanding" only appears in the English translation, read it in arabic and it is nowhere near that connotation. Are you just spouting information that you have been told by somebody, maybe try to do some original research?

Also if Mohammed had this information so much earlier than anyone else how come it did not come to light till scientists proved? He didnt do a very good communicating the word of god then.

I believe it comes form the arabic root word Wa-Sa-'Aa, meaning space or create space.

Islam believes that there are different layers of meaning in the Quran, which contain different depths of knowledge. Some of this knowledge is starting to show now with the improvement in technology.

[oilyfan]

Originally Posted by spiteface

I believe it comes form the arabic root word Wa-Sa-'Aa, meaning space or create space.

Thanks for making my point.

Islam believes that there are different layers of meaning in the Quran, which contain different depths of knowledge. Some of this knowledge is starting to show now with the improvement in technology.

No offense to your faith, and it is called faith for a reason, but this is very convenient. Do you really think an omnipotent god needs to sit and devise a book that will be unveiled in "layers" just so that he can test your devotion to him. Wake up, you are being conned.

[spiteface]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

No offense to your faith, and it is called faith for a reason, but this is very convenient. Do you really think an omnipotent god needs to sit and devise a book that will be unveiled in "layers" just so that he can test your devotion to him. Wake up, you are being conned.

It has meanings beyond us as humans, and if you believe in God, thats not inconceivable. After all, we are only human. We are limited in what we can learn, see, and judge. Even when we acquire more knowledge, we realize how little we have scratched the surface. The philosophers of times past have said "The more I learn, the more I learn how little I know". No one is a superhuman as evidenced from history.

Now what connotation were you referring to earlier regarding the word expansion in Arabic, as opposed to the English translation?

[oilyfan]

Originally Posted by spiteface

It has meanings beyond us as humans, and if you believe in God, thats not inconceivable. After all, we are only human. We are limited in what we can learn, see, and judge. Even when we acquire more knowledge, we realize how little we have scratched the surface. The philosophers of times past have said "The more I learn, the more I learn how little I know". No one is a superhuman as evidenced from history.

Now what connotation were you referring to earlier regarding the word expansion in Arabic, as opposed to the English translation?

I can see where this goign so I will save you some time. You believe that there is complex and "higher" meaning to everything in the Quran. So no matter what I say you will come back with something like "you can't comprehend the meaning of this because there are many things about this world that we don't understand". That my friend is not the scientific method, so lets not try and pretend that a book written by a man who believed that eating pork is going to make you "unclean" actually wrote a prescient book.

Lets move on, if you want to live in your fantasy world, go ahead.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by spiteface

I should add, it refers to an ostrich egg I believe.

Apparently an ostrich egg will average 15 centimeters long and 13 centimeters wide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostrich_Egg#Reproduction

This gives an relative flattening of ~13%.

The World Geodetic System reference ellipsoid (the 1984 version of which is used by GPS) has a relative flattening of ~0.335%. That's a pretty big difference depending on which standard you're holding the ostrich egg comparison up to.

If an ostrich egg is what you're comparing the shape of the earth to, it would be much more accurate to just call it a sphere.

[spiteface]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

I can see where this goign so I will save you some time. You believe that there is complex and "higher" meaning to everything in the Quran. So no matter what I say you will come back with something like "you can't comprehend the meaning of this because there are many things about this world that we don't understand". That my friend is not the scientific method, so lets not try and pretend that a book written by a man who believed that eating pork is going to make you "unclean" actually wrote a prescient book.

Lets move on, if you want to live in your fantasy world, go ahead.

Move on? Where are you going? :P

Serioulsy, why not just answer my question? You initiated the debate between us regarding the meaning of expansion and now you will not clarif your statement.

Your reply about the knowledge contained in the Quran is not pertinent to the argument at hand. But you spin it to sound like I have some brainwashed automated response anyways. Respectfully debate instead of "seeing" where this is going...

[spiteface]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Apparently an ostrich egg will average 15 centimeters long and 13 centimeters wide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostrich_Egg#Reproduction

This gives an relative flattening of ~13%.

The World Geodetic System reference ellipsoid (the 1984 version of which is used by GPS) has a relative flattening of ~0.335%. That's a pretty big difference depending on which standard you're holding the ostrich egg comparison up to.

If an ostrich egg is what you're comparing the shape of the earth to, it would be much more accurate to just call it a sphere.

The ostrich egg and the earth are both spheroid.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

And you keep characterizing my comments in the absolute. I stand by my assertion that in most cases, the ultimate and underlying causes for the majority of human conflicts are political or economic.

"Almost every" and "most" don't mean the same thing. If you don't want to be characterized as being absolute, don't tend that way.

As far as the rest of it goes, my views on human nature are tangential to the this discussion and would require pages of discourse beyond what people are likely to tolerate. So let's agree to disagree on the question of whether polieconomics is the basis of war.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by spiteface

The ostrich egg and the earth are both spheroid.

Except one gets it's "round" look from spinning under gravitational forces and the other gets it's "egg" shape from being pushed from a canal.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by T@T

Except one gets it's "round" look from spinning under gravitational forces and the other gets it's "egg" shape from being pushed from a canal.

Actually at least with chicken eggs they have that shape before they come out. Also, the shape of eggs can differ by quite a bit. They are not as uniformly shaped as you find in a store. I would imagine that egg shapes would be even more varied in the wild.


To argue that the shape of an egg isn't close enough to the shape of the earth to be an accurate description is silly.

[photon]

Originally Posted by spiteface

Islam believes that there are different layers of meaning in the Quran, which contain different depths of knowledge. Some of this knowledge is starting to show now with the improvement in technology.

Going back and finding something that means something different in light of new technology or new social circumstances isn't anything special, you can do that with any text. Passages that don't mean anything new in the new light will continue to not mean anything new, and passages that happen to fit in a new context will do so. But that's like a stopped clock being right, just because you happen to find something doesn't mean that it was written that way.

The earth was known to be round long before the Qur'an was written.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by spiteface

The ostrich egg and the earth are both spheroid.

Sure, but that's being retrospectively choosy about the accuracy standards of the statement.

Both could be said to have pitted surfaces, both are three-dimensional, both have hard shells and various layers of different materials on the inside. Wow, now that you mention it, the earth is a lot like an ostrich egg.

Looking at it another way, if it was just meant that they were both spheroids, why specifically an ostrich egg? Why not something more closely comparable to what the earth is actually shaped like?

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Actually at least with chicken eggs they have that shape before they come out. Also, the shape of eggs can differ by quite a bit. They are not as uniformly shaped as you find in a store. I would imagine that egg shapes would be even more varied in the wild.

If there's such a variance, then why was the earth compared to an egg in the first place? There's only one earth and it has a unique shape at any one point in time.

Was it just supposed to go without saying that it was meant that eggs and the earth are both spheroids?

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

To argue that the shape of an egg isn't close enough to the shape of the earth to be an accurate description is silly.

It's not silly at all. There are plenty of purposes for which approximating the shape of the earth to that of an egg (ostrich, chicken, platypus or otherwise) just won't do. If it was just accepted that the earth is the shape of an average ostrich egg, the 08:00 from Calgary to New York JFK ends up in rural Maine and the sewer main under the road in front of your house ends up being built under your lawn.

[Mr.Coffee]

Woah.. stepped away and there were some good responses.

Originally Posted by Roast Beef

People care so much because it a fundamental belief. It shapes and guides their lives. It's nothing like having a favorite color or a favorite hockey team. It's much deeper than that.

I disagree. Perhaps on a smaller scale, my belief in whatever my favourite colour is or whatever my favourite hockey team does actually impact my decisions and actions which does shape and guide my life. Religion does too, perhaps for some on a larger scale but why the push to get others to believe what you believe? I think the answer is more in Cheese's post below which I will get to shortly.

Originally Posted by GGG

I don't know if this is true anymore if you live in a first world country and are not homosexual. So for some people the effect is quite great but for the majority someone elses religion and religious institutions does no affect their day lives.

I think it is akin to discussing politics. Really if you vote conservative and support them or you vote liberal it doesn't make a difference especially if you never change who you vote for as elections are decided on the margin. And really whoever is in power doesn't affect our day to day lives. I might pay $50 a month more or less in taxes and the economy might grow by 1% more or less but the direct effect on my life is rather minimal.

The reason I think it is discussed so much is that everyone thinks they are right and that the views is ardently defended. It is not so much the effect on people's lives but the percieved attack on a person's way of life.

People don't like being told what to do or what to believe. People want the freedom to choose and to come to this without being forced. Most religions force people to choose.

Originally Posted by Cheese

Nope, I tend to disagree. I think that people are passionate about this discussion because it does effect our every day lives. (Moreso outside of Canada, but here nonetheless)
The US has a large group of passionate Christians who use their power and money to affect law and order in any way they possibly can.
Canada and Europe have their own issues with a large influx of Muslims starting to push their influence. (moreso Europe, but making inroads here)
No one would care one iota if they kept to themselves, if they practiced what they preached, and did not attempt to force their views on the rest of society.
Unfortunately religions have a job to do, bring more people into its confines, or perish. The Mormons do a great job of this and others work in their own mysterious ways.
None of this is percieved...its out in the open and quite clear.

So it is about power, really. The elite having control over the populace so that their standard of living is higher, because of the power that religion can have. If this is what you're saying, I agree, BUT, what I don't understand is why we sit around and debate about something we cannot change in our counterpart's belief system. You know you can't change what I believe, why do you continue to bemoan the issue? What are YOU trying to achieve? Will it give you peace for me to agree with you? Isn't the world a better place having all kinds of different beliefs?

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

And I'm willing to take on the beliefs and values of the Christians the same way that I take on the Conservatives and Republicans (though the three overlapping circles would hardly be distinguishable).

To get back to Mr. Coffee's question, I have no problem with people having their faith, be it Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, or Jewish. I, myself, am Pastafarian. To each their own.

My issue, as per above, is when they try to influence policy. Last week we had two gay marriage threads. Most of those opposed to giving gays the same rights as heterosexuals were by and large religious people. And their primary justification has nothing to do with reason or logic. It's "this book written thousands of years ago says these people are sinners". You can't debate that. It's virtually impossible to reason with those that have built their values solely around an old book.

Favorite colours or favorite flavour ice creams do not impact public policy on the environment, human rights or social justice. Therefore I don't care.

If it wasn't religion, it would be something, some motive, that would guide policy and you probably wouldn't be happy with that either. That's human nature. Unfortunately, humans are in politics and guide policy.

Frankly, I think our society has done a bang up job progressing. Look at what we've achieved in the last 100 years, religion notwithstanding.

[spiteface]

Originally Posted by photon

Going back and finding something that means something different in light of new technology or new social circumstances isn't anything special, you can do that with any text. Passages that don't mean anything new in the new light will continue to not mean anything new, and passages that happen to fit in a new context will do so. But that's like a stopped clock being right, just because you happen to find something doesn't mean that it was written that way.

The earth was known to be round long before the Qur'an was written.

I never claimed that the Quran was the first text to state the earth is round(ish). I was responding to a poster who claimed that Islam says the earth is flat.

I was initially referring to expansion of the universe, which is stated in the Quran.

[spiteface]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Sure, but that's being retrospectively choosy about the accuracy standards of the statement.

Both could be said to have pitted surfaces, both are three-dimensional, both have hard shells and various layers of different materials on the inside. Wow, now that you mention it, the earth is a lot like an ostrich egg.

Looking at it another way, if it was just meant that they were both spheroids, why specifically an ostrich egg? Why not something more closely comparable to what the earth is actually shaped like?

Because, it is a description that the people at the time of the prophet can relate to...

[Thor]

Originally Posted by HOZ

1. Marriage is not a right
2. Threads are not policy.
3. Grow up. People form policy ON THEIR BELIEFS. Go figure. Disqualifying someone due to their beliefs is a far greater crime than debating same sex marriage from a Christian/Muslim/Jewish/Atheist/Zoroastrian perspective.

You don't see the irony in your statement? Does Religion hold a special privileged to be sheltered from debate, criticism, mockery?

I just find it odd that you who passionately debates politics, global warming with great zeal to be telling people debating religious issues to 'grow up.'

Especially since no one has ever been suggesting denying people a right to their beliefs, this debate is all about debating and challenging those beliefs and putting them to the test in a modern world.