Dear Grateful,

The word 'tafsir' appears to correspond with the similar Hebrew word for "pleading", but without sufficient access to the Arabic source, I am not in a position of issuing my own tafsir, so unfortunately I must draw my conclusions from the studies of others.

I was impressed by the references that you provide here from time to time, which I eagerly listen to.
I am impressed by the way that Islam helps millions of ordinary and normative Muslims to grow closer to God.
But I was also impressed by the scholarly knowledge and forensic depth of Spencer, which I watched many hours of.

I am not impressed with Spencer's tone and mockery, especially in his later presentations, but I cannot turn a blind eye to the evidence he exposes regarding the Quran and Hadith.

Fortunately I also have a third source of information: The 19th-century saint, Shri Ramakrishna, turned his life into a laboratory to experiment and prove the validity of all religions. After practising and validating the various practices of all Hindu and Buddhist sects, he also validated Christianity and Islam. This enquiry culminated in his holy vision of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.

http://www.techofheart.co/2007/08/sri-sri-ramakrishna-paramahansa-sufi.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Views_on_Ramakrishna#Islam

This assures me about the authenticity of the Prophet and leads me to reject Spencer's view that "Muhammad didn't exist".

But as far as the Koran is concerned, the dichotomy remains and I could not be convinced that it does not call for violence, hence my conclusion that the Koran does not represent and in fact distorts the true words of the Prophet. Undoubtedly one’s drawing near to Allah is through following His rulings, but does the Quran represent Allah's ruling? I'm afraid not.

In my view, due to the harsh social realities of the Middle-East, the ancient and authentic tradition of Sufism, to survive among the violent tribes who abuse Allah, had to pay the Quran lip-service, including its violent/inauthentic parts. I applaud this practical approach that in effect allows Sufism the freedom, uncommon in that region, to follow Allah and His Prophet rather than a man-made book.

grateful, Friday, 6 May 2016 12:28:45 AM:

In your post to David, you write: "I guess what I'm saying is that culture is evidence of a spirit that is distinct from its temporary abode in the form of our material bodily forms."

Can you establish a logical connection between spirit and culture? Is spirit synonymous with soul?

[a] Art is an expression of an active creative imagination. The same imagination that can foster musical composition or compose a great novel. That same imagination that can lndulge in creative inference, follow a path of reasoning to solve a qestion/problem, that can observe, predict and hypothesise. Science is the realm of the active creative mind. Humans are naturally curious, as are many of the "higher" mammals, and satisfying that curiosity is something our minds, our imaginative processes, derive much pleasure doing. Our abilities in the arts reflect our imaginations seeking expression, seeking activity, seeking satisfaction. Are crossword puzzles necessary for our material well-being? Would you read a John Le Carre novel for the purpose of enhancing your material well-being or to derive satisfaction from connecting with another creative mind?

[b] As for Robots; Much thoughtful and intelligent science fiction has been written about this subject. The great physicist Isaac Asimov is just one of several prominent authors. Some of the relevant issues are raised in the movie I ROBOT, starring Will Smith. The question of robot culture is one fraught with tantalising unknowns. Would a machine built of inert materials like steel and ceramics learn "culture" the instant it was created? It could of course be programmed but would that be a genuine aboriginal robot culture or would it be one that a human committee believed it should be? The other end of the spectrum requires robots to produce young who will grow up in a "culture" much as humans do but essentially separate from them and in a robot family in a robot society with all the essential services and perhaps a separate economy.
Somewhere in between the two extremes there might be progress but where would you like to start

.

Dear Dan S de Merengue,

.

You wrote :

« Which of the 'gospel' truths do I have in mind? Any or all of them. Open any page, and you will find reliable information concerning the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. »
.

I respect your religious beliefs, Dan, but please do not expect me to accept the self-contradictions of the gospel narratives as “reliable information”.

The contradictory accounts of the discovery of the empty tomb after the crucifixion of Jesus are a good example :

There was an earthquake, and an angel came down and rolled the stone away (Matt. 28:2) from the entrance of the tomb and sat on it, even though it had apparently already been rolled away when Mary Magdalene got there (John 20:1, Mark 16:4, Luke 24:2). The reason for the visit was to anoint the body with spices (Mark 16:1, Luke 24:1) or just to look at the tomb (Matt. 28:1.

When she or they arrived, she/they witnessed the earthquake and angel coming down from heaven (Matt. 28:1), or they walked into the tomb to discover a young man dressed in white sitting on the right (Mark 16:5) or two men in bright shining clothes (Luke 24:4).

So the woman or women ran from the tomb to tell the disciples (Matt. 28:8) or they left, too terrified to say anything to anyone (Mark 16:8).

Mary Magdalene saw Jesus appear to her and decided he'd been resurrected (John 20:14-18). Or the women, having left the tomb and thinking things over, were sure that Jesus' body had been stolen, so they tried to bribe the soldiers guarding the tomb to tell them where the body had been taken (Matt. 28:11-15) …

Not only are these accounts muddled, confused and contradictory, their historical authenticity has never been established.

Presenting them as “reliable information” could be construed to be dishonest.

Belief in the gospel narratives is an act of faith, whether it be on your part or on the part of anybody else – the African Christian mission or your Catholic friends.

.

Dan

I’d hesitate to take any of the Pentateuch literally. There could well be germs of historical truth behind the stories of the flood, founding fathers and exodus, but these have been embellished and interpreted over time. Geology tells us there was no worldwide flood (though there have been large floods that could be the basis for the story). Archaeology tells us there was no exodus of hundreds of thousands of people from Egypt to Israel, and that Jewish culture almost certainly evolved in Palestine. The Pentateuch is mostly foundation stories, and very powerful ones, but not literal history.

But yes, there is a clear switch of genre between Genesis 3 and 4. The Eden story is generally classified as myth (in the formal sense of a literary genre, not the colloquial sense of an untruth). That it is not a historical or literal account has been recognised for centuries. Augustine and Philo of Alexandria both described the Genesis creation stories as allegory.

The sharp divide between fiction and history, in our current culture is a product of the enlightenment. We have gained a lot from it, but also lost something too. To quote Crossan again:

“What if those pre-Enlightenment minds were quite capable of hearing a metaphor, grasping its meaning immediately and its content correctly, and never worrying about the question: Is this literal or metaphorical? Or, better, what if they knew how to take their foundational metaphors and stories programmatically, functionally, and seriously without asking too closely about literal and metaphorical distinctions?”

That is why I accused Don of torturing both science and theology. He is trying to reconcile biblical and scientific accounts of creation, and it cant be done.

Dear Rhian,

I enjoyed and like your last response to Dan.

I would like to strengthen your statement: "He [the author] is trying to reconcile biblical and scientific accounts of creation, and it cant be done."

Even if this COULD be done (and at least one scientist, Dr. Gerald Schroeder, claims that he can), still one should not attempt it.

The purposes of science and religion are diametrically opposed: science is supposed to bring us worldly success whereas religion is supposed to wean us of our addiction to the world. What need have we and of what value would it be if a bunch of materialists worship a materially-based, scientifically-proven god after being convinced with clear evidence that doing so would help them achieve their material aims? Wouldn't this amount to idolatry?

Dear Yuyustu

Thank you, I agree with almost all of your post, and certainly the part about idolatry.

I think we may partly differ on materialism, though. One of the central messages of the first Genesis creation story is that god pronounces creation to be “good”, several times. Unlike, say, some Greek thought, which saw the physical world as base and evil while the spiritual was pure and good, the Judeo-Christian tradition affirmed that the material world is good and valuable, and human thriving is possible and desirable in a material sense. I think that’s why John’s Gospel places so much emphasis on Jesus as the Word “made flesh”. And why Archbishop William Temple famously called Christianity the “most materialistic” of religions.

This may be one of the more important distinctions between Christianity and Buddhism, for example, with its goal of detachment.

This is not in any way to endorse some modern manifestations of materialism, that see the purpose of life as consuming goods and services, and where social status depends on wealth and power