Can anyone answer this question ? It's been bugging me reading this thread.

Was the Koran passed on to Muhammad word-for-word as the literal word of Allah ? [Assuming that there is/was an Allah, of course, for which I suppose you have to be a believer to believe that bit],

AND/OR did Muhammad write any of it ?

So which bits were passed on to this illiterate businessman in his cave, and which bits did the illiterate businessman add afterwards ?

And which bits were added after Muhammad ?

And, for good measure, which bits were already floating around in desert Arab culture long before all that, amongst the Jewish and Christian tribes, and which bits were appropriated, perhaps in a garbled form, from their religious books, the Bible and the Halacha ?

Just trying to clarify.

Joe

Joe,

What makes you think that Muhammad was illiterate?

Yuyutsu, you made a heap of assumptions in your last reply to me, all unfounded:

Yuyutsu: "Nonsense. The obsession with existence is a modern fashion. Existence was never of importance to the ancients."

Your answer (which is mere "opinion" and not even close to accurate anyway) had no relevance to what I wrote. Try again, and please keep it relevant.

Yuyutsu: "The authors of the Koran couldn't care less whether gods exist or otherwise."

And please quote me where I said they did. That's right, you can't. Why? Because I didn't say that. Come on Yuyustu, have another go.

Yuyustu: "Wishful thinking."

No, accurate, historical fact. Try reading a few history books Yuyustu. Believe it or not, an education in factual history is good for you.

Yuyustu: And what makes you believer these superstitious organisations were in fact religions?"

I see, you're now "trying" to tell us that religions aren't religions, because you've adapted a "personal" opinion and philosophy that says religions aren't religions unless they adhere to "your" moral interpretations. Poor effort Yuyustu, you'll need to try MUCH harder than that.

Yuyustu: "You do not even believe that religion exists".

Ahh, now you just "make up" what I write and post an outright lie. Of COURSE religion exists, duh!! You're now getting desperate Yuyustu.

Yuyustu: "Completely naive. Why should Muslims care whether gods exists or not? Existence is a modern concern, unknown to those tribes to begin with".

Firstly you're factually incorrect, that's just an "opinion" you hold. But more importantly, I NEVER said anything whatsoever about existence being specifically either a modern or ancient concern. You're making up lies regarding what I said, then you're arguing against those lies .... typical strawman technique. Very poor effort Yuyustu.

May May,

Yuyutsu isn't actually being as dishonest as it at first appears. He’s just speaking a totally different language to you as if you already realise that he's completely redefined the terms "god", "religion" and "existence". A Yuyutsu discussion takes years of experience and even then, he seems to drift to and fro a bit with his definitions.

Yuyutsu,

This is the type of confusion you cause when you invent your own definitions and then engage in discussion with others without clarifying what it is that you're actually talking about. It's almost as if it is a tactic used to throw discussions off when the facts become a bit too uncomfortable for you.

It all goes back to what I was saying about asserting as fact that which is not evidently true.

Dear AJ Philips,

I am happy to take your advice and henceforth call organised-systems-of-belief-related-to-gods-etc, "Schmeligion".

At times, associating with Schmeligions can support one's religion. At times it doesn't. Schmeligions, I believe, were initially formed to promote and support religion, but each one of them eventually decays sooner or later, to one degree or another. Buddha, for example, predicted that his own schmeligion will decay and its essence be lost in 500 years.

Of course, anyone can SAY that they are religious, that they are drawing closer to God, but that doesn't necessarily make it so. Of course, being religious is not black-and-white but a matter of degree.

If someone harasses women, enslaves others or chops their heads off, then I wouldn't personally believe that they are very religious. This is because I believe Patanjali, as well as experienced myself to some degree the correctness of his teachings, that non-violence or 'Ahimsa', is the first requisite of religion, without which little progress is possible.

<<And if your response is to say that they are not coming closer to God, then we’re back to one of my original points: Why are you the one who is right? By what objective standard would you make this claim?>>

I am not necessarily right. I rely on scripture and on my limited experience, but there is still the possibility that I misinterpret them. Still I take the risk, wagering everything I've got that this guy who laughs when he chops the heads of innocent people, is not a saint!

<<And if your response is to say that they are not coming closer to God, then we’re back to one of my original points: Why are you the one who is right? By what objective standard would you make this claim?>>

As above, I cannot be 100% objective, but I rely on scripture and try doing my best.

<<Here are the definitions of religion:>>

Written by outsiders, but the second, "a particular system of faith and worship" comes somewhat close, because faith and worship are effective means of coming closer to God.

(continued...)

(...continued)

<<That’s why I figured you re-define religion.>>

It's been many decades that I use 'religion' in this manner and it's used this way within the circles I frequent, It's been long since I understood that those belonging to, or even heading, an organised religion (schmeligion), are not necessarily religious.

<<It comes across as arrogant and only does your credibility damage>>

I'm trying to protect religion, not my credibility.

<<but I don’t know of anyone (other than yourself) who denies that the bad parts constitute religion too>>

My friends do and Jesus said: "Only God is truly good", so how can coming closer to Him produce any evil? Schmeligions decay and their teachings can become impure, no longer religion alone, and that's what leads to the bad parts.

<<I still don’t see what relevance other people’s brains have to do with what I said.>>

It's probably only remotely relevant now: your very first question was: "how did you rule out any of the above rational explanations for religious experiences?", so I provided an example to deny that the neurological explanation is rational. I realise that my reply was shorthand, because a complete response would take me pages upon pages and I really didn't want to go into that.

<<So by what methods have you determined that they are wrong, and you are right?>>

Common sense: if someone who considers themselves "religious" thinks that 'religion' is about belonging to (/identifying with) an organisation such as theirs, then if they're sharp and honest, they must admit that their worship of God is just a social game, contrary to what their own organisation teaches.

<<It's almost as if it is a tactic used to throw discussions off when the facts become a bit too uncomfortable for you.>>

But I have no problems with the facts, so long as it's clear they pertain to schmeligions, not to religion. I consider myself and my friends religious, not schmeligious: so long as you don't blame us of the faults of schmeligion, we have no problem.