Spiritual vs. physical

Jesus is the only prophet in the Quran who does not confess his sins-in Sura 19:19 Jesus is called the holy son, without sin, faultless, pure and righteous by his own nature.
Unlike Jesus, Muhammed often confessed his sins-Suras 40:55; 47:19; 48:2. Prophet Muhammed confessed his own inability to know the end of his work or to know the fate of his followers.Note this--
Sura 3:55 (Al-Imran) - "Allah said, Isa (Jesus), I am about to cause your term on earth to end and lift you up to Me. I shall take you away from those who disbelieve and exalt your followers above them till the Day of Resurrection."
Sura 3:45 (Al-Imran) - "The angels said to Mariam (Mary): 'Allah bids you rejoice in a Word from Him. His name is al-Masih (Messiah), Isa the son of Mariam. He shall be noble in this world and in the next, and shall be favored by Allah.'"
And the Quran says that he was resurrected-Also in Sura 19:33 (Mariam) Jesus is quoted as saying, "So peace be on me on the day I was born, and on the day I die; and may peace be upon me on the day when I shall be raised to life."Sura 5:68 (Al-Maida) - "Say: 'People of the Book, you stand for nothing until you observe the Torah and the Gospel and that which is revealed to you from your Lord."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
I'm not entirely sure I agree with this statement (hey, there's always a first time for everything...)

---

No way man!!!!!

quote:

---

Would you define your terms ("true idealized altruism") a bit more?

---

I have no quarrel with partially altruistic behavior, or even behavior strongly weighted towards altruism; what I don't believe is that humans ever do things purely for the (perceived) good of others. An example, my mom would do anything in her power to save my life if I were in danger; and be happy about it. The emotion of happiness is an end in itself, even if only partial motivation for her actions.

quote:

---

There's pretty strong inference for the adaptive value of altruism for gregarious species - especially humans with their complex cultural as well as biological structures. The more complex the social behaviors/interractions, the more likely altruism is to be manifested.

---

I know what you mean, but these things just don't strike me as being altruistic ultimately, but merely superficially. Basically, it boils down to survival of progeny. We call self-sacrifice 'altruism' in the 'higher' animals but what about ants? Is the fearless defense of the mound altruistic too, or just hardwired behavior? The survival of the queen is the survival of the worker's DNA, even if ten-thousand die to save her life.In primates the behavior is more complicated, but it still revolves around survival of progeny and hence, of your own DNA-- colloquially called "one's blood" or "family line" or "freakin' leeches" Humans mix in 'love' and 'compassion' but basically, it is the same old thing. With complex social interactions you may get several layers removed from direct defense of one's offspring. In some primates (most even), for example, paternity is often questionable, hence defending the whole group is defending one's offspring.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

Lets see...Q19:19
Qala innama ana rasoolu rabbiki li-ahaba laki ghulaman zakiyyan.
YusufAli: He said: 'Nay, I am only a messenger from thy Lord, (to announce) to thee the gift of a holy son.The verse is about God's announcement to Mary about the birth of Jesus, a holy son (ghulaman [son] zakiyyan [pure]).How about this?
4:171
Ya ahla alkitabi la taghloo fee deenikum wala taqooloo AAala Allahi illa alhaqqa innama almaseehu AAeesa ibnu maryama rasoolu Allahi wakalimatuhu alqaha ila maryama waroohun minhu faaminoo biAllahi warusulihi wala taqooloo thalathatun intahoo khayran lakum innama Allahu ilahun wahidun subhanahu an yakoona lahu waladun lahu ma fee alssamawati wama fee al-ardi wakafa biAllahi wakeelanYusufAli: O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not 'Trinity' : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs.Clearly stated. Jesus was a prophet, and, not the Son of God.9:30 (might be offensive)
Waqalati alyahoodu AAuzayrun ibnu Allahi waqalati alnnasara almaseehu ibnu Allahi thalika qawluhum bi-afwahihim yudahi-oona qawla allatheena kafaroo min qablu qatalahumu Allahu anna yu/fakoona.YusufAli: The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!5:171
Laqad kafara allatheena qaloo inna Allaha huwa almaseehu ibnu maryama waqala almaseehu ya banee isra-eela oAAbudoo Allaha rabbee warabbakum innahu man yushrik biAllahi faqad harrama Allahu AAalayhi aljannata wama/wahu alnnaru wama lilththalimeena min ansarin.YusufAli: They do blaspheme who say: 'Allah is Christ the son of Mary.' But said Christ: 'O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.' Whoever joins other gods with Allah,- Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help.Also check 5:17 and 5:72 which is all about the same.I won't comment on that. Ask the Author Himself.About Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)
40:55
Faisbir inna waAAda Allahi haqqun waistaghfir lithanbika wasabbih bihamdi rabbika bialAAashiyyi waal-ibkari.
YusufAli: Patiently, then, persevere: for the Promise of Allah is true: and ask forgiveness for thy fault, and celebrate the Praises of thy Lord in the evening and in the morning.The verse is not about Prophet Muhammad's sins (if he had any) but God's command to humans to ask for forgiveness.47:19
FaiAAlam annahu la ilaha illa Allahu waistaghfir lithanbika walilmu/mineena waalmu/minati waAllahu yaAAlamu mutaqallabakum wamathwakum/
YusufAli: Know, therefore, that there is no god but Allah, and ask forgiveness for thy fault, and for the men and women who believe: for Allah knows how ye move about and how ye dwell in your homes.Same context and words, and note that the verse contains a message of Tauhid--Unity of God.48:2
Liyaghfira laka Allahu ma taqaddama min thanbika wama taakhkhara wayutimma niAAmatahu AAalayka wayahdiyaka siratan mustaqeeman.
YusufAli: That Allah may forgive thee thy faults of the past and those to follow; fulfil His favour to thee; and guide thee on the Straight Way;This verse was revealed after the takeover of Makkah, and it is also aimed at Muslims in general.Error 404 (Not Found)!!1
Page Not Found
Was Prophet Muhammad a sinner?

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
No way man!!!!!

---

Hey, it could happen.

quote:

---

Q: Would you define your terms ("true idealized altruism") a bit more?

​

J: I have no quarrel with partially altruistic behavior, or even behavior strongly weighted towards altruism; what I don't believe is that humans ever do things purely for the (perceived) good of others. An example, my mom would do anything in her power to save my life if I were in danger; and be happy about it. The emotion of happiness is an end in itself, even if only partial motivation for her actions.

---

Okay, I think I see where you're coming from. It really is a question of how you think about the particular behavior(s). It's possible to consider biologically-determined "altruistic" behavior in the context of selfishness (through Triver's reciprocal altruism, f'rinstance), or from an altruistic gene standpoint (a la Hamilton and Wilson, et al) where kin selection determines the amount of cooperation (basically altruism) between organisms in the same aggregate or population. IOW, you can consider the behavior "selfish" from the point of view of the gene or the one doing the behavior, or "altruistic" from the point of view of the beneficiary.Bird alarm calls are an excellent case in point. If a predator approaches a flock of blackbirds, for example, the bird who first sights the predator gives an alarm - in spite of some risk to itself. Why?1. The alarm call may cause the caller’s neighbors to either aggregate or act nervously, thus actually drawing attention away from the caller. (selfish organism, with individual payoff)2. The call may discourage prey from a pursuit by alerting it that it has been spotted and has lost the element of surprise. (selfish organism, with individual and group payoff - inadvertent altruism)3. Alarm calling might reduce the probability of later attacks by the same predator, if a predator is more likely to hunt a particular species of prey that has given it success previously. (selfish organism, with group payoff)4. An individual might give an alarm call if those benefited are likely to return the favor in a form a reciprocal altruism. (altruistic/selfish organism - individual payoff)5. Alarm calling might evolve if prey populations consisted of multiple groups with differing proportions of individual with alarm calling tendencies as a result of group selection. (altruistic organism, group payoff - IMO the weakest possibility 'cause it presupposes group selection)6. Although a caller jeopardizes its own life in the face of immediate danger, if its neighbors consist of relatives, the call may aid in their escape, thus increasing the caller’s inclusive fitness. (selfish gene, payoff is to specific gene/group of genes)For humans, the biological basis for any behavior is often overridden or modified by culture. Once you get to a certain level of social and especially cognitive complexity, the ability to communicate abstract concepts makes it easy to see how altruism in man could have evolved through kin selection. Early human groups were almost certainly composed mainly of close kin. Also, through language and an increased mental capacity, early man had a much greater ability than other primates at not only recognizing kin, but also at distinguishing between subtle differences in degrees of relatedness.Besides kin selection, the rise of reciprocal altruism is key. Humans have all the necessities for reciprocal altruism a la Trivers: long-lasting relationships, an increased memory to distinguish reciprocators from non-reciprocators, and a method of punishing non-reciprocators. A number of sociobiologists even claim that some of our more complex emotions may have evolved to improve upon or as an outgrowth of the system of reciprocal altruism. For example, gratitude and sympathy could increase your chances of receiving altruism by implying an increased chance of reciprocation, while guilt serves to discourage the non-reciprocator and may cause you to find some way of demonstrating that you'll plan to reciprocate in the future (the Tit-for-Tat or Iterated Prisoners Dilemma theory).Anyway, reciprocal altruism in humans is probably a good starting theory for understanding why someone would jump into the water at the risk of their own lives to save someone to whom they're not even related. It's really just an extreme example of #4, and probably arose from that.

quote:

---

Q: There's pretty strong inference for the adaptive value of altruism for gregarious species - especially humans with their complex cultural as well as biological structures. The more complex the social behaviors/interractions, the more likely altruism is to be manifested.

​

J: I know what you mean, but these things just don't strike me as being altruistic ultimately, but merely superficially. Basically, it boils down to survival of progeny. We call self-sacrifice 'altruism' in the 'higher' animals but what about ants? Is the fearless defense of the mound altruistic too, or just hardwired behavior? The survival of the queen is the survival of the worker's DNA, even if ten-thousand die to save her life.

---

Yeah, hymenoptera are cool. Actually, the ant's probably a bad example. In the first place, you're dealing with a relatively simple organism with a very limited repertoire of hard-wired behaviors. In the second, ants (and bees) are haplodiploid, meaning that you can take kin selection (Hamilton's Rule) in its purest form to show why a worker is willing to sacrifice itself for the hive. After all, a worker (all female) shares 75% or more of its genes with its sisters, and only 50% with its mother! A strong case could be made that the mutual defense of the hive or nest is based on defense of its genetic sisters, not necessarily their collective mother. OTOH, since the workers are non-reproductives, the only way to insure their genes replicate at all is to insure the mother survives (this would be like #6 above). I wouldn't consider this altruism, per se. The altruistic behaviors, at least in eusocial haplodiploid organisms, is more likely an extreme form of kin selection (carried to its logical conclusion).

quote:

---

In primates the behavior is more complicated, but it still revolves around survival of progeny and hence, of your own DNA-- colloquially called "one's blood" or "family line" or "freakin' leeches" Humans mix in 'love' and 'compassion' but basically, it is the same old thing. With complex social interactions you may get several layers removed from direct defense of one's offspring. In some primates (most even), for example, paternity is often questionable, hence defending the whole group is defending one's offspring.

---

You won't get much argument from me, except on the highlighted bit. And that's just a quibble - you're completely correct in the case of bonobos, for example. However, several chimp societies and babboons (IIRC) practice infanticide when a change in leadership takes place. The new dominant male wants to insure that the group is protecting HIS infants. It depends a lot on how strongly hierarchical the society is. As far as group protection, I think that may relate more to territoriality than protecting the infants. I could be wrong, of course.[/B][/QUOTE]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
You won't get much argument from me, except on the highlighted bit. And that's just a quibble - you're completely correct in the case of bonobos, for example. However, several chimp societies and babboons (IIRC) practice infanticide when a change in leadership takes place. The new dominant male wants to insure that the group is protecting HIS infants. It depends a lot on how strongly hierarchical the society is. As far as group protection, I think that may relate more to territoriality than protecting the infants. I could be wrong, of course.

​

---

Ah yes, our furry cousins are great fun.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

Because in a compter assisted science the transiton from a physicality to a microminature spot through an information flow post 9-11 makes MORE objective reality of religions than less as the poles seem to have shown yet this technicality is often left to side of a macromolecule that only the die-hard c/e afficonadios audio.

quote:

---

Originally posted by hiddenexit77:
why do people always say that the spiritual is more important than the physical? i just don't get it. what do people REALLY mean when they say "spiritual", anyway? and when they say "physical" are they referring to the senses in general? if so, i live for the physical rather than the spiritual, and i'm not ashamed of it whatsoever.

---

I would surmise that you really cannot have one without the other ... that they coexist together. The spiritual affects the physical and vice versa. Can we really separate them?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chara:
I would surmise that you really cannot have one without the other ... that they coexist together. The spiritual affects the physical and vice versa. Can we really separate them?

---

Seperate? We cannot even find the one of them.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:Seperate? We cannot even find the one of them.
[/B][/QUOTE]What? John, you're still looking for your physical body?

---

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chara:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by John:Seperate? We cannot even find the one of them.
[/B][/QUOTE]What? John, you're still looking for your physical body?

---

[/B][/QUOTE]This is a substanceless reply. Surely you can do better?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by Chara:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by John:Seperate? We cannot even find the one of them.
[/B][/QUOTE]What? John, you're still looking for your physical body?

---

[/B][/QUOTE]This is a substanceless reply. Surely you can do better?[/B][/QUOTE]You're absolutely right ... it was a small joke, but it made me smile. As far as doing better, probably not. All of you are too smart for me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chara:
You're absolutely right ... it was a small joke, but it made me smile. As far as doing better, probably not. All of you are too smart for me.

---

Well, don't go away, just be sure to periodically post 'all of you are sooooo smart....!'------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:Well, don't go away, just be sure to periodically post 'all of you are sooooo smart....!'
[/B][/QUOTE]I walked right into that one didn't I?

[QUOTE]

quote:

---

by Quetzal:
Would you define your terms ("true idealized altruism") a bit more?

---

quote:

---

by John:
I have no quarrel with partially altruistic behavior, or even behavior strongly weighted towards altruism; what I don't believe is that humans ever do things purely for the (perceived) good of others. An example, my mom would do anything in her power to save my life if I were in danger; and be happy about it. The emotion of happiness is an end in itself, even if only partial motivation for her actions.

---

you say you don't believe "humans *ever* do things purely for the (perceived) good of others"... this implies that humans don't do anything with another's good as the motive... then you mention your mother and the happiness she'd receive from saving your life... i agree she'd be happy about that, but by equating the result of an altruistic action with the action itself, you seem to lessen the importance of the motive... what you wrote would make sense if you were saying that your mother saved your life in order to be happy... her own happiness would be the motive, not her love for you...so whether or not your mom would be happy has nothing to do with the altruistic act involved... if she was willing to sacrifice her own life for yours, the motive for that action would be altruistic or it wouldn't be... the result has no bearing on that... she didn't save your life with any end in mind, she saved it because she loved you... your good, not hers...

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
you say you don't believe "humans *ever* do things purely for the (perceived) good of others"... this implies that humans don't do anything with another's good as the motive...

---

No it doesn't. It implies exactly what I said, that people don't do anything purely -- keyword-- for the good of another.

quote:

---

i agree she'd be happy about that, but by equating the result of an altruistic action with the action itself, you seem to lessen the importance of the motive...

---

Lessen the importance of the motive? What does that mean? The motive is the spark that lights the fire. Me thinks you are spkiking the brew with some value judgements.

quote:

---

what you wrote would make sense if you were saying that your mother saved your life in order to be happy... her own happiness would be the motive, not her love for you...

---

Ah, and now you've got it!!!! I am saying that this is a definite component of the hypothetical motivation to save my life.

quote:

---

so whether or not your mom would be happy has nothing to do with the altruistic act involved...

---

I see a conclusion here but no premises or argument. It just came out of nowhere.

quote:

---

if she was willing to sacrifice her own life for yours, the motive for that action would be altruistic or it wouldn't be...

---

Really? Is altruism an all or nothing affair? Is it impossible to do something partially for the good of another?

quote:

---

she didn't save your life with any end in mind, she saved it because she loved you... your good, not hers...

---

And you know this how?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com