"religion"タグの名言

Allaah subhanahuu, rejects those who refused Allaah’s Shareeah; the laws that are good for the Muslims; the laws that forbid what is evil. Allaah rejects those who follow laws of personal desires and who adopt laws of Kufr such as the laws enforced by the Tartars who were under the control of Gengiz Khan, their king. These laws were a mixture of Judaism, Christianity and laws chosen by their king that suited his desires. Should we prefer these laws to the Sharee`ah of Allaah and His Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam)?

If one knew the truth how could there be freedom? If hell and paradise were in the middle of the marketplace, everyone would be a saint.

I tell you as well as myself: what we see with our own eyes is nothing other than a cloud concealing what we should perceive with our inner sight, while what we listen to with our ears is merely a ringing sound disturbing what we should understand with our hearts. When we see a man being taken to prion by a police officer let us not hasten to assume he is a wrong-doer. When we see a corpse, and a man standing beside it with bloodstained hands, let us not conclude that this is a victim and his assassin. When we hear one man singing and another lamenting, let us ascertain which one of the two is truly happy.

هناك علاقة طردية بين تصور بعينه للدين وبين حجم القوة التي يوفرها للقائمين علي توظيفه سياسياً؛ وأعني أنه كلما كان الدين حرفياً وقطعياً يكون مقدار القوة التي يقدمها لهؤلاء الساعين إلي التخفي وراءه أكبر- بما لا يقاس- من تلك التي يوفرها لهم حين يكون موضوعاً لتفكير مفتوح. ويرتبط ذلك بحقيقة أن قطعية الدين وحرفيته تكون هي الأكثر مثالية في إخضاع الجمهور وقهره؛ وأعني من حيث لا يكون متاحاً له، في إطارها، إلا محض التسليم والامتثال من دون جدل أو سؤال. وإذ يقوم دعاة الإسلام السياسي بتثبيت هذا التصور القطعي للدين علي أحد المفاهيم الشائعة المستقرة في وعي الجمهور؛ وهو مفهوم القطعي الثبوت والدلالة، فإنه يلزم التنويه بما يقوم عليه هذا المفهوم من مراوغة تسوية قطعية الثبوت مع قطعية الدلالة، وذلك فيما ينتمي الثبوت إلي مجال التاريخ الذي يغاير بالكلية مجال المعني الذي تنتمي إليه الدلالة. وبالطبع فإنه لا يمكن التسوية أبداً بين ما ينتمي إلي مجال الثبوت التاريخي، وبين ما ينتمي إلي مجال المعني الدلالي؛ وبمعني أنه في حين أن أحدا لا يجادل في يقينية ثبوت القرآن؛ وبما يعنيه ذلك من إمكان- بل وجوب- التأكيد علي قطعية ثبوته، فإنه لا يمكن القول بقطعية دلالته ومعناه، لأن ذلك يعني وجوب القول بأحادية الدلالة والمعني؛ وهو ما لا يمكن لمسلم أن يقبله بخصوص القرآن.

Sin is a gravitation.

There is no unmoving mover behind the movement. It is only movement. It is not correct to say that life is moving, but life is movement itself. Life and movement are not two different things. In other words, there is no thinker behind the thought. Thought itself is the thinker. If you remove the thought, there is no thinker to be found.

Tell me something. Do you believe in God?' Snow darted an apprehensive glance in my direction. 'What? Who still believes nowadays?' 'It isn't that simple. I don't mean the traditional God of Earth religion. I'm no expert in the history of religions, and perhaps this is nothing new--do you happen to know if there was ever a belief in an...imperfect God?' 'What do you mean by imperfect?' Snow frowned. 'In a way all the gods of the old religions were imperfect, considered that their attributes were amplified human ones. The God of the Old Testament, for instance, required humble submission and sacrifices, and and was jealous of other gods. The Greek gods had fits of sulks and family quarrels, and they were just as imperfect as mortals...' 'No,' I interrupted. 'I'm not thinking of a god whose imperfection arises out of the candor of his human creators, but one whose imperfection represents his essential characteristic: a god limited in his omniscience and power, fallible, incapable of foreseeing the consequences of his acts, and creating things that lead to horror. He is a...sick god, whose ambitions exceed his powers and who does not realize it at first. A god who has created clocks, but not the time they measure. He has created systems or mechanisms that serves specific ends but have now overstepped and betrayed them. And he has created eternity, which was to have measured his power, and which measures his unending defeat.' Snow hesitated, but his attitude no longer showed any of the wary reserve of recent weeks: 'There was Manicheanism...' 'Nothing at all to do with the principles of Good and Evil,' I broke in immediately. 'This god has no existence outside of matter. He would like to free himself from matter, but he cannot...' Snow pondered for a while: 'I don't know of any religion that answers your description. That kind of religion has never been...necessary. If i understand you, and I'm afraid I do, what you have in mind is an evolving god, who develops in the course of time, grows, and keeps increasing in power while remaining aware of his powerlessness. For your god, the divine condition is a situation without a goal. And understanding that, he despairs. But isn't this despairing god of yours mankind, Kelvin? Is it man you are talking about, and that is a fallacy, not just philosophically but also mystically speaking.' I kept on: 'No, it's nothing to do with man. man may correspond to my provisional definition from some point of view, but that is because the definition has a lot of gaps. Man does not create gods, in spite of appearances. The times, the age, impose them on him. Man can serve is age or rebel against it, but the target of his cooperation or rebellion comes to him from outside. If there was only a since human being in existence, he would apparently be able to attempt the experiment of creating his own goals in complete freedom--apparently, because a man not brought up among other human beings cannot become a man. And the being--the being I have in mind--cannot exist in the plural, you see? ...Perhaps he has already been born somewhere, in some corner of the galaxy, and soon he will have some childish enthusiasm that will set him putting out one star and lighting another. We will notice him after a while...' 'We already have,' Snow said sarcastically. 'Novas and supernovas. According to you they are candles on his altar.' 'If you're going to take what I say literally...' ...Snow asked abruptly: 'What gave you this idea of an imperfect god?' 'I don't know. It seems quite feasible to me. That is the only god I could imagine believing in, a god whose passion is not a redemption, who saves nothing, fulfills no purpose--a god who simply is.

I need just be a bayonet, a bayonet named Diving Punishment. I wish I'd been born a storm. Or a menace. Or a single grenade. No heart, no tears, just as a terrible gale'd have been good. If [by doing this] I become that, then so be it.

It's better to have a million small religions with each one containing a great truth. Than one great religion containing a million small truths.

The Theist tells us that the truth is god exists, the Atheist tells us that the truth is there is no god, while the truth tells us we don't know.

The best proof that He will never cease to love us lies in that He never began.

Со своей стороны, я предпочитаю онтологическое доказательство [существования Бога], космологическое доказательство и остальной старый запас аргументов той сентиментальной нелогичности, которая берет начало от Руссо. Старые доказательства были по крайней мере честными; если они правильные, то они доказывали свою точку зрения, если они неправильные, то для любой критики доступно доказать это. Но новая теология сердца отказывается от доказательства; она не может быть отвергнута, потому что она не претендует на доказательство своей точки зрения. В конечном счете единственным основанием для ее принятия оказывается то, что она позволяет нам предаваться приятным грезам. Это не заслуживающая уважения причина, и, если бы я выбирал между Фомой Аквинским и Руссо, я выбрал бы Фому Аквинского.

Следует признать, что имеется определенный тип христианской этики, к которому осуждающая критика Ницше может быть применена справедливо. Паскаль и Достоевский, которых он сам приводит в качестве примера, – оба имеют что-то жалкое в своей добродетели. Паскаль принес в жертву своему Богу великолепный математический ум, тем самым приписывая Богу жестокость, которая является космическим расширением болезненных душевных мук самого Паскаля. Достоевский не желал иметь ничего общего с «личной гордостью»; он согрешил бы, чтобы покаяться и испытать наслаждение исповеди. Я не стану обсуждать вопрос, насколько в таких помрачениях ума следует обвинять христианство, но я согласен с Ницше, считая прострацию Достоевского презренной. Я должен согласиться и с тем, что прямота и гордость и даже некоторое самоутверждение являются элементами самого лучшего характера. Нельзя восхищаться добродетелью, в основе которой лежит страх.

If you can't test it, it's not theorics -- it's metatheorics. A branch of philosophy. So, if you want to think of it this way, our test equipment is what defines the boundary separating theorics from philosophy.

We hold the future still timidly, but perceive it for the first time as a function of our own action.

What, more realistically, is this “mutation,” the “new man”? He is the rootless man, discontinuous with a past that Nihilism has destroyed, the raw material of every demagogue’s dream; the “free-thinker” and skeptic, closed only to the truth but “open” to each new intellectual fashion because he himself has no intellectual foundation; the “seeker” after some “new revelation,” ready to believe anything new because true faith has been annihilated in him; the planner and experimenter, worshipping “fact” because he has abandoned truth, seeing the world as a vast laboratory in which he is free to determine what is “possible”; the autonomous man, pretending to the humility of only asking his “rights,” yet full of the pride that expects everything to be given him in a world where nothing is authoritatively forbidden; the man of the moment, without conscience or values and thus at the mercy of the strongest “stimulus”; the “rebel,” hating all restraint and authority because he himself is his own and only god; the “mass man,” this new barbarian, thoroughly “reduced” and “simplified” and capable of only the most elementary ideas, yet scornful of anyone who presumes to point out the higher things or the real complexity of life.

[On Jason Mashak's book SALTY AS A LIP, as reviewed in The Prague Post:] Mashak amalgamates various national, historical and religious traditions into a myth-mash that illuminates many sects' fanatical compartmentalizing, and the fact that so many religions and philosophies share similar goals, if not roots.

It is evident as a matter of logic that, since they (world religions) disagree, not more than one of them can be true.

There is only one religion - it is a way a man dies.

Der Pragmatismus ersetzt uns alles, was früher die großen Ideen, die Ideologien und Religionen, der Glaube an Friede, Menschenrechte und Demokratie zu bieten hatten. Der Pragmatismus hält uns davon ab, zu Verbrechern zu werden, oder er macht uns zu solchen, wenn es nötig ist. Er legitimiert das Bestehen von Rechtssystem, Familie und Arbeit, er lässt uns nett sein und empfiehlt, sich ein angenehmes Äußeres zu erwerben. Nachdem wir uns aller Zwänge nach und nach erledigt haben, sorgt ein einziger Betreuer für uns: Pragmatismus.