[GJM] Religious Literalism, The Qur'an, and other Belief Systems .

[marguerite hampton]

Dear Dr. Alam, 

I return your greetings for peace and engage you in dialogue with the utmost
respect.  .  

May I suggest that not only are there many "tracts" in Christianity but in
the Islam view of religion as well.  In their book, "The Laughing Jesus"
authors: Freke and Gandy refer to Islamic Gnostics as well as Christian
Gnostics who are attempting to "set the record straight".  So we have those
from differerent cultural backgrounds who are attempting in today's world to
bring gnosis (knowledge) 
to the forefront as a viable alternative to religious Literalism.  

Let me quote a pasage written by Freke and Gandy.  "Prophets are dangerous
people because they profess to speak for God, which gives them a claim to
absolute authority.  Prophethood is a form of idolatry, because the prophet
comes to represent God in the same way as a statue.  Living prophets are far
more dangerous than stone statues, however, because prophets are people with
their own agendas.  People with a puffed up sense of their own significance,
who really believe they can tell others what God thinks. People who have
become inflated with their own delusions of grandeur and demand that they
themselves be treated like God." 

So, it has been with many of the prophets of the past. While most prophets
begin with a total reverance for God, in the end the ego takes over and
turns the relationship upside down as appears to have happened with Muhammad
as witnessed by this statement taken from the Qur'an.  :

   " One may be negligent towards God but one must be respectful toward
Muhammad. ". 

Really!!!!!!  How convenient for Muhammad to be able to make a "power play"
by aggrandizing 
himself and placing himself "above God".  What appears is that almost all
religions slip up and are replete with human foibles such as these that are
most telling. 

In view of this, Dr. Alam, it is my feeling that ALL religions must be
looked at with a questionable attitude relative to conveying "the word of
God".  And when viewed from this perspective I do believe  Dr. Chopra has a
valid point. Indeed, may I also suggest that those of us, like myself, whom 
you label "athiest", are perhaps more spiritual than those who follow
blindly and without question a prophet?   

One of the things I am forced to ask is: "How many so-called religious
beliefs are based in cultural bias?"  And, "Are cultural boundaries part of
reality or are they only figments of our imagination which mainly emanate
out of ego?"  Although many cultural beliefs may also emanate out of 
location and so-called ownership rights of land and the oil and mineral
rights which underlie it.
Which brings up the question as to "who is entitled to rights of ownership"?
 Only the few, or does the Earth belong to all of us equally?   Do we have
rights to land ownership any more than we have rights to own another person
in slavery?  

What appears to me, Dr. Alam, is that there are ethical questions and equal
rights which supercede a prophet's belief system and need be openly
discussed today.  But using the word 
of God is a convenient way for prophets to attempt to override the ethics of
God isn't it and claim for their own that which rightly belonged to the
people. 

And, it is again, my humble feelings that those of us who truly care about
achieving peace
and sustainability must be constantly vigilant in order to preserve the
ethics of God in whom 
the people may place their trust? 

Don't you agree, Dr. Alam? 

marguerite aka eco  


   
    



.          
.  


Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 23:08:45 -0800 (PST)
From: Muhammad Mukhtar Alam <mukhtaralam2000 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [GJM] Qu'ran for sorting out intra-Christian disputes
To: Discussion Forum for Global Justice
  <discussion at globaljusticemovement.net>
Message-ID: <20061124070845.64803.qmail at web31703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
 
Dear Margaret,
 
  Greetings for peace,
 
  I have got memories of reading so many tracts on anti-Church litereture
and that is the reason I suggest the need to visit the communications of God
in Qur'an. Please read the account there and I am sure a lot of
misunderstanding about the communications of God willl be removed...Qur'an
is the source of Knowledge that needs to be read by all who are discussion
the issues affecting us..
 
  I support your call for the Vatican to be more open. Deepak Chopra is not
correct in generalsing conclusions for 'religion' as he is misguided. People
need to turn to Qur'an and the authoritative sources on Qur'an with
translations by Muslims...I stress on translations by Muslims as people with
atheistic perspective tend not to see the divine origin of the
communications where no human distortions has been permitted and protection
of the verses has been taken by Allah.
 
  Atheistic routes are outrightly wrong. We can never get a consensus in
atheistic routes.
 
 
  Dr.Muhammad Mukhtar Alam
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/discussion_globaljusticemovement.net/attachments/20061124/bbd1ba72/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1431 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/discussion_globaljusticemovement.net/attachments/20061124/bbd1ba72/attachment.jpe