On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 4:32 AM, Samiya Illias <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 5:16 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 10:34 PM, Samiya Illias <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 01-Feb-2015, at 1:57 am, Platonist Guitar Cowboy < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Kierkegaard complained about this with his own Religion, the >>> Christians. Maybe all religions suffer from this as there is vanity in >>> assuming to know what god wants from us. >>> >>> >>> I believe that Quran is from God, hence I try to follow it. You ask me >>> questions and I try to answer them. Sometimes, yes, I also volunteer to >>> share some verse which I find relevant to my perspective of something being >>> discussed. Is that vanity or just sharing of knowledge? >>> >> >> Good question. >> >> If somebody keeps insisting on literal interpretation, then it's hard to >> see how they could "volunteer" things in innocent, benevolent fashion to >> enrich the varied perspectives of respected others. They have a literal >> interpretation, so they have an obvious mission, which involves forcing the >> others to see what they see. The "others" would not be respected, hence the >> relation of literal interpretation to insult. >> > > 1) I do not disrespect you or anyone else, neither in mind nor vocally. > Please know that. > Likewise. > > 2) So if Bruno is insisting on comp, is he insulting you and others on > this list? I don't think so. > He doesn't insist on comp in the sense that he advocates its literal truth in a strong sense. > If John Mikes insists on 'I dunno', is he insulting those who have faith? > I don't think so. > If Bruno and John indeed insist in strong literal sense, they would run into such problem. But Bruno appears aware of this problem and steers clear of it. > I mention them not to single them out, but to point out that it is okay to > have some convictions or not, yet it is important that one speaks one's own > truth instead of just stating things that would be pleasing to others. > 3) If you find my faith insulting to your thoughts, then why do you ask > questions from me? > Where do I insult your faith? If anything, you'll find that in previous weeks on this list, I have defended the moderate practice of Islam, and advocated rigor in non-confessional or negative theology, urging people not to generalize on other people's faith. You're blaming the messenger in that I pointed out that strong literalism is hard to reconcile with respect of others, their faith, and the freedom that you invoke in next quote: > You could simply ignore what I write. There is no compulsion on you or > anyone to read what I write. > It's hard to reconcile because how can we claim such freedom towards others, when at the same time asserting "the truth is in my literal interpretation"; i.e. limiting that same faculty in others? If this comes to close to your personal theology, I respectfully apologize, and maintain that it was/is your endeavor and choice to harmonize critical, scientific thought, with the meaning of theological writing, that brought up this question in the first place. It was therefore natural that the question of literal interpretation was reached and you have my position along with the question: perhaps we shouldn't take ourselves or some clown called PGC posting informally on these topics so seriously? After all, these letters are not from Quran, so how would PGC even have the slightest idea of what he is posting about? ;-) PGC -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
