That is between the creator and creation. Let god take care of her is he/she is offended. What gives other creations the authority to judge her?
Tuahaa, the concept of Vishnu in Hinduism is that the universe started as a point and then exploded into the current state. That is what is now believed in science with the big bang theory. But do you see Hindus stating that our texts are scientific or the authority on science? Name one country that uses any of the religious books instead of physics, chemistry and biology in their curriculum. And then let us see the current state they are in, and you will see a correlation.
Of course- you should be proud as a Hindu that your religious says such things. After seeing Zakir Naik's lectures (yes, I am referring to him again), he does refer to Hindu text a lot to relate it to Islam (no intention to offend again, but a lot of his audience are Hindu and a lot convert so its natural he uses these links)- so I will believe that Hinduism may have, at its
very roots, may have a bit to do with the Abrahamic religions.
Also, I made the distinction between science books and religious books very clear earlier. Science books are to teach science, Qur'an has some mentions of science to prove its point to later generations which will put a lot of emphasis on these things. I think I can safely say Zakir Naik wouldn't have made half the conversions that he has without referring to science in the Qur'an.
No country uses Qur'an as a science book; it uses science books as science books, and Muslim countries and all Muslims view Qur'an as a book of guidance. Furthermore, as a further guidance for Muslims, Qur'an puts a lot of emphasis on knowledge so that we may thrive- Muslims are lacking behind a lot because they're not following this. During the Islamic golden age, a lot of very important scientific discoveries and inventions were made by the Arabs, Turks and the Persians of the once-great Islamic empire. Do you understand what I'm trying to say?
If you want to prove it otherwise with evidence, and not just a "my religion says this - so it is what it is", I promise that I will believe you. And don't post some random youtube stuff which shows how religion concurs with science in one particular instance. It needs to be an objective debate.
I had this debate on another thread and I quoted verses from the Qur'an about science and gave explanations from my own words... but not successfully, it didn't seem to get across properly
Valid point if your curriculum has been taken over by the religious zealots. But as long as it still follows the hypothesis-proof-theory-fact cycle, you should be fine.
You don't need to be literate for hearsay knowledge. It was probably a popular belief back then. Most religions are exactly that - making people aware of social customs, and using religion to drive home certain "moral of the story". The instrument of "god" is just to bring a certain level of authority to the text. Unfortunately, people in power (read: priests etc.) who were so full of the religious texts and had no other standing in society, made religion non-negotiable so they can retain their power and make other people follow whatever they said.
Yes, (no offense to Christians), priests back then 'edited' their books to get power. Muslims have no figure to speak for them- Imams are just volunteer community workers and prayer leaders, but they aren't representatives of our religion.
The Geeta is not a standalone book. To understand the "science" in Hinduism, you need to have knowledge of the Vedas. Zakir Naik might have some idea of the Geeta, but certainly has no knowledge of the 4 books.
He quoted other Hindu books too when I was at his lecture...
Where is the logic in that argument? We can accept your belief if you say it is only your faith. But if you get into "right vs wrong", it can get into weird territory. Doesn't that show how faith is so intolerant, while science is exactly the opposite?
No offense meant, but he might be trolling a bit.
---------- Post added at 09:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:43 PM ----------
What ever he was is past..he is not a muslim now. And the debate was not about shia vs sunni
Ali = Muslim name, see history of Islam
Sina = not uncommon Iranian name, I think- I am assume he's Shia. I'm probably wrong, but no doubt he's a Muslim...
... that's science for ya. Regarding self-respect... I don't really care for that matter.
... easier on both of us, we 'waste' less time.
