His Gift

re. Kafir (#63 or 64)

[Personally, I find the humanity of these men to be much more inspiring than their claims of divinity. Thus, people like Jesus, Mohammad, the Buddha, the Bab, Baha`u`llah, and others who exemplified compassion, justice, selflessness, and love in their lives become more influential and respected in history than other self-serving individuals like David Koresh or Jim Jones. But again, it`s their HUMANITY that sets them apart, not their claim to divinity. And in our lives, I`m sure we all know people who inspire us to love others and act selflessly - our mothers, fathers, dear friends, teachers. Do they need to claim divine inspiration for us to listen to their ideas and learn from their actions? Does it really matter if they do or don`t?]

Man, this is a spontaneous act of love at work here. I`m inspired, and reminded of something a dude named Mainonides said about 700 years ago: ``If God didn`t exist in Man, he never did exist at all.``

At the risk of sounding condescending, please let me say that I like the way you think. Well...usually. Lately.

Kafir:

Thanks for your clarification. I agree with much of what you have said in your previous response.

I do appreciate your jurrat-e-kufr. Far better than religion of paravee e kizb o raya.

BTW what is meant by ``mais je ne peux pas comprendre la perse`` ?

The reason for excluding Bhudda, was that I wasn`t sure if he ever claimed divinity in the same way as some other people on your list did. Most bhudists regard bhudism as a way of life rather than a religion or a divine faith.

As for accomodating Bhudda`s teachings within Islamic dogma, I don`t know mate! I don`t think reincarnation, for example, has any place in Islamic faith. The fact that Bhudda precedes the `seal of the prophtes`is also irrelevent.

Cheers,

Fairdinkum

Dear Jenab-e-fairdinkum,

Thanks for the compliment, mais je ne peux pas comprendre la perse.

``Apart from the fact that they all claimed some form of metaphysical or divine source of inspiration, not much else is common between Mohammad and people like Mani, the Bab, Baha`u`llah, Joseph Smith, Sun Young Moon, Jim Jones, and David Koresh. I have deliberately excluded Gautama Siddhartha (Bhudda) from the group.``

Why exclude the Buddha? Just because his claims to divine inspiration/enlightenment can be accommodated within Islamic dogma (since he precedes the `seal of the prophtes`) while the others cannot?

``Would you care to identify your particular approach or methodology you have used to arrive at the conclusion that Mohammad`s thoughts and ideas (Quran, hadiths, and his various speeches etc.), his influence on history of mankind etc., is [sic] in no way better than for example, David Koresh`s?``

I never said that Mohammad`s ideas and influence were equivalent to Koresh`s. I`m merely making the point that as mere mortals ourselves, we have no way of experiencing the divine inspiration the self-proclaimed prophets claim to have access to, so we have no way of verifying the truth of the matter. We cannot perform the experiment ourselves.

What we can do, though, is look at the lives of these individuals and determine the nature of their character through their actions and teachings. We can use our own reason and experience to determine whether their teachings are true and appropriate for own own lives. Personally, I find the humanity of these men to be much more inspiring than their claims of divinity. Thus, people like Jesus, Mohammad, the Buddha, the Bab, Baha`u`llah, and others who exemplified compassion, justice, selflessness, and love in their lives become more influential and respected in history than other self-serving individuals like David Koresh or Jim Jones. But again, it`s their HUMANITY that sets them apart, not their claim to divinity. And in our lives, I`m sure we all know people who inspire us to love others and act selflessly - our mothers, fathers, dear friends, teachers. Do they need to claim divine inspiration for us to listen to their ideas and learn from their actions? Does it really matter if they do or don`t?

Dar Jalil az Mo-allem e Bozoorgvar

Kafir:

First of all pardon me for my pathetic English. It is my second language, and given my Peela school background, I am sure you`d be kind enough to overlook my weakness.

``Sorry, but as a non-religious person, I cannot buy your distinction between `wahi` and other paranornal phenomena such as psychic prediction, UFOs, alien abductions, magic, etc. ``

Sure! You, as a non-religious, enlightened free-thinker, are not supposed to buy this kind of crap from us (religious people).

``Besides, many others throughout history have claimed access to some metaphysical or divine source of inspiration (such as Mani, Gautama Siddhartha, the Bab, Baha`u`llah, Joseph Smith, Sun Young Moon, Jim Jones, David Koresh). Why should their claims be discounted as fraudulent while those of Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, and other Quranic figures be accepted? Isn`t that intellectually unfair? ``

Well, I don`t know if regarding David Koresh or Jim Jones as being in the same class of people as Mohammad is intellectually fair?

Apart from the fact that they all claimed some form of metaphysical or divine source of inspiration, not much else is common between Mohammad and people like Mani, the Bab, Baha`u`llah, Joseph Smith, Sun Young Moon, Jim Jones, and David Koresh. I have deliberately excluded Gautama Siddhartha (Bhudda) from the group.

As an enlightened, non-religious free-thinker, and a firm believer in logic and reason, you would know that it is an important scientific concept to review multiple approaches to the understanding of something in order to arrive at a particular methodology. Having a correct method in order to discover the truth of an issue is more important than having a philosophy, or being talented.

Would you care to identify your particular approach or methodology you have used to arrive at the conclusion that Mohammad`s thoughts and ideas (Quran, hadiths, and his various speeches etc.), his influence on history of mankind etc., is in no way better than for example, David Koresh`s?

Durdana:

My friend, there is a vast difference between inadvertently saying something I didn`t mean to say, and being a hypocrite. As for my dislike of doctors; on the contrary, there are many doctors in my family and I have the greatest respect for them. But it is through them and other friends who are doctors that I know just how human, and fallible, doctors are. Mistakes happen all the time. I refer you to last Sunday`s cover story of the Dawn Magazine, which describes a pitiful situation in the mental health field in Pakistan. And such problems are not restricted to Pakistan alone.

Kafir:
I am far too impatient a person to teach English to anyone!

Hi Kafir,

(er.. is `Hi` allowed on this forum? Haven`t seen it used before)

(re. #58)

[I predict that you will all enroll in a remedial English class taught by PM and Bina (that is, if they don`t scratch each other`s eyes out before you get to diagramming sentences...)]

Fun-nee!. Really! But, as a matter of fact, I happen to like Bina Shah the writer. Okay, her last bit of u-ing didn`t wash with me, but hey, Pobody`s Nerfect, right!?

re.

[There`s a lot of evidence out there to suggest that there`s truth to the matter. If time is an illusion, then the future, present, and past coexist and may be accessible to some faculty of the human mind that we have not yet discovered. Of course, this is all conjecture (from someone very ignorant of physics), but it`s worth thinking about, no?]

Accuse me of being pedantic again, buddy, but see, you can`t use metaphysics (the ``Time is an Illusion...`` bit) in an attempt to scientifically (even wholly theoretically) lend credence to those arguments of time travel etc. Sure, it`s worth spending endless hours of reverie on, and the mere contemplation of the fourth-dimension thingy is enough to give you an intellectual high, but that, I think, is as far as it can go. For now.

Hey, like every die-hard sceptic, I`m (inwardly) waiting to be proven wrong. I`d LOVE to believe in the supernatural-- miracles, time-travel, honest Pakistani politicians.

re. Durdana (#57)

(Phew!). Thanks. Got away lightly.

regards

PM

Re: fairdinkum et al.

Sorry, but as a non-religious person, I cannot buy your distinction between `wahi` and other paranornal phenomena such as psychic prediction, UFOs, alien abductions, magic, etc. All are based on the testimony of the person(s) experiencing the phenomenon and cannot be confirmed by third parties. The rest of us `non-initiated` ones just have to take their word for it (or not). Your elevating `wahi` to some surperior, divine status is purely based on your particular religious convictions and not on any reasonable argument.

Besides, many others throughout history have claimed access to some metaphysical or divine source of inspiration (such as Mani, Gautama Siddhartha, the Bab, Baha`u`llah, Joseph Smith, Sun Young Moon, Jim Jones, David Koresh). Why should their claims be discounted as fraudulent while those of Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, and other Quranic figures be accepted? Isn`t that intellectually unfair?

Re: PM

I agree with much of what you say. I, too, believe that all phenomena fall within a natural law, but the reason so many of them seem inexplicable is because we haven`t broadened our understanding of natural law enough to encompass them. As for predicting the future, I wouldn`t be so quick to dismiss such occurrences as hoaxes. There`s a lot of evidence out there to suggest that there`s truth to the matter. If time is an illusion, then the future, present, and past coexist and may be accessible to some faculty of the human mind that we have not yet discovered. Of course, this is all conjecture (from someone very ignorant of physics), but it`s worth thinking about, no?

Re: all

I predict that you will all enroll in a remedial English class taught by PM and Bina (that is, if they don`t scratch each other`s eyes out before you get to diagramming sentences...)

P.M.& BINA # 54,

```` This was meant to show that David might not actually be a candidate for

medication/therapy after all...``

Thats rules OUT about any form of medical intervention Bina,how do you support your`` not having totally,categorically ruled out treatment``,or words to that effect, etc.,`` I did not mean to say that David categorically needed NO therapy

or medication. I mean to say that the doctor should not have jumped to ....

You also harbour for some reason resentment against doctors whom you assume to be less inteligent than a writer like you.I realize doctors make mistakes but thanks to there higher selection process & no dearth of brain in this field,these mistakes are very few (a low % compared to probability of frequent mistakes)and they happen due to work load & not due to lack of knowledge nor due competence, far above us ``amateures``.

P M since your negligence didnt harm a critical patient & for the first time you were right to repeatedly point the hypocricy in her(Binas) writing,so for that you are pardoned with honorable discharge!

Oops, let me clarify what I meant - and what Studebaker and PM have pointed out - that my comments about the symptoms of many different illnesses was not as clear as it should have been.

Given David`s many symptoms which were only maybe one or two of the symptoms of OCD, anxiety, personality disorder, etc., I did not mean to say that David categorically needed NO therapy or medication. I mean to say that the doctor should not have jumped to quick conclusions and given him a pill (remember it`s never stated what medication he`s given) on the basis of just one meeting. I guess I wanted to say that many practitioners don`t observe the rules of diagnosis as carefully as they should.

A careful psychologist or psychiatrist would recommend therapy sessions as well as medication only if the symptoms persisted for several weeks or months.

The fact that David turns out to not have a mental disease (well...apart from thinking that he`s psychic, of course :) is the happy luck of fiction. And probably not well born out in real life... but then again, it is just a story!

Sorry for the confusion!

re. Bina:

(#9): ``This was meant to show that David might not actually be a candidate for medication/therapy after all...``

I`m afraid this doesn`t aquare well with your `clarification` in post #55. Not to me anyway.

regards,

re. Durdana (#53)

``P.M.urf Sabia Ahmed,YOU ARE TOO LATE & TOO LITTLE!``

Guilty as charged! When is sentencing, Ms. Torquemada??

regards,

P.M.#51,52

Patrick ,you must have been exhausted from your record breaking post recently to wake up now!Your posta are 30 post behind and what you suggest has been done 30 post ago by studebaker #11

..``That is a very ``rural``attitude to words a disease.Maybe personality

disorder excluding all other possible conditions,anxiety ,schozophrenia

& O C D have ground breaking psycho pharmological agents& if you are

averse to any ``drug``.you should have not EXCLUDED atleast PSYCHO THERAPY``

P.M.urf Sabia Ahmed,YOU ARE TOO LATE & TOO LITTLE!

Fully agree with Ibne Sina`s contention that the only reason anyone could find this ``Fascinating and gripping! One more for Bina Shah.:-)``

is lack of excitement in their mundane lives.

I appreciate the (little) literary quality of the article. Bina seems to improve stylistically with every contribution (this one, however, breaking that trend, in my book), but puhleez! don`t start to give this essentially fictional piece any semblance of credulity. (Is comparisons to `events` recorded thousands of years ago by superstitious semi-literates the best one can do to this end?)

Sure, there are people who are so `tuned into` others and the environment that they can perform feats considered paranormal (at least until someone comes up with logical explanations!). Reading thoughts and minds? What`s so far out about that? We already acknowledge that some people can read others like books. Maybe the difference between their ability and the paranormal is just one of degree. But seeing the future and stuff... c`mon... give us a break already. Even Stephen Hawking hasn`t come up with a credible theoretical framework for time travel. It`s all great fun to read about, but let`s not let suspend disbelief so long we forget that most of yesterday`s miracles are now explainable within (an ever-expanding) Natural Law, or disposed off in that dustbin labelled Hoaxes.

regards,

PM

re. Bina (#9):

``Interestingly enough, the ``symptoms`` David presents can`t be pinned down to any one mental illness. At first he seems to display a generalized anxiety disorder, then symptoms of OCD, displacement (which could be attributed to any one of the borderline personality disorders), and finally schizophrenia. This was meant to show that David might not actually be a candidate for medication/therapy after all...``

So, lemme get this straight, now: The exhibition of MULTIPLE (as opposed to ONE) character disorders/ neuroses renders therapy unnecessary. (!!!)

This from one who not long ago recommended psychiatric help to someone falling in love with adolescents...

Sheesh, now I`ve heard it all!

BINA#47

`` . I`m no science graduate, though, so that could be a totally laughable

premise :) ``

Come again!didnt you say you were PSYCHOLOGY student here in USA & not only had to memorize mental illness medications used in them ?

``, but I was a psychology student in college and grad school. I

took classes in Abnormal Psych, Biopsychology, and Physiological

Psychology. We had to memorize the names of all the mental disorders,

their symptoms, and all the prescription drugs for our exams. ``Post#9 dt.13 th Sept.

Now i dont know If Psychology is not science,then Economics,etc should be considered humanities which in my days only loser students studied!!!!

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts