The Mental Animal & The Rib!

I don`t remember the exact quote but I believe it was Mark Twain who said ``The Good Lord created humans because He was tired of the monkey.`` I will let the the good folks reading this post decide to what extent this is true.

Great but revolutionary mind like lenin`s.....well we should thank god shldnt we that he just killed millions of people and didnt rape any kids.......if you like change and violence so much then why dont you do something positive yourself instead of being an arm chair anarchist....whose stopping you this time....i wish zia had done away with people like you so that we would have been rid of great mind lacking any WORK potential.

#21 by RZaidi on July 24, 2003 6:56pm PT
hahahaha!oh my god!!!

I am glad I made you laugh:) I wish I had the same history teacher that you had. Forgive my spelling mistakes I am not good at spellings.
So considering you are right when was that most of the world`s population living around what is now called the Middle East? I mean what period or time? and was it before or after the Noah`s Flood thing? I assume your history also explains the great flood of Prophet Noah`s time.

#23 by khamkhwa. on July 25, 2003 8:06am PT

hahaha... ok!my bad! I admit i was wrong there but i was trying to get my point across to `quest` who said something about why the messengers werent sent to places like india and china!

``the bible is not a word of allah, coz it was written by st. mark and a couple of other saints``
is that really what you believe?

lol! thanx for the enlightenment but you didnt have to be so darned sarcastic!people make mistakes and learn something new everyday, you need to be a little more accepting of that..dont you think?

RZaidi#21

[Christians, Muslims, Jews, idol-worshippers, all spoke Arabic. That was the language they knew. The Heavenly Books were all originally sent down in Arabic and were later translated into various languages as ppl started to move into various parts of the world and settled down and made their own countries and nations.]

WOW...... in the light of the above scholarly statement, i am no more surprised that arabic is the chosen language of allah. perhaps that`s the only language he knows? and it must be a jewish propaganda that their holy books were in hebrew....and of course the bible is not a word of allah, coz it was written by st. mark and a couple of other saints...yes professor??

hahahaha!oh my god!!!

first of all, you need to get your spellings right...its messenger not messanger as you keep typing!
secondly, when I said that India and China were named long after the messengers had come and gone and that Adam is said to have been sent to Sri-Lanka, what I meant was, that all these ``countries`` were formed much later. Before there were different countries and nations and political differences, there was religion. There werent always 6 billion ppl in the world, and most of the world`s population lived around what is now called the Middle East. Christians, Muslims, Jews, idol-worshippers, all spoke Arabic. That was the language they knew. The Heavenly Books were all originally sent down in Arabic and were later translated into various languages as ppl started to move into various parts of the world and settled down and made their own countries and nations. So when you say that the messengers would have been more productive in india or china, you simply forget that apart from the physical separation of land on earth, the figurative separation took place long after all the messengers had come and gone. Like I said, they all lived pretty much in the same area. When Adam was sent to Sri-Lanka, Sri-Lanka or ``sri-lankans`` as we know them today, did not exist.
Therefore, I dont believe that my ancestors were sri-lankan, because Adam wasnt created there. He was created in heaven and sent to this world. According to my religious beliefs however, all human beings are the descendants of Adam and Eve, and I dont expect anyone to agree with me, that`s just what I believe in. No Offence meant to anyone.

#18 by quest on July 24, 2003 10:47am PT

It is belived by muslims that every nation (however you define that) on this earth had the benifit of a Prophet. This accepted to include nations within what is now china and India.
There you go..
You dont need to feel short changed in Allahs scheme of things.
If the Vedic concepts of Creator (Bharman?) one whom you cant describe is seen it is similar to that of Islam.
Similarly the concept of creation in vedas(now does this mean hindus?? there seems plenty of dispute on this by some of our esteemed hindu brothers on this forum) is also similar. I dont recall accurately but it seemed that Bharaman(not to be confused by Brahimin) created this universe out of a by blowing or something like that.
(Of course there are numerous other theories of creation in vedas itself as well as other hindu texts often contradictory to each other, but this above mentioned one is also present.)
That is not too far from the Islamic thinking as far as that particular point is concerned.

#19 by RZaidi on July 24, 2003 2:54pm PT
(Are you serious? You do know that India and China were named India and China looong after the Prophets had come and gone, before that most of the land in the world was connected to the Arabian and Persian gulfs. These were all divided into various countries!Also, when Adam was sent into the world, he is said to have been sent to the land which is now called Sri-Lanka! )
It doesn`t matter when they were named India or China. Why didn`t a messanger came to the people who lived there? He would have been more productive had he been to china or India rather than Arab/Israel
As far as Land in the world is concerned that was connected many million years ago. Which is not relivant here. i.e. If u mean physically connected.
Adam in your theory was a first man on earth. what good he is in sri-lanka for the srilankans? Moreover, do you now believe your ancestors were srilankans?

#18 by quest on July 24, 2003 10:47am PT
``I wonder why didn`t any prophet/messanger out of so called 124000 came to india or china because most of the worlds` population had always lived there. ``

Are you serious? You do know that India and China were named India and China looong after the Prophets had come and gone, before that most of the land in the world was connected to the Arabian and Persian gulfs. These were all divided into various countries!Also, when Adam was sent into the world, he is said to have been sent to the land which is now called Sri-Lanka!

for RZaidi: First sorry about calling you `Mr`. Second, you don`t have to agree with evolutionists. It will not change anything and I don`t think I or anyone is trying to convince you otherwise.
As you with many other intelligent people don`t think that our ancestors were apes; I , on the other hand, with many other intelligent people, don`t think that our ancestors were Adam n Eve. Although, a long time ago I used to think that the world started when god made Adam and later Eve in heavens somewhere and then drop them to earth. Now it only sounds like a fairy-tale to me. These are just stories produced by semiti religions with no historic or scientific proof.
I wonder why didn`t any prophet/messanger out of so called 124000 came to india or china because most of the worlds` population had always lived there.

#15 by cipram on July 24, 2003 7:17am PT

Thanks for the info, but i dont rely on other ``evolutionist`` human beings to tell me about the origin of anything. And whatever you wrote in your reply, didnt help me one bit, because everything you wrote is everything I disagree with.

#11 by tahmed32 on July 23, 2003 6:13pm PT

I know God created apes too! But He created human beings before he created apes. He didnt create apes first and then left them to ``evolve`` into human beings. Evolutionists dont believe in God, if they did they wouldnt say such a thing and clearly you`re confused about what to believe. On one hand you`re saying that God is powerful enough to create apes and let them evolve into humans and then you say He couldnt have just created human beings!
Like I said, you`re confused, either believe in God completely and accept the fact that human beings were created by Him or disregard anything you know about the exixtence of God and believe completely in the theory of evolution!

And as for your smart-ass example of answering the call of nature etc., all i can say to that is that ALL animals answer the call of nature, and all of them procreate, maybe not all in the exact same way but they do! so are you saying that all these animals are going to evolve into human beings or some other new improved version of themselves??

and my reply wasnt an insult meant for you, it was just my opinion...do you absolutely HAVE to be rude to someone who thinks a little differently from you??

do appologize for `Mr` thing.

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

<>


Have to take you to task regarding this statement. Artistotle was the first to state that man is a social being. That view that the origins of man are social - tribal, familial, and people oriented - was then accepted by a large number of religious people over the centuries and that is what most religions accept to this day. In fact, modern science takes the opposite view - that the first man was an isolated entity. It derives this view from the Hobbesian view towards the state of nature. If you`re going to argue that ``agnostics`` and the ``men of the 21st century`` have a view towards ``man`` per se, you ought to state that it is ``that man is an individual entity.`` The idea that man is a social animal is the one that is traditionally used to justify religion and other theocentric philosophies.

tahmed sahib:
Why so harsh, bhai?!?

``I`d also like to add that I dont agree with Darwin`s theory of evolution because I cant accept that my ancestors were apes!! ``(Rzaidi)

a good enough reason indeed...

If only someone had told Darwin this the poor old bearded chap would not have wasted himself in Galapagos Islands.

RZaidi #10: you write ``You`re saying that your ancestors were apes before they just evolved into walking talking human beings? well i guess that`s just your opinion because you obviously dont believe in God and how He created human beings``

I got news for you sister Rzaidi: God created apes too. And great-great...grandma Zaidi did indeed jump from tree to tree. So very sorry to break this to you. And if you think humans are too good to have ancestors that jump from tree to tree - that is a more elegant thing than a lot of things all humans also perform.

What?? You want an example of what these other things are??? Since you insist, here is one example: answering the call of nature. Another example: method of procreation...

Reflect upon this next time you think you are too good to be descended from an ape...

#9 by quest on July 23, 2003 2:47pm PT

You`re saying that your ancestors were apes before they just evolved into walking talking human beings? well i guess that`s just your opinion because you obviously dont believe in God and how He created human beings, which I have no problem with and I have no right to tell you whether I think you`re right or wrong. But lets just suppose that the theory of evolution is actually true and evolutionists are infact correct when they say that apes evolved into human beings... can you just answer one question that I have though? can you tell me how evolutionists explain the origin of apes??

and it isnt ``MR`` RZaidi...

I think it was written very good just a little lengthy for a reader like me.
For Mr RZaidi, I think evolutionists have better explained the origin of mankind than creationists.
I liked that Mr Paracha talked about Science, Religion and Art. Normally, Art is ignored in the discussion of Science and religion.

``...religions like Buddhism and Hinduism--the world`s major monotheist religions like Islam, Christianity and Judaism, suggest that man is basically a rib! Or, in other words, man is an extension of a rib.``

I just want to clarify something here, the book of Genesis in the Old Testament says that God created Adam, and Eve was created from Adam`s rib. Its true that the followers of Judaism and Christianity both believe in this, Islam however says nothing of the sort. According to the Quran, Adam and Eve were both created by God in the same way that all human beings are created.

I`d also like to add that I dont agree with Darwin`s theory of evolution because I cant accept that my ancestors were apes!! Like you said, human beings are ashraful-makhlukat. How can they be the supremest of beings created by God when at one time, they were swinging from tree to tree and fighting over bananas??

Nadeem:

According to the (mostly agnostic) sociologists, anthropologists, psychologists, gynecologists…sorry …the usually very observant and intelligent men & women of 21st Century science--``Man is a social animal.``

...what, no proctologist?!

I agrre with you -- man/womankind needs both Science and religion -- science to find the opium -- and the religion to sleep with it --

(with apologies to both Mulla Omar and Karl Marx)

you mean captialism aka american style captialism is not a religion??!!!

Lessons.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=naive

http://www.jabootu.com/images/apefinger.jpg

Interesting. Following is noted:
1. It is perceptive of you to exclude Hinduism and Buddhism from the the rib theory!
2. Further, I thought that Judeo-Christian-Islamic monotheists thought that God had created woman out of Adam`s rib. This coupled with your first sentence is a potent explosive!
3. There is no conflict between religion and science for those understand either!! Certainly not for those who understand both. So, here it is: Religion and philosophy are elementary science or self delusion. I use elementary in its ALL meanings.
4. Your assessment of the degradation of art in a commercial world is correct.
5. I congratulate you at your identification of the reasons for the rabid support of religions and the conversions of others derived therefrom.
6. I agree with your third paragraph form the end.
7. You should, however, not have caved in to the desire to get responses at any cost. You failed to propound a positive thesis on which substantive discussion could proceed.

Good to see your pieces on chowk.

Do the impossible!