WHo is "The Pharaoh" in the Muslim Holy Book

[The Grand Nudger]

1) You’re not reading my posts. The Quran says that he repented in the last minute and that “His body was saved from the floods”.

The Jews migh have become slave or slave-like at the time of Ramses II but they are said to have been first welcomed in the land as climate refugees basically :

You, as a magic book believer, must know that the quran says many things about that - mostly that he was drowned.  Repeatedly, that he was drowned.  I suppose that's one of those contradictions in magic book that we're told doesn't exist.  : shrugs :

It remains the case that neither ramses nor his successor were the pharoah of abrahamic fame, not only on grounds of the details of both mans actuals lives, but because there simply was no exodus.  As I said, if this is a problem for some belief you hold, it's probably worth a bit more of your consideration.  I think I've exhausted my patience for arguing this fairly simple point, particularly if you're going to insist it's true regardless, while pretending that magic book does not say what it does. As far as I'm concerned, you got as close as your beliefs allow you to get to the core truth of the matter, in that whomever this character was, if there was such a character, it stands in, in the story, as an archetype, and it's purpose is to convey the message of the authors, whatever that was. That this has multiple paths of realizability and reinterpretation, not just in the past, but in present, with you and this thread being an example.

2) No. I just said that the subject of religion and spirituality is a wide subject. All I wanted to say is that there are short, nicely written and quite enlightening books available today (like the books of the Dalai Lama for instance) that could be an inspiration to anyone willing to learn more about what I would call “The basics”.

2b) The Bible and the Quran are interconnected. Yet the Quran claims to be an “unchanged” version of the Bible that is believed in the Muslim world to have lost some of its meaning and its true message because of errors in the copying of the book, errors of translation and errors of interpretation.
 
My idea is that there is a universal message in all of these books and that one can still learn things from the study of these texts.

There are many different universal messages in every large body of literature.  They were written by people, not handed to us by gods, and for all of our differences over space and time we truly do have a whole hell of alot in common.  Whether it's a story about a white whale, a eurotrash vampire, or an evil god - a reader can always find some things that still ring true.

3) Let’s develop this part because I am not sure I understood everything correctly. Atheism does point to an inconvenient truth (It all ends at some point doesn’t it? ). I’m not really trying to save myself from this thought. I mean, if it ends it ends. The German name for cemetery is “Friedhof” (place of peace). What I would call “fake religion” tries to ward off this simple reality. This is all mud. This is all “an empire of dirt” as NIN puts it . And nothing is going to change that. The Solar system is a speck in the Galaxy. And the Galaxy is a speck in the Universe. And in this you are the great man with the greatest ideas? – That’s (according to me) the focus of true spirituality. We can carry on the philosophical aspect of this discussion further if you like. I’m not sure if I understood all you arguments in this.

3b) I have been in a tradition too. So I know things as well. Let’s take the current pope for instance (whom I see as quite a spiritual person). If we were together and he was talking I would listen. If he criticized me and even yelled at me for some of my behaviors I think I would still be likely to remain calm and keep listening.

Atheism doesn't point to anything.  It simply means that a person doesn't believe in gods.  Sure, some atheists believe that this is an empire of dirt, as do a great many magic book believers.  This is nihilism, not atheism.  Now, I'm not a nihilist, nor do I think that there actually is such a thing as a fake religion.  I'm sure you could find people who would call a religion fake, largely on account of whatever superstitions it holds to be true - such as your superstitious belief in magic book and the exodus that never was.  However, it's unlikely that your notions of the sacred and the taboo are actually harmed by the book being completely normal, and the exodus having never happened.  Regerdless of those things, religion (and your religion, traditional or private) stand on their own and exist in reality and effect reality..and so, to me, it makes little sense to call any of it "fake".

Still, if you agree with nihilism, then sure...all religions are an attempt to ward off the reality of nihilism.  If that's the focus of true spirituality, then true spirituality is nothing more than, and nothing other than, the assertion of a comforting fantasy in contradiction to the facts of reality as you see them.  Has it ever occurred to you that the fact you conflate this with atheism might be projection?  The long dark night of your own soul, the gnawing doubt of your own beliefs, and not anything that atheism "points to"...?

I've often thought, especially in those times on these boards where it becomes clear that the faithful seem to think that atheism as nihilism is the alternative to theism as meaning-giving...that my not finding nihilism compelling or disturbing has alot to do with why I never believed in such things. Theism doesn't have any product of interest to offer to me, as a purported antidote to a sickness that I just don't suffer from. Other atheists may find it compelling, I don't speak for the trees..but even in their case, particularly in that a great many are deconverts - the purported antidote didn't work for them....anyway. I'm not the kind of guy that seeks out placebo. If I wanted to cram a bunch of sugar pills down my throat I'd buy a bag of skittles.

  But let’s take the notable human creatures who murdered a man while he was seated in his car, with the door closed whose only crime was to hit the hornet of his car as a sign of support for the demonstrators. See, If they were Muslims (which I don’t recognize them to be) I think they should be seated in front of me listening to each and every word I tell them being unable to look me into the eyes because they would be entirely ashamed of what I would be telling them. So this is what would be happening if they were true believers. But what do you think would happen if I would go to Iran now? – They would arrest me, torture me and make accusations of heresy (or something of the sort). That’s what I tried to describe in the interpretation of the “Pharaoh” theme that is present and available in the Quran to read for anyone who has interest in the subject.

Or, maybe... they'd just kill you too, as true muslims?  First you conflate nihilism for atheism in what appears to be naked projection..and then you reject some person or groups beliefs as true because they do bad things?  Perhaps, in mere reality, people do bad things in spite of and because of their religious beliefs? As those sorts of beliefs are compelling, and bad things™ are a possibility of acting on them? As bad things™ are, in a great many cases, demanded by them? I suppose there's some realization in there about the relative quality of the worlds respective religious beliefs - but here again you may have reached the limit of what your own beliefs about religion, at least your own - you have no such block when you consider other peoples "fake" religions".... will allow you to process.

  And this is not “my” revision at all. See, the Turkish people (at least ordinary people) have been exposed since many years to a Putinist style propaganda machine that puts forward some ego-centered “Religious” and “ethnic” identity themes. Still I can make a skype connection with you. And go to the nearest mosque in the neighborhood. Go straight to the Imam and ask him if this has to do with our belief system:
https://www.basnews.com/en/babat/777565

We can make a bet if you like.

No. He will look at me to see if I am serious. He will watch the video. He will still tell something that equals to “Our religion does not promote this kind of attitude”.

- Nor does it promote the use of religion as a tool of asserting political power. That’s what I’ve been trying to demonstrate. And I think this has become a quite serious matter in our days. Because even in Christianity there are organizations like the famous “Opus Dei” that is said to have controlled half of the Spanish Judicial system at a given time.

Religious leaders often dissemble, as you have done here, and as lawyers do in court when defending a guilty client.  I find it interesting that you see a putinist propaganda machine that espouses ego centered enthno-religious assertions but probably miss the immediate equivalence and comparisons to all of the abrahamic texts.  That...is your revisionism.  You don't like it, so you scrub it from your beliefs and concoct a private religion which does not contain it while asserting that a body of text that is either identical to it or a -very- fertile field for it, is something other-than.  As I said, I think it's good work and needs to be done, and also that intellectual honesty might compel a person to acknowledge that's what's being done.  

  My theory is that this does not fit into the definition of religion. I think one is free to practice and believe (or not believe) in any way he/she likes. But I believe this is no longer religion when you try to impose it on other people (using whatever political mean you are using). And that includes the issue of abortion. I say it’s political. Religion issues a warning and says “Try not to kill a living being even if it’s an early fetus in the first months of pregnancy, try to be responsible on that.” Yet the political-religious thinker go on to modify the existing body of law in Poland so even the victim of a rape is unable to access abortion pill at her pharmacy.

I agree that this should not be done - we agree about this because we've both been secularized.  Religion, on the other hand, is an assertion of what it means to live a good life, what is sacred, and what is taboo.  It's explicitly normative and community oriented.  Secularization is a contemporary modification and rejection of traditional normative belief systems.  That;s what happened to christianity in the west, that's part of the cause of the transformation of their magic books into a collection of allegories and mistakes, no longer believed to be the literal word of a god or even that important in most self professed believers lives...and it's probably inevitable, particularly in contact with the west, that this happens, and increasingly happens, to the community of which you are a part.
 

  And I think this is important. Being an atheist you may say “Oh, that’s the stupidity of believers in nonsense”. But for me it’s a vital issue. Why would I let an ordinary mortal like you and I talk to people (because they are ignorant and unintellectual) as if he knew the thoughts of God (as in Albert Einstein saying “I want to know what God’s thoughts are, the rest are details”) and manipulate them any way he / they are wishing? In this topic I am pointing to a historical personality (or allegorical figure if you prefer) who did the exact same thing some 3200 years ago. So I think you won’t be objecting to me when I calling such persons by their true names after having demonstrated to you what and who they really are?

On the other issue, you may open a thread in the philosophy part and invite me there. I am really not sure I understood your arguments correctly.

Why would you let...shades of normative control.  The irony being that this is exactly what is supposed to be magic about magic book.  Some guy talks to people as if he knew the thoughts of god.  3200 years ago, 2000 years ago, or 1400 years ago.  Pharoah, or Jesus, or Big Mo.  I don't object at all, I note that we have a problem of consistency on our hands. The egytian religion was certainly a lever of social manipulation and control, as was and are the various religions of abraham. If they are also a comforting fantasy meant to escape the shadow of nihilism-as-reality, and should not be enforced in communities, then...ofc....they need to be either revised, or shitcanned. I lean towards shitcanning them, you lean towards revision.

Not having such a pernicious doubt about reality and my place in it as some atheists, the vast majority of abrahamists, and yourself...I see no point in the pretense or the effort to save it from itself. I can see the sacred and taboo and normative, (or sacred-alike, taboo-alike, if we prefer) without resorting to fairy tales and just so stories. I can recognize and experience the sense of the numinous without a need for any animating or normative spirits or forces of any kind. Certainly, lol, without magic books and prophets and the opinions of shamans and witchdoctors in silly hats and dresses. I can even see how those fairy tales and just so stories and pious con men leveraged the truth for effect. So, many of the things that compel you to revisionism simply don't weigh on me. As above in reference to literature - I'd wager that underneath it all you and I have a great deal in common, but for that difference.

-and all of this leads to an open question. I enjoy studying religions and mythologies and their attendant institutions and social movements (I like people, lol), but what exactly do you expect me to learn about "true spirituality" from said men in costumes and their various works of literature? From where I sit, these two things aren't just different, they're not even in the same galaxy as each other. You tell me I should get the basics from them, as though I'm missing something....but I'd say to you that you can get the basics from touching grass, literally. No revision and no pretense, and certainly no special men with imagined access to a nonexistent god... required. You didn't get the basics of your own premises from your own magic book, you applied them -to- it. Where did you get the idea that the thing you think phaorah stands in for is a bad thing? Did you need to be told, did you apprehend it by intuition, or could you comprehend it by observation in reality or consideration of the circumstances in a thought experiment?