WHo is "The Pharaoh" in the Muslim Holy Book

[Leonardo17]

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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?

[Nay_Sayer]

deleted.

[Leonardo17]

1) (I have no spellcheck in the ordinary typing box of the Forum so I am answering you in numbers)

I already granted that to you. I already told you that I don’t have any archaeological correlation for that event. I am only making a personal speculation here saying that the Exodus might have happened during the reign of Ramses II and I did point to the basis of this hypothesis already. Let’s not have a fight on that.

2) Yes. That’s all I was saying

3) There is definitely something called fake religion. So let’s stop calling it “magic book” for a second. If someone does some partial distortion of the original message of let’s say, an ideology, like Communism. That person is still a communist (like the example of Fidel Castro in Cuba). But if you take the ideology and do something that is no longer related to communism (like China being a dictatorial state with only relics of socialism in its free market economy), well, a truly left-wing person reserves the right to say something like “I don’t really see China as a socialist / communist country”. That’s all I wanted to say.

3)b) Yes. I totally understand that point of view. You perceive religion and spirituality as a body of lies that is nothing by fakeness and manipulation of masses already. As in “The greatest stories that were ever told” . Well you might be surprised if I told you that I do agree with you to a certain degree. See there are spiritual persons who refuse to refer to their spiritual practice as a religion, use a terminology like “life” instead of soul, or “Universal Being” instead of God. Simply because the terminology has been used during the ages as a political and social tool to lock people into some dogmatic beliefs and automatic / almost robotic (mechanical) practice of some rituals that does nothing but locking them more into some reality that is different from most people’s factual or rational way of perceiving the actual world.

What I am saying is that, I accept science and philosophy as my primary guide in understanding this world (just as the Quran is advising me to do), but I am also involved in some sort of spiritual practice that I don’t perceive as being contradictory to an overall rational approach to the outside world. There are the texts of Marcus Aurelius, or Thomas Aquinas for instance. My approach is somewhat closer to this philosophical approach than it is to the more traditional / mythological and dogmatic way of seeing things in a typical religious attitude. And beyond that, I believe that our understanding of religion as a whole is going to shift in this century (I think we are going to see this) from a largely dogmatic and authoritative perspective toward a more individualized and more spiritual approach to all these issue. (Or that’s how I can best describe it).

3c) Yes but no. I think that I actually firmly believe in these things. But I won’t attempt to prove them to you either. Because I believe that it is the individual who must feel a “call” or a sense of curiosity toward these issues. Than I think this individual might be very quick at discovering many of these realities individually as a result of his/her own quest.

3d) Yes I think I understand that. But I also think that Nietche was right about many things too. And I think that we all give in to nihilism at given points in our lives. And I don’t think spirituality should be understood as a “pill” to that. No. If there is something I learned during Covid is that I (personally) I need to get out when I feel moody. I need to do things. Go to Theater or movies, or to a trip with a bus full of unmasked people I don’t even know us. I am not a believer in the life-denying approach some religious people seem to have. In fact the slogan in Iran was “Woman, life freedom” as opposed to “headscarf, wait for your life in the next life (after death) and life as a slave (of religion, of God, of religious authorities)”. But I don’t think it is taboo anymore to say that as a believer, I don’t believe in any of these things. I think this is currently shifting.

More details: You guys have a thread here in which you are asking “Why did God take the time to create us?” (You are saying something different but this is how I threat it ) My answer is: To be happy. To do whatever it is that makes you happy. If I understood correctly the whole universe has been created maybe “for a change” that is, something in which we, as souls, are able to do things and experience things. (or that’s how I am understanding it).

And You shouldn’t think I am here to save your soul either (I got tired of “nationalist”-religious oriented forum who are entirely controlled by the political entity you know very well whenever I talk about it so I simply switched myself to a foreign language forum because I know most of them are people who can’t even speak their own language properly )

So that’s not my aim here. But still I want you to not be a “traditional” atheist who puts all believers (in any religion or belief system) in the same basket. I think, that especially among future generation, you will find many people who are believers of some sort but whose overall mentality greatly differs from those religious propagandist who constantly try to win you over to their ways of seeing things because they value numbers more than overall content. What I am saying is that we are a specie that evolves. I not saying that dogmatic, fanatic approaches to spirituality will disappear in a few years. But I am saying that with meet quite a number of people who, instance, will tell you that they see no contradictions between Darwin’s evolution scheme and the idea of creation as a spiritual concept.

4) No. As I told you I have the book on my side, I have ideology on my side, I have the original doctrine on my side. I think they are committing very grave errors both in terms of religious thought as well as in human behavior.

4b) No.

4c) See that’s my point. You don’t need religion for morality. I see spirituality as something beyond that. You’re an atheist but you seem to be quite a moral person to me .

4d) That’s exactly what I’ve been working on lately. I am trying to demonstrate that “Bad things that are being ordered by religion” aren’t even present in the original religion and that this is human error. And I make reference to the holy book itself to prove that. Did you see an error in my procedure?

5) Yes. But the court is not just a play words (Unlike in some countries for a limited period of time). There are still laws to be respected and demands of justice to be met .

I’ve had this debate with many people before. But I think you are pointing to why religion must be entirely treated as a matter that concern the individual and the individual only. When you do what Luther did and say “There is no need for an intermediary between me and God” as Martin Luther did in the 17th century, a) You are taking the risk of committing errors. It’s as simple as that: Rome is no longer there to tell you what is truth and what is not truth. So there can be errors. Because at this level you are your own Rome or Vatican (or whatever). b) You are denying anybody else the ability to keep fooling you anymore. So in these terms I am not different from you. I am a man. I have convictions. Some may be true, some may be false. But if I am fooling myself, well, I am not taking anyone else with. For these are my convictions (or my level of spiritual evolution as I prefer to say).

6) Yes. And this is a good thing. That’s evolution. Mankind is an evolving entity. And we need to evolve because if we were unable to do that, how would you solve the climate catastrophy for instance? – There needs to be a shift in our way of seeing things. And there is being a shift in our ways of seeing things. This is a deeper subject but I think you are still understanding on a deeper level.

7) I think that in our time this whole study is on a personal level. And that’s what I am trying to do. That’s what an atheist does with his personal philosophy also. And this is no longer in a communal level as it used to be in the past because the times have changed. Literacy was about 5% - 10% in the Greco-Roman world. Today it’s 75% in India and 99% in developed countries. We don’t really need “guidance” anymore. We have all the necessary tools to dive in it ourselves. In the past life itself was not an individual issue (as it is still the case in some of the rural parts of my country). If you go to south-east Anatolia for instance you will see that they share everything, they eat together, they go to baths together, families are always living and sleeping within the same area, in less developed regions of the world even children are village property or the property of the clan.

In ancient times you were part of the village, part of the clan, part of the monastery, or part of this or that family. Only aristocrats enjoyed a certain level of autonomy and individualism. Therefore, when the Imam spoke, he spoke to the entire village. And everyone had to listen. Today, you’re seated alone in your living room with the remote in your hand and you can chose whoever it is you want to listen or note listen.

So some may conclude there is no place at all for religion in the future. That’s not how I see it. I think religion itself is going to evolve. There will still be highly dogmatic people making websites trying to win you over by giving you free samples of the new-testament etc. There will be fanatics and religious bigots (sellers of religions and political Islam too). But I think there will also be more and more people with a rational approach to matters of daily life who, as an atheist, science you may not perceive as “threatening” at all. I think there will be a time in which (which not so distant) the term “religious” will be rather used designate a person like me while the more traditional, old-style way of believing will be called religious-dogmatism, or old-school religion or something like that. That’s how I see it.

- It doesn’t need to either. I felt curious about these issues, so I decided to learn about it, than there were opportunities so I learned more and I am still in a process of learning. But there is nothing I could say to the philosopher (someone who seeks wisdom) who decides to stick to the scientific method in his quest for wisdom or knowledge. In fact, such a person may exceed me in many ways (in terms spiritual and philosophical conclusions) or at least that’s how I felt when I read Carl Sagan for instance. This is just one path that is available to us, to whoever decides to walk it. That’s all.

Last paragraph: That’s 20+ years of studying experimenting and reading you are talking about. And according to me a certain amount of past-life karma too. If you are asking how it began the answer is simple curiosity. I like philosophy too, but I find spiritual wisdom to be highly efficient in daily-life matters too. I think it’s something that is easily accessible and therefore universal and therefore very useful in my daily life. It does provide some satisfying answers in matters that still remain highly uncovered by psychology and/or the classical schools of philosophy. But I can’t say it’s an imperative for anyone. It is not. I will not elaborate greatly on this but we all have a given software at the time of our birth. So there is a life-plan for each individual. Not everyone is here to know things. Some are here to do things. Some are here to just live. Some enjoy a material life. Others enjoy an intellectual life. That’s why I mentioned the Dalai Lama. I think that today we don’t really need to study old books with the light of an oil lamp in the middle of the night. You can go to the bookstore, and there are several living persons who have “ideas” on these spiritual issues.

So that’s about it basically

[The Grand Nudger]

Unending bullshit, at every point. Good luck, have fun.