If i must relate God to a religion, then yea, i believe in Christianity and i need Christianity

As long as it makes you happy without imposing your views or harming others ...

True.....thats why the world is what it is now.

From taboos to customs to cultures including clothing.

They are factored based on geographic factors and timely events. Even the Chinese in Malaysia and those in China have different habits.

We here eat accordingly and those in Beijing say that if the plate is empty I'm not a good host.

The same goes for religion. What a person perceives a a certain time will cause a person to believe more or less.

Take those who go seek for help when a relative is sick. That I believe is a common case. Lets say he/she is a buddhist and he/she goes to a church (upon recommendation from a friend) to pray for a sick relative. When the relative is cured, then he/she will point finger at church and say its because of that religion. But what if it was just the medicine ? (which most of the time is the case) and the person went to a mosque?

It is a fact that we see patterns where there are non. Is part of our brains function so that we simplify things. Thats why gut instinct is also actually guessing. Just with experience to add.

The world is a full of different ideas and opinions. Take a look around and just read about customs of each sub-continent (eg. africa, us, canada, parts of europe, north/south/east/west asia/australia) and you will see.

At that time Arab people are consider barbarians. They love to war and love to kill. So, I don't the prophet Muhammad p.b.u.h. would get any education about science and astronomy in an environment like that. And can you tell me about this philosophy about moral that you talk about and who created it.

Could you tell me where you get the info about the Aristotle? I tried to find about it but I still can't find it. It would be great if you give me the link or anything regarding this matter ... Since I believe in Islam, what is written in the Quran is my moral compass and other actions that are forbid by the Quran is wrong. So, why you say cannibalism is wrong but still you eat meat from other animals.

Peace...

here
http://science.jrank.org/pages/2452/Embryology.html
the bolded part represents your personal belief,what has been told right to you by a book is not necessarily right to other people,so please don't ever cross the line...

Please compare between the Aristotle's theory and what is said in the quran.
http://www.islam101.com/science/embryo.html
If the prophet Muhammad p.b.u.h. copy from the theory, they would be the same.

And please forgive me if I offended. The topic is do human need religion. I would say yes and by religion, I would mean Islam since that my religion. So, I would talk mostly refer to my belief.

Peace..

see,the doctor mentioned has committed a repeated fallacy,interpret the verse into whatever he likes,a veil of darkness can be interpreted as abdominal wall followed by the processes afterwards,but even if that counts,there seems to be a mistake among all of the verses mentioned,
this verse says bones develops first,
"Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then of that clot We made a lump; then We made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh" (23:14).
which is contradict to modern scientific knowledge,the correct sequence of organogenesis should have been started from the development of nervous system,the development of bones is followed long after that,another thing that confuses me a lot is the description of the sperm,
does sperm look like a clot of blood?and most importantly,where's the maternal contribution to reproduction?without the presence of ovum then through some miraculous events the sperm starts to develop itself into an embryo?

This post has been edited by CleverDick: May 6 2010, 06:11 PM

you are too narrow to only focus your attention at the arabs....
as for the arab love to war and kill.... where's the source? can the source be trusted?

the study of ethics begin long before islam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

And it is also selectively quoted because this verse is conveniently forgotten

86:5] Let the human reflect on his creation.
[86:6] He was created from ejected liquid.
[86:7] From between the spine and the viscera.
[86:8] He is certainly able to resurrect him.

Here is another translation
(86:5-7) "He is created from a gushing fluid that issued from between the loins and ribs."
Semen, according to the Quran, is formed not in the testicles, but somewhere "between the loins and ribs."

The meaning of the text is pretty straight forward but the interpretation has to avoid the embarrasing contradiction with what we know today, it goes to great length to close the gap. If you read the rationalization to make it sounds right, it will make you smile. Here is one.

"Semen DOES NOT COME from the testicles, period! It is neither produced in the testicles, nor does it come from the testicles during the time of coitus!
And that is a scientific fact! Thirteen centuries ago even the scientific community thought that semen is produced in the testicles. A pity! Mr. Shamoum thinks so even today. The semen contains many things. Between 95 to 98% of it consists of fructose, prostaglandin hormones, metal and salt ions, lipids, steroid hormones, enzymes, basic amines, and amino acids. All those are produced from the glands located in abdomen. Between 2 to 5% of it consists of the sperms produced in the testicles."

Might as well said that the elements are asembled from clay and dust from earth produced in the interior of stars. Why stop at the abdomen?

Here is another
…The words translated as “backbone” (sulb) and “ribs” (tarâ’ib) are not understood in Arabic to belong to the same person. Arabs understand the “sulb” to refer to a part of the male body and the “tarâ’ib” to a part of the female. Ibn Kathîr states: “It refers to the ‘sulb’ of the man and the ‘tarâ’ib’ of the woman…” He then quotes this interpretation on the authority of the Prophet’s companion Ibn `Abbâs. This same understanding is given in all the major classical works of Qur’anic commentary.
Many non-Arabs misinterpret this verse because they think that sulb and tara’ib refer to different body parts of the male. In reality, tara’ib is feminine, and refers to the female’s body part. For fourteen hundred years, all of the scholars have held this belief, and not a single classical scholar has ever differed on this point. The reason is that the Arabic makes it clear that tara’ib refers to a feminine body part, and not a male one.

Now it has been interpreted that the verse refers to a female. So what did that really tell you? Nothing. It struggles to fit into what we know today. Amusing isn't it?

This post has been edited by SpikeMarlene: May 1 2010, 09:50 PM

indeed,what is even more intriguing is that,if the book was indeed divinely inspired,then god,as an omnipotent ultimate author should have done a much better job in conveying it's message,but why,after thousands of years since the book was first compiled,it still takes readers' times and efforts to decipher what is encrypted inside those verses?and much worse the interpretations have to be constantly revised, i wonder wether god is obsessed with word puzzles or it's just another round of never ending test?

This post has been edited by CleverDick: May 2 2010, 11:59 PM

It is normal for religion people to focus on their religion side to give opinion and view. Specially when everything you live till you death is religion matter.

That is why the world is still facing problem with this individual only know their religion and don't care about others matter.

That is why the world is still fighting with religion war with narrow minded people.

----

This post has been edited by marsalee: Nov 13 2010, 08:15 PM

Regardless of which religion. As long as people go around saying that mine is better than yours instead of just accepting differences it will remain as such. I am willing to bet that in arab, they don't paint a pretty picture of the westerners as well.

Thats the problem with monotheism

Islam says there is only one god and thats their god, one and only in this world

Christian say there is only one god, and their own god is the only one

So from their perspective, either their religion is wrong, or the other one is wrong. Someone has to be wrong and is going to hell

Do humans need religion?

Its an incomplete question.

Do they need it to fly to the moon? No.

Do they need it to live? No. (Food, water & air is enuf.)

Do they need it to be happy? Yes for some, no for some.

Do they need it to believe there's heaven, hell and an afterlife? Yes.

The answer will change depending on the purpose one needs religion for which is not defined, so the question is vague & cannot be answered. Can someone rephrase the question?

IMO thats a complete question that needs not to be rephrased.

Do they need it to believe there's heaven, hell and an afterlife? Yes. <----------- in regards to your comment here, the answer should be Yes for some, no for some. Coz why would everyone need to believe in heaven, hell and afterlife? I for one don't believe in them as it can't be proven except in books or scripts that was written ages ago and passed on by word of mouth....

Do they need it to believe there's heaven, hell and an afterlife? Yes.

Its the same as saying "If one wants to believe there's heaven, hell and an afterlife, yes."

"If" is a conditional clause. If one doesn't want to believe there's heaven, hell and an afterlife, then one doesn't need religion.

We are actually in agreement that some want to believe in it, some don't.

the clear ans is no

But again there gonna be many religious group that gonna disagee with me as they think the only reason they / the world can survive is with the existence of their god.

I dont see god coming down to earth to stop tsunami and prevent earth quake . His existence is merely for emotion comfort which doesnt change or contribute to anything.

technically buddhism dont really have a heaven/hell/afterlife

It depends on which school. Mahayana is big on heaven/hell. Theravada not so. Vajrayana, I dunno enuf abt it to say.