yes of course, but it could be more useful within a theoretical framework of Anthropology/ critical cultural theory, if it is a cultural study. If it is a pure scientific cognitive research , the same resources can be used effectively in the ontological relativism and interpretative ontology..

must certainly all, but ontologically? Surely, that happens anyway?

Christians relate to the youth of Christ upon death, connecting that to rejuvenation, restoration, reincarnation in a youthful bodily form: No old people in heaven except for god. (They got this of course from the Ancient Egyptians).

Muhammad connected people to a magical concept of words/they in the Qur'an are incorruptible and unchanging (all words change over time, that is unavoidable). This is a very ancient belief. Words are fixed with a reality and power of their own. Learning from experience thereby becomes subject to alteration.

He constructed a notion of time, thoughts and knowledge as unchanging. Time doesn't move but is fixed within a certain epoch.

Each religion contains such ontological beliefs specific to itself.

There is religious fear, religious love, religious awe, religious joy, and so forth. But religious love is only man's natural emotion of love directed to a religious object; religious fear is only the ordinary fear of commerce, so to speak, the common quaking of the human breast, in so far as the notion of divine retribution may arouse it; religious awe is the same organic thrill which we feel in a forest at twilight, or in a mountain gorge; only this time it comes over us at the thought of our supernatural relations; and similarly of all the various sentiments which may be called into play in the lives of religious persons. As concrete states of mind, made up of a feeling plus a specific sort of object, religious emotions of course are psychic entities distinguishable from other concrete emotions; but there is no ground for assuming a simple abstract “religious emotion” to exist as a distinct elementary mental affection by itself, present in every religious experience without exception.

WILLIAM JAMES-is any of this now still applicable?

Is religious feeling separate from other feelings/does religious observance function within its owns parameters? Where I see contradiction, a religious person sees truth.

Is religious feeling the consequence of routinely imbibing religious ideas since young children, or psyche phenomenon distinguished from other phenomenon, and that focusing on abstractions creates such phenomenon?

Religions that use taboos and ritual to control behaviour usually lack intellectual strength.....

Religious control of behaviour exhibits different psyche responses to focusing upon an object, solid or abstract for spiritual effect. The former concerns conforming, communal conditions and control. These too can be religious values.

Abraham in the Hebrew Bible is the first Hebrew which means transcendent. Man as a "being toward death" (Heidegger) is confroted with bis own nothingness. By his attachmebt to God, he seeks to transcend the human condition. Abraham achieves this by a total surrender to God's will.

Dear Professor

Best regards,

Abrahamic religions, including Islam, have a philosophical perspective and can answer the most important philosophical questions of man. Among them:

What is human and the world?

Where do humans and the world come from and how have they been created?

What are the destinies of man and the world?

What is human purpose in life?

 What is God's purpose for the creation of man and the cause of existence?

Of course you have to know that religion deeply. Either by studying the book of the religion or by studying the speech and seeing the behavior of his prophet

 Even studying the lives of human beings in that religion helps us to better understand the philosophical view of religion

Therefore, monotheistic religions have a philosophical charter.

God forbids man from accepting the blindness of his beliefs.

But about psychological prisms, as made by human thought, there are conflicts with the views of religions.

 What psychiatric perspective do you have to say about it?

 With respect

Assadzandi

Minoo, they answer them but neither accurately nor truthfully.

I have studied the Qur'an but do not believe it is either a truthful nor wise book, I'm afraid.Many of the verses within the Qur'an are commonplace and mundane. I'm afraid Islamic culture has cocooned itself in a set of delusions over the last thousand or so years, physically preventing contradiction, mainly concerning the prophet and the Qur'an. If you believe the Qur'an is well-written (it isn't) read the Upanishads or some of the Hebrew Bible.

If you believe that these books tell you about human nature (how to be violent and intellectually blind perhaps?) and human origins (ridiculous stories, all of which have origins in either Mesopotamian or Egyptian literature) than you are being mislead.

Islamic ideas as well as Judaic ones, come from Mesopotamian civilisations-and do not originate with either religion.

Islam began and spread for the next thousand years through war. Millions died as a consequence! Judaism is absurdly controlling. The Jesus figure constructed a religion based upon a complete inability to engage with the world, its leader surrounded by women who paid for his food, etc. Which one of these have produced a coherent philosophy exactly? The intellectual content of Islam is shockingly low, I'm afraid.

Judging God by philosophy is idolatry. You can learn transcendence ( the knowledge of God) and transpersonal relations from Abraham.Otherwise the maximum philosophy has to offer Man is that he is a being toward death. But of course you can derive a philosophy from Abraham For instance the philosophy of Franz Rosenzweig. Another example is occasionalism.

With respect

We are in the days of Imam Ali's birth and father's day.

 Imam said that studying the history of human thought is a way of knowing, but the ways of knowing are different

You will have a philosophical vision according to your epistemological method.

But your attack on Abrahamic religions is a non-scientific work.

It looks like it's a scientific site, not political or promotional

 You have to argue on the basis of scientific documentation and evidence.

In a broad research effort, select examples among the followers of the religions, and in a measurable and authoritative sample size, check out how religions have raised people.

What is their difference with those who do not believe in spirituality and religion?

It can be expressed in scientific documents in order to determine which approach to follow is the correct way.

  This controversy without documentation is non-scientific and not attractive to scientists.

Best Regards

The Abrahamic ideal of transcendence and transpersonality is in the future not in the past of a humanity.Human hubris is doomed.

My attack, as you call it, on Abrahamic religions, Minoo, is fully justified and based on an historical and philosophical approach, looking at what the books actually say not viewing them through the clouding distortion of belief. Raising up the considerations of Imams, largely poorly educated individuals surely?, is not one to claim my sympathies.

Is Muhammad's story in the Qur'an true? No. Because research tells us Arabia was not as the Qur'an claims before the emergence of Muhammad. It demonstrates that the Moses narrative, without any evidence, is simply a well-constructed myth. (Read my work on these matters, please)

Harry, of course philosophies have grown from the Abrahamic religions, certainly many have been drawn from Christianity, but what from Islam? The essentiality of power, perhaps? Minoo the community ethics of Islam are commonplace to the Middle East and have been for perhaps 5000 years. Islam's narrow and fixed understanding of the world is not inimical, surely, to intellectualisation?

Harry, by all means idolatry. It might cheer the Abrahamic religions up!

Dear, dear, Minoo, I have been researching and writing on these matters for a number of years!!!

Minoo, I've read through your recent message again but cannot fully understand what you believe science to be. From what I can gather, you appear to have ascertained that having religious views helps in illness and clinical recovery. From this you seem to believe scientific evidence has prevailed on the authenticity of your religion, when surely it accentuates the positive aspects of belief-and also prayer and meditation. No one could doubt that but to take another step and decide that confirms the existence of yours or any other god-no, that does not follow.

I have seen papers on RG of this kind, but they are hardly scientific, surely? Your ideas on what science is, in all honesty, Minoo, seem highly suspect. In science you need to objectively evaluate all aspects, which in this instance must include the authenticity of your religion and of your and any other god. Scientifically, to do so would I suggest be less easy than disproving both authenticity and existence as it does not fit into any clear, agreed and testable paradigms.

Those papers I have read on this site, see above, are merely pseudo-science. One I took deep offence at revealed a new psychotherapy based on Islamic needs-belief and adherence to the book, and to the role of women, etc. This surely has nothing to do with psychotherapy, I am a trained psychotherapy, but to the control of others-which a psychotherapist must not only reject but rail against as a worrying impostor.

Harry, no scholar really believes Abraham existed.

Abraham is just a name we give to somebody who reached the transpersonal level where all the names are the name of God. As i said: the Abrahamic ideal of transpersonality and transcendence belongs to the future of humanity, not to its past.

Made up then, but in an interesting way.

Abraham is a father figure. In Hebrew the expression 'sons of Abraham' means followers of the Abrahmic ideal of loving kindness.

Harry, I have pursued the idea that Abraham represents El, the dominant West Semitic god until c1000 BCE in Syria, etc, who continued in that role in Palestine. The places he visits in the Bible reflect El. As far as I can see, it was El not YHWH who was the primary god of the Hebrews until about 700 BCE.

El would closely fit your ideal of benevolence.