Why can't non muslims go to mecca?

[Lt_Ripley]

Hi Lt Ripley

I wasn't talking about letting people 'join' groups... My issues was with groups/sect/religions/races etc who are screaming and making a fuss about it not being fair because they don't have equal rights as others, yet they themselves don't treat people equally...

too true. christians here won't let me marry.

[Leonardo]

My posts pointed out that I would prefer we all respect each others cultural/spiritual values, and if mecca is sacred to one belief (muslim) then other groups should respect that.

I'm not quoting your post for any reason than it contains my original question on which all this hangs. What is sacred?

Is it a rule from god? If so, why is a god - especially in the case of the Abrahamic god who is the creator of all - exclusive? Because the men who want to keep the power that priesthood of god infers say so? My point is that god should not be exclusive - regardless of belief or non-belief - and so nothing of god should be exclusive either.

As I said to Zeeshan, I understand why the rules regarding holy places, ceremonies etc are in place. I'm not sure Zeeshan appreciated what I was saying, however.

These rules are in place because of the pride and greed of Man. Not because god wills it so.

[oldvariant42]

See I thought the whole of Mecca was restricted. With checkpoints and such.

Zeeshan - (Twisted!) - you seem to know a bit about it, so is it just Hajj or the whole of Mecca?

Hey Belle, I'm a proud Muslim...

This thing is very controversial, the main thing is the Law of Saudia Arabia. There are non-Muslims living in the outskirts of Mecca. Durinf Hajj this law becomes very tight, because presence of Non-Muslims increases the population and congestion occurs...that's also a main reason...

But a non-Muslim is strictly not allowed to go into the 'Masjid-al-Haram', not at all....

And the cleanliness reasons for both Spirit and Body could be regarded here...

Peace

Regards Zeeshan;)

[Lt_Ripley]

These rules are in place because of the pride and greed of Man. Not because god wills it so.

exactly !!

Edited October 20, 2008 by Lt_Ripley

[+Paranoid Android]

With all your, rather vague and tangential, defending of this idea of a non-religious person visiting a holy shrine or place you have not actually voiced a clear opinion. I respect you might not desire to indicate clearly so, but your action of defending the religious perspective implies you think that, if a non-religious person was to go to Mecca, or go into the Inner Sanctum of the Jerusalem Temple, you would consider this a sign of disrespect? Could you inform me who is being disrespected? Is it God, or is it those people who make up rules in God's name?

I am neither Jew nor Muslim. For a Christian, there is no most-holy and sacred site or person. There is no Temple to go to, nor is there a pilgrimage to make. I personally do not think any place is more holy than others. All are equally part of God's awesome creation. However, I respect that for Jews and Muslims there is a holy site. Judaism has its Temple. There is an outer area for all people (Jews, Gentiles, whatever). There is an inner sanctum for Jews only. And there is a Most Holy Place, set aside for only the High Priest, who can only enter it on one particular day in the year. To do anything different would be extremely disrespectful to Jews.

Mecca is a little different, since no one has yet addressed whether non-Muslims are only forbidden during the pilgrimage, or whether this is a blanket law for all the year. I suspect the former, in which case it is a simple matter of giving preference to believers who in many instances have spent their whole year's savings (or multiple year's savings) to travel across the globe to participate in a vital part of their Faith that can only be done during this time of the year. But with the masses of people, visiting Mecca is becoming harder for believers to appreciate.

Naturally then, when a commandment of their Faith says to go to Mecca and there are too many people to accommodate, it is the logical choice to forbid non-believers. However, if it is all-year round and nothing to do with the pilgrimage, it becomes something different. Still I would say the believers have a Right to their sacred site. For them, imagine it like you would your bedroom. You don't want anyone and everyone trampling through it because it is a deeply personal space for you. For the Muslim it is as well, and they are quite within their rights to do so.

So while I don't agree that any place on earth is more sacred than any other, I absolutely respect a person who does hold something sacred. It is a part of their spiritual identity and to remove it would be to remove the distinctive beauty of that belief (and even though I am a Christian, I see Islam as a very beautiful religion, just as I see Judaism as beautiful, and Buddhism as beautiful, and any other system as beautiful).

As to who is being disrespected, since I don't believe that God has any place that is more holy than others, I would say that it is being disrespectful to those that hold the belief. But is that not enough to refrain from it? For these people, their God does have a Holy Place, and for them it is not they who are being disrespected but God. Will it hurt you if you don't go into the Most Holy Place? Have you any intention of going there? Will it hurt you if you don't go to Mecca during the pilgrimage? Have you any intention of making the pilgrimage?

Just a few thoughts,

[+Paranoid Android]

Your use of the excuse of it being a `holy site` is an interesting one.

Is it then not only fair to speculate that,by using that rationale,IF London was a supposed holy city then this behaviour would be acceptable?

If we conjectured that an imagined religious cult/sect came along and actualy beleived London to be their 'holy site´,then stopping non beleivers of said cult/sect from entering the city would be the correct thing to do ?

Would it not be construed as highly prejudice and highly illegal for a group of people,on the basis of absolutely no evidence whatsoever,to stop,

harrass,intimidate,fingerprint and arrest non cult/sect members who travelled to London?

It may sound outlandish but it is an exact parrallel of what is occuring in Saudi Arabia.

But London does not belong to this hypothetical cult. Mecca belongs to the Muslims and has for as long as Islam itself. If you trespass on my property, unless you are a friend I would ask you to leave. If you were to go to a football match, unless you paid your entrance fee, they wouldn't let you in. Are they being prejudiced? No. These are private property, and thus have restrictions on who enters. Consider Mecca "Private Property" if you will.

Regards,

[Leonardo]

As to who is being disrespected, since I don't believe that God has any place that is more holy than others, I would say that it is being disrespectful to those that hold the belief. But is that not enough to refrain from it? For these people, their God does have a Holy Place, and for them it is not they who are being disrespected but God. Will it hurt you if you don't go into the Most Holy Place? Have you any intention of going there? Will it hurt you if you don't go to Mecca during the pilgrimage? Have you any intention of making the pilgrimage?

Just a few thoughts,

So, you are saying it is not god's will that everyone should get to know god, to share in god's holiness - even if they are non-believers? Do you think poeple make up these rules for themselves, or for god?

As I am not a Muslim, to undertake the Hajj would be hypocritical of me if gaining entry to Mecca was my only reason for doing so. I would like to see Mecca for what it is - including the Sacred Mosque - not what it represents to a believer. To be frank, I don't consider that disrespectful of god or Man. In my opinion, those who do consider such an action disrespectful of god are manipulating religion for their own selfish purpose.

[+Paranoid Android]

I understand what you are saying in most of your post, however the questions you posted of 'Does just anyone have a right to enter your home?' and 'Why should spiritual people let anyone who is not spiritual into their 'homes' if there is a chance they may do harm?' If we are discussing aboriginals here, that seems to be a very interesting comment to me.

My parents both work in aboriginal communities in the outback NT. Their fences around their house are 8 feet high!! The fences have to be this high because the aboriginals of the communities just come and help themselves to whatever they want, and they see it as their 'right' to just take what they want. When one was even confronted by my dad as to why he broke into their place and stole the new 4wd tyres, the aboriginal man replied, well I needed them so I took them so now they are mine, and that is the way the people out there think, if they need something then they think they have that right to take it. So I cannot see how this is respect for person or property. They want respect yet a large number of them cannot give it!! So again that double standard applies, a group thinks they have the right to do anything they wish, yet they restrict another from doing that very same thing!!

Certain muslim groups don't respect others person or property either, so I cannot see them being worried about people harming their places as being the reason why they don't allow other people to go to their spiritual places.

If a group, whether that group have religeous, or racial or any other differences treat others a certain way for their beliefs or differences then they shouldn't complain when they are treated that same way. If you won't let me come see your place, your land, your city, your buildings, your history, then why should I let you come see mine?! As the old saying, treat others as you wish to be treated.

That's an unfair assessment, Dakotabre. It's not that they don't "respect" property. They simply have no cultural basis to understand it. Aboriginals lived in a society that had no concept of ownership. It belongs to everyone. In an aboriginal community, a person who needs salt would simply walk in unannounced and take salt from someone else. If someone needs a mirror, they would find a mirror. Aboriginal culture is a truly communal society. In the eye of that man who stole the 4WD tyres, I would submit that he did not see it as stealing, or even see it as borrowing. His response that "I needed them and so I took them" is a very typical Aboriginal response, indicative of the culture they have - it is not theft, they have no concept of property. It is a relatively new concept to them.

You cannot say that they don't "respect" property. It is a foreign concept to them. And since it is such, your parents are wise to build a fence to keep their "property" from going elsewhere. Though the people, until they learn that we do value property, will likely think he is mad to not let them into his house.

Naturally my short example does not go into the subtleties of the Aboriginal understanding of property. This is mostly because I don't understand it very well and cannot fathom a system without property. There are rules and guidelines which they use to decide what to take. It's not a selfish issue of "I want, I take". If what you want is in use by someone else, or they will suffer if you take it, then the rules ask that the item not be taken. So don't think that what I am advocating is a selfish system based on what people want. It is not that at all.

Just a few thoughts to consider,

Regards,

[+Paranoid Android]

So, you are saying it is not god's will that everyone should get to know god, to share in god's holiness - even if they are non-believers? Do you think poeple make up these rules for themselves, or for god?

As I am not a Muslim, to undertake the Hajj would be hypocritical of me if gaining entry to Mecca was my only reason for doing so. I would like to see Mecca for what it is - including the Sacred Mosque - not what it represents to a believer. To be frank, I don't consider that disrespectful of god or Man. In my opinion, those who do consider such an action disrespectful of god are manipulating religion for their own selfish purpose.

I'm not a Muslim either. What a Muslim believes is different to what I believe. "God's will" to me is different to a Muslim's idea of that. Though as an aside, I think it of interest that you consider sharing in god's holiness to be synonymous with making a trip to a religious location. As a non-believer, there is nothing spiritual you can get out of travelling to a spiritual holy site. You can't experience God there, so as a non-believer you would not be sharing in god's holiness. I'm afraid i can't agree with you. While I do believe it is not God's will (since no place is more holy than another), a Muslim would disagree and that does not make them selfish, in my opinion.

Regards,

[karl 12]

But London does not belong to this hypothetical cult. Mecca belongs to the Muslims and has for as long as Islam itself. If you trespass on my property, unless you are a friend I would ask you to leave. If you were to go to a football match, unless you paid your entrance fee, they wouldn't let you in. Are they being prejudiced? No. These are private property, and thus have restrictions on who enters. Consider Mecca "Private Property" if you will.

Regards,

Thanks for the reply but I think you failed to address the point.

The hypothetical thought experiment is a valid one and,since in the field of relgious credibility,each sect/cult/organisation is just as valid as the next one due to a complete lack of evidence,the argument holds water.

Validity of Religion is not a numbers game,nor does it deal in times or epochs-just because of the number of acolytes/supporters`or the length of time said opinion has prevailed it does not allow it, nor should we afford it ,any special priveleges.

So that said-if a particular religious cult/sect designated London as their `holy site`,would it and should it be acceptable for them to eject everyone else who did not share that opinion from the city on pain of imprisonment?

Cheers Karl

Edited October 20, 2008 by karl 12

[+Paranoid Android]

Thanks for the reply but I think you failed to address the point.

The hypothetical thought experiment is a valid one and,since in the field of relgious credibility,each sect/cult/organisation is just as valid as the next one due to a complete lack of evidence,the argument holds water.

Validity of Religion is not a numbers game,nor does it deal in times or epochs-just because of the number of acolytes/supporters`or the length of time said opinion has prevailed it does not allow it, nor should we afford it ,any special priveleges.

So that said-if a particular religious cult/sect designated London as their `holy site`,would it and should it be acceptable for them to eject everyone else who did not share that opinion from the city on pain of imprisonment?

Cheers Karl

I thought I had addressed the point. The length of time a group has existed was not the issue I was raising. It was matters of ownership. Let me try putting it another way -

If I designate my house a holy site and permit only fellow acolytes into it, if you want to enter, is it discrimination if I don't let you?

Now, if I designate YOUR house a holy site and want to evict you from that site and then permit only fellow acolytes into it, is this a different scenario?

I say firmly and without doubt - YES, it is most definitely different. In the first, it is my property and I have the right to allow people as I wish onto it. Providing I don't harm people in doing so, I should be granted my right to freedom in choosing who comes onto my holy site. The second though is encroaching on your property. And that makes a big difference. Thoughts?

[Leonardo]

I'm not a Muslim either. What a Muslim believes is different to what I believe. "God's will" to me is different to a Muslim's idea of that. Though as an aside, I think it of interest that you consider sharing in god's holiness to be synonymous with making a trip to a religious location. As a non-believer, there is nothing spiritual you can get out of travelling to a spiritual holy site. You can't experience God there, so as a non-believer you would not be sharing in god's holiness. I'm afraid i can't agree with you. While I do believe it is not God's will (since no place is more holy than another), a Muslim would disagree and that does not make them selfish, in my opinion.

Regards,

I never said I wanted to share god's holiness, PA. However, if god is the god of all, then wherever he is worshipped should be open to all. Tell me, does god care only for spirituality or does god care for beauty as well? What about truth, honesty, courtesy, openness, sharing, caring and all the things religion is constantly telling everyone their god is all about?

And I disagree about your assumption as to whether a non-believer could see spirituality in a holy site. Spirituality is not just about god, PA, but about the human spirit as well. When I see something beautiful or wondrous of human creation (such as a magnificent building) I do get a sense of that human spirituality. That it is different to what you consider spirituality, as you believe it [spirituality] must devolve from god, makes it no less.

To be honest, PA, you are not only avoiding committing yourself to an answer to these questions - perhaps for fear of offending those of other religions - but you are also showing a very narrow pov (don't worry, you're not alone as most religious people assume the same thing), in that you believe goodness and spirituality is only achievable in those who worship divinity.

Edited October 20, 2008 by Leonardo

[eight bits]

That is you spiritual being, you're a Non-Muslim. the cleanliness requite the Proper faith too, i.e Islam...

Actually, once is Saudia Arabia, an attempted destruction of the inner places was carried out, but it was stopped...

At that time Non-Muslims were allowed in the outer areas of the Mosque, but after the findings that revealed several Non-Muslims were involved in the attempt, they barred them permanently....

Thank you for your answer, Zeeshan. I now understand the distinction between a faithful Muslim and otherwise.

Also, I understand that for security purposes, given the obvious level of tensions that currently exist worldwide between Muslims and others, that restriction of the holiest areas of your faith might be reasonable.

I hope that we can look forward to a day when all sites of global cultural importance are open to all respectful visitors.

Peace.

[oldvariant42]

Thank you for your answer, Zeeshan. I now understand the distinction between a faithful Muslim and otherwise.

Also, I understand that for security purposes, given the obvious level of tensions that currently exist worldwide between Muslims and others, that restriction of the holiest areas of your faith might be reasonable.

I hope that we can look forward to a day when all sites of global cultural importance are open to all respectful visitors.

Peace.

Thanks for understanding dude, contrary to those who believe in 'flame-throwing'

[+Paranoid Android]

I never said I wanted to share god's holiness, PA. However, if god is the god of all, then wherever he is worshipped should be open to all. Tell me, does god care only for spirituality or does god care for beauty as well? What about truth, honesty, courtesy, openness, sharing, caring and all the things religion is constantly telling everyone their god is all about?

And I disagree about your assumption as to whether a non-believer could see spirituality in a holy site. Spirituality is not just about god, PA, but about the human spirit as well. When I see something beautiful or wondrous of human creation (such as a magnificent building) I do get a sense of that human spirituality. That it is different to what you consider spirituality, as you believe it [spirituality] must devolve from god, makes it no less.

To be honest, PA, you are not only avoiding committing yourself to an answer to these questions - perhaps for fear of offending those of other religions - but you are also showing a very narrow pov (don't worry, you're not alone as most religious people assume the same thing), in that you believe goodness and spirituality is only achievable in those who worship divinity.

I'm sorry Leo, I have absolutely no idea what you are saying. I have not avoided anything, certainly not out of fear of offending anyone. I have stated my opinion quite clearly and succinctly. Neither have I stated that goodness and/or spirituality can only come through worship of a god or gods. Perhaps you are misreading me, or perhaps I am not making myself clear. I am not a Muslim, so what does it matter how they worship God? It is not how I worship God and it is not how I believe God should be worshipped. I'm not sure how this is "avoiding committing" to any answer. I have said it straight out. However, I am looking at this issue from a Muslim perspective and perhaps you are misunderstanding this for a lack of commitment (God forbid that someone on this board looks at things from someone else's perspective, that's just wrong.....) Just because I am looking at the other side of the coin does not mean I agree with them or that I am doing so simply to avoid offending somebody. Neither have I ever stated that one must believe in God to see spirituality. Certainly one can appreciate the human spirit shining through a piece of art or architecture. Is this spirituality? One could probably argue either for or against. I certainly do not argue that spirituality must come from God - Buddhists don't even believe in a creator (or at least see one as irrelevant), yet they have a strong sense of spirituality. However, I do think that Spirituality must contain some level of information that moves beyond the physical realm. Admiring mankind's creativity does not in my opinion qualify as a non-physical understanding of spirituality.

So i guess we have a small difference of opinion on this last point. However, all else in your comment here baffles me. I don't see how you could have gotten anything you said from what I wrote unless I either totally and completely have not expressed myself in this thread, or you are totally and completely misunderstanding me (or perhaps a mixture of both somewhere, lol). All the best,

Regards,

[Leonardo]

Well, it took a bit of provocation , but you finally said it...

I am not a Muslim, so what does it matter how they worship God? It is not how I worship God and it is not how I believe God should be worshipped.

...without apologising for another's belief.

...Neither have I stated that goodness and/or spirituality can only come through worship of a god or gods. *snip* Neither have I ever stated that one must believe in God to see spirituality...

au contraire...

Though as an aside, I think it of interest that you consider sharing in god's holiness to be synonymous with making a trip to a religious location. As a non-believer, there is nothing spiritual you can get out of travelling to a spiritual holy site. You can't experience God there, so as a non-believer you would not be sharing in god's holiness. I'm afraid i can't agree with you.

However, I do think that Spirituality must contain some level of information that moves beyond the physical realm. Admiring mankind's creativity does not in my opinion qualify as a non-physical understanding of spirituality.

Don't be afraid of your own opinions, PA. We all have them.

Edited October 20, 2008 by Leonardo

[Omnaka]

I thought I had addressed the point. The length of time a group has existed was not the issue I was raising. It was matters of ownership. Let me try putting it another way -

If I designate my house a holy site and permit only fellow acolytes into it, if you want to enter, is it discrimination if I don't let you?

Now, if I designate YOUR house a holy site and want to evict you from that site and then permit only fellow acolytes into it, is this a different scenario?

I say firmly and without doubt - YES, it is most definitely different. In the first, it is my property and I have the right to allow people as I wish onto it. Providing I don't harm people in doing so, I should be granted my right to freedom in choosing who comes onto my holy site. The second though is encroaching on your property. And that makes a big difference. Thoughts?

I agree with your POV. Whole heartedly.

I like the analogy- My house / Your House.

And would add why would anyone want to Go to a place where they are not welcome?

One can not Go to a Comunist country with out doing all the things The Comunist Leaders deem nesesary For entrance.

Right or wrong is relative to The Owner's (Ocupants) of The House, Not the Invader / Visitor. IMO,

Love Omnaka

Edited October 20, 2008 by Omnaka

[+Paranoid Android]

Well, it took a bit of provocation , but you finally said it...

...without apologising for another's belief.

I'd said it before, and I wasn't apologising for anyone's beliefs. I was just looking at it from a Muslim perspective to show their point of view. Read back through the thread -

I am neither Jew nor Muslim. For a Christian, there is no most-holy and sacred site or person. There is no Temple to go to, nor is there a pilgrimage to make. I personally do not think any place is more holy than others. All are equally part of God's awesome creation. However, I respect that for Jews and Muslims there is a holy site.....

......So while I don't agree that any place on earth is more sacred than any other, I absolutely respect a person who does hold something sacred. It is a part of their spiritual identity and to remove it would be to remove the distinctive beauty of that belief (and even though I am a Christian, I see Islam as a very beautiful religion, just as I see Judaism as beautiful, and Buddhism as beautiful, and any other system as beautiful).

I stated my belief, and stated I didn't agree. However, I completely respect the Rights of others to believe as they do and will not ridicule them. Since when has respecting others been a sign of indecision?

au contraire...

Don't be afraid of your own opinions, PA. We all have them.

I'm not afraid. You're just misunderstanding what I'm saying. As I said, perhaps it might be I that is not explaining myself properly, but I thought it was quite clear. Spirituality DOES NOT need a divinity. Buddhism has none, yet I consider it eminently spiritual. Spirituality deals with spiritual matters - ie, beyond the earthly. The creativity of mankind I do not see as "spirituality". It is confined to our earthly bodies and minds. Now if that creativity led somewhere beyond the physical plane, then perhaps I would consider it. But admiring a building is unlikely to do that. Admiring the creative abilities of the designer is not likely to do that. Using those creative talents to move beyond the physical, perhaps. As I said in that last post, we have a minor difference of opinion on this issue, and I also agreed that you can probably make an argument both ways. But I categorically deny that you must believe in a god to have spirituality. You are misinterpreting my words.

Regards,

[Shaffy]

In the Quran, it's stated that:

"Oh you who believe! Truly the idolaters are unclean; so let them not, after this year, approach the Sacred Mosque...." (9:28)

Basically, Quran only bans non-muslims from the Grand Mosque in Mecca because they are unclean.

Unclean because you need to say certain prayers while cleaning oneself:

- After Passing motion or urine

- After Sexual intercourse/m********ion/so on

- After period for women

- Before prayer cleaning.

(The only ones i can remember off the top of my head)

So normally as a non-believer, you don't do said cleaning. Hence why it is said non-muslim is unclean, not for the fact that they don't shower or something. Muslims believe that when you face God or enter His holy house (anywhere in the world), you have to be clean and appropriately dressed. As far as i know, all the other mosques in the world admit muslims for tours of the area EXCEPT the prayer area. You can see it but you probably won't be allowed in it. (It's not a snap-worthy area anyway after all it's a huge space with lots of mats and a "throne-like thingy" in front.)

So anyway, later in history they extended the non-muslim ban further out from the Grand Mosque to cover Madinah as well. Quoted from this website with reasons why the scholars decided so:

later scholars have included Madinah in this ruling as well. There are some Islamic scholars who would permit exceptions to this general rule, for trade purposes or for people who are under treaty permission. There is also some debate about the exact area and borders of the restricted area(s). The government of Saudi Arabia, which controls access to the holy sites, has decided upon a strict ban on both cities in their entirety.

Restricting access to Mecca and Madinah is intended to provide a place of peace and refuge for Muslim believers and preserve the sanctity of the holy cities. At this time, millions of Muslims visit the cities each year, and additional tourist traffic would simply add to the congestion and detract from the spirituality of the pilgrimage visit.

So, the reason is simple. BAD TRAFFIC! We don't want people who go to Mecca looking for inner peace to start flipping and cussing each other out at the road junction.

Anyway, if you are really really desperate to see what Mecca looks like, there's alot of pics of it online.

[Mr Walker]

I'm not quoting your post for any reason than it contains my original question on which all this hangs. What is sacred?

Is it a rule from god? If so, why is a god - especially in the case of the Abrahamic god who is the creator of all - exclusive? Because the men who want to keep the power that priesthood of god infers say so? My point is that god should not be exclusive - regardless of belief or non-belief - and so nothing of god should be exclusive either.

As I said to Zeeshan, I understand why the rules regarding holy places, ceremonies etc are in place. I'm not sure Zeeshan appreciated what I was saying, however.

These rules are in place because of the pride and greed of Man. Not because god wills it so.

as i often do when thinking these questions through i tried to look through other eyes Thus i used the aboriginal people in whom i have no vested interest. Their sacred sites are sacred in a way i dont think we fully appreciate, yet this is probably how all sacred sites began. It involves belief, connections between people and places and other factors. To them it is beyond a rule from god,and it is not a rule they create. it is a matter of spiritual life and death, and becuase their spiritual life is intricately connected with their material life it can also be literally a matter of physical life and death. Im not sure about now, but traditionally if an aborigianl person lost their spirit, had it taken, or had it corrupted/ made ill, then they could well physically die. Where there is a true spiritual dimension to a people's life, this is quite a common linkage.

And the corruption/loss of their sacred sites was definitely one thing which could break their spiritual connection and result not just in the loss of their spiritual connection, but of their very lives which could not exist without that link to the sacred sites.

And yet their "god" is exclusive The effect it has on them is not felt by others, who do not have the same spiritual connection. Personally, i know anyone, from any religion, can develop similar linkages of faith with god, to that of the aboriginal people, but in different cultural contexts. Thus each faith can justifiably have an exclusive faith and exclusive forms of worship as well as exclusive places of worship God is accessible to alll but often that access is connected to the nature and form of the society worshipping god. As ive said before, preagrarian cultures have different relationships with god to agrarian,industrial and post industrial societies.

Even if god is real and unchanging, this is only to be expected, because humanity slowly changes. Today, we have people from almost stone age to the computer age living on earth. You cant expect them all to see, relate to, or worship, god in a similar form, or with similar styles of worship, or even in similar places of worship.

I think you are too harsh. The aborigines (and others) dont have rules because of pride or greed. Iit is basically and literally a matter of survival.This may be less so for other cultures, but the rules often reflect the needs and structure of the society..

I dont know how you can make a definitive statement about god's will or desires with any more accuracy than any one else, and so you cannot be sure he does not will such things. In your mental image of god you would simply prefer him not to be that sort of god.

Edited October 20, 2008 by Mr Walker

[Leonardo]

I think you are too harsh. The aborigines (and others) dont have rules because of pride or greed. Iit is basically and literally a matter of survival.This may be less so for other cultures, but the rules often reflect the needs and structure of the society..

I dont know how you can make a definitive statement about god's will or desires with any more accuracy than any one else, and so you cannot be sure he does not will such things. In your mental image of god you would simply prefer him not to be that sort of god.

Not too harsh, simply understanding of the base reasons we do things, have rules and exclude or are wary of 'strangers'.

I have made no definitive statement about god other than saying that, if god was the creator of all, then all have the right to that which is of god. It is others who proscribe and exclude according to Man's rules. They are the ones who are making definitive statement about what they consider god wants.

[Bee Eff]

Not too harsh, simply understanding of the base reasons we do things, have rules and exclude or are wary of 'strangers'.

I have made no definitive statement about god other than saying that, if god was the creator of all, then all have the right to that which is of god. It is others who proscribe and exclude according to Man's rules. They are the ones who are making definitive statement about what they consider god wants.

There are reasons why a person would not be allowed access to a place considered holy.

For LDS, we believe that knowledge increases the degree to which you are responsible for your actions. If someone chooses to break the simple prescribed covenants that are preparatory for temple admittance, why would such an individual be viewed as responsible enough for the further prescribed covenants that are entered into in the temple?

We have similar concept in our academia. If someone is not sufficiently prepared we do not allow them into grad school. We do this, not because we wish to withhold the knowledge, but because the knowledge would be useless, or perhaps misused, by someone unprepared.

Your comments make the assumption that there is an inherent right to sacred knowledge or position just by existence as a creation of God's, please provide some actual argument for this.

My children were not allowed the knowledge of sexual relations and I denied them such a knowledge until they were of age. They are my creations, should they have had access to such before they were of age and maturity to receive such information? There are many things in life that we withhold based on the capacity of the individual, either due to immaturity or lack of preparation. Your position is invalid.

[oldvariant42]

There are reasons why a person would not be allowed access to a place considered holy.

For LDS, we believe that knowledge increases the degree to which you are responsible for your actions. If someone chooses to break the simple prescribed covenants that are preparatory for temple admittance, why would such an individual be viewed as responsible enough for the further prescribed covenants that are entered into in the temple?

We have similar concept in our academia. If someone is not sufficiently prepared we do not allow them into grad school. We do this, not because we wish to withhold the knowledge, but because the knowledge would be useless, or perhaps misused, by someone unprepared.

Your comments make the assumption that there is an inherent right to sacred knowledge or position just by existence as a creation of God's, please provide some actual argument for this.

My children were not allowed the knowledge of sexual relations and I denied them such a knowledge until they were of age. They are my creations, should they have had access to such before they were of age and maturity to receive such information? There are many things in life that we withhold based on the capacity of the individual, either due to immaturity or lack of preparation. Your position is invalid.

Would agree with you

Bravo man, you speak so much wisely!

Edited October 20, 2008 by Zeeshan - (Twisted!)

[Leonardo]

There are Human reasons why a person would not be allowed access to a place considered holy.

For LDS, we believe that knowledge increases the degree to which you are responsible for your actions. If someone chooses to break the simple prescribed covenants that are preparatory for temple admittance, why would such an individual be viewed as responsible enough for the further prescribed covenants that are entered into in the temple?

We have similar concept in our academia. If someone is not sufficiently prepared we do not allow them into grad school. We do this, not because we wish to withhold the knowledge, but because the knowledge would be useless, or perhaps misused, by someone unprepared.

Your comments make the assumption that there is an inherent right to sacred knowledge or position just by existence as a creation of God's, please provide some actual argument for this.

My children were not allowed the knowledge of sexual relations and I denied them such a knowledge until they were of age. They are my creations, should they have had access to such before they were of age and maturity to receive such information? There are many things in life that we withhold based on the capacity of the individual, either due to immaturity or lack of preparation. Your position is invalid.

Fixed your post for you.

Your analogy of children is invalid, as there is no evidence we are the children of god. Your position (along with most others who are religious believers) is that you know the will of god, again with no evidence other than your belief based on what other people long dead have said and/or written. Your position is as invalid as mine.

However, I choose to believe that god, if god exists, is inclusive. You choose to believe god is exclusive.

Prove we are spiritually immature and we are the children of god and then you may lecture me on the validity or not of my position. As long as we are unknowing of whether there is a god and what the will of that being is, then all positions and opinions of such are equal. So the balance, therefore, resides in what we as humans believe to be right.

Edited October 20, 2008 by Leonardo

[Bee Eff]

Fixed your post for you.

Your analogy of children is invalid, as there is no evidence we are the children of god. Your position (along with most others who are religious believers) is that you know the will of god, again with no evidence other than your belief based on what other people long dead have said and/or written. Your position is as invalid as mine.

However, I choose to believe that god, if god exists, is inclusive. You choose to believe god is exclusive.

Prove we are spiritually immature and we are the children of god and then you may lecture me on the validity or not of my position. As long as we are unknowing of whether there is a god and what the will of that being is, then all positions and opinions of such are equal. So the balance, therefore, resides in what we as humans believe to be right.

Your beliefs are irrelevant and invalid when you are discussing Islam and the Muslim view of Mecca. Your view of God, and any position God may have, is simply wrong from their perspective. No need to prove anything.

I do not choose to believe God is exclusive or inclusive. If God exists, he is in fact exclusive. God knows everything from nearly any religious paradigm. If God knows everything and has not shared it with me, then he has excluded me.

God by definition is exclusive. I am less than God and not privvy to God, thus I am excluded from something. God is exclusive. God, if he exists, creates exclusion.

Edited October 20, 2008 by Bee Eff