Judaism, Christianity or Islam. Which one is right? Why are the others wrong? Discuss.
Actually it is not a black and white question or answer.
All the worlds major religions are linked directly.
Let me explain my views.
So where is the connection
In the beginning man worshipped objects like trees and animals and statues. In different parts of the world man worshipped the sun.
The main organised regions such as hinduism, aincient greece, rome, persia, babylon, had many gods.
Buddha who was born an hindu changed this by in essence claiming one supreme entity. In persia Zoroast did the same thing and converted the king to become zoroastrian. Alexander the Greta who was greek invaded asia and occupied as far as india and right across the middle east.
This area became buddhist as the empire came under rule from a king named ashoka. So most of asia and the middle east became buddhist.
Jesus when he became a teenager travelled away from his family and went on a spiritual journey. Nothing is written of this in the bible but it can be assumed with great certainty that jesus came into contact of buddhist teachnings.
Because when he came back to the holy land many of his quotes were exactly comparable to the quotes of buddha.
According to the Buddhist religion there is to be a second buddha 600 years after the first which coincides with Jesus.
Therefore in my view the Dharmic religions of the east are linked with the abrahamic religions of the west.
Jesus was jewish so he believed in everything jewish as a child. But as an adult his teachings were significantly different.
How Judaism Christianity and Islam links is this:
Adam and Eve, Moses, Noah's Ark, Jonah and the whale, John the Baptist, Abraham and his son, in all three religions all the accounts are the same.
When Jesus said:"If you love me, you will obey what I command. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor"
"It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Comforter will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment"
Many different versions of the bible exist but they all contain roughly this same passage where Jesus predicts the coming of another prophet who will be able to complete the work.
Both muslims and christians believe in the ressurection and the second coming of Christ and both believe in essentially the same things such as the day of judgement.
Therefore most if not all the main religions are linked and at their core say there is one God and in all of the main religions to deny God is the number one sin.
So if one believes in the existence of God and the fact that there is only one God and no human or object or image can be a substitue for God, then all religions which teach the same message are equally good.
So please lets not turn this into a sectarian debate.
This is between the athiests and the believers in God _________________
Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 5:05 pm Post subject: god is without doubt a human invention
The 'god' phenomenon is a human creation, and NOT the other way round.
Someone said that 'religion should be practised in private between consenting adults - and NEVER in front of the children' - a sentiment I conclusively agree with.
Whenever I look back at where and when my own personal awareness of * actually began, the only memory I have was walking out of Sunday school when they tried to tell me that a chap walked on water.
My Religious Instruction (yes it was called that then) teacher, just before he threw me out of the class permanently for arguing with him, wrote in my school report:
"Mark cannot afford to ignore this subject forever. Or can he."
Yes. _________________ The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 7:41 pm Post subject:
Mark Gobell wrote:
"Mark cannot afford to ignore this subject forever. Or can he."
Ignore it at your own peril sir. Its a decision on which literally everything in the rest of your life depends - and an important one to revisit throughout your life.
To dismiss miracles is a great loss to our varous hopes and imaginings.
With regard to the headline of this topic.....
Of course you can't get rid of God from this forum. What an absurdity. Without God there would have been no forums or users in the first place, and unfortunately no Neoconservatives.
He is recording everything. I guess this is the main problem with NATO the NSA and GCHQ that they all have Luciferic aspirations to be God.
God is the spirit of truth and righteousness.
Lucifer/Satan is the spirit of pride, vanity and sophistry.
Joined: 20 Feb 2007 Posts: 370 Location: Phuket, Thailand
Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 4:50 am Post subject: Responsibilities & Chance
Responsibilities & Chance
It is interesting that Stelios links so many of the major ‘one god’ religions, and has them influenced by Siddhārtha Gautama, because I have always found it strange that one of the world’s major religions is based on the findings or teachings of a man who is said to have walked away from his family, in order to find the meaning of life. Today, that would be called desertion, no matter the motive.
It is also interesting that Tony Gosling is adamant that to ignore ‘miracles’ is to do so at your peril, adding:
Quote:
To dismiss miracles is a great loss to our varous hopes and imaginings.
One often hears of people who claim that their survival was a ‘miracle’; that ‘God was looking upon me, that day...’ or words to that effect, when the other poor people in the plane, bus or boat disaster all perished. Much the same is said when a sick baby is ‘miraculously’ cured, while others die horrifying deaths caused by war, natural disasters and disease.
If ‘god’ can be so arbitrary, then could not he, she or it simply be called ‘chance’?
When more people stop relying on mysticism and faith, and start to think more about not doing to others what you wouldn’t like done to yourself or your loved ones, perhaps we may see some improvement in the human condition, until then this discussion might just as well be about how many proverbial angels can dance on the head of the proverbial pin, or how 'smart' bombs can be made even smarter. _________________ The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.
Where God fits in with 911 is this
the media told us that 911 was an act committed by people who believed in God and other people who also believed in God wanted revenge.
911 made alot of us question our faith. Followed by investigation of our faith. Followed by a re awakening once the truth became aparant.
Now many of us have found more than ever our belief in God is stronger than ever. Because the forces of evil are all around us. The lies, the curroption, the doublespeak, and the death and destruction.
Has anyone seen the film 'hostel'?
You can watch it on www.flickpeek.com
There are thousands who go missing in America and are never seen again. I am pretty sure what was depicted in the film is occuring in reality.
Without God in peoples lives man becomes a feral beast and even all of you athiests must confess this just look at our history.
China
Cambodian - pol pot
Hitler
Stalin
look at the athiest regimes and tell me which athiest regime is better to have lived in?
I repeat without God man becomes a feral beast _________________
Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 12:13 pm Post subject: Re: Responsibilities & Chance
Anthony Lawson wrote:
Responsibilities & Chance
It is interesting that Stelios links so many of the major ‘one god’ religions, and has them influenced by Siddhārtha Gautama, because I have always found it strange that one of the world’s major religions is based on the findings or teachings of a man who is said to have walked away from his family, in order to find the meaning of life. Today, that would be called desertion, no matter the motive.
It is also interesting that Tony Gosling is adamant that to ignore ‘miracles’ is to do so at your peril, adding:
Quote:
To dismiss miracles is a great loss to our varous hopes and imaginings.
One often hears of people who claim that their survival was a ‘miracle’; that ‘God was looking upon me, that day...’ or words to that effect, when the other poor people in the plane, bus or boat disaster all perished. Much the same is said when a sick baby is ‘miraculously’ cured, while others die horrifying deaths caused by war, natural disasters and disease.
If ‘god’ can be so arbitrary, then could not he, she or it simply be called ‘chance’?
When more people stop relying on mysticism and faith, and start to think more about not doing to others what you wouldn’t like done to yourself or your loved ones, perhaps we may see some improvement in the human condition, until then this discussion might just as well be about how many proverbial angels can dance on the head of the proverbial pin, or how 'smart' bombs can be made even smarter.
How a one god religion is moulded from earlier religions, one religion is created/invented thousands of years later, no mention of the christian god in indiginious peoples, ie aboriginies, arawaks, indiginious red indians etc ad infinitum, along with other civilisations 'gods', The facts of christianity being created/invented, recognised as an 'official religion' by paul in total disregard for every other civilisation that lived on earth before him is quite breath takingly staggering. Apart from the mountains upon mountains of documentation that christianity is a plagurised religion tweaking previous religious 'gods' down to a singular 'god' is itself an act of brainwashing in its purest form.
One could counter tony goslings comments, if he isant to twist and warp my words in future again as, to take notice of miracles at your peril, ie turn a bit of water to red wine at your peril, look at the damage religion is and has done throughout the ages, turn water into wine, a miracle? does that make tommy cooper a miracle worker too? take miracles at your peril would seem a more accurate description rather than the other way around, one example is the lightening bolt, seen as a warning from 'god' not too distantly in the past. But lets just all forget about that warning now eh, and concentrate thats its a fact of nature.
Its intresting that of the two people screaming at me to provide evidence of ahoax regarding modern invented/created religions, stelios and zabooka, when i put forward my first point of debate, both studiously gave it the widest berth possible and totally ignored the questions, not one responded to the request to start at the beginning to confirm the dates their respective religions/cults were started/created. One went off into so many tangents and says his religion is moulded from
others? while the other has boycotted the debate..hmmm i wonder why.
Stelios as always brings numerous debating points up instead of walking before he can run. Its better to muddy the waters of religion before they are too clear to understand things. Which is fair enough if the debate gets you to question the roots of ones beliefs/brainwashing origins.
Where God fits in with 911 is this
the media told us that 911 was an act committed by people who believed in God and other people who also believed in God wanted revenge.
911 made alot of us question our faith. Followed by investigation of our faith. Followed by a re awakening once the truth became aparant.
Now many of us have found more than ever our belief in God is stronger than ever. Because the forces of evil are all around us. The lies, the curroption, the doublespeak, and the death and destruction.
Has anyone seen the film 'hostel'?
You can watch it on www.flickpeek.com
There are thousands who go missing in America and are never seen again. I am pretty sure what was depicted in the film is occuring in reality.
Without God in peoples lives man becomes a feral beast and even all of you athiests must confess this just look at our history.
China
Cambodian - pol pot
Hitler
Stalin
look at the athiest regimes and tell me which athiest regime is better to have lived in?I repeat without God man becomes a feral beast
stelios, you have left the god loving following nations out of the list,
UK
USA
over the last 200 years i would say the god following countries have caused more mass murders, more destruction than those you cite put together, so using your logic, having your god makes people 'better' does it? you dont need religion to be good and you dont need any religion to be bad. i just dont understand what you are trying to say, look at the christian missionaries and their brutal and violent ways, look at the catholic nuns in their teaching methods. theres many evil people who are religious, theres also many evil people who have no religion, to imply everyone is feral who isant religious is the stupidest thing i have ever heard and ive heard stupidity on large scales in the past.
How you equate the leaders of countries as representing every citizen ruled by them is ignorance at its most heinious. using that logic, your logic, then the uk and usa, bastions of christianity means every citizen is responsible for its governments and churches abuses/mass murders.
we in the uk live a relatively comfortable easy life when compared to other nations, thats because our governments rape and pillage the weaker nations wealth to raise our standards above theirs, and say look at those poor unfortunate b******.
The uk and usa has mass murdered more people than anyone else, nations who espote christianity everytime a 200lb bomb is dropped from 47,000ft.
Onward christian soldiers, marching off to war, with the cross of jesus, mass murdering like none gone before. if you cannot spot the hypocracy and brainwashing going on here,well.
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 12:48 pm Post subject:
I'm still waiting too Long Tooth
Quote:
The Bible (and all scripture) is "flawed".... ....because humans are "flawed"
What do I mean by this? Well consider ourselves. We live dependant on our one rock in space being just the right distance from our Sun, and on the existence of a six mile thick layer of gas. We cannot travel the vastness of the Universe, but must peer out and guess and wonder. We are finite: we cannot read every book ever written in a lifetime, or even remotely close, or travel to all places we could travel to. We cannot know everything, we cannot be everything: we are creatures of extreme limitation
We are born, knowing nothing, no language, no pattern, no thought: from our immediate surrounding we start to absorb input with which we construct our "inner world", the model through which we filter all input. What thoughts can a man have, without the construction bricks of concepts to construct them? In terms of development of mind, all humans are wildly different from one another and none is perfect, for the perfection of mind is impossible
And yet, we are connected by our feelings: we all can feel, and feel the same feelings. this is our common bond that unites us all together: whoever we have persuaded ourselves to think we are, or to think another is (atheist/ theist/ humanist/ christian/ muslim/ jew/ buddhist/ communist and all the rest) because of our interpretation of our immediate environment from birth to maturity, whatever bits of data exist within the storage of our brains, we all have human blood pumping through our human hearts: we all have human forms derived, in their diversity, from our common human heritage
For some of us, the mind is enough. Something makes sense, it makes sense, anything which we cannot make sense of, is therefore non-sense. If our inner model has reached its limits of what it can conceive, we do not say "our model is limited": instead we say "this data does not fit, it must be false". Yet for others, we understand that whilst our mind is limited, our feeling is not. What difference does distance make to feel the suffering of a child who has been harmed? What need of a feeling to be rationalised in order to be felt? The rationalisation only comes after the feeling, not before
Consider all of the above, and then consider scripture:
Let us imagine that in the vastness of the universe there is an order of intelligence far far vaster than our own, intelligence without limit, infinite intelligence, occupying all places simultaneously (which is a reasonably fair description of what the spiritually inclined consider "God" to be). Let us imagine one was that intelligence: how then could one communicate effectively with a being as limited and flawed as man? Could man, with his ability only to construct sense from what the pattern of thoughts he knows, immediately and comprehensively grasps what it is to be infinite intelligence? Clearly, the likely answer here is No
But man can feel: and this capacity to feel is what could connect man to the infinite intelligence around him. With this connection, man can feel what it is to be man from the POV of infinite intelligence. He can feel what it is to be awareness much larger than himself... and he can then use the contents of his mind to construct a mental model that defines, imperfectly, as that is the only way man can define, those infinite feelings stimulated by from infinite intelligence
That is what all scripture is: the imperfect translation of infinite feeling, filtered through the cultural and historical context of the individual so connected and inspired
And what feelings are they, that can be inspired by infinite intelligence? What does infinite intelligence feel?
Infinite empathy. Infinite compassion. Infinite Love
Of course, we can reject this. We can focus on the imperfect map of scripture, the product of imperfect man, and say "these words are cruel: this phrase is hurtful: this concept is ignorant": and all these things are true. But we are critiquing man and his failings: not the touch with infinity that so inspired him
All scripture is flawed. The profound beauty lies in the fact that any has been attempted to be written at all
Perhaps we cannot conceive that there is such a thing as infinite intelligence. Perhaps we live in such a way that there is only our own intelligence, and that is all there is. This seems to me to be the same as saying "So! You claim to have had a divine revelation standing on that hill! Right I'm going to go and stand there too: and if I don't have an identical replicable divine inspiration, I'm going to declare you a fraud!"
And perhaps that’s why one of the common translations of communion with infinite intelligence ("God") is:
"Forgive them: they know not what they do"
_________________ Free your Self and Free the World
Joined: 20 Feb 2007 Posts: 370 Location: Phuket, Thailand
Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 1:08 pm Post subject: The Forces of Evil
The Forces of Evil
Stelios...
Quote:
Now many of us have found more than ever our belief in God is stronger than ever. Because the forces of evil are all around us. The lies, the curroption, the doublespeak, and the death and destruction.
Why would a belief in god be stronger, when bad people still appear to be in the ascendancy? They are people, and, as people, they can be defeated by the vigilance and a commonality of purpose shown by decent people. The problem with most religious teachings is the underlying message or implication that ‘God will put things right,’ in the face of all kinds of evidence that he, she or it never seems to have done so, unless you happen to believe in the afterlife and the all’s-well-that-ends-well wrap-up.
By the way, atheists are not required to ‘confess’ to things. You make it seem as though admitting that something bad exists, or existed, is tantamount to being involved with it. However, perhaps atheists see things more clearly, in the absence of mysticism or having a belief in miracles, for example.
The knowledge that the Crusaders were probably as much interested in gold and plunder as they were in taking Jerusalem back from Saladin, should give some clues as to how religions have been, and are still used to further the ambitions of those who, given the circumstances, would have been just as happy to enlist the aid of the pagan Mongol hordes, as long as it got the job done. This does not mean that a decent, modern-day Christian should have any guilt or remorse about the Crusades, any more than an atheist should feel guilt about what Pol Pot did to the Cambodians.
There are and have been many feral-beast-like leaders who carried the banner of this or that prophet of the ‘one true god’ into battle, or who even stated that their message came directly from god, with no intermediary. So it should be obvious that barbarity is not exclusive to atheists, and to state that: ‘without god, man becomes a feral beast’ is an insult to those who believe that the world could be a better place, but do not think that belief in a god is necessary to make it so. _________________ The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.
The Bible (and all scripture) is "flawed".... ....because humans are "flawed"
What do I mean by this? Well consider ourselves. We live dependant on our one rock in space being just the right distance from our Sun, and on the existence of a six mile thick layer of gas. We cannot travel the vastness of the Universe, but must peer out and guess and wonder. We are finite: we cannot read every book ever written in a lifetime, or even remotely close, or travel to all places we could travel to. We cannot know everything, we cannot be everything: we are creatures of extreme limitation
We are born, knowing nothing, no language, no pattern, no thought: from our immediate surrounding we start to absorb input with which we construct our "inner world", the model through which we filter all input. What thoughts can a man have, without the construction bricks of concepts to construct them? In terms of development of mind, all humans are wildly different from one another and none is perfect, for the perfection of mind is impossible
And yet, we are connected by our feelings: we all can feel, and feel the same feelings. this is our common bond that unites us all together: whoever we have persuaded ourselves to think we are, or to think another is (atheist/ theist/ humanist/ christian/ muslim/ jew/ buddhist/ communist and all the rest) because of our interpretation of our immediate environment from birth to maturity, whatever bits of data exist within the storage of our brains, we all have human blood pumping through our human hearts: we all have human forms derived, in their diversity, from our common human heritage
For some of us, the mind is enough. Something makes sense, it makes sense, anything which we cannot make sense of, is therefore non-sense. If our inner model has reached its limits of what it can conceive, we do not say "our model is limited": instead we say "this data does not fit, it must be false". Yet for others, we understand that whilst our mind is limited, our feeling is not. What difference does distance make to feel the suffering of a child who has been harmed? What need of a feeling to be rationalised in order to be felt? The rationalisation only comes after the feeling, not before
Consider all of the above, and then consider scripture:
Let us imagine that in the vastness of the universe there is an order of intelligence far far vaster than our own, intelligence without limit, infinite intelligence, occupying all places simultaneously (which is a reasonably fair description of what the spiritually inclined consider "God" to be). Let us imagine one was that intelligence: how then could one communicate effectively with a being as limited and flawed as man? Could man, with his ability only to construct sense from what the pattern of thoughts he knows, immediately and comprehensively grasps what it is to be infinite intelligence? Clearly, the likely answer here is No
But man can feel: and this capacity to feel is what could connect man to the infinite intelligence around him. With this connection, man can feel what it is to be man from the POV of infinite intelligence. He can feel what it is to be awareness much larger than himself... and he can then use the contents of his mind to construct a mental model that defines, imperfectly, as that is the only way man can define, those infinite feelings stimulated by from infinite intelligence
That is what all scripture is: the imperfect translation of infinite feeling, filtered through the cultural and historical context of the individual so connected and inspired
And what feelings are they, that can be inspired by infinite intelligence? What does infinite intelligence feel?
Infinite empathy. Infinite compassion. Infinite Love
Of course, we can reject this. We can focus on the imperfect map of scripture, the product of imperfect man, and say "these words are cruel: this phrase is hurtful: this concept is ignorant": and all these things are true. But we are critiquing man and his failings: not the touch with infinity that so inspired him
All scripture is flawed. The profound beauty lies in the fact that any has been attempted to be written at all
Perhaps we cannot conceive that there is such a thing as infinite intelligence. Perhaps we live in such a way that there is only our own intelligence, and that is all there is. This seems to me to be the same as saying "So! You claim to have had a divine revelation standing on that hill! Right I'm going to go and stand there too: and if I don't have an identical replicable divine inspiration, I'm going to declare you a fraud!"
And perhaps that’s why one of the common translations of communion with infinite intelligence ("God") is:
"Forgive them: they know not what they do"
hi John
i meant to reply to this yesterday, and then got sidetracked.
i agree on almost everything the article says.
I dont know what has created the universe or what we are, that is a diffrent set of values to those who tell me they know how the earth and how we were created.
I am willing to go on 'the journey' when i die, but to second guess and believe in organised created/invented modern religious conspiracy theories seems absurd to me when the evidence is there to document the three modern religions are hoaxes.
I give more credence to indiginious belief systems, aborigininal for example, spirit, i cannot debunk them so i give greater 'repect' to them. My issue is with modern invented/religions. Provable hoaxes.
I agree man has a very lowly limitable intellegence in the big picture of things. theres ample evidence to suggest we are a 'slave' 'race' (earthlings) seeded and created to do anothers 'dirty work' certainly more evidence their for me than a recently created christian/islamic judaic 'god'.
while we are speculating why do you assume their is only 'one' god, or higher intellegence behind all things, have you discounted the probability their could be 'gods' higher intellegences?
we dont know, we do know that the three modern religions are concoctions though.
you state when we are born we know nothing and have no thought? how does a newly born baby know when to suckle if it has no thought process? surely the brains mechanism for survival knows to suckle to get food? is this not a thought process?
The standing on a hill and having a divine experience is a good one, given mans disposition to lie cheat and decieve each other at every opportunity, to gain something we percieve as advantageous, its hardly suprising that 99.9% of us are fraudulent in some way.
is there somthing as infinite intellegence, i dont know, we cannot discount it, if there is why would he make a flawed earth and a flawed man?
we cannot discount either that there isant an ifinite intellegence, as things stand the evidence heavily outweighs that. of course we can discount evidence, we all do it in our everday life for various reasons. are you suggesting we should ignore the evidence that christianity,islam and judaism are modern hoaxes, and believe blindly?
we cannot also discount that humans are genetically engineered to be a slave race, about as important as an ant in the whole cosmical scale of events. we dont know. we do know the deceptions from whence the three created/invented religions came. thats the difference.
Do we have 'spirit' i have an open mind, i dont know, as you state we are all flawed, is the a 'god' in the christian sense, for me personally its a hoax, why do i come to that conclusion, beacuse there is no evidence, i keep asking for it, and not one miracle reciever standing on a hill is able to provide a shred that his visions/hallucinations are real and not imagined.
there is more proof for ET's visiting earth than jesus, yet christians et al discount actual evidence, yet cling to no proof regarding jesus' visitation as factual.
Now back to the analogy of the 19 million diamond haul that the authorities allege you have stolen and hidden, prove to them you havant done it?
thats how society has radically changed, or rather how laws and evidence of things existing has changed.
once of a time the authorities had to prove you did something, ie prove you are a terrorist, prove how you robbed the diamonds, now it seems you do not have to prove anything you claim, its up to others to disprove they are a terrorist, or you to disprove you are a diamond theif.
Earthlings were created by another planets race, genetically modified, by them who were in turn GM'ed by a chain of other 'higher intellegencies' etc. this was done by an infinite intellegence whose 'intellegence' runs on diffrent rules to what we can ever understand. now surely if i am making these 'remarkable' claims, the onus would be on me to prove them, to be accepted. I claim something and provide evidence for the claims, and then opponents of these theories can disect or accept them? but you wouldant just say, trust me i had an hallucination, theres no other evidence so its correct, especially if theres mountains of evidence to show i am hoaxing you?
I could not resist. However, here is a Muslim answer to "The God Delusion". Even Dawkins admits, that the Kalaam Cosmological argument is the only one worthy as a refutation to his works. The Kalaam Cosmological argument is something one would know of through studying Islamic Theology.
I could not resist. However, here is a Muslim answer to "The God Delusion". Even Dawkins admits, that the Kalaam Cosmological argument is the only one worthy as a refutation to his works. The Kalaam Cosmological argument is something one would know of through studying Islamic Theology.
welcome back Zabooka, i hope you are fine and well, you must forgive me if i have a bludgening debating style, i will try to step more lightly and hope i do not offend you.
The kalam argument, i think kalam means speaking in arabic, i may be incorrect though.
the kalam argument basis its theory on nothing is infinite, if that is the case it is seriously flawed in my humble opinion, one example is numbers, whatever number you think of there is always something more.
the kalam or 'speaking' argument, puts forward that the universe is finite, it must have a begining, as we do not know the possibilty is it may be infinite. as we do not know its danerous to peddle whole faith systems on a guessing game.
Take christianity for example, the faith preaches god created the earth, it dosant say god created the universe, correct me if i am wrong. This very moment the leaders of christianity are working on ''gods fingerprints of the universe theory'' 'possibly contact with ET as one of the popes 'right hand man divulged during an interview a few years ago now, to cover this anomoly. this much anticipated work is being waited for, for over 7 years now.
The kalam theory dosant address the sudden springing up of islam as a religion a mere 1437 years ago. how can a religion just ignore all other religious gods/dieties etc that went before it for thousands of years?
how can a religion just ignore all other religious gods/dieties etc that went before it for thousands of years?
many regards, shokram.
It does not ignore all other religions. We believe in 124,000 Prophets. This includes those mentioned in the Bibles. Our Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) did talk of religions of old, this is also mentioned in the Quran.
With regards to the Kalaam Cosmological argument. Prove to me infinity. You see, just cause you can concieve something in your head, does not mean it exists. Even you as an Atheist can concieve something as a god, and many people can concieve the idea of a Unicorn, Dragons, etc, etc.
So you can concieve numbers yes. You see in Islamic Theology, we learn about how the Mind works. The importance of abstraction. For instance, there are things on this world that hint to things greater than it. We do not know the largest number there is... it just keeps going, keep adding a one all the time.
Same way, how we see the relation of Creator and Creation. Creation as a Metaphor for the Creator. Numbers do not really exist, they are in your head.
I still await more people to reply to the google video of Shaykh Hamza Yusuf responding to The God Delusion.
Joined: 20 Feb 2007 Posts: 370 Location: Phuket, Thailand
Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 3:23 am Post subject: Why is there no Universal Congregation?
Why is there no Universal Congregation?
I do not know very much about what other atheists think, because atheists do not tend to congregate, but it has always intrigued me, having listened, endlessly, to those who eloquently express their belief in an all-powerful God with His infinite wisdom and mercy, that this God is still unable to unite those whom He created, so that they all worship him in a similar manner, and, therefore, see eye to eye with each other, rather than use their own particular form of religious expression as a reason for attacking each other.
Is it really rational to believe that an all-powerful, all-merciful God would allow those whom He created to fight and dismember one another; to drop bombs and fire missiles at one another; to destroy whole communities with fire bombs and to use the cruellest methods of individual and mass extermination, whether or not such acts were carried out with His name on the lips of the perpetrators?
At the very least, the notion that ‘God is good’ should be re-examined, in the light of what is so obviously not good behaviour on the part of the Creator’s creations and the indisputable fact that He sees fit not to do anything about it. _________________ The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.
Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 5:57 am Post subject: Re: Why is there no Universal Congregation?
Anthony Lawson wrote:
Why is there no Universal Congregation?
I do not know very much about what other atheists think, because atheists do not tend to congregate, but it has always intrigued me, having listened, endlessly, to those who eloquently express their belief in an all-powerful God with His infinite wisdom and mercy, that this God is still unable to unite those whom He created, so that they all worship him in a similar manner, and, therefore, see eye to eye with each other, rather than use their own particular form of religious expression as a reason for attacking each other.
Is it really rational to believe that an all-powerful, all-merciful God would allow those whom He created to fight and dismember one another; to drop bombs and fire missiles at one another; to destroy whole communities with fire bombs and to use the cruellest methods of individual and mass extermination, whether or not such acts were carried out with His name on the lips of the perpetrators?
At the very least, the notion that ‘God is good’ should be re-examined, in the light of what is so obviously not good behaviour on the part of the Creator’s creations and the indisputable fact that He sees fit not to do anything about it.
Look at the core of every religion
Man has been created with free will.
Free will to fight
free will to shag
free will to snort cocaine and drink champagne
and ofcourse free will to murder or to order others to murder.
God provides us with our rules and our society with rules
it is up to us to choose to follow them or not.
sitting there now you can choose to be an athiest if you wish
it is your free will.
And your point about one unitarian congregation. Well the world is becoming more and more unitarian. As people learn and realise the overlaps and the common messages many are deciding that all religions lead to the same common end and folow the same genealogy.
But in religion you can follow the regulations and you can follow examples of the prophets and how they behaved.
No relgion allows murder, rape, paedophilia, lies, stealing, suicide, etc
there is no way you can critcise anyone who is pious and follows his religion properly
no matter what the religion is
But athiests are a different kettle of fish completely
they have no rule no regulations
they eat what they like, kill what they like, destroy what they like
with no regrets because they have no conscience and no moral yardstick to follow
Stalin
Pol pot
Chairman Mao
Hitler
these are example of athiest political leaders
Bush is not an athiest because he worships a Babylonian deity named Molech. But freemasonary is not a God worshipping religion it is a luciferian cult.
So please never call Bush a Christian.
Tony Blair is not religious, he is a political and religious gypsy. You are judged by your actions and his actions are of a man who sold his soul to the devil in 1983 in return for personal wealth and power.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/05/04/nblair 04.xml http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,2082533,00.html
Look at the average real god fearing religious leader
Jacque Chirac - catholic
Vladimir Putin - Orthodox
Ahmadinejhad - muslim
and there are many more
you might not agree with the politics or the cut of their jib but compare these God fearing leaders with the athiest ones, you have got to admit a leader with a faith is less violent, less murderous and less dishonest by a huge margin. _________________
Stalin
Pol pot
Chairman Mao
Hitler
these are example of athiest political leaders
These are examples of males. These are examples of fair skinned people. These are peope with dark hair. Would it be the colour of their hair which makes them evil? BTW Hitler was a devout Christian and says so clearly in Mein Kampf so persisting in ignoring inconvenient facts rather ruins your point. It will be interesting to look up the others - I do not take your word that they had no belief system since you refuse to acknowledge Hitler's Christianity.
A belief in God is no more likely to make anyone more moralistic, indeed it probably makes them less so as they can do what they do in "God's name" so justifying anything, however odious. There was precious little objection from the Christian church in the UK to the slaughter of men in WW1. Christian German fought Christian French and Christian Russian and Christian Briton leading to the death of millions. All sent to battle with the blessing of their respective Christian clergy. Wonderful moral leadership!
None of the people you mention did anything in the name of "Atheism", like Hitler did not do what he did in the name of Christianity. Atheism has no goals. It is not a movement or a belief system. Communism is a movement like any religion. It has members and meetings and goals and seeks to expand. The religious beliefs (or lack of them) of Communists is irrelevant.
Hitler was a devout Christian and says so clearly in Mein Kampf so persisting in ignoring inconvenient facts rather ruins your point.
Early childhood Adolf Hitler was brought up in his family's religion by his Roman Catholic parents. According to historian Bradley F. Smith, Hitler's father, though nominally a Catholic, was a freethinker, while his mother was a practicing Catholic. According to historian Michael Rissmann, young Adolf was influenced in school by Pan-Germanism and Darwinism and began to reject the Church and Catholicism, receiving Confirmation only unwillingly. A boyhood friend reports that after Hitler had left home, he never attended Mass or received the Sacraments. Georg Ritter von Schönerer's writings and the written legacy of his Pan-German Away from Rome! movement, which agitated against the Roman Catholic Church at the end of the 19th century, may have influenced the young Adolf Hitler.
why is the religious beliefs of communists irellevant?
they are athiests
Fate must bring retribution, unless men conciliate Fate while there is still time. How thankful I am today to the Providence which sent me to that school!
-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
Thus my faith grew that my beautiful dream for the future would become reality after all, even though this might require long years.
-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
The more the linguistic Babel corroded and disorganized parliament, the closer drew the inevitable hour of the disintegration of this Babylonian Empire, and with it the hour of freedom for my German-Austrian people.
-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
As long as leadership from above was not lacking, the people fulfilled their duty and obligation overwhelmingly. Whether Protestant pastor or Catholic priest, both together and particularly at the first flare, there really existed in both camps but a single holy German Reich, for whose existence and future each man turned to his own heaven.
-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
Verily a man cannot serve two masters. And I consider the foundation or destruction of a religion far greater than the foundation or destruction of a state, let alone a party.
-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
Political parties has nothing to do with religious problems, as long as these are not alien to the nation, undermining the morals and ethics of the race; just as religion cannot be amalgamated with the scheming of political parties.
-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
For the political leader the religious doctrines and institutions of his people must always remain inviolable; or else has no right to be in politics, but should become a reformer, if he has what it takes!
-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
the fact is that hitler talks about germany as heavan and talks about religion and faith as his dream for germany _________________
Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 9:14 am Post subject: Re: Why is there no Universal Congregation?
Anthony Lawson wrote:
Why is there no Universal Congregation?...all-powerful God with His infinite wisdom and mercy, that this God is still unable to unite those whom He created, so that they all worship him in a similar manner, and, therefore, see eye to eye with each other, rather than use their own particular form of religious expression as a reason for attacking each other.
In the Quran, it is written that God made us into many races, tribes, what have you, so that we could know one another. Secondly, we Muslims are told that if no one ever sinned on Earth, He would destroy the World and start again.
Anthony Lawson wrote:
Is it really rational to believe that an all-powerful, all-merciful God would allow those whom He created to fight and dismember one another; to drop bombs and fire missiles at one another; to destroy whole communities with fire bombs and to use the cruellest methods of individual and mass extermination, whether or not such acts were carried out with His name on the lips of the perpetrators?
In Islam, we believe that all is from God, nothing can be from God. We do not believe that there is any other Creator or any other being with power. We do not believe Humans or Satan has any power or creates. We believe Humans have been given a will, as it is the intentions that we are to be judged upon, not our actions.
Second point, God decided what is Good and what is Bad. To say that God has to conform to a standard of what is Good, is to say that God is not totally independent of all and all things are dependent upon God. In Islamic Theology, God is independent of all and all things are dependent upon God.
So what is Good and Evil. Well in the Quran it clearly states that all Good is from God and all Bad is from us. What does this mean? Well, God creates only out of Good Intention! It is not concievable for God to create with a bad intention for it. Even Satan.
Look at it this way. If you found a destitute, ignorant human with nothing. You give that human a beautiful plot of land, wealth, clothing, food, knowledge... you give with the intention of Good, to do Good. Say to build a beautiful Garden and to keep that garden beautiful, to be its caretaker and be caretaker to all the animals there too.
Now of course the human gets the reward for intending the same good will as you the giver of wealth, knowledge, etc, etc. However that human could not have been able to do anything without your good willed intervention. So ultimately, all praise is unto you really.
However, if this same human decides otherwise, to just take what it wants for itself and to use it all for its own self. Forgetting where it came from, disregarding it and not caring whatsoever. Is that your fault? You gave with good intention and purpose, yet this human chooses to do otherwise. Can you be laid fault for what this human does with your things?
Another point... is that we have antinomy in Islamic Theology. You must understand the idea that you have different TRUTHs at different levels. For instance, I can sit between two people. For one I am on their left, the other I am on their right. Both statements are true, but in different positions.
Now look at the idea of ENERGY. They say energy does not increase or decrease, it just changes. At the micro or specific level, so instance a type of energy does increase and decrease. Heat increases and decreases. Yet looking at the entire energy in existence, it does not increase or decrease, this is the macro, universal, general perspective. Or the perspective of God.
On the Creation level, there is Good and Bad, Creation is in a constantly changing state, with a beginning and an end. The Creator is constant, being pre-eternal and post-eternal, having no beginning or end. This is what Muslims believe generally in their Islamic Creed of Creation and Creator.
Anthony Lawson wrote:
At the very least, the notion that ‘God is good’ should be re-examined, in the light of what is so obviously not good behaviour on the part of the Creator’s creations and the indisputable fact that He sees fit not to do anything about it.
Whose notion of what is Good and what is Bad?
Remember the idea of Antinomy, you are taking your Creation Level judgements to apply to the Creator.
I would prefer to wait till I have completed my studies of Islamic Aqeedah/Creed/Theology. I am still studying under my Shaykh. Once I have permission to teach, I would do so. So understand, that these are the words of a Student and not of a Master of Islamic Theology.
Joined: 20 Feb 2007 Posts: 370 Location: Phuket, Thailand
Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 11:08 am Post subject: The Judgement of Stelios
The Judgement of Stelios
My mother passed on her belief to me. She called it the Golden Rule. ‘Do only unto others as you would have them do unto you.’ She also asked me not to do anything which would make her ashamed of her son. I have tried to follow her advice and her request, and, while not always succeeding, at least my conscience told me when I had failed.
Yet Stelios wrote...
Quote:
But athiests are a different kettle of fish completely
they have no rule no regulations
they eat what they like, kill what they like, destroy what they like
with no regrets because they have no conscience and no moral yardstick to follow
I will leave others to judge you, Stelios. _________________ The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.
Joined: 20 Feb 2007 Posts: 370 Location: Phuket, Thailand
Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 11:51 am Post subject: To Zabooka
To Zabooka,
If you fully understand everything you wrote, and believe that God handed all of these ideas down to the Prophet Mohammed, and that they have not been embellished, since, then there is nothing that a mere mortal—trying to muddle through life and do the right thing—could possibly say that would lead you to question anything which your are being taught. So I will not even attempt to reply to your individual points.
Take care,
Anthony _________________ The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.
why is the religious beliefs of communists irellevant?
they are athiests
How can you possibly know that all Communists are Atheists? The religious belief is irrelevant because it is COMMUNISM that is the belief. It is communism that is a philosophy and is a movement with members and who have meetings and who have "books" which they hold sacrosanct. Just like religions! Those people did what they did in the name of Communism NOT Atheism. Atheism has no aims, no members and no sacred book that "guides" them. Many people are Atheists (a label pinned on them by the likes of you Stelios - they do not have a label themselves) who do NOT follow Communism. The fact that some Atheists (according to you) were also Communist leaders is as irrelevant as Hitler being a devout Catholic to his dying day. In spite of what you say to the contrary. Nothing to say about the Christian clergy condoning the sending of millions to slaughter other Christians? How remiss! I wonder how come the great Islamic leaders allowed millions of Muslims to be slaughtered by other Muslims in the Iran Iraq war? Strange how their loving and caring philosophy goes awol just when it is needed most.
how can a religion just ignore all other religious gods/dieties etc that went before it for thousands of years?
many regards, shokram.
It does not ignore all other religions. We believe in 124,000 Prophets. This includes those mentioned in the Bibles. Our Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) did talk of religions of old, this is also mentioned in the Quran.
With regards to the Kalaam Cosmological argument. Prove to me infinity.You see, just cause you can concieve something in your head, does not mean it exists. Even you as an Atheist can concieve something as a god, and many people can concieve the idea of a Unicorn, Dragons, etc, etc.
So you can concieve numbers yes. You see in Islamic Theology, we learn about how the Mind works. The importance of abstraction. For instance, there are things on this world that hint to things greater than it. We do not know the largest number there is... it just keeps going, keep adding a one all the time.
Same way, how we see the relation of Creator and Creation. Creation as a Metaphor for the Creator. Numbers do not really exist, they are in your head.
I still await more people to reply to the google video of Shaykh Hamza Yusuf responding to The God Delusion.
With regards to the Kalaam Cosmological argument. Prove to me infinity
Okay, the kalam cosmological basis its theory on nothing is infinite, stating the universe is finite, by stating nothing can be finite, that statement snookeres itself behind the belief that its islamic god cannot be infinite, by definition if nothing is infinite, it must have a starting point, so who created god? has he always existed? if he has always existed and will continue to exist forever then he must be infinite. by excepting the kalam argument you except your god, at some point never existed, so who created him?
the kalam argument basis its theory also that the universe was created, so what was there before the universe? nothing, space, a vacum of space? an infinite amount of nothing, ie space.
you state;
You see, just cause you can concieve something in your head, does not mean it exists
this is what i have been trying to explain to you regarding religions and gods, specifically the religions and gods created and invented very recently regarding history, ie islam christianity and judaism.
you also agree in your statement:
For instance, there are things on this world that hint to things greater than it. We do not know the largest number there is... it just keeps going, keep adding a one all the time.
thereby also agreeing with me the kalam argument is wrong in its assumption that theres nothing infinite.
perhaps you can point me in the right direction with some example of the aboriginal belief/religion in the quran, i cannot seem to find it, thanks, or is it just a common all encompasing attempt to group old religions together in a flippant ham fisted way to dismiss them? i am seriously intrested in this because look as i might i cannot find any refrence to specific points mentioned.
If the 3 recently invented/created religions, all fundementaly believe that the god is all the same, why is nothing united? why are all the indoctrinations/mantras singing from diffrent hymm sheets?
you may enquire why nobody is responding to your request for replies to hamza yusuf, but theres many still waiting for your reply to confirm when your religion islam was created/invented, the question i asked was do you except that islam was invented in 570 AD, a yes or no will do if you have the time to spare from your indoctrination, and also if its no, can you put up the your accepted date for islams creation/invention.
God is not a part of the Universe and does not exist therein.
It is not concievable, that the Creator is also ruled by its Creation's laws.
So thats why the Kalaam Argument is not a contradiction. You have the wrong understanding of it, Dawkins does not have this confusion when understanding this, otherwise he would have used what you think is a refutation.
In terms of Islam. Islam literally means Submission to the Will of Allah. We believe this has always existed from the very first creation. Yet the final completion of Islam was with Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) and the Quran. The date, AD 570 seems about right. I still see no significance regarding this however.
God is not a part of the Universe and does not exist therein.
It is not concievable, that the Creator is also ruled by its Creation's laws.
So thats why the Kalaam Argument is not a contradiction. You have the wrong understanding of it, Dawkins does not have this confusion when understanding this, otherwise he would have used what you think is a refutation.
In terms of Islam. Islam literally means Submission to the Will of Allah. We believe this has always existed from the very first creation. Yet the final completion of Islam was with Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) and the Quran. The date, AD 570 seems about right. I still see no significance regarding this however.
if god isant a part of the universe although the word 'part' is an unfortunate term, then he isant 'part' of earth either then. isant the indoctrinations by religious teachings, that god is everywhere. if he is everywhere then he must 'be in' the universe, or be a part of it. or are you saying islam believes that there was nothing, except god, and he decided to create everything out of nothing?
if god isant any 'part' of the universe, what are religious people doing peddling 'parts' of his teachings?
are you saying god isant infinite? that he must have a starting/creation point, or has he always 'existed'?
the significance of 570 AD is that islam didant exist in 569 AD, it was invented a year later.
perhaps my misunderstanding of the kalam argument comes from, nothing is infinite. thats what it states at the begining. when i put instances of infinite's you say i misunderstand it.
the kalam theory states god is finite, by its own theory nothing is infinite, then by simplistic analogy its implying god is finite, if hes finite, ie he had a starting point, who created god?
i cannot make this any simplier for you to grasp.
if there is one god why do the religions sing from different hymm sheets?
These people peddling this are guessing, and we all know if you are guessing then you dont know.
The fact he is tying himself up in knots over the kalam theory i find highly amusing. he attempts to put forward his case, and only proceeds to dismantle it when implying nothing is infinite.
Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 7:49 pm Post subject: stelios atheistophobe?
Stelios wrote
Quote:
But athiests are a different kettle of fish completely
they have no rule no regulations
they eat what they like, kill what they like, destroy what they like
with no regrets because they have no conscience and no moral yardstick to follow
I wonder if you're not confusing 'atheist' with 'psycopath'?
Oxford dictionary says noun a person who believes that God does not exist.
Nothing there about rapacious eating habits, or drive- by murderous, wanton mayhem such as you have chosen to include as examples of atheists' alarming and widespread behaviour. It is almost possible for one to consider that you have chosen to embroider a perfectly adequate and succint definition in order to bolster your learned facade.
Allow me if you will, to point out that such nonsensical statements - offered up in a debate of some gravity - permit me for one to conclude that you're a penny short of a shilling when it comes to informed comment upon 'religion'.
if there is one god why do the religions sing from different hymm sheets?
These people peddling this are guessing, and we all know if you are guessing then you dont know.
Hi Longtooth.
IMO God is not religion/s and religion/s is not God. It is possible to reject all religions and still believe in God. The difference between those that believe in God who follow a religion and those that believe in God and don't, is that for one God is defined by and understood through that religion whilst for the other, God is self defined and understood without dogma.
What if I said that life is a self fulfilling prophesy: that what we believe and how we act determines how we perceive the world and what happens to us.
In such a world, if you believe in God you are open to experiencing God and if you don't, you won't. For the believer they will find confirmation in life all around and visa versa.
For me, the chasm that often exists between the religious and athiests is easily understood. In all religions you can find dogma (some of it very silly indeed to the non believer) and intollerance and practices and beliefs that are fundamentally at odds with the core message of past prophets.
This is why personally I have never found any value in dogmatic religion.
To me God is a very complicated concept to communicate. As complicated as life itself. Indeed in trying to describe it you can sow the seeds of confusion. So at the risk of confusing everyone, here's my take (which I should add is not a particularly original one).
God is everything: the alpha and the omega, everything that ever was, is and will be (within the perception of time), you, me, this computer, every thought, word and deed, both the creator and the created. But I like to keep things simple: God is Life is Love is Freedom is Infinite.
So my humble advice is if you don't believe in God, pay this no attention. Instead believe in Love (unconditional Love) or Life for ultimately they are all paths to the same truth. Like I said not particularly original, but true for me.
Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 9:35 pm Post subject: Re: The Judgement of Stelios
Anthony Lawson wrote:
[size=16]My mother passed on her belief to me. She called it the Golden Rule. ‘Do only unto others as you would have them do unto you.’ She also asked me not to do anything which would make her ashamed of her son. I have tried to follow her advice and her request, and, while not always succeeding, at least my conscience told me when I had failed
In Luke's Gospel, Jesus elaborates on this "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" principle. He says, "Give to everyone who asks of you. And from him who takes away your goods do not ask them back. And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise. But if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive back, what credit is that to you? For even sinners lend to sinners to receive as much back. But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil. Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful." (Luke 6:30-36)
So after all the argument, you are a christian at heart.
Anthony your mother did well to give you this moral guidance and hopefully you will pass christian values on to your own children.
Well done Anthony keep up the faith.
Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine. It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.
long tooth... you have not done your research. Islam obviously believes God is infinite. You know what... your understanding is just not there.
I agree with Neals post here. The fact that you are trying to say that our Kalaam Cosmological Argument says that even God is finite... and the fact that you do not understand that all language is metaphorical. You see these concepts are not difficult to understand, its as soon as you find an excuse to not understand them, you use it to disregard them.
Right now, I shall expend more time with 9/11 Truth. After Loose Change Final Cut. I shall if you wish, teach you all about Islam and we will have ample time for our discourses.
For me, I believe we should forget religious talk in this manner. Why? Well, I do not want to see people of different faiths, agnostics and athiests all falling out with eachother and forget the common immediate goal of propagating 9/11 Truth.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
