The Religion Discussion

[maj. tom]

beh getting tired of this. Need a Bud. Believe in what you all want, time goes on, entropy increases and the universe will continue to expand long after our solar system is gone, so live your life now how you want without hurting or persecuting others, because forever is a long time.

My lulz on this thread was supposed to end some time ago after Kasey had admonished me. Yes this has all been just a big LULZ to me. Back to more important things in life like speed fapping (hydration is the key!) and non-hazmat sperm disposal....

[Azzuri]

Agreed with maj. tom.

The vast majority of atheists, agnostics etc have lifelong experience with belief systems and considerable knowledge of religion.

Very, very few believers have any real knowledge of scientific research or the scientific method. They constantly make ridiculous and ignorant statements about stuff they know nothing about, and when they're corrected, they jump to other tangents and refuse to apply the new knowledge to whatever point they were making.

It's a sign of either incredible stupidity, or deep-seated dishonesty.

It's a sign of insecurity with their own beliefs, which is when they lose control and use and and violence to enforce their way of thought.

[megadoc1]

^^ persons who wrote that article do not understand correct concept of space-time and frames of reference and call it "relational time"

with a remark like this I take it that you have no Idea what the Kalam Cosmological Argument is about nor what those guys were discussing, but yet quick to open your mouth and declare that they don't know what they are talking about? ...lol

I really thought you would investigate stuff but you half way read an article and draw a conclusion? do you know who is Dr William lane Craig ? he is one of the most feared by leading atheist

[maj. tom]

^^ persons who wrote that article do not understand correct concept of space-time and frames of reference and call it "relational time"

with a remark like this I take it that you have no Idea what the Kalam Cosmological Argument is about nor what those guys were discussing, but yet quick to open your mouth and declare that they don't know what they are talking about? ...lol

I am well aware of it, and I think you need to re-read that article you sent me and how people who don't understand scientific principles and theories think they understand it and put forward non-coherent arguments that really just confuse everyone. They make sense to people who believe in the idea in the first place of course.

A common example of such is radioactive dating and creationists.

Also wiki says "William Lane Craig (born August 23, 1949) is an American analytic philosopher, philosophical theologian, and Christian apologist.[1] He is known for his work on the philosophy of time and the philosophy of religion, specifically the existence of God and the defense of Christian theism"

Sure.... atheist. Sure, scientist. sure....

[d spike]

Agreed with maj. tom.

The vast majority of atheists, agnostics etc have lifelong experience with belief systems and considerable knowledge of religion.

Quite right. These are people who actually attempted to search for something, instead of blindly accepting whatever they were born into, or immaturishly grasping whatever brought them immediate solace. Maj. tom's "God fearers", without realizing it, are actually content to suckle for the rest of their lives on whatever stopped them from crying initially.
I find those who turn away and walk their own path always seem to eventually walk closer to the light than those who claim to have always adhered to it... Perhaps, in choosing to rely on rational thought and what they find acceptable in life, they are then able to MATURE along the lines that we were designed...
...rather than rely on someone else to do the thinking for them, and coin the phrases for them to bleat unthinkingly in unison with.
It is unfortunate that a religion can be based on someone's exhortations to folks to start thinking for themselves and to be concerned about others, and yet invariably evolve into a belief system for selfish automatons who refuse to think for themselves.

Very, very few believers have any real knowledge of scientific research or the scientific method. They constantly make ridiculous and ignorant statements about stuff they know nothing about, and when they're corrected, they jump to other tangents and refuse to apply the new knowledge to whatever point they were making.

It's a sign of either incredible stupidity, or deep-seated dishonesty.

A false sense of security, rather like the girl in any cheap horror flick who puts her fingers in her ears, refusing to hear any more nonsense about vampires, while some agitated chap in front of her is frantically gesturing at the ghoul right behind her...
Ignorance is bliss... a temporary one, perhaps, fraudulent too... but bliss all the same.

[megadoc1]

^^ persons who wrote that article do not understand correct concept of space-time and frames of reference and call it "relational time"

with a remark like this I take it that you have no Idea what the Kalam Cosmological Argument is about nor what those guys were discussing, but yet quick to open your mouth and declare that they don't know what they are talking about? ...lol

I am well aware of it, and I think you need to re-read that article you sent me and how people who don't understand scientific principles and theories think they understand it and put forward non-coherent arguments that really just confuse everyone. They make sense to people who believe in the idea in the first place of course.

A common example of such is radioactive dating and creationists.

the same can be said for atheist

[maj. tom]

^ see above posts by me and spike and humes about what we were before.

[d spike]

I am kinda confused, please clarify your position. Are you not christian? or follower of Jesus but not interpretations of churches/groups?

They say History repeats itself… If pressed, then I would have to say that this cycle is about every 30 pages or so! And so once more to deal with inanity:
I find it awkward when people fixate on one’s religious persuasion, rather than focus on what one has to say. If one takes part in a discussion, then the statements made in that discussion are the focal point of that discussion. If it were not so, then I should be posting my portfolio and CV instead of statements and responses.
Demanding to know “where I’m coming from” is based on an immature whim of insecurity, namely, the knowledge that if one cannot respond logically to one of my arguments, then one can always brush it aside by saying,”Oh, all you (insert here choice of religion) are like that”… It gives one the immature option of lobbing standard accusations at easily identifiable and preset targets – and thus avoid dealing with the original issue.
Hindus are invariably asked about idols and how many hands which deity has…
Jews are pounded about killing Jesus then and killing Palestinians now…
Catholics can be harried about Mary, the pope, and priests who forsake marriage in order to molest little boys…
Muslims are always bombarded about jihad, terrorists and stoning women adulterers…

Focus on the point I make in a discussion. Deal with it.

My personal beliefs are not for public consumption.

If you can’t accept this point, then give megadoc or toyo682 or sir civic a call and commiserate.

The other thing that bugs poor ole megadoc about me is that I won't come out and spew my beliefs on this forum.
My claim that my own religion is my own business rattles him no end.
Simply because I refuse to admit or deny in an anonymous yet public forum is not proof of anything except my appreciation for privacy.

My position is simple: Bloom where you are planted. If you are a Buddhist, then be a good Buddhist. If you are a Hindu, be a good Hindu.

I have told you time and again, I have no problem with anyone's beliefs - it's their cramming it down the throats of others that I refuse to accept.

We all have to climb a mountain. We are all going in the same direction. We may take different paths, but we are each trying to ascend to the same goal. Depending on where you stand the access to the peak will seem different. Some choose a well-beaten path, some struggle through the brambles. It is folly to accuse someone of choosing the wrong path. Some paths are easier than others, but all invariably lead to the same place – just because you may not see it from where you are doesn’t mean it isn’t so – it just means your sight is hampered in some way.

Let it suffice to say that your knowledge of right and wrong is yours to judge your own actions, what is truth for you, what is acceptable for you... not to tell others what to do or believe. They must be allowed to exercise that same gift in their lives - in order for the choice they make to be truly theirs.

You need to ask yourself (NOT other people... Megadoc1 had it wrong from the starting line) if you believe Someone is in charge of this whole affair. If your answer is 'yes', then you need to trust that he has a plan - and you do your part. (Meddling in his affairs by messing with other people's lives isn't your part. To explain: we are all called to walk a path. Each of us has our own path. To stop walking in order to start directing traffic, or to go and drag people off their path to walk alongside you, may not be the best thing for that person.)

I agree where that one truth is concerned, there are many ways of perceiving it, expressing it, focusing on different aspects of it... and when you consider that all or some of this must be put into the context of the culture of the one who proclaims it... no wonder the multiplicity of religions in the history of man.

A truly religious person would believe this. However the problem with appreciating/accepting other cultures' religions starts right as one accepts this truth, and at the same time, allows one's own personal view to colour this same truth.

Who you deem God (and thus, His revealed "word") can easily lead you to assume that you (and hence your choice) are right... and all else must therefore be wrong. It hardly ever occurs to the immature/simple mind that God would choose to reveal himself to different cultures across time in ways that those particular people could understand and would accept His truths.

Please note that I am not decrying immature or simple-minded folk - far from it... Their lives are far more uncomplicated. It is what we do, not what we know, that we will be judged by - if you believe in some form of judgment, of course. In fact, to be aware of more, makes whatever judgment you might face even more weighty. Simple people see things in "black and white". Decisions come easily to them... until they come across one of life's quagmires of moral dilemmas. (At that point, they either become aware of the existence of the "gray areas" of life - and in choosing to deal with it, open their minds to the ability to learn more deeply about life; or they prefer to remain as they are by "backpedalling" until they reach to safe ground, then avoid that particular reality like the plague - or just live in denial.)
Where these simple folk run afoul is when they decide that everybody else must do things / accept truths their way - as any other way must be wrong.

Thanks for the copy and paste from another thread.

(P.S. You can glibly refer to my posts above as “cut n’ paste” but just remember:
1. That doesn’t change what they say. Deal with that instead.
2. Sneering at it doesn’t qualify as responding to it. Deal with that instead.
3. The term “cut n’ paste” is a reference that implies plagiarism. These were remarks I made earlier in this thread (For those who came in late ) and the fact that there is cause for them to be repeated shows that such matters were dealt with before – a fact that should not be lost on a student of such a worthy religion as Islam that respects scholarly learning and the rich history of Man. It makes me wonder then, why someone such as you would scoff at becoming aware of what went before, when your very religion is based on what went before… Any Islamic scholar finds great worth in studying the past… the fact that you so easily sneer at what passed before you came, makes me wonder about YOUR religion.

Are you really interested in finding the answer to your queries? Or are you more interested in letting your voice be heard, unconcerned about whether such points as yours were previously raised and dealt with? If so, then discourse is not your goal. Carefully read what I have written, before answering.

I believe I have suitably clarified my position.
Cheers.

[megadoc1]

^ see above posts by me and spike and humes about what we were before.

i think you have mistaken d spike, read his post above!

[d spike]

^ see above posts by me and spike and humes about what we were before.

i think you have mistaken d spike, read his post above!

Nice way of ducking what the lad is talking about.
You know very well he is referring to WHAT WAS SAID in this post:

Agreed with maj. tom.

The vast majority of atheists, agnostics etc have lifelong experience with belief systems and considerable knowledge of religion.

Quite right. These are people who actually attempted to search for something, instead of blindly accepting whatever they were born into, or immaturishly grasping whatever brought them immediate solace. Maj. tom's "God fearers", without realizing it, are actually content to suckle for the rest of their lives on whatever stopped them from crying initially.
I find those who turn away and walk their own path always seem to eventually walk closer to the light than those who claim to have always adhered to it... Perhaps, in choosing to rely on rational thought and what they find acceptable in life, they are then able to MATURE along the lines that we were designed...
...rather than rely on someone else to do the thinking for them, and coin the phrases for them to bleat unthinkingly in unison with.
It is unfortunate that a religion can be based on someone's exhortations to folks to start thinking for themselves and to be concerned about others, and yet invariably evolve into a belief system for selfish automatons who refuse to think for themselves.

Very, very few believers have any real knowledge of scientific research or the scientific method. They constantly make ridiculous and ignorant statements about stuff they know nothing about, and when they're corrected, they jump to other tangents and refuse to apply the new knowledge to whatever point they were making.

It's a sign of either incredible stupidity, or deep-seated dishonesty.

A false sense of security, rather like the girl in any cheap horror flick who puts her fingers in her ears, refusing to hear any more nonsense about vampires, while some agitated chap in front of her is frantically gesturing at the ghoul right behind her...
Ignorance is bliss... a temporary one, perhaps, fraudulent too... but bliss all the same.

(Care to respond to him now?)

[nareshseep]

Mankind is doomed, God does not communicate with modern man, if it is claimed then he is either mad or the antichrist (how appropriate eh).

[d spike]

Mankind is doomed, God does not communicate with modern man, if it is claimed then he is either mad or the antichrist (how appropriate eh).

Maybe this is because...
the Rapture took place already, and all the good Christian men and women of the world (all five of them) were taken up... and having missed The Judgement - no one takes on religious conventions any more, unless it is advertised as having a pretty girl in a rather short skirt singing on a stage - we are now in Hell... which would explain the politics and crime...

[nareshseep]

Mankind is doomed, God does not communicate with modern man, if it is claimed then he is either mad or the antichrist (how appropriate eh).

Maybe this is because...
the Rapture took place already, and all the good Christian men and women of the world (all five of them) were taken up... and having missed The Judgement - no one takes on religious conventions any more, unless it is advertised as having a pretty girl in a rather short skirt singing on a stage - we are now in Hell... which would explain the politics and crime...

Its the end times I tell you...

[d spike]

sigh
I actually miss the megadoc 'debates'

Which ones?
The ones where he used to recite songs and paroxysms of praise (rattling his tambourine)?
Or the ones where he would go on about banging a possessed girl (and thus frightened himself into religion)?
Or the ones where he would rebuke and condemn you and me?
Or the ones where he would single out folks and invite them to his inner sanctum?

I'm rather glad all that has ceased (whether due to medication, or ensuring that the subsequent partner was not possessed...)

this adam fella scares me

The confusing of Faith and Knowledge has always caused problems - you know that.
He's just another version of megadoc... different culture, different religion, same outlook.
He has drank the Kool-aid prepared by some fundamentalist who barely understands his own religion... Thinks he is right and thus all else is wrong (Duane's napkin all over again)... and sees it as his duty to pepper the heathen with his ideology.
Prepare yourself for yards of Koranic quotations supporting the belief that spawned it...
Prepare yourself for bucketsful of misquoted Biblical quotations that support his point of view (the quotations that don't support his view are "clearly" mistranslated or "changed" to suit the Infidels twisted version of what really happened)...

Just as long as he doesn't do like megadoc did and go all jihadi on my tail, I'm okay with that.

[maj. tom]

Poor little Suzie

[d spike]

^ see above posts by me and spike and humes about what we were before.

Maj. tom, I have a serious problem with the concept that religion is a "Us vs. Them" football-match sort of thing. I also have a problem with folks who twist a religion to suit their selfish/narrow-minded ends.
There was a thread (now locked) about Noah's Ark by MG Man. (It was a lot of fun, believe me.) In it, folks who were "atheists/agnostics" squared off against the Christian fundamentalists. I chose to bump my gum on the side of Reason - as I always attempt to do. Due to the same compartmentalist thinking that adamB subscribes to, megadoc assumed I was an atheist, and held that concept between his teeth for moons afterwards. So don't mind his wild "Aha's" in the background where my persuasions are concerned.

An atheist believes there is no God. An agnostic isn't adamant on that point, but thinks that whatever supreme being might be holding the world in existence, he certainly doesn't affect the lives of us mortals.
Most self-proclaimed atheists are actually agnostics who haven't realized it yet.
To believe there is no God, or to claim that one doesn't believe in God, means one must first have a concept of what "God" is. Invariably, this concept is what is wrong. We are fed preconceived concepts that we swallow whole - mainly because they are often too complicated in the first place for the common man to consider easily. When we realize exactly what it is that we are being asked to accept, we question. When those around us cannot answer those questions, we baulk.
Simply put, would you ask adamB to teach Hinduism? Would you ask megadoc to preach in a mosque?
Keep asking your questions - honest queries, eh... not poking at the arse of organised religion. Most folks who follow a religion do so, not because they understand it (so don't waste time expecting any of the many to explain their beliefs) but because it gives them a sense of security, in which hopefully all will be explained in good time.

Needling a Muslim about Abu Bakr's fling in 1990 or Bin Laden's hobby of choice will not aid you in understanding his belief.
Anyone can buy a bottle of medicine... but placing it on the shelf is not going to help you. The rain is always wet, but the only way you can get wet is if you stand outside. Judge a religion by those who truly follow what it teaches - not by those who just claim adherence.

[d spike]

Faith grows with doubt. Only when you question, when you ask 'why', can your faith truly develop as the answer becomes apparent. The answer may take years, decades... but that is part of your journey. Sometimes, a negative answer seems to diminish or eradicate what faith is there, but that is not so. To search is to find... to find is to continue looking. That is our nature.
Fundamentalists refute this. Faith to them is the opposite of doubt - to doubt is to fail, to fall... To be totally adamant allows presumption to rear its head in your life, accompanied by blindedness.
Faith is not the roadway... it's the light you use to see your way more clearly.

[Dizzy28]

sigh
I actually miss the megadoc 'debates'
this adam fella scares me

Co sign!!

[d spike]

AdamB, as far as "being confused" when some folks seem to focus on Jesus more that you are comfortable with, here is something he said that I am sure even you will agree with - to some extent at least.

When Jesus spoke about who would be going to hell or heaven at the end of time, he was very specific.
This is in response to those "christian" remarks made previously, concerning the danger of certain folks going to hell, specifically the "unbelievers" and "nay-sayers".
In Matthew 25:34-45, Jesus describes “Judgment Day”, saying that “the people of all nations” will be gathered and divided into two groups:
Then the King will say to the people on his right, “Come, you that are blessed by my Father! Come and possess the kingdom which has been prepared for you ever since the creation of the world. I was hungry and you fed me, thirsty and you gave me a drink; I was a stranger and you received me in your homes, naked and you clothed me; I was sick and you took care of me, in prison and you visited me.”
The righteous will then answer him, “When, Lord, did we ever see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and gave you a drink? When did we ever see you a stranger and welcome you in our homes, or naked and clothe you? When did we ever see you sick or in prison and visit you?”
The King will reply, “I tell you, whenever you did this for one of the least important of these brothers of mine, you did it for me!”
Then he will say to those on his left, "Away from me, you that are under God’s curse! Away to the eternal fire which has been prepared for the Devil and his angels! I was hungry but you would not feed me, thirsty but you would not give me a drink; I was a stranger but you would not welcome me in your homes, naked but you would not clothe me; I was sick and in prison but you would not take care of me.”
Then they will answer him, “When, Lord, did we ever see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and we would not help you?”
The King will reply, “I tell you, whenever you refused to help one of these least important ones, you refused to help me!”

Ummmmm... he didn't say anything about believing or not believing... or being a Pentecostal or Catholic or Buddhist...

Why are those, who claim vehemently to be the followers of this man, so quick to ignore these words, but focus their rantings instead on those who don't share their specific religious grouping?

[mamoo_pagal]

AdamB, as far as "being confused" when some folks seem to focus on Jesus more that you are comfortable with, here is something he said that I am sure even you will agree with - to some extent at least.

When Jesus spoke about who would be going to hell or heaven at the end of time, he was very specific.
This is in response to those "christian" remarks made previously, concerning the danger of certain folks going to hell, specifically the "unbelievers" and "nay-sayers".
In Matthew 25:34-45, Jesus describes “Judgment Day”, saying that “the people of all nations” will be gathered and divided into two groups:
Then the King will say to the people on his right, “Come, you that are blessed by my Father! Come and possess the kingdom which has been prepared for you ever since the creation of the world. I was hungry and you fed me, thirsty and you gave me a drink; I was a stranger and you received me in your homes, naked and you clothed me; I was sick and you took care of me, in prison and you visited me.”
The righteous will then answer him, “When, Lord, did we ever see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and gave you a drink? When did we ever see you a stranger and welcome you in our homes, or naked and clothe you? When did we ever see you sick or in prison and visit you?”
The King will reply, “I tell you, whenever you did this for one of the least important of these brothers of mine, you did it for me!”
Then he will say to those on his left, "Away from me, you that are under God’s curse! Away to the eternal fire which has been prepared for the Devil and his angels! I was hungry but you would not feed me, thirsty but you would not give me a drink; I was a stranger but you would not welcome me in your homes, naked but you would not clothe me; I was sick and in prison but you would not take care of me.”
Then they will answer him, “When, Lord, did we ever see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and we would not help you?”
The King will reply, “I tell you, whenever you refused to help one of these least important ones, you refused to help me!”

Ummmmm... he didn't say anything about believing or not believing... or being a Pentecostal or Catholic or Buddhist...

Why are those, who claim vehemently to be the followers of this man, so quick to ignore these words, but focus their rantings instead on those who don't share their specific religious grouping?

Co Sign!!

[bluefete]

WHO THE HELL CHANGED MY TOPIC NAME???

The thread was not about a religious debate. It is about God. Therefore, please put back God's name in the title!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank You Very Much.

The fact that it turned into a religious debate is a good thing because it allowed many different vies to be shared.

But please put back God's name in the title. There is a reason for that which I will explain soon.

What happen? Is someone afraid of God's name now?????

[sMASH]

come to common terms....

[MG Man]

lol I agree with bluey.this new ched name too user friendly ;p

[Chimera]

WHO THE HELL CHANGED MY TOPIC NAME???

The thread was not about a religious debate. It is about God. Therefore, please put back God's name in the title!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank You Very Much.

The fact that it turned into a religious debate is a good thing because it allowed many different vies to be shared.

But please put back God's name in the title. There is a reason for that which I will explain soon.

What happen? Is someone afraid of God's name now?????

Ask God to help yuh change the name na.

[maj. tom]

^ nah that eh written in the bible

[MG Man]

lol level kicks

[AdamB]

@ doc i don't know arabic all too well, and primarily rely on translations. so i would have to say so far so good, any discrepancies are due to the inability to of arabic to directly translate to english. but to give u an idea of the the discrepancy, one meaning may be 'day' while historically the same word was also used to mean 'period of time'. that is where the context needs to be referenced.

@sMASH & Megadoc1: The Quran is without error (no doubt). It was revealed in the arabic language which still exists today and ALLAH (GOD) has promised in it that HE will preserve it. Only the arabic is THE Quran. It is memorized word for word, letter for letter by millions of muslims around the globe.
If someone makes a mistake in recitation or in printing of the ARABIC in a book, then that error will be recognized and corrected.
Translations in different languages, the ones done at first were not the best and some did have minor errors because it depended upon the individual's knowledge of both languages and ability to translate from one to the other. However, the translations we have today are much closer to not having "mistakes". Again, these would be few and minor.

Pertaining to the meaning with respect to "discrepancies" or differences in translation - there is a general principle of Quran that different meanings can be supported from one word or statement provided that they do not oppose of contradict each other.

That's like the seemingly differing meanings that the earth is egg shaped and spread out (flat like a plain). From one perspective, if you look from outer space (like maj tom, just kidding bro) then it appears spherical or egg-shaped. From another perspective, if you are on the surface of the earth then it appears flat, spread or laid out, making it easy for man to move about, travel from place to place, etc.

The Arabic language: I have studied a little, it is very specific and comprehensive when you look at the conjugation of the verbs and tenses.

English has singular and plural, first, second and third person. (I, you, he / we, you, they). How do you know if "we said" means 2 or more speaking and if they are male or female? Does addressing "you" mean 1, 2, or more , male or female are being addressed?

In the arabic language, the conjugations are 1st, 2nd, 3rd person; male / female; number 1, 2 and 3 or more.

so in english there are 6 but in arabic there are 3x2x3=18 in theory but actually 14 due to a couple being the same/not used regularly.

[AdamB]

WHO THE HELL CHANGED MY TOPIC NAME???

The thread was not about a religious debate. It is about God. Therefore, please put back God's name in the title!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank You Very Much.

The fact that it turned into a religious debate is a good thing because it allowed many different vies to be shared.

But please put back God's name in the title. There is a reason for that which I will explain soon.

What happen? Is someone afraid of God's name now?????

TO BE OR NOT TO BE, THAT IS THE QUESTION?

OR IS THE QUESTION...WHAT IS THE NAME OF GOD??

[maj. tom]

^oh no! he's at it again!

[maj. tom]

TO BE OR NOT TO BE, THAT IS THE QUESTION?

OR IS THE QUESTION...WHAT IS THE NAME OF GOD??

Bob Bird Jones Sr.