The Religion Discussion

[Bizzare]

and his mother wasnt a virgin obviously.

Hey megadoc1, I believe jesus existed as a man also. There's a substantial amount of proof surrounding his existence. Same goes for Muhammad mentioned in the Quran and many other figures of other beliefs. Doesn't mean they were truly gifted supernaturally or had special abilities besides being able to trick the population. Sai Baba did the same in our generation.

[shane1]

religion will continue to destroy the world and people's lives because people are to blind to live on thier own and believe in themselves. God cant be dead because there is no proof he ever existed... its all based on men writing in books and hearsay years ago. then the smart fellows continue to uphold the word of the books for thier personal gains and power to lead and control the masses of sheep!

[shane1]

yeah with the miracle healers making people walk and the pundits seeing yuh future and obeah woman putting curse on yuh ah set ah nonsense, no proof what so ever.

[megadoc1]

and his mother wasnt a virgin obviously.

Hey megadoc1, I believe jesus existed as a man also. There's a substantial amount of proof surrounding his existence. Same goes for Muhammad mentioned in the Quran and many other figures of other beliefs. Doesn't mean they were truly gifted supernaturally or had special abilities besides being able to trick the population. Sai Baba did the same in our generation.

the post just above said this "this is a matter of belief sir " my question was not about what we believe of those gone by but whether they in fact existed or not the reason for this is that in some peoples quest to disseminate liberal propaganda, they ignored important historical facts. hence my question to shane1 and he honestly knowledge this fact that Jesus was, so maybe we can have some chat going

[AdamB]

shane I have one question for you..here it goes ,do you think that Jesus was a historical figure?

While we await Shane's answer, shouldn't historical figures have REAL EVIDENCE from HISTORICAL ARTEFACTS OR OTHERWISE that would prove the existence of such figure?

I am not saying that Jesus did not exist. I am asking if there is real historical evidence to confirm that he did.

From RationalWiki:

Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth (the Christ) as portrayed in the Bible is only found in three places: the Bible itself, other early Christian writings, and references by the various early churches (c. 100CE) to the long dead leader of those churches. There are no contemporaneous sources outside of the early Christian community.

Historians focusing on this era generally accept that there was likely some fellow named Jesus who lived in Palestine roughly two millennia ago, had a very small following of people studying his views, was killed by the government for some such reason, and whose life became pivotal to some of the world's largest religions. Beyond this, however, there is doubt over the accuracy of any of the descriptions of his life, as described in the Bible or as understood by his believers. A handful of authors, past[1] and present[2] believe there is insufficient justification to assume any individual human seed for the stories.

what about david? the only historical sources for him is in the bible, but isnt he considered to be a historical figure? where as Jesus has more reference to him by historians.you are very wrong to think that the only sources for historical Jesus can be in the bible or christian writings! please look up the writings of Tacitus,Pliny,Lucian,Josephus,Pliny the younger,celsus(he said what Jesus did was sorcery but he never denied his existence),thallus(and another debated the mid day darkness on the day Jesus was killed on weather or not it was an eclipse ) do some research here..wanna bet you would aviod wikki on this one?

I am not going to do any research. I rely on the experts, the Historians in this case. They are the ones in need of your references but in their study of this matter I would think that they would have considered your references unless they were disqualified for a particular reason or another.

With that said, I believe in Jesus, and I don't need the above to confirm my faith in him and the significant role he is destined to play in the future. The Word of GOD (The Qur'aan) and the sayings of my prophet (Hadith) with regard to Jesus is evidence enough for me.

[AdamB]

and his mother wasnt a virgin obviously.

Hey megadoc1, I believe jesus existed as a man also. There's a substantial amount of proof surrounding his existence. Same goes for Muhammad mentioned in the Quran and many other figures of other beliefs. Doesn't mean they were truly gifted supernaturally or had special abilities besides being able to trick the population. Sai Baba did the same in our generation.

Saying that one believes is fine, this is accepting. However, there is another level which is submission required to cement that belief into TRUE FAITH.
Knowing what nullifies that faith is also critically important.

[maj. tom]

You people need to go out and see some magic shows and see the art of great illusionists like Penn & Teller, Lance Burton and David Copperfield.

Then imagine yourself back 1400-2000 years and see if you would consider those acts magic or just illusions and tricks.

As for the existence of Jesus, yes he did exist and it is noted by historians. There is no question about his existence. However throughout history so many people have done magic tricks and called them miracles and claimed to be messiahs and today if they do the same thing only very gullible people with the need to believe in such things would support those fallacies, modern examples are Sai Baba and TV evangelists.

Why was Jesus the one that people latched on to and carried to modern times as a firm doctrine of "god's" teachings? Because of the political atmosphere when it happened. The Roman Empire had long oppressed many sects and people were unsatisfied with the answers and way of life Judaism lead them for the past 3000 years. It was a time for a change and Jesus was the only one to preach in such a captivating and charismatic fashion to grab so many people and give them hope, a belief and hope for a different future that the Roman Empire could not oppress. The other miracle workers and messiahs all had claims to connections with god but did not preach the right politics. And Christianity took hold as a revolution and 600 hundred years later Rome was falling.

And the same view can be spun on Islam. Christianity arrived in Arabia and its people a long time before, but they did not subscribe to it, and so had to make their own revolutionary and political movement. Some of it followed Christian ideals and even the same story, the continuing saga that the New Testament grabbed from the Old Testament, and they just continued the story. Later those two growing religions, which were just political views, had risen to enough power to conflict with each other, just like how Bismark set up Europe's superpowers to eventually clash in the early 20th century (the European story of conflict goes all the way back from the Norman conquest and finally ended with the Fall of the Berlin Wall), and as humans with lower social evolution do, we fought wars. Crusades.

Have you all ever thought about those things? Don't you all see that it is still going on today? If there was a loving god, why would he allow us to fight and do such destruction and cause such pain and misery through our silly conflicts over how to worship him? All those collective emotions of sorrow and loss expressed by humans throughout time through the ravages of war must be so overwhelming if someone could understand it. But we cannot. We cannot feel others pain. And so it continues every time the next generation forgets how terrible war is.

[shane1]

exactly, GOD only exists in the heads of the sheep herders and the sheep.

[AdamB]

After 3 yrs and almost 400 pages, ppl still discussing the existence of GOD or not!

This thread maybe needs to be split to separate :

1. Those who disbelieve and want to have the "existence" discussion among themselves and believers and

2. Those who believe and want to further this discussion (what's next).

Just a suggestion...

[Kasey]

^^the only aim you have in this discussion is to prove why your belief is better then everyone elses, and why everyone elses beliefs are untrue. This is the only reason why you want to know other's beliefs, to shun at them, and ridicule them. You only have arrogant responses to people who tell you you are wrong.

[metalgear2095]

You people need to go out and see some magic shows and see the art of great illusionists like Penn & Teller, Lance Burton and David Copperfield.

Then imagine yourself back 1400-2000 years and see if you would consider those acts magic or just illusions and tricks.

As for the existence of Jesus, yes he did exist and it is noted by historians. There is no question about his existence. However throughout history so many people have done magic tricks and called them miracles and claimed to be messiahs and today if they do the same thing only very gullible people with the need to believe in such things would support those fallacies, modern examples are Sai Baba and TV evangelists.

Why was Jesus the one that people latched on to and carried to modern times as a firm doctrine of "god's" teachings? Because of the political atmosphere when it happened. The Roman Empire had long oppressed many sects and people were unsatisfied with the answers and way of life Judaism lead them for the past 3000 years. It was a time for a change and Jesus was the only one to preach in such a captivating and charismatic fashion to grab so many people and give them hope, a belief and hope for a different future that the Roman Empire could not oppress. The other miracle workers and messiahs all had claims to connections with god but did not preach the right politics. And Christianity took hold as a revolution and 600 hundred years later Rome was falling.

And the same view can be spun on Islam. Christianity arrived in Arabia and its people a long time before, but they did not subscribe to it, and so had to make their own revolutionary and political movement. Some of it followed Christian ideals and even the same story, the continuing saga that the New Testament grabbed from the Old Testament, and they just continued the story. Later those two growing religions, which were just political views, had risen to enough power to conflict with each other, just like how Bismark set up Europe's superpowers to eventually clash in the early 20th century (the European story of conflict goes all the way back from the Norman conquest and finally ended with the Fall of the Berlin Wall), and as humans with lower social evolution do, we fought wars. Crusades.

Have you all ever thought about those things? Don't you all see that it is still going on today? If there was a loving god, why would he allow us to fight and do such destruction and cause such pain and misery through our silly conflicts over how to worship him? All those collective emotions of sorrow and loss expressed by humans throughout time through the ravages of war must be so overwhelming if someone could understand it. But we cannot. We cannot feel others pain. And so it continues every time the next generation forgets how terrible war is.

God also allows us to choose to believe

[Sky]

[megadoc1]

I am not going to do any research.

we know! that's one of your biggest hurdles on here

I rely on the experts,

then why not qoute what the experts say then? why you avoid quoting from wiki for this? you know you always quote wiki, whats the problem now ?

the Historians in this case. They are the ones in need of your references but in their study of this matter I would think that they would have considered your references unless they were disqualified for a particular reason or another.

breds you alone know what crap you just wrote there,,help me out nah what are you saying?

With that said, I believe in Jesus, and I don't need the above to confirm my faith in him and the significant role he is destined to play in the future. The Word of GOD (The Qur'aan) and the sayings of my prophet (Hadith) with regard to Jesus is evidence enough for me.

MR. adam b what wrong with you man? most your info on Jesus came from the bible! even the Qur'an made claim to the gospels,Muhammad himself was advised to check it out! the Qur'an confirms the gospels as credible sources on the life of Jesus but you say that they are corrupted and now disregard them? the Qur'an disagrees with you.

[rspann]

@Red Fraction..I have read your posts and recognize that your ideas are somewhat different,I did not understand certain points you made,ie:what is the appropriate day to worship?When you ask the meaning of the words found in daniel,What is one thousand two hundred and ninety days about?What is the mark of the beast?and lastly what is the national sunday law?could you please expand on these points?

[d spike]

the Historians in this case. They are the ones in need of your references but in their study of this matter I would think that they would have considered your references unless they were disqualified for a particular reason or another.

breds you alone know what crap you just wrote there,,help me out nah what are you saying?

Oh, come on, Megadoc... you can't understand this explanation of the blinkered one?
He is willing to accept as proper historians those who agree with his point of view - those who don't are not accepted as proper historians. This is standard fare for his sort.
That was precisely why the Library of Alexandria was destroyed completely by the Muslim invaders who seized Egypt. The General sent a message back to the Caliph, asking what to do with all the books that were within the Library. The response was: "If they agree with the Koran, they are superfluous; if they disagree with the Koran, they are blasphemous. Burn it."

Saying that one believes is fine, this is accepting. However, there is another level which is submission required to cement that belief into TRUE FAITH.

This clearly shows a misunderstanding of what is meant by "acceptance", and most likely "faith" as well. If one accepts something, the concept is made one's own. How can one accept something as true, but not believe it to be true?
There is obviously some level of semantics here, attempting to show a difference between those who believe in a truth yet do not act on it, and those who share the same belief and act on that belief. To refer to the latter as "true faith" is but an attempt to belittle the ones who do not act on their faith. Their faith is not less in any way. It is in their choosing that the failing lies.

[marlener]

Surprise I never heard the agnostics and the atheists have a discussion,I am not going to try to prove to anyone God`s existence to person who either believe,disbelieve or not sure what they believe.What is strange that few persons can claim to understand another to the point where they know how they think,but quite a few believe that they know how God thinks and are foolish enough to cast accusation and blame when they don`t even know enough to cast judgement on their fellow men,proceed gentlemen one thing I can assure all of you is that the day WILL come when all questions on God`s existence will be cleared.
In the mean time go prove the atom exist,even though you have never seen it and trust the words of the great minds and after I`ll tell you who made the atom.

[maj. tom]

^ Uh huh. You does really know the people who never went far in school or ended up doing the business studies in this thread eh.

[d spike]

I just find it hard to believe that if there is a perfect, supreme being, that he is such an egotist and allows only those who claim to have a special relationship with him, or claim to know his name, a reward in the afterlife.
Why would a perfect being create life only for the sole purpose of worshipping himself? Is he that lonely? Or bored with the adulation of the angels? That stinks of Pride.Or that you mis-interpret the definition of worship

Thank you for not reading my previous posts. (that's sarcasm there)
I have often reposted something I wrote about what worship is - for your sake, I will do so again. Above, I was using the word in the same usage as those who propagate the thinking that we were created to bang and rattle items in accompaniment to loud verbalization. I apologize if I did not make this clear enough for you to grasp.

dspike what is the purpose of creation?? is it not to worship???

Most Christians should view 'worship' as the simple and true answer to this question, but it isn't really complete - as the concept of 'worship' differs. 'Worship' can easily be seen as meaning the joyous (and sometimes cacophonous) shouting and singing one sees being 'performed'... but this is just a very small part (and optional) part of what 'worship' is.
If you give a young lad a bicycle, you would be rather upset if he never rides it. We were placed here among the Creation, to be part of it. One can worship the Creator by enjoying his Creation! (To further illustrate the point I wish to make: If you had a pretty wife, how would you show her every night how glad you were to be her husband?)
So if you think about it, those who enjoy life to the fullest, and revel in their existence, are worshiping God. (They, in some way, have clearly understood PART of why we are here - and they will discover more as they journey through life... BUT IN THEIR OWN TIME.
You need to ask yourself... 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.)

Now the worship of the Creator by man is of three basic types: individual, communal and universal. Individual worship is self-explanatory, as is communal. Universal worship concerns the Creator's plan for us, and is the main reason for our creation. We were brought into being - whether created in an instant, or brought into creation over a period of time (evolved?), is neither here nor there - as a race that propagates itself, and hands down knowledge across generations. This has to be for a reason. We are meant to achieve something... something good and wonderful... so wonderful, that everyone will be aware of it and its meaning... and the role the Creator played in all time. This is the plan. Its achievement will be the glory of our race, and to the greater glory of him who made us, and gave us the gifts to achieve. All will realise... "Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess..." (Unfortunately, many people see the end of our time here as cataclysmic - thanks to the apocalyptic idiom used by the Jews - and a sort of 'victory dance' for "us" to do over the defeated "them".)

No. There has to be a better reason. A perfect being IS IN NEED OF NOTHING. So why then the need to create?

Any particular reason why you asked this question instead of continuing to read, and thus realizing that not only is this question already implied, but answered IN THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE?

This is simply because you are not reading... You are just looking for opportunities to bump your gum and seem intelligent. Don't you realize that others can read as well? And they will easily spot your ineptness? Why can't you read and think first before responding? Can you not see the consequences of your unthinking? All you are succeeding in doing is giving non-believers ammunition against those who consider it important to publicly uphold their belief in the divine.

Clearly there is a higher purpose to creation. It isn't something to be gained... it was then a gift. Giving for the sake of giving is Charity, or Love.
The concept of Love puts the Creation into context, makes sense of it all. The Creator knew we would enjoy life, and thus he created. (By "we" I mean all creatures, not just humans.)
Are you saying that the ONLY purpose of Creation is for us to ENJOY life?

Shooting from the hip again, I see. Quick on the draw, but not very accurate - except in Hollywood.
Again you fail to read an article fully before responding. I see you are also one of those who fail to understand the concept of enjoyment.

I don't see the point in arguing whether he exists or not. Whether atheist, agnostic or religious, all agree on maintaining a set of morals in order to ensure a better life experience. Why else would we be given the gift of life if not to enjoy it?
(And to the sour holy-rollers who will scramble to condemn such a "hedonistic" remark, all I can say is: if debauchery and errant behaviour is your concept of "enjoying life", then I think you have absolutely no idea of what life is about, and yours was wasted on you.)

Enjoyment of life can be done with obedience to GOD (that which pleases HIM) and disobedience to GOD (that with which HE is not pleased). I am in agreement with you but rather than leave it open to misinterpretation, I prefer to qualify the statement that what GOD WANTS is enjoyment through obedience and not enjoyment through disobedience.

While I approve of your attempt at prudence, I fear you are just displaying your ignorance of natural law.
Clearly, if we are put here by the perfect source of goodness and love, then our reason for existence (and therefore our focus and destination) can only be based on goodness and love. Our ability to choose to do otherwise does not lessen or change this simple fact.

D man shud know and accept that his opinion is not the only one that counts but knowing is one thing and accepting is quite another....

Don't be silly. I know AND ACCEPT that my opinion is not the only one that counts. There are a great multitude of others that know far, far more than the mere scrapings that I have collected...
...but based on the clueless remarks such as those pointed out above - not to mention reams of pages that have gone before - one can easily rate your opinion.

[d spike]

"We are here to enjoy life".

The word enjoy comes from the Old French enjoir, to find pleasure in, itself from the Latin gaudēre to rejoice.

Enjoy means:
1. to receive pleasure or satisfaction from; take joy in;
2. to have the use or benefit of; use with satisfaction;
3. to have as a condition; experience.

Why do narrow-minded, religious (so they claim) people have a problem understanding this basic concept of life being meant to be enjoyed? Simply because of their own hidden, base or carnal selves, that they fearfully mask from their peers. Guilt drives their misunderstanding.
They confuse the enjoyment found in the pursuit of life with a life found in the pursuit of enjoyment. This latter concept is hedonism, the pursuit of or devotion to pleasure, especially to the pleasures of the senses.

We were meant to enjoy life, to put it to use - the best we can. To find joy in the Creation, and to find joy in sharing that joy.
I am not talking about sensory pleasure, that is fleeting - and not necessarily wrong. It serves as a guide to the deeper experience that is life, that actually is an aspect of the divine.
Sharing rather than taking.
Giving because one cares rather that giving in the hope of receiving.
Companionship rather than sex.

Of course, the question of error, or Sin, arises here... but that is for another time.

We are meant to rejoice in our existence, to dip deeply into the bowl of life, to drain it to the lees, to fully experience that which was placed here for such a purpose... and in experiencing the Creation, we experience the Creator. For the Creation is the fingerprint of the Creator. And in experiencing the Creator, we find Him.

Scripture and religion provide guidance and roadsigns for us in our journey within the Creation - they are not meant to take us out of or away from the Creation experience. Why would He give us such a wonderful gift, just in the hope that we would shun it?

You know your mother, and enjoyed all that she did for you. You were fed, clothed, and cleansed. Cuddled and comforted. Imagine for a moment if you could not see or hear her, would you still know of her love for you? Would you be able to guess it?

Rejoice in the life that was given to us - whether you believe that this was a decision of a divine being, or just a happy happenstance of cell division, doesn't affect one's ability to enjoy life... and therefore, IS NOT THAT IMPORTANT.

Belief is not required to enjoy life.
The enjoyment of life (the "proper" enjoyment of life, if you will, AdamB) causes one to come into contact with that which the Creator has placed here for that purpose.
Interacting and enduring, allows us to fully experience life... any teacher will tell you that allowing a student to physically interact with the learning material is the best way for him to learn.
The lessons will be learned, whether or not Faith is present... And the most important thing to learn is the importance of Love. All else will fall into place after that.

Ask any mature, self-proclaimed atheist whether it is better for good to be done rather than wrong, whether selflessness, bravery, honesty and joy are intrinsically superior to selfishness, cowardice, error and hate...
Does the lack of Faith make their answer any less right, even though the answer is the same as a believer?
We are meant to strive (not necessarily attain) for that which is good. How does the motivation for such striving affect the striving itself?

When this life is over, we will be "judged" by what we strove after - not why.

Cheers

[DFC]

i believe in LORDI

Rock 'n Roll angels bring thyn Hard Rock Hallelujah
On the day of Rockoning,

Hard Rock Hallelujah!
Hard Rock Hallelujah!
Hard Rock Hallelujah!
Hard Rock Yeah!







Long Live ROCK & ROLL Blitches !

[AdamB]

I just find it hard to believe that if there is a perfect, supreme being, that he is such an egotist and allows only those who claim to have a special relationship with him, or claim to know his name, a reward in the afterlife.
Why would a perfect being create life only for the sole purpose of worshipping himself? Is he that lonely? Or bored with the adulation of the angels? That stinks of Pride.Or that you mis-interpret the definition of worship

Thank you for not reading my previous posts. (that's sarcasm there)
I have often reposted something I wrote about what worship is - for your sake, I will do so again. Above, I was using the word in the same usage as those who propagate the thinking that we were created to bang and rattle items in accompaniment to loud verbalization. I apologize if I did not make this clear enough for you to grasp.

dspike what is the purpose of creation?? is it not to worship???

Most Christians should view 'worship' as the simple and true answer to this question, but it isn't really complete - as the concept of 'worship' differs. 'Worship' can easily be seen as meaning the joyous (and sometimes cacophonous) shouting and singing one sees being 'performed'... but this is just a very small part (and optional) part of what 'worship' is.
If you give a young lad a bicycle, you would be rather upset if he never rides it. We were placed here among the Creation, to be part of it. One can worship the Creator by enjoying his Creation! (To further illustrate the point I wish to make: If you had a pretty wife, how would you show her every night how glad you were to be her husband?)
So if you think about it, those who enjoy life to the fullest, and revel in their existence, are worshiping God. (They, in some way, have clearly understood PART of why we are here - and they will discover more as they journey through life... BUT IN THEIR OWN TIME.
You need to ask yourself... 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.)

Now the worship of the Creator by man is of three basic types: individual, communal and universal. Individual worship is self-explanatory, as is communal. Universal worship concerns the Creator's plan for us, and is the main reason for our creation. We were brought into being - whether created in an instant, or brought into creation over a period of time (evolved?), is neither here nor there - as a race that propagates itself, and hands down knowledge across generations. This has to be for a reason. We are meant to achieve something... something good and wonderful... so wonderful, that everyone will be aware of it and its meaning... and the role the Creator played in all time. This is the plan. Its achievement will be the glory of our race, and to the greater glory of him who made us, and gave us the gifts to achieve. All will realise... "Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess..." (Unfortunately, many people see the end of our time here as cataclysmic - thanks to the apocalyptic idiom used by the Jews - and a sort of 'victory dance' for "us" to do over the defeated "them".)

No. There has to be a better reason. A perfect being IS IN NEED OF NOTHING. So why then the need to create?

Any particular reason why you asked this question instead of continuing to read, and thus realizing that not only is this question already implied, but answered IN THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE?

This is simply because you are not reading... You are just looking for opportunities to bump your gum and seem intelligent. Don't you realize that others can read as well? And they will easily spot your ineptness? Why can't you read and think first before responding? Can you not see the consequences of your unthinking? All you are succeeding in doing is giving non-believers ammunition against those who consider it important to publicly uphold their belief in the divine.

Clearly there is a higher purpose to creation. It isn't something to be gained... it was then a gift. Giving for the sake of giving is Charity, or Love.
The concept of Love puts the Creation into context, makes sense of it all. The Creator knew we would enjoy life, and thus he created. (By "we" I mean all creatures, not just humans.)
Are you saying that the ONLY purpose of Creation is for us to ENJOY life?

Shooting from the hip again, I see. Quick on the draw, but not very accurate - except in Hollywood.
Again you fail to read an article fully before responding. I see you are also one of those who fail to understand the concept of enjoyment.

I don't see the point in arguing whether he exists or not. Whether atheist, agnostic or religious, all agree on maintaining a set of morals in order to ensure a better life experience. Why else would we be given the gift of life if not to enjoy it?
(And to the sour holy-rollers who will scramble to condemn such a "hedonistic" remark, all I can say is: if debauchery and errant behaviour is your concept of "enjoying life", then I think you have absolutely no idea of what life is about, and yours was wasted on you.)

Enjoyment of life can be done with obedience to GOD (that which pleases HIM) and disobedience to GOD (that with which HE is not pleased). I am in agreement with you but rather than leave it open to misinterpretation, I prefer to qualify the statement that what GOD WANTS is enjoyment through obedience and not enjoyment through disobedience.

While I approve of your attempt at prudence, I fear you are just displaying your ignorance of natural law.
Clearly, if we are put here by the perfect source of goodness and love, then our reason for existence (and therefore our focus and destination) can only be based on goodness and love. Our ability to choose to do otherwise does not lessen or change this simple fact.

D man shud know and accept that his opinion is not the only one that counts but knowing is one thing and accepting is quite another....

Don't be silly. I know AND ACCEPT that my opinion is not the only one that counts. There are a great multitude of others that know far, far more than the mere scrapings that I have collected...
...but based on the clueless remarks such as those pointed out above - not to mention reams of pages that have gone before - one can easily rate your opinion.

Nice attempt at saving face while conveniently weeding out my responses that challenge your points.

This is a current discussion and just like Merlener I take what people post at FACE VALUE. What you post something on a particular topic and expect everyone else to understand what you are saying because the proper explanation you posted a hundred or two pages ago!

Why would a perfect being create life only for the sole purpose of worshipping himself? Is he that lonely? Or bored with the adulation of the angels? That stinks of Pride.

No. There has to be a better reason.

dspike what is the purpose of creation?? is it not to worship???

Universal worship concerns the Creator's plan for us, and is the main reason for our creation.

Now tell me that this is not a contradiction.

Dspike,
Your claims to knowledge about GOD and the Creation is based on YOUR opinions, feelings, and intellect.

Amazingly no comment on the Muslim perspective of the PURPOSE OF CREATION?? I thought this was a Religion Discussion.

Muslim Perspective:

Our purpose of existence on earth is more meaningful than being slaves to worldly gains. There can be no meaningful life better than that prescribed by our Creator. Every act done according to GOD's way is an act of worship. Man is the beneficiary and GOD is in no need.

GOD has Names and Attributes, all of perfection according to HIS Majesty. Examples of attributes like mercy, forgiveness, accepting repentance, wisdom, justice, giving help, sustenance, etc. WHY CREATE? The Creation allows for the manifestation of GOD's perfect attributes. If we didn't sin and seek forgiveness and repentance, then how would GOD manifest HIS attributes of giving forgiveness and accepting repentance?

Knowing Allaah's Names and Attributes liberates man from worshipping any form of creation because creation is weak and is in need of The Creator. The knowledge about GOD leads man to know that he is created to live according to GOD's way.

This way was revealed to the last Messenger Muhammad (saws) that muslims hold fast to. This Revelation contains a complete code of life. Everything that is beneficial or harmful is established so that man can center his life around this Revelation. If man commits wrong and knows that Allaah is Oft-Forgiving he would turn to Him and to Him alone seeking His forgiveness.

The topic is the Purpose of Creation, so let's confine the discussion to that (for now).

Can you PROVE that your opinion is universally accepted by Christianity? In which case, it would not be right, just the Christian view.

You said:and in experiencing the Creation, we experience the Creator. For the Creation is the fingerprint of the Creator. And in experiencing the Creator, we find Him.

Is the Creator and HIM two different and distinct persons / gods?

Why only talk about CHARITY and LOVE? What about all the THEFT, DEPRIVATION, HATE, SELFISHNESS, COWARDICE, DISHONESTY AND THE LIKE?? From your analogy, they are part of the purpose of creation because they exist among the Creation. So what's wrong with some choosing these LOWLY DESIRES as their ENJOYMENT OF LIFE? According to you, in addition to those mentioned before all of the evil qualities of man are reflections of the ATTRIBUTES OF GOD.

CERTAINLY NOT!!!!!!!!

Anyway, your view probably opposes the Christian view because you said that: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.)

So why are Christians the foremost in trying to convert (drag people off their path)? The crusades all over the place now and all that they did in the past recorded in history.

[megadoc1]

this gonna be goood

[AdamB]

^^the only aim you have in this discussion is to prove why your belief is better then everyone elses, and why everyone elses beliefs are untrue. This is the only reason why you want to know other's beliefs, to shun at them, and ridicule them. You only have arrogant responses to people who tell you you are wrong.

The Truth offends and if you don't KNOW of your religion sufficient to defend it or explain it, then that's your deficiency, not mine.

Of course I am not wrong, in my opinion, according to my religion. But I am not arrogant and whom have I shunned and ridiculed? I am expressing the views of my religion, ISLAM, and what it says, why it says that others have been corrupted and changed by man.

This is the religion discussion, if you're not up to adding value to that, then do the necessary!

[AdamB]

and his mother wasnt a virgin obviously.

Hey megadoc1, I believe jesus existed as a man also. There's a substantial amount of proof surrounding his existence. Same goes for Muhammad mentioned in the Quran and many other figures of other beliefs. Doesn't mean they were truly gifted supernaturally or had special abilities besides being able to trick the population. Sai Baba did the same in our generation.

Where is this proof? If there's a great amount and substantial, then quote some of them nah.

[AdamB]

shane I have one question for you..here it goes ,do you think that Jesus was a historical figure?

While we await Shane's answer, shouldn't historical figures have REAL EVIDENCE from HISTORICAL ARTEFACTS OR OTHERWISE that would prove the existence of such figure?

I am not saying that Jesus did not exist. I am asking if there is real historical evidence to confirm that he did.

From RationalWiki:

Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth (the Christ) as portrayed in the Bible is only found in three places: the Bible itself, other early Christian writings, and references by the various early churches (c. 100CE) to the long dead leader of those churches. There are no contemporaneous sources outside of the early Christian community.

Historians focusing on this era generally accept that there was likely some fellow named Jesus who lived in Palestine roughly two millennia ago, had a very small following of people studying his views, was killed by the government for some such reason, and whose life became pivotal to some of the world's largest religions. Beyond this, however, there is doubt over the accuracy of any of the descriptions of his life, as described in the Bible or as understood by his believers. A handful of authors, past[1] and present[2] believe there is insufficient justification to assume any individual human seed for the stories.

what about david? the only historical sources for him is in the bible, but isnt he considered to be a historical figure? where as Jesus has more reference to him by historians.you are very wrong to think that the only sources for historical Jesus can be in the bible or christian writings! please look up the writings of Tacitus,Pliny,Lucian,Josephus,Pliny the younger,celsus(he said what Jesus did was sorcery but he never denied his existence),thallus(and another debated the mid day darkness on the day Jesus was killed on weather or not it was an eclipse ) do some research here..wanna bet you would aviod wikki on this one?

We seem to be talking about two different things here now with your reference to David. I am talking about historical figures that could be proven via real historical evidence, that excludes the Bible. The historicity of the biblical account of the history of ancient Israel and Judah of the tenth to seventh-centuries BCE is disputed in scholarship. The biblical account of the eighty to seventh-centuries BCE is widely, but not universally, accepted as historical, while the verdict on the earliest period of the United Monarchy (tenth-century BCE) and the historicity of David is unclear.

I have asked before: What independent reliable source of unbiased information do you want to agree on using?

Tacitus was born 25 yrs after Jesus' death.

Some scholars have debated the historical value of the passage, given that Tacitus does not reveal the source of his information.

Scholars have also debated the issue of hearsay in the reference by Tacitus. Charles Guignebert argued that "So long as there is that possibility [that Tacitus is merely echoing what Christians themselves were saying], the passage remains quite worthless".

No original copies of the Annals exist and the surviving copies of Tacitus' works derive from two principal manuscripts, known as the Medicean manuscripts, written in Latin, which are held in the Laurentian Library in Florence, Italy. It is the second Medicean manuscript, 11th century and from the Benedictine abbey at Monte Cassino, which is the oldest surviving copy of the passage describing Christians.

[AdamB]

Kasey, DFC, Dizzy and other hindus,
Bulls were slaughtered yesterday by Muslims as part of a ritual that commemorates the sacrifice of prophet Abraham. We hope by this act to use it as a means of nearness to GOD.

Is it true that cows worshipped in Hinduism? Or held divinely sacred?

Is killing of a cow equivalent to killing of a Brahman (high priest)?

Are hindus offended by this act?

[megadoc1]

I am expressing the views of my religion, ISLAM, and what it says, why it says that others have been corrupted and changed by man.

adam b you keep talking this where in the Qur'an teaches that the gospels was change by man,and please tell us when did this change happen?

[megadoc1]

We seem to be talking about two different things here now with your reference to David.

no not at all, I quoted David because he is generally accepted as a historical person but the only information about him came from the bible the reason I did this is to show contrast between him and Jesus with the latter having more extra biblical sources available....

I am talking about historical figures that could be proven via real historical evidence, that excludes the Bible.

and that's exactly what I did when I quoted the names of the authors of the extra biblical sources, for you to research but you said that you are not gonna do research so I cant help you there

The historicity of the biblical account of the history of ancient Israel and Judah of the tenth to seventh-centuries BCE is disputed in scholarship. The biblical account of the eighty to seventh-centuries BCE is widely, but not universally, accepted as historical, while the verdict on the earliest period of the United Monarchy (tenth-century BCE) and the historicity of David is unclear.

but why deceive your self? I cant help yuh ,you are now selectively quoting wiki? here is the full piece

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible#Archaeological_and_historical_research

The historicity of the biblical account of the history of ancient Israel and Judah of the tenth to seventh-centuries BCE is disputed in scholarship. The biblical account of the eighty to seventh-centuries BCE is widely, but not universally, accepted as historical, while the verdict on the earliest period of the United Monarchy (tenth-century BCE) and the historicity of David is unclear. Archaeological evidence providing information on this period, such as the Tel Dan Stele, can potentially be decisive. The biblical account of events of the Exodus from Egypt in the Torah, and the migration to the Promised Land and the period of Judges are not considered historical in scholarship.[87][88] Regarding the New Testament, the setting being the Roman Empire in the first-century CE, the historical context is well established. There has been some debate on the historicity of Jesus, but the mainstream opinion is that Jesus was one of several known historical itinerant preachers in first-century Roman Judea, teaching in the context of the religious upheavals and sectarianism of Second Temple Judaism.[citation needed]

ah ketch yuh adam b this is exactly the same way you guys use the bible ,quoting stuff from it and ignoring the very next line...but since you choose to use the text to support your view you must accept it as a whole


now let me quote d spike

Oh, come on, Megadoc... you can't understand this explanation of the blinkered one?
He is willing to accept as proper historians those who agree with his point of view - those who don't are not accepted as proper historians. This is standard fare for his sort.
That was precisely why the Library of Alexandria was destroyed completely by the Muslim invaders who seized Egypt. The General sent a message back to the Caliph, asking what to do with all the books that were within the Library. The response was: "If they agree with the Koran, they are superfluous; if they disagree with the Koran, they are blasphemous. Burn it."

I have asked before: What independent reliable source of unbiased information do you want to agree on using?

you never asked this before! adam b one of your problems on here is your inability to be honest,you are a stranger to AL HAQ

Tacitus was born 25 yrs after Jesus' death.

I posted a lot of names and all you do is come back with one? adam b research is not going looking up dirt on people! but wait..you did say you were not gonna do research! sorry my bad!

[AdamB]

Megadoc,
Please read over what you highlighted. The historical setting of the Roman Empire is established NOT the historicity of Jesus!!

I researched just one to PROVE that if Historians have made a GENERAL statement, then ALL of the SPECIFIC references you quoted would have been REJECTED with regard to AUTHENCITY and UNDISPUTED HISTORICAL ACCEPTANCE.

I did what I said I wasn't going to do but now the BURDEN OF PROOF is upon you.

And why do you think Dspike has been silent on this topic, he knows what I am saying is the correct view!

[megadoc1]

adam b I have read it, you read it and others will read it and they would se how foolish you are making yourself out to be