The Religion Discussion

[AdamB]

Satan and Humanity
By Fethullah Gulen
http://www.islamonline.net/English/In_D ... 2/03.SHTML


The jinn we know as Satan was created from fire. Before his obedience and sincerity were tested through Adam, he had been in the company of angels, acting and worshiping as they did. Unlike angels, however, who cannot rebel against God (At-Tahrim 66:6), Satan was free to choose his own path of conduct. When God tested him and the angels by commanding them to prostrate before Adam, the seeds of his self-conceit and disobedience blossomed and swallowed him. He replied in his vanity, (I am better than him. You created me from fire, whilst him you did create of clay) (Saad 38:76).

Why was Satan created? Satan was created for important purposes. If Satan, who continually tries to seduce us, did not exist, our creation would be meaningless and futile. God has innumerable servants who cannot rebel and thus do whatever they are told. In fact, the existence of an absolute Divine Being Who has many beautiful names and attributes requires, not because of some external necessity but because of the essential nature of His names, that His names be manifest.

God gave us free will so that we could know good from evil. In addition, He gave us great potentials. Our development of these potentials and our struggle to choose between good and evil make us experience a constant battle in our inner and outer worlds. Just as God sends hawks upon sparrows so that the latter will develop their potential to escape, He created Satan and allowed him to tempt us so that our resistance to temptation will raise us spiritually and strengthen our willpower. Just as hunger stimulates human beings and animals to further exertion and discovery of new ways to be satisfied, and fear inspires new defenses, Satan’s temptations cause us to develop our potentials and guard against sin.

There is an infinitely long line of spiritual evolution between the ranks of the greatest prophets and saints down to those of people like Pharaoh and Nimrod; therefore it cannot be claimed that the creation of Satan is evil. Although Satan is evil and serves various important purposes, God’s creation involves the whole universe and should be understood in relation to the results, not only with respect to the acts themselves. Whatever God does or creates is good and beautiful in itself or in its effects. For example, rain and fire are very useful but can cause great harm when abused; therefore, one cannot claim that the creation of water and fire is not totally good. It is the same with the creation of Satan. His main purpose is to cause us to develop our potential, strengthen our willpower by resisting his temptations, and then rise to higher spiritual ranks.

To the argument made by some that Satan leads many people to unbelief and subsequent punishment in Hell, I would reply with the following:

First, although Satan was created for many good, universal purposes, many people may be deceived by him. But Satan only whispers and suggests; he cannot force you to indulge in evil and sin. If you are so weak that his false promises deceive you and you allow yourself to be dragged down, you earn the punishment of Hell by misusing an important God-given faculty that enables you to develop your potential and raise to the highest rank. You must use your free will, which makes you human and gives you the highest position in creation, properly, and to further your intellectual and spiritual evolution. Otherwise, you must complain about being honored with free will and therefore about being human.

Second, as quality is much more important than quantity, we should consider qualitative, as opposed to quantitative, values when making our judgment. For example, 100 date seeds are worth only 100 cents if they are not planted. If only 20 out of 100 seeds grow into trees due to the other 80 being destroyed by too much water, can we argue that it is evil to plant and water the seeds? I think all of us can agree that it is wholly good to have 20 trees in exchange for 100 seeds, since 20 trees will produce 20,000 seeds.

Again, 100 peacock eggs may be worth a couple of dollars. But if only 20 eggs hatch and the rest do not, who will say that it is wrong to risk 80 eggs being spoiled in return for 20 peacocks? On the contrary, it is wholly good to have 20 peacocks at the expense of 80 eggs, for those 20 peacocks will lay even more eggs.

It is the same with humanity. By fighting Satan and their evil-commanding selves, many “worthless” people have been lost in exchange for thousands of prophets, millions of saints, and billions of men and women of wisdom and knowledge, sincerity and good morals. All of these people are the sun, moon, and stars of the human world.

[AdamB]

[quote="Kasey
thats actually a very immature attitude, and a very immature statement...."an eye for an eye" LOL!!!!!

read sMASH's statement after u made this.[/quote]

Grandpa,
you entitled to your opinion and I entitled to mine.

Time and condition for allowing yourself to be slapped 70 times 7 is gone bro! I prescribe to standing up for your rights, taking no BS.

[AdamB]

Sometimes you need to speak the language that ppl understand and respect. Notice the number of insulting posts after I replied to Maj tom in his language, even before your intervention.

BTW Not everyone who posts on this forum claiming to present views of a religion actually knows everything that they claim to know. My brother in faith sMASH has some misguided views as well. That happens when you accept without questioning or seeking firm evidences.

So when questions are asked I will try to present the correct, mainstream, view of Islam/muslims with supporting evidences aka copy and paste where necessary. Why try to re-invent the wheel?

[megadoc1]

hey adam B
is the god of islam all knowing?

[d spike]

You're right, I dont frequently use the bible so i dont have a "preferred translation" but it was quoted from a Catholic Forum, see http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=56032.

Did you even READ the only 6 posts on the page of the forum you posted here?
Good grief, it is CLEARLY pointed out on that page of that forum that such a quote DOES NOT EXIST ("None who say...") - the point I made before.

I didn't expect there to be a problem which is why I raise the point of having the original script and language that the book was revealed in, so that we can refer differences back to it.

As I said above: Did you even READ the only 6 posts on the page of the forum you posted here?
The second poster quotes an early translation and the fifth poster lists different translations of the same quotation... and you could have quoted it just as you did earlier regarding another piece of scripture... but you didn't read it, did you?

I am disappointed though that you did not post the complete corrected translation.

I am even more disappointed that you did not even read the page you quoted... that had different and proper translations of the said quote...

...And claiming that it was quoted on a "Catholic forum" doesn't mean that it automatically is a Catholic view... after all, this is an automotive forum, but quite a few fellahs who post here don't even drive...

So the correct translation in context is:
21 "Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' 23 And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.'

Kindly explain to me why these "many" christians would do these mighty works IN JESUS' NAME but yet they would be denied the kingdom of heaven and call them evildoers?

Why didn't you read the very page of that forum you posted up?
(sigh)

It is really not so complicated. All that Jesus is saying is that it takes, to put it in the modern context, more than lip service to be given entry into His Kingdom. The heart must follow the lips.

Not every one who claims to be Christian will be in heaven, but only those who do what Christ says.

This passage is a part of Jesus' attack on false prophets. Here is the full section:

15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. 18 A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will know them by their fruits.

21 "Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' 23 And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.'


24 "Every one then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house upon the rock; 25 and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. 26 And every one who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house upon the sand; 27 and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell; and great was the fall of it."

BTW Muslims don't do these things in the name of Jesus but we do the Will of ALLAH (the father)...so we good to go then!!

The reason why I stopped posting on this thread is that I just kept repeating myself. Instead of looking back to see if his query was dealt with previously, a newcomer would prefer to post his question, and one would have to choose between attempting to develop the concept that was being discussed (and be accused of being unable to address the newbie's concerns) or turn back and drag an old and re-hashed argument back to the foreground - whereupon a whole bunch of research-haters would start arguing the same old (and previously dealt with) arguing again...
I have DEALT with this point REPEATEDLY. If you REALLY want to know what I think on this topic, just look back...

...that's why I asked before "NOT HOW BUT RATHER WHY DOES GOD NEED A SON?" Is it that HE is incapable or gets tired or difficulty in controlling the affairs of HIS Creation? Think about it ...with a RATIONAL MIND!! Then you'll appreciate my point of view.

What makes you think I don't appreciate your point of view? Why don't you ask sMASH what I have said about such a thing? (Or just look back and read it yourself... oh, sorry, I forgot. You don't read posts.)

In order to understand the Christian concept of why the sacrifice of Christ was required for the salvation of Man, you first have to recognize that this is Christian dogma, based on concepts WITHIN the Christin faith! If you don't accept Christianity/Christian faith-based beliefs, then you will have problems understanding it. Think about THAT... with a rational mind, of course.

[d spike]

It is well known that the JEWS "DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE TRINITY OR THAT JESUS IS GOD OR THE SON OF GOD". They were the original possessors (Moses wrote) of the first 5 books of the bible - old testament. SO HOW COME THEY DON'T KNOW OR BELIEVE WHAT MODERN DAY "CHRISTIANS" BELIEVE. They don't even call GOD by a proper name (Not talking about titles like El Shaddai - the Almighty). Something fishy here??

Perhaps you should ask a Jew about this first, before you work that jaw muscle. Any Jew will tell you that they certainly DO BELIEVE that God has a name - it is just that they consider it too holy to be uttered. Their modern religious writing often even refers to God as "G_d"... in an effort to not call his name in vain. Hence the use of titles like "Hashem" instead of a "name"...

[d spike]

Excuse me sir. i said "no other other prophet in HISTORY" as in history that we know about. Since there have been those such as Buddah or whoever ,,,Ghandi...

That there was none other that made the claim that he and God were one. What other history is there. I am referring to history, scripture and all otherwise unless you can name some other prophet that made a similar claim. I do understand your statement but I think you have misinterpreted what I said. In history and yes sir also scripture there has been many prophets but none of them have made such claims.

But I will re-state it. In history and also scripture there has been no prophet as far as I know that has made the claim that I AM as did Jesus made when referring to who he was. CHeers.

a logical argument is most precise - and in order to ensure one's precision, one should use language carefully.
One can only compare two things if they share a common attribute.
One can ask which animal is more dangerous, the alligator or the lion.
One cannot ask which animal is more dangerous, the hyena or the unicorn, as one is fictional - of course, a five year-old will attempt such an argument...
If you compare prophets that are historically known to Jesus, it will be assumed that you find the two COMPARABLE... and that you accept that Jesus is a historical figure.
My statement was based on this argument.
If you see some logic in comparing an accepted historical figure with one whose existence can be queried, go ahead.

Cheers.

[AdamB]

hey adam B
is the god of islam all knowing?

The God of Islam is the same God of Abraham...for Abraham was not a jew or a christian but he was a man who wordshipped not gods with GOD (Allah). HE is the same GOD (the Father) as the GOD of Christians.

Yes , He is All knowing!!

ALLAH has made the Ka'bah, the Sacred House, an asylum OF security and benefits (e.g.Hajj and 'Umrah) for mankind, and also the Sacred Month and the animals OF OFferings and the garlanded (people or animals marked with the garlands on their necks made from the outer part OF the stem OF the Makkah trees for their security), that you may know that ALLAH has KNOWLEDGE OF all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth, and that ALLAH is the All-Knower OF each and everything.
( سورة المائدة , Al-Maeda, Chapter #5, Verse #97)

On the Day when ALLAH will gather the Messengers together and say to them: "What was the response you received (from men to your teaching)?" They will say: "We have no KNOWLEDGE, verily, only You are the All-Knower OF all that is hidden (or unseen)."
( سورة المائدة , Al-Maeda, Chapter #5, Verse #109)

[nareshseep]

ah it was merged....

religuous folks ->

[d spike]

But in all sense, how could an idol made of concrete (manmade) be a "God" or represents a "God" per se? Sorry and prayed to? Somebody explain.

i hate to hear dotish ignorant ppl bray how other ppl does pray to idols , status , pictures , monuments , symbols etc

afaik ppl pray to what d object represents : not to d object itself - even if they want to do that then why it bothering them ...

Then, there is no need for an object to pray to then? Jus pray...

Unless you've seen a "God" personally to make a replica to "represent"...

but u dont find u wud be a lil more comfortable & focused to at least have a idea of what ur praying to looks like rather than u dont even know who\what it is u praying to ?

Simply put, not everyone's faith is on the same level. Some people need something to focus on. The statue of Mary/Shiva/FSM provides a tangible, easily acceptable focal point for those who need it.

[AdamB]

[quote="d spike
The reason why I stopped posting on this thread is that I just kept repeating myself. Instead of looking back to see if his query was dealt with previously, a newcomer would prefer to post his question, and one would have to choose between attempting to develop the concept that was being discussed (and be accused of being unable to address the newbie's concerns) or turn back and drag an old and re-hashed argument back to the foreground - whereupon a whole bunch of research-haters would start arguing the same old (and previously dealt with) arguing again...
I have DEALT with this point REPEATEDLY. If you REALLY want to know what I think on this topic, just look back...

If you tired or frustrated then leave it to someone else. Maybe you, kasey and the other grandpas should retire and leave the current discussions to the newbies. In the end we may most likely settle down just like you. Or do you guys own this thread?

I don't have the time (possibly months/years) to go back and read all 270+ pages, that might be a full time job. I think that's reasonable.

As a general suggestion (I don't know if this was suggested before) maybe ppl making comments should state their position wrt religion ie atheist, muslim, christian, hindu, etc so others could understand where they coming from and also to reply appropriately.

[d spike]

ah it was merged....

religuous folks ->

HAHAHAHAHA!!! (so true)

[d spike]

I have DEALT with this point REPEATEDLY. If you REALLY want to know what I think on this topic, just look back...

If you tired or frustrated then leave it to someone else.

Very well then, here you are:

If writing scripture was the most important thing the disciples could do, then most of them failed miserably. (Jesus should have picked a bunch of scholars instead of a gang of fishermen - in which case, thank goodness for Matthew.)
Peter wrote two letters and dictated a gospel (Mark was his secretary), Matthew wrote a gospel, John wrote a gospel and some letters (let us not forget Revelation! without which many small churches would simply be charitable organizations), and James and Jude each wrote a letter... Poor lads, what a let-down... Thank goodness for educated late-comers like Doctor Luke and Saul, Paul, whatever...
Also, if writings are THAT all-important, then why did the Good Lord only allow a handful to survive?

But seriously, when one weighs the information, values, ideas and ideals (instructions, yeah that too) brought forward from that time regarding what Jesus said and did, one sees a very clear thread: that of the importance of loving one another. Folks can (and have, and most likely, always will) quibble about what may or may not have been said or done, and whose belief is superior... but the bottom line for those who believe in a "heaven" is what do you need to get there?

One of the most important statements of Jesus is "I am the way, the truth and the life, no one can come to the Father except through me."
Christians hold onto this statement like a banner at a football match, waving it in the face of non-christians ("we win! we win! we win!") when it actually means something far, far different, far more all-encompassing than the seemingly literal meaning of in-the-name-of Jesus-I-going-heaven stuff (taking scripture literally ALWAYS is a path of head-butting walls and stump-toe... but that's for another time).
Be rational. Jesus ain't no road... and literally going through someone isn't particularly pleasant... so obviously, Jesus was referring to following his teachings about himself - the path he laid out for us, goes to the Father. When we try to look at who Jesus is, he keeps showing us a concept, that of love. "He who loves me, obeys my commandments", "Love one another...", "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me" and so forth.
Therefore, the path to God is through love. Doesn't matter what you call it, where you worship, (if you perform 'communal worship'), what name you call him by...
(Talk about discrimination! You claim he is the God of all men, yet you demand that he only be referred to by one name which came out of one culture among many?)

Do you really think that God, if he exists, bothers about what name you call him, if he loves you? I thought the whole point of monotheism is that there is only one Boss? A name only makes sense to us creatures, as it differentiates one from another. (When Moses asked his name, God put him in his place: "I am who is" - take dat in yuh waist, yuh too dam farse an outta place...)

The point of our existence here may very well be to learn to care for one another... one big, ant farm experiment to prove that love is supreme... In which case, even whether you believe in God or not is not really important - as the movie "Legion" showed, it's far more important that He believes in us... and our ability to love... to pick ourselves up from the mistakes that we make, to heal, to forgive... and to continue, striving in this reality to make the choices that we will be rewarded for in the next, and make this place a better place to live in, despite the turmoil, the earthquakes, the idiots, and the over-multiplicity of choices of underwear.

[/quote]

[AdamB]

It is well known that the JEWS "DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE TRINITY OR THAT JESUS IS GOD OR THE SON OF GOD". They were the original possessors (Moses wrote) of the first 5 books of the bible - old testament. SO HOW COME THEY DON'T KNOW OR BELIEVE WHAT MODERN DAY "CHRISTIANS" BELIEVE. They don't even call GOD by a proper name (Not talking about titles like El Shaddai - the Almighty). Something fishy here??

Perhaps you should ask a Jew about this first, before you work that jaw muscle. Any Jew will tell you that they certainly DO BELIEVE that God has a name - it is just that they consider it too holy to be uttered. Their modern religious writing often even refers to God as "G_d"... in an effort to not call his name in vain. Hence the use of titles like "Hashem" instead of a "name"...

Bro, yuh missed the point which is the lack of unity / consistency pertaining to the topic "the name of God" between holders of the Bible.

What is the name of God the Father, the One in Heaven (our father, thou art in heaven)? Can u answer me that please?

Don't tell me capital GOD because the languages Hebrew and Aramaic don't have capital letters. So the english translations, where the name of GOD is written, is now translated as GOD. There's no difference in reading between god and GOD. In arabic tranliteration "ilah" is "a god" and "Allah" is "the name of the One True GOD".

[AdamB]

It is well known that the JEWS "DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE TRINITY OR THAT JESUS IS GOD OR THE SON OF GOD". They were the original possessors (Moses wrote) of the first 5 books of the bible - old testament. SO HOW COME THEY DON'T KNOW OR BELIEVE WHAT MODERN DAY "CHRISTIANS" BELIEVE. They don't even call GOD by a proper name (Not talking about titles like El Shaddai - the Almighty). Something fishy here??

Perhaps you should ask a Jew about this first, before you work that jaw muscle. Any Jew will tell you that they certainly DO BELIEVE that God has a name - it is just that they consider it too holy to be uttered. Their modern religious writing often even refers to God as "G_d"... in an effort to not call his name in vain. Hence the use of titles like "Hashem" instead of a "name"...

Bro, yuh missed the point which is the lack of unity / consistency pertaining to the topic "the name of God" between holders of the Bible.

What is the name of God the Father, the One in Heaven (our father, thou art in heaven)? Can u answer me that please?

Don't tell me capital GOD because the languages Hebrew and Aramaic don't have capital letters. So the english translations, where the name of GOD is written, is now translated as GOD. There's no difference in reading between god and GOD. In arabic tranliteration "ilah" is "a god" and "Allah" is "the name of the One True GOD".

[AdamB]

I have DEALT with this point REPEATEDLY. If you REALLY want to know what I think on this topic, just look back...

If you tired or frustrated then leave it to someone else.

Very well then, here you are:

If writing scripture was the most important thing the disciples could do, then most of them failed miserably. (Jesus should have picked a bunch of scholars instead of a gang of fishermen - in which case, thank goodness for Matthew.)
Peter wrote two letters and dictated a gospel (Mark was his secretary), Matthew wrote a gospel, John wrote a gospel and some letters (let us not forget Revelation! without which many small churches would simply be charitable organizations), and James and Jude each wrote a letter... Poor lads, what a let-down... Thank goodness for educated late-comers like Doctor Luke and Saul, Paul, whatever...
Also, if writings are THAT all-important, then why did the Good Lord only allow a handful to survive?

But seriously, when one weighs the information, values, ideas and ideals (instructions, yeah that too) brought forward from that time regarding what Jesus said and did, one sees a very clear thread: that of the importance of loving one another. Folks can (and have, and most likely, always will) quibble about what may or may not have been said or done, and whose belief is superior... but the bottom line for those who believe in a "heaven" is what do you need to get there?

One of the most important statements of Jesus is "I am the way, the truth and the life, no one can come to the Father except through me."
Christians hold onto this statement like a banner at a football match, waving it in the face of non-christians ("we win! we win! we win!") when it actually means something far, far different, far more all-encompassing than the seemingly literal meaning of in-the-name-of Jesus-I-going-heaven stuff (taking scripture literally ALWAYS is a path of head-butting walls and stump-toe... but that's for another time).
Be rational. Jesus ain't no road... and literally going through someone isn't particularly pleasant... so obviously, Jesus was referring to following his teachings about himself - the path he laid out for us, goes to the Father. When we try to look at who Jesus is, he keeps showing us a concept, that of love. "He who loves me, obeys my commandments", "Love one another...", "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me" and so forth.
Therefore, the path to God is through love. Doesn't matter what you call it, where you worship, (if you perform 'communal worship'), what name you call him by...
(Talk about discrimination! You claim he is the God of all men, yet you demand that he only be referred to by one name which came out of one culture among many?)

Do you really think that God, if he exists, bothers about what name you call him, if he loves you? I thought the whole point of monotheism is that there is only one Boss? A name only makes sense to us creatures, as it differentiates one from another. (When Moses asked his name, God put him in his place: "I am who is" - take dat in yuh waist, yuh too dam farse an outta place...)

The point of our existence here may very well be to learn to care for one another... one big, ant farm experiment to prove that love is supreme... In which case, even whether you believe in God or not is not really important - as the movie "Legion" showed, it's far more important that He believes in us... and our ability to love... to pick ourselves up from the mistakes that we make, to heal, to forgive... and to continue, striving in this reality to make the choices that we will be rewarded for in the next, and make this place a better place to live in, despite the turmoil, the earthquakes, the idiots, and the over-multiplicity of choices of underwear.

[/quote]

Thanks for the copy and paste from another thread. I am not exactly sure what the above is in response to. The name of GOD or the "in Jesus name" thing? I am kinda confused, please clarify your position. Are you not christian? or follower of Jesus but not interpretations of churches/groups?

I agree with you on the interpretation of "the way the truth and the life". Why this can't mean - I will show/lead the way, I come with the truth, to lead to the life in the hereafter.

Jesus is reported to have spoken mostly in parables. Is this true? we may never know. It may have been changed by the "church". The proble with the parable thing is that it can be twisted and turned to mean almost whatever you want.

[d spike]

Bro, yuh missed the point which is the lack of unity / consistency pertaining to the topic "the name of God" between holders of the Bible.

I was just responding to one of your points. You might realize that I only referred to one point. That was the one I was dealing with.
Missed it? "Bro", I wasn't even going near it... but since you seem to have a bone stuck betwixt your teeth...
The whole "name of God" argument is only pertinent to those who claim to know "the name of God" and wave that like some kind of meritorious point - failing to realize that their own religion makes it quite clear that their salvation is based on far more important issues. That's like arguing what the real name is of an actor in a movie when one is attempting to discuss the message or theme of the movie is.

What is the name of God the Father, the One in Heaven (our father, thou art in heaven)? Can u answer me that please?

It's Fred, actually.
Seriously, why should I? Whatever I say at this point isn't going to change anything - just give you something to spit or sneer at. Your attitude in dealing with others on this forum has made this quite clear.

Let us assume this discussion is taking part among those who only believe in one supreme being.
A name's sole purpose is to discriminate between the identified being from other similar beings.
Are there other supreme beings?
Are you worried that Fruggle will intercept the prayers you sent to Fred, simply because you sneezed while praying?
Whom do you wish to differentiate between? Or is it that your religion secretly accepts the existence of other gods? (Please...)

If you pray to god (or God... or even GOD) how many are there up there to be mistakenly identified?

I used to read this, Bluefete's "God" thread, in amazement (while not the most accurate word, that's the most polite word I can use to describe how I felt), but I never even wished to voice an opinion. This decision was based on my experiences regarding discussions amongst differing faiths. While it sounds like a good idea to compare differences, observe similarities, and generally learn of different ways of looking at the same thing, this never works for religion, unless the persons involved share a strong sense of trust, respect, wisdom and maturity - as well as a very good grasp of language.
Thus it is that whenever average people discuss religion (especially Christianity) it soon turns into either a competition, an evangelistic affair, or a fight - or all three, in that order.
But then someone I know, who is fed up of the nonsense that passes for the fundamentalist view on Tuner, started a 'religiously-themed' thread just to see how foolish these goodly folk could get - and lad, did they ever.
Then I realised that the only view representing those who consider the teachings of the Christ more than just interesting, were a handful of blinded literalists whose only knowledge of scripture was what they were fed.

And here was my conundrum: When I read Bluefete's thread, I was quite certain the spouted nonsense I came across was precisely that - because of what I knew. Suppose I didn't know... then my assumption would be that despite whatever sense Jesus' words might make, his followers are all complete imbeciles. If a drink has a magnificent bouquet, but all who drink it go mad - then bet your last cent I ain't tasting it.
And so I decided (against the better judgment of most of my peers) to attempt to be the voice of reason - not for the benefit of Bluefete, or Sir Civic, or this Megadoc1... but for the curiously minded who might otherwise shy away from delving into what could result in a better understanding of why we all are here.

[d spike]

Thanks for the copy and paste from another thread.

The quotation is from this very thread... the same thread you have chosen to post in, but not read. Speaking of which, are you going to respond to that "Catholic scripture quote" post which you were yet to read?

I am not exactly sure what the above is in response to.

I was simply bringing up a point for your purview. Forgive me for not asking your permission to do so.

The name of GOD or the "in Jesus name" thing? I am kinda confused

Precisely what is confusing you?

please clarify your position. Are you not christian? or follower of Jesus but not interpretations of churches/groups?

I fail to see how this information is relevant.

My personal beliefs are not for public consumption.

I make statements on a forum. These statements are logical. You can choose to agree or disagree, or respond with similar posts.

[d spike]

While one can come into a public forum and state one's point of view, no matter how radical (one does have the right of free speech), one cannot come into a public forum and state one's point of view THAT ALL ELSE IS WRONG AND THOSE WHO BELIEVE OTHERWISE WILL BE PUNISHED. A right is not a license. One has rights to do as one sees fit AS LONG AS ONE DOES NOT IMPINGE OR INFRINGE ON THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS. Apart from being just plain bad manners, you are denying others their right to not be offended unduly in public. There is a major difference between statement and imposition.
Initially, I see nothing wrong with a pretty girl running naked in public. If I realise that the girl is my daughter or wife, then suddenly my opinion changes drastically. Just because you think your belief is right, doesn't mean you have a right to cram it down other people's throats.
Depending on where you sit, an action can seem to be worthy, or highly offensive - just ask the anxious gentleman on a heavily crowded train with an overly full bladder, and then talk to another gentleman on the same train who has nowhere to sit for lack of space but next to the toilet bowl.

[MG Man]

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

[megadoc1]

awwww you miss me mg?

hey adam B
is the god of islam all knowing?

The God of Islam is the same God of Abraham...for Abraham was not a jew or a christian but he was a man who wordshipped not gods with GOD (Allah). HE is the same GOD (the Father) as the GOD of Christians.

Yes , He is All knowing!!

did he write the koran?

[sMASH]

the messages in the qur'an were sent to us from him via a prophet.

the words were written by a man, but there were not his own words, but inspired over a period of time.

so, yes and no.

[megadoc1]

cool smash.... do you believe it is without error

[maj. tom]

What all these god fearing people fail to realize is that the majority of atheists have been down the god path, were born into various religions and had it shoved down our throats since birth and did all the rituals and prayers and faith without question for a number of years. Until we grew up and just asked a few questions and tried to find some answers on our own through plain old logic and based on what we can observe of the world.

A simple question to ask yourself is how do we know the moon isn't made of green cheese? Well we've been there, we've taken samples, drilled some cores. Gravitation pull calculations and seismic readings? Maybe we're underestimating the density of green cheese.
But in the end we know the moon isn't made of green cheese because it's absurd to think that, because we have observed our world and universe and inferences based on observations follow some logic, then we put forward a hypothesis and test it with experiments.

So all these great god fearing, warmongering people here, just be aware that we have been down the same road as you and were even quite as vehement as you all are at a time, and followed without question and had great fear of disobedience, but we just thought about things differently and looked for proof and came to sound conclusions. We grew up. Kids believe that story about santa claus until they grow up and woke all night to see if they saw santa and his reindeer. Then they followed through with the inference of parents buying gifts through logic and then observed it. The god story isn't that different. Logic is a part of the human brain that would take its natural course with the right tools and education, but instead we are forced to learn something else that has never had any stable grounds to begin with because of the political nature and power it imparts upon men.

[sMASH]

@ 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.


@ maj. tom would it be logical to say that the driving force before the big bang could possibly be an entity we may only be able to conceptualize as 'god'?

[sMASH]

could this be a hypothesis: the driving force behind everything's beginning is a being 'god'

[maj. tom]

@ maj. tom would it be logical to say that the driving force before the big bang could possibly be an entity we may only be able to conceptualize as 'god'?

could this be a hypothesis: the driving force behind everything's beginning is a being 'god'

Very good hypothesis. Now how do we go about conducting an experiment to observe before the big bang. As I stated in an earlier post, time started in this physical existence and physics also started at t=0. Despite that you can imagine a time before t=0 does not really matter because there will be no way we can measure it.

The point of the LHC and other particle colliders is to create a particle smash with enough energy to replicate the conditions of the Big Bang, and so observe nearer and nearer what the big bang really was. And so far we have been able to go back as far as t=10^-43 seconds. We already have hypotheses and models in place and we need evidence to find out if they fit. So we do experiments.

Also how can you correctly infer that there was a "before" the big bang? Where did god come from? Why can't the origins of the universe have the same explanations? An axiom you just accept that time is infinite in both directions like numbers? Enter, entropy...

[megadoc1]

maj. tom take a read on the article on this site and ask questions if you wish
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/

[maj. tom]

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

Also time is linear from t=0 as we cannot observe an event before it happens, just that the times the same event is observed can be different depending on the frame of reference of the observer. But the event did occur at t=x, no doubt. Newton and Leibniz are a far cry off from Einstein's understanding of space and time, poor arguments. And the 2nd law of thermodynamics has never been broken since t=0, entropy being more proof of how space-time expands.

We also cannot observe the events before the big bang and no physicist has ever implied that there was anything before it because it is unmeasurable. If you want to infer that a God existed always and before, then infer it.

I can infer that nothing existed forever before t=0, if indeed t<0 exists. We have such a linear concept of time that on the number line we are thinking of it as numbers, infinite in both directions. Again, saying that God existed before and created the universe leads to more questions like where did god come from, and why can't we just apply that same "always existed" notion to a void of nothingness? We have no proof and will never have proof of what happened before t=0. And as they say on this forum, "no pics, GTFO!"

[Humes]

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.