I`m not religious, but it seems that the bible,koran etc , all most of them seem to say is "praise me" "love me" all the time ad nauseam.
It seems to me that all the countrys of the world , that are third world, are the ones where religion takes up so much of their time, that their is no time left to make something productive. Why does allah demand that he needs to be told he is great five times a day? That is a serious question. Why?
Is it because life is so crappy that they are better off dead, and they are hedging their bets?. Why do muslims just shout allah akbar all the time? What for? Is it any wonder that all of these countrys look like an ashtray with lights.
Christians don`t seem to be quite as bad, they only pander to an egomanic once a week , What about the rest of religion. How often do religions gods have to have their ego`s massaged?

If you created a robot to worship you, wouldn't you be irritated if it did otherwise, of worse yet, worshiped your enemy?

I`m not religious, but it seems that the bible,koran etc , all most of them seem to say is "praise me" "love me" all the time ad nauseam.
It seems to me that all the countrys of the world , that are third world, are the ones where religion takes up so much of their time, that their is no time left to make something productive. Why does allah demand that he needs to be told he is great five times a day? That is a serious question. Why?
Is it because life is so crappy that they are better off dead, and they are hedging their bets?. Why do muslims just shout allah akbar all the time? What for? Is it any wonder that all of these countrys look like an ashtray with lights.
Christians don`t seem to be quite as bad, they only pander to an egomanic once a week , What about the rest of religion. How often do religions gods have to have their ego`s massaged?





You must be kidding if your saying muslims contributed little or nothing to society....Mathematical vocabulary such as "algebra" and "algorithm" are actually borrowings from Arabic words, that were later translated into Latin. It was a Muslim mathematician who formulated the trigonometric function explicitly. The word "sine" was actually the direct translation of the arabic word "jayb". An English mathematician Robert of Chester, who flourished in the middle of the twelfth century, was the first to use sinus equivalent to this Arabic jayb in its trigonometrical acception (Hitti 573). Al-Khwarizmi composed the oldest book on mathematics, known only in translation. He presented more than 800 examples of the calculation of integration and equation, later anticipated by Neo-Babylonians (Hitti 379)."As in trigonometry so in Algebra Muslims must be considered as the founders of this science whose very name reflects its origin... al-Khwarizmi... firmly established this branch of mathematics" (qtd. King 214). They introduced it with the Arabic numerals into Europe and taught Westerners the most convenient convention of arithmetic concept. "The zero and Arabic numerals lie behind the science of calculation as we know it today" (Hitti 573-574). Arab astronomers left the sky immortal traces of their findings. Not only are most of the star-names in European languages are of Arabic origin (The Worlds Almanac and fact Book p199 c2), but a number of technical term such as "azimuth" (al- sumut), "nadir" (nazir), "zenith" (al-samt) are of Arabic etymology. This testifies the rich legacy of Islam to Christian Europe (Hitti 573).

enigma,
I am always delighted when one of my servant robots gets the nuts to give me the middle finger. ...of course, I end up smashing the ungrateful thing to bits.

surrender,
I'm inclined to think he was referring to more recent history, possibly even (gasp!) the present.

I am always delighted when one of my servant robots gets the nuts to give me the middle finger. ...of course, I end up smashing the ungrateful thing to bits

You should be thankfull God doesn't do that. We'd all be dead.

You should be thankfull God doesn't do that. We'd all be dead.




Lol :D ok fair enough then......Well the Last Nobel Peace Prize winner is a muslim woman..... :eek: ....peace

p.s. was suppose to be reponding to fading captain

If you created a robot to worship you, wouldn't you be irritated if it did otherwise, of worse yet, worshiped your enemy?

The question is: who's to blame?

If you make a robot and give it the ability to worship your enemies, you're the one at fault. I know, I know... free will yada yada, but then you should be wondering what you're doing wrong to make your robots worship someone else.

Let's be honest here, god couldn't even manage to keep all his angels subservient to him. They'll know more about everything than humans do, and yet decided to leave god. From day 1 until present time in biblical terms, seemingly everything and everyone has gone against god. We must ask why.

In keeping with fadingCaptain's sentence, god also 'smashed the ungrateful to bits'. It got so bad at one time, he even destroyed every living thing on the planet, except for a few lucky individuals and some cows for sacrifical purposes.

My advice to god right now is that he shouldn't be so eager to smite us- after all, we're just humans- but instead should be looking at what he is doing wrong for so many many people, (and even angels), to turn away from him.

In this day and age I really feel god should appear on a tv show to gain some much needed publicity. I guess it's not so bad nowadays though, because he has seemingly given up on annihilating us- or more to the point - has left that in the hands of nature. Maybe he did learn after all.

But then again.. who's to say he has learnt? I mean, just because something isn't written down as being actioned by god, doesn't mean he has no hand in it. For instance look at the 10 plagues. As we are all taught from a young age, god got angry at the Egyptians, and caused 10 rather nasty plagues to deal with them. When we're a bit older we learn about the bubonic plague, but we're taught that was caused by rats, (disease carrying insects on the rats). Who are we to say it was rats? Why is that plague not also an action of god? Because nobody has written it down as being so?

The same can be said of floods, tornados, earthquakes, meteor strikes, mudslides, lightning and so on and so forth.

How does anyone here define an action of god versus an action of nature? Perhaps the next time there's a tragedy and lots of people die, we can be peaceful in the knowledge that they were just sinning scum anyway, and god dealt with them swiftly.

Of course, there is evidence to show god doesn't play a hand in things anymore - and that is "contest". You see, there's so many other gods, and yet despite his words, he doesn't strike down all those who worship those other [false] gods. Has he handed the gloves in?

The thing is personally, I have no call to just assume truth in middle eastern text. I am as pure an Englishman as any Englishman can get and have my own set of mythologies - such as George and the dragon, crop circles and mothmen. The hobgoblin is also British :D I have no need for mythologies that were created for a whole different culture. god said it himself that his people were the israelites- not once did he state his care for europeans.

He is as much a 'foreign' god as allah, odin, abellio and zeus- and there is no sane reason for an Englishman to believe in any of them.

What God is doing "wrong" is giving people a free will. Take a couple, a husband and wife. they decide they are going to have a kid. Soon after, the wife gives birth to twins. years pass on, until both twins are teenagers. Say in theory they were both treated the same way by their parents, but the two are extreamly differant. One is a rebel that hates his parents and wants to run away from home. the other appriciates his parents and loves them, and show it to them by helping out around the house doing chores and stuff. What causes the differance in the two? THey have free will- a choice to chose. One chose to submit to authority, while the other chose to fight it.

I mean present day. Can anyone name a product from the middle east that is exported ? (not oil and terroists) Do they make anything in the mid east today? If so, what?


My question was about ANY gods egotism,egomania, egoism, and egocentric demands of its follerwers. Why do muslims have to pray FIVE times a day!! just how insecure is allah? what happens if you can only massage allahs ego three times a day ?

I'm not a Muslim, but I believe that for them, it is a way a showing their love to Allah. Like saying I want to show you how devoted I am to you.

Muslims, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Can anyone name a product from the middle east that is exported ?

What about Frankincense and Myrhh? Actually, they were probably from the orient weren't they? The middle east was just the path that it took on the spice route.


On the subject of God's egotism, that's one of the main issues that I have with him myself. It seems that his main requirement is not even to be loved. If you don't love him, you better at least fear him. Because you fear him you better obey him.

Wouldn't it be funny if there is a god and his real purpose with religion was to weed the sheep from the men? All those who blindly follow tradition are sent to hell and all of us who question the world get heaven as a reward? :D

you better at least fear him

What is fear?

Are you serious? Or are you being sarcastic? I'm guessing sarcastic. If so, read the old testament. Of course, Jesus changed all that. But, I find changing the rules halfway through highly suspect.

Im with enigma and plus i dont think it was their god saying pray to me 5 times a day i think it was a prophet who belived this was the best way to pray and it was just passed down.

Who? the intelligensia. just control of the masses i think. How the hell did they ever get anything done? ever. How many hours a day do muslims spend praying?

Are you serious? Or are you being sarcastic? I'm guessing sarcastic. If so, read the old testament. Of course, Jesus changed all that. But, I find changing the rules halfway through highly suspect.

I'm being dead serious. How do you, Invert Nexus define fear.

Well, how would you read a god that works in the following manner. The hebrews are getting out of line again. Worship on the high places and the like. Time to send in a foreign army to massacre them until they turn once more to sole worship of myself. Once again, they're out of hand (when will they learn?), ok, Babylonian captivity. Ok, out of hand again. Time to send in Rome. Remember, all these events are attributed to god punishing his people by sending terror into their lives.


Edit: Just saw your last post, Enigma. Something like the above. Fear is being afraid of foreign armies coming in and wiping out your family. Fear is being afraid of being put into slavery for disobeying god's will. Also, fear was not eradicated in the new christian way, it was merely transferred to punishment after death. Fear in this sense is of burning in the fires of hell for not obeying god's will.

Fear? Ah, the long lost feeling...
I think fear is a pretty primal emotion and it has a long definition.
Here you go:

Definition fear [Show phonetics] noun [C or U]
an unpleasant emotion or thought that you have when you are frightened or worried by something dangerous, painful or bad that is happening or might happen: Trembling with fear, she handed over the money to the gunman. Even when the waves grew big, the boy showed no (signs of) fear. I have a fear of heights.
The low profit figures simply confirmed my worst fears. [+ that]
There are fears that the disease will spread to other countries.

fear [Show phonetics] verb 1 [T not continuous] to be frightened of something or someone unpleasant: Most older employees fear unemployment. What do you fear most?
2 [not continuous] FORMAL to be worried or frightened that something bad might happen or might have happened: [+ (that)] Police fear (that) the couple may have drowned. FORMAL It is feared (that) as many as two hundred passengers may have died in the crash. We huddled together, fearing we might be killed. [+ to infinitive] Fearing to go herself, she sent her son to find out the news.
3 FORMAL I fear used to give someone news of something bad that has happened or might happen: [+ (that)] I fear (that) she's already left. fearful [Show phonetics] adjective 1 SLIGHTLY FORMAL frightened or worried about something: He hesitated before ringing her, fearful of what she might say. She's fearful (that) she may lose custody of her children.

2 UK OLD-FASHIONED very bad: a fearful argument a fearful temper
fearfully [Show phonetics] adverb

1 with fear: Fearfully, he walked closer to the edge.

2 UK OLD-FASHIONED extremely: These cakes are fearfully good. fearfulness [Show phonetics] noun [U] fearless [Show phonetics] adjective having no fear: a fearless fighter fearlessly [Show phonetics] adverb They fought fearlessly against the invading armies. fearlessness [Show phonetics] noun [U] fearsome [Show phonetics] adjective

FORMAL frightening: a fearsome reputation a fearsome display of violence fearsomely [Show phonetics] adverb

(from Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary)

The term fear, when it is used in the Bible in a situation where it's describing you should fear God doesn't actually mean scared of the consequences of doing otherwise. If you study it, it actually means to show respect towards, hold in high emteem.

God punishing the Jews by haveing other nations defeate them showed how important it was to Him that they love Him. You got a toddler and he's out playing by the street. He's told not to play in the street. Why? Yeah, it may be fun for a short time there can be nasty consequinces, such as a flat head. If the kid goes out into the street, a good parent would punish him for doing so. Is it because he wants to see the child cry because he's in time out? No, it's because He knows what can and eventually will happen if the kid stays in the street. the parent loves the kid and doesn't want anything bad to happen to him.

Yes, a good parent would have many children and them slaughter some (limb from limb) to teach the survivors that they should love him. Yes, this is very much in teaching with Dr. Spock.

Heard the story of Elijah (Elisha.. something like that there were a couple prophets by this name)? Elijah had a problem. Elijah was bald. Elijah went to a village. The village children made fun of Elijah, saying "Go up thou, baldhead. Go up thou." Guess what happened to these children... Go on guess. Did you guess that they were torn into little bits and pieces by bears. If you did you guessed right. I bet no one in that village called Elijah baldy again.

God punishing the Jews by haveing other nations defeate them showed how important it was to Him that they love Him.

Utter nonsense. It is important to me that my daughter loves me, but I cannot force it upon her- and it can hardly be called love if I try to enforce it upon her via fear. "Love me or I'll throw your toys away". That's about the gist of it, and it's perverse.

You got a toddler and he's out playing by the street. He's told not to play in the street. Why? Yeah, it may be fun for a short time there can be nasty consequinces, such as a flat head. If the kid goes out into the street, a good parent would punish him for doing so. Is it because he wants to see the child cry because he's in time out? No, it's because He knows what can and eventually will happen if the kid stays in the street. the parent loves the kid and doesn't want anything bad to happen to him.

In this context, the parent would also be the car driver. That's where the issue is. There's nothing wrong with informing your children about the dangers, but then to annihilate them because they didn't listen to you isn't the answer, (well it is to god apparently).

These aren't village children we're talking about, these are young men iin their ealy twenties. God killed them not because the were moking Elisha's baldness, but because they were insulting God. They were daring God to come preach to them. God showed mercy on the Jews because they were His chosen people. We should be thankfull that God also has mercy on us. If God dealt with us as he delt with them, we would be no more. God is sovriegn, which means He shall show mercy on whom He chooses to show mercy, and compassion on whom he chooses to shaow compassion.

So nobody has really answered my questions here. Does nobody want to pick up the batten and run with it? Have i touched a nerve that all gods ARE in fact totally egocentric and nobody dares defend their position on the subject? This thread was not intended to offend, i asked some genuine questions that i would of liked some answers to

So nobody has really answered my questions here. Does nobody want to pick up the batten and run with it? Have i touched a nerve that all gods ARE in fact totally egocentric and nobody dares defend their position on the subject? This thread was not intended to offend, i asked some genuine questions that i would of liked some answers to

Since there is only ONE God, that question is flawed and therefore unanswerable. Don't be at all shocked.

Well how much time do you spend praying? Do you think your god is egocentric? I have seen a lot of your posts Southstar, and you obviously take your religion very seriously.
Will you give me your views on what i see as your gods egocentric behaviour?

Since there is only ONE God, that question is flawed and therefore unanswerable. Don't be at all shocked.

Why am I not at all shocked by this statement?

Why am I not at all shocked by this statement?

Then you are Christian? :D

Then you are Christian?

Actually, I was referring to the self-righteousness of the statement. It implies that your book is right and all others are wrong. Why? Because...

Actually, I was referring to the self-righteousness of the statement. It implies that your book is right and all others are wrong. Why? Because...

Because?

--Stupid 10 character thing---

What God is doing "wrong" is giving people a free will.

I'd say the problem isn't so much our having free will but rather us having eaten from the tree of knowledge. Adam and Eve still followed God before then, they were just mindless drones. Because of our godly knowledge, we are able to see God for what he really is and can come to a logical conclusion why not to follow him/her/it.

The less educated one is, the more likely they're to follow God and even moreso be a zealot, even though that person has free will. And on the flipside, the more educated one is, the more likely they're able to see through all the bullshit. This is all in thanks to our enlightenment from the tree of knowledge.

- N

Because?

That's the only reason that I've seen so far...

That's the only reason that I've seen so far...

Because that's the ONLY reason there is?

It got so bad at one time, he even destroyed every living thing on the planet, except for a few lucky individuals and some cows for sacrifical purposes.Too funny :D

Because that's the ONLY reason there is?

You said it. Too bad you won't accept the implications of that reason.

You said it. Too bad you won't accept the implications of that reason.

Ok then, what are the implications?

Ok then, what are the implications?

*sigh* Must I... Again...? Very well, if you insist.

Because you have no better answer that your god is the real god than because, it means that all the other religions who have the exact same answer are just as legitimate as yours. It leaves us in a place where one chooses their flavor of god just because... None are right and all are wrong... (Ok, literally it should be none are wrong, but we who have seen through the charade know better...)

Because you have no better answer that your god is the real god than because, it means that all the other religions who have the exact same answer are just as legitimate as yours. It leaves us in a place where one chooses their flavor of god just because... None are right and all are wrong... (Ok, literally it should be none are wrong, but we who have seen through the charade know better...)

Well they're all worshipping the same God, that which is above all, they just have different assumptions on the details of that God. They all just do too much assuming and state their assumptions as fact for something that is beyond their understanding. Very silly.

- N

So nobody has really answered my questions here. Does nobody want to pick up the batten and run with it? Have i touched a nerve that all gods ARE in fact totally egocentric and nobody dares defend their position on the subject? This thread was not intended to offend, i asked some genuine questions that i would of liked some answers to

What is wrong with God being egocentric? It needs not be an offence. After all, it is He that holds this reality together. Everything is Centered around his power and his sustainance.

I would like to comment on some of the things you posted. First, and pressuming a egocentric quality, why would he leave those that do not even aknowledge his dominion. Why not just delete them?

As for prayer, if only what Muslim prayer is... I will give you a glimps in what it offers and why it is for the mans good. It is direct contact with God, It is a means to stay the course, It is a ever returning purification of body and soul. If it is performed in mosques, it is unity, it is affection between the believers and brotherhood. If you parents made you brush your teeth three times a day, would you consider egocentric and think they simply do that to show they have power over you and so that you obey them?

A prayer takes ten minutes at most. Off course you can make it last for hours if that is what you wish. And it gives you discipline as nothing does. This I experienced first hand. You are mistaken to believe Muslims are acting confrming to their religion. Almost all Muslim lands have a secular regime and system. A couple decades ago prayer had been an incidental event, mosques were empty. Men were corrupt. Now religion is coming back, mosques are not sufficient.

The failure of Muslim nations was exactly due to the fact that they fell into secularism, before Europe did. Muslims were once great exactly beacuse of religion. Remember that in less that 100 Years after the death of the Prophet - peace be upon him- Muslims were already making flight tests, Around 800 D.C, 700 years befor Da Vinci (see link). Christianny made Europe backward, Islam made the nomads great and civilised, the first to accept religious plurality even when they ruled the world. All thanks to a shepard in the 8th century that could not read nor write. And prayer had a center stage role in achieving that.

(the link is easy to read, it is a brief summary yet it gices alot of info
http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/sciencehistory.htm)

And may peace be upon you.

I forgot something about the present. The intelligentia was always Muslim. In 1820 Egypt was trying to industrialize and many Muslim countries were drawing legislatures resembling those of europe. Off course some of the rulers were opposed to the limitation of their power. But the people were committed and they made the changes. This particularly took place in Tunesia, Egypt, Turkey and Iran (those are the ones I know). All this was annihilated by the English-french push and the ensuing colonization.

After the colonizers left, the intelligentia that remained was largely seculare, many, although not all, we socialists. Following their utter failure in nearly everyting they aspired they considered themselves at odds with their only alternative, Islamic thought. Thanks to social engineering, the rulers had many successes in turning people away from religion, by making religious men into bogeymen. During the last century thousands upon thousands of highly educated people were dissappeared into prisons and many are still only because they had an Islamic orientation.

"Islamic" society are inhabited by Muslims of different degrees of commitement. The system that rules them is a parody of the western one. This degeneracy is further complicated by the corruption, social injustice and the total disregard for the growth of the individual. Particulary the last one is where Islam begins since from it everything ensues.

Well thanks for having a go at my questions. It just seems to be an extroadinary amount of time to spend without any tangible results.

What is wrong with God being egocentric? It needs not be an offence. After all, it is He that holds this reality together. Everything is Centered around his power and his sustainance.

Because ego is contrary to the concept of the ultimate enlightened all powerful being. What do you think when you meet an egotistical person? Now multiply it by 100 and you have christianity's, judaism's and islam's egomaniacal god.

Because ego is contrary to the concept of the ultimate enlightened all powerful being. What do you think when you meet an egotistical person? Now multiply it by 100 and you have christianity's, judaism's and islam's egomaniacal god.

How is God enlightened? He that gives enlightenment does not recieve it.

*sigh* Must I... Again...? Very well, if you insist.

Because you have no better answer that your god is the real god than because, it means that all the other religions who have the exact same answer are just as legitimate as yours. It leaves us in a place where one chooses their flavor of god just because... None are right and all are wrong...

The other religions don't have the "exact same answer". They promote heresy of heresies and swear by their silly, artificial gods. Since there is one God, you see, there can't be more than one religion. That is illogical. There is only one way to heaven after all.

(Ok, literally it should be none are wrong, but we who have seen through the charade know better...)

Majority wins the vote. Come to the other side!

SouhStar,

The other religions don't have the "exact same answer". They promote heresy of heresies and swear by their silly, artificial gods. Since there is one God, you see, there can't be more than one religion. That is illogical. There is only one way to heaven after all.That's exactly what Muslims have been saying for centuries. So that proves that Christianity is a lilly religion since it is one of the others.

Well done - when are you converting to islam?

Kat

SouhStar,

That's exactly what Muslims have been saying for centuries. So that proves that Christianity is a lilly religion since it is one of the others.

Well done - when are you converting to islam?

Kat

Islam does not recognize the Triune Deity and is therefore heretical. As for lilly religion, I don't know what that is so you'll have to help me out..

Your argument disproves the existance of all religions, therefore, there is no need for Southstar to convert because Islam becomes a lilly religion like Christianity. *takes a deep breath* your argument is flawed becuse it is impossible that life suddenly appeard. Something had to have created it. So therefore, there must be one correct religion in the world. Some one has to be right.

And we all know who that is (points to the person in the mirror).. ;)

:D

There is no need for someone to be right.

There is no need for someone to be right.

In that case, you are wrong.

-------

Do you see the complications that statement causes?

No, I don´t. I never said that I am right. I may well be wrong. Just like you. Our existence is just a string of impossibilities.

How can no one be right? That's like saying A does not eqal A, but ~A doesn't equal it either. That doesn't make sense.

Why is everything bound to make sense? What is sense? Don´t you think that sense is rather subjective?

well...

something has to be absolute.

No, I don´t. I never said that I am right. I may well be wrong. Just like you. Our existence is just a string of impossibilities.

Well if you didn't know that you are wrong, I'm telling you for your own good. I can't be wrong because I didn't make what I'm telling you up, neither did anyone else make it up.

well...

something has to be absolute.

Why has something to be absolute? Is there a real need for it? Our existence might be impossible, or drastically different from what we perceive.

Well if you didn't know that you are wrong, I'm telling you for your own good. I can't be wrong because I didn't make what I'm telling you up, neither did anyone else make it up.

Oh, how can you be so sure? God might just be imaginary.

Why has something to be absolute? Is there a real need for it? Our existence might be impossible, or drastically different from what we perceive.

Why so?



Oh, how can you be so sure? God might just be imaginary.

Wesley's Explanatory Notes
-----
For the wiser heathens did know that there was one supreme God; yet from low and base considerations they conformed to the idolatry of the vulgar. They did not glorify him as God, neither were thankful - They neither thanked him for his benefits, nor glorified him for his divine perfection. But became vain - Like the idols they worshipped. In their reasonings - Various, uncertain, foolish. What a terrible instance have we of this in the writings of Lucretius! What vain reasonings, and how dark a heart, amidst so pompous professions of wisdom!
-----

Why so?





Wesley's Explanatory Notes
-----
For the wiser heathens did know that there was one supreme God; yet from low and base considerations they conformed to the idolatry of the vulgar. They did not glorify him as God, neither were thankful - They neither thanked him for his benefits, nor glorified him for his divine perfection. But became vain - Like the idols they worshipped. In their reasonings - Various, uncertain, foolish. What a terrible instance have we of this in the writings of Lucretius! What vain reasonings, and how dark a heart, amidst so pompous professions of wisdom!
-----

Why so? The same question redirected at you.


You give exactly the answers I anticipated. I knew you were digging up some god-glorifying texts from someone...how predictable. But still, there is no evidence, only faith and empty retoric. The text gives praise to your God and condems the others. So?
How about this, the early people believed in idols because they were uneducated and their mind was not as sophisticated as ours. So they perceived many natural things for which they did not have an explanation. Some of those things were rather powerful, they felt fear towards them, as a result they tried gain favor with them. This could be archieved by personifying those forces, applying human characteristics to them.

Those who believe in God can also be called foolish. But blind faith overwrites every reasoning.

Neildo,

Well they're all worshipping the same God, that which is above all, they just have different assumptions on the details of that God.I have seen religionists make this argument as a way to pretend friendly tolerance between religions (i.e. we all share the same god club), especially Christians, Muslims, and Jews. But the only real common factor is that they all believe in a ONE god and they quote the same ancient historical heritage etc. But their individual details create fundamental conflicts that mean that such a common god is impossible or at least severely and mortally schizophrenic.

So no they cannot be worshipping the same god.

Kat

Well thanks for having a go at my questions. It just seems to be an extroadinary amount of time to spend without any tangible results.

Pity. I urge yo still to read it as you will read larger texts while this one may answer you question. I hope I will hear more from you. In the meantime I consider your question answered

You should be thankfull God doesn't do that. We'd all be dead.Nope, he just threatens to send us to Hell instead.

Why so? The same question redirected at you.

In case you did not know, I wanted you to explain it to me. Hence the word, "why".


You give exactly the answers I anticipated. I knew you were digging up some god-glorifying texts from someone...how predictable.

If you actually believe so, I would advice you to look at the text and see if contradicts what is written.


But still, there is no evidence, only faith and empty retoric. The text gives praise to your God and condems the others. So?
How about this, the early people believed in idols because they were uneducated and their mind was not as sophisticated as ours. So they perceived many natural things for which they did not have an explanation. Some of those things were rather powerful, they felt fear towards them, as a result they tried gain favor with them. This could be archieved by personifying those forces, applying human characteristics to them.

These were vulgar makings of steel and wood which blasphemed Truth. By your knowledge, you did not believe in these foolish and contemptuous acts of rebellion.

Those who believe in God can also be called foolish. But blind faith overwrites every reasoning.

From whence do you conclude so? :confused:

Because ego is contrary to the concept of the ultimate enlightened all powerful being. What do you think when you meet an egotistical person? Now multiply it by 100 and you have christianity's, judaism's and islam's egomaniacal god.

I hope you can appreciate the difference between "egocentric" and "egotistical" although they might overlap.
I can accept an egocentric as not being a bad person, especially if the indivual with the trait is for instance just to his environment. If the person bases his actions on himself and views himself as the center of the world and at the same time is (in aristotelian sense) virtuous then I can but applaud him. This certainly goes for Him that indeed sustaines every single aspect of this world/reality. And this case He is above virtue.
And one other thing, before judging could you elaborate on "enlightened all powerfull being".

Peace be upon you.

These were vulgar makings of steel and wood which blasphemed Truth. By your knowledge, you did not believe in these foolish and contemptuous acts of rebellion.

If you have noticed, I believe in nothing... But obviously, the author of your source does believe in only one god, because he called those heathens that also believed in one god wise. Then the author degrades them because they rather worshipped idols, calling this vanity.
This shows that he dislikes idols and likes the idea of one true god. Hence he "glorifies" this god. But I was also referring to the other text you posted in ... I´ll look it up after finnishing this post...



Those who believe in God can also be called foolish. But blind faith overwrites every reasoning.

From whence do you conclude so? :confused:

How I conclude? Easy, I ask you, but all I get is material, answers that are without much reason and content. They show nothing... I do think that pretty foolish...
Also, as you demonstrated in other threads, you always give similar "explanations", some "proof" for god and all the construct around him. At the same time, you manage to contradict yourself and make fun of others. Besides that, you show an enormous amount of arrogance and your views are very one-dimensional.
This I call foolish, you obviously call it faith.


And could you please elaborate the "why so" question, I think the answer I gave
Originally Posted by Dreamwalker
Why has something to be absolute? Is there a real need for it? Our existence might be impossible, or drastically different from what we perceive.
is pretty easy to understand.

Neildo,

But their individual details create fundamental conflicts that mean that such a common god is impossible or at least severely and mortally schizophrenic.

So no they cannot be worshipping the same god.

Kat

They can be worshipping one and the same. I am not saying they do, but they can. Now if we limit the religions to three; that of the Jews, the Christians and ours, Muslims, two will be wrong and one will be right. Only one can be right at maximum.

The three faiths don't actually recognise one another. Jews recoginse no one. The christians claim the same God but suddently change him to be three! The Muslims also claim the same god, but say that the Jews were wrong not to accept Jesus and the Christans because the deified him. Nevertheless we (Muslims) say that the source is One.

If you have noticed, I believe in nothing... But obviously, the author of your source does believe in only one god, because he called those heathens that also believed in one god wise. Then the author degrades them because they rather worshipped idols, calling this vanity.
This shows that he dislikes idols and likes the idea of one true god. Hence he "glorifies" this god. But I was also referring to the other text you posted in ... I´ll look it up after finnishing this post...





[QUOTE]How I conclude? Easy, I ask you, but all I get is material, answers that are without much reason and content. They show nothing... I do think that pretty foolish...
Also, as you demonstrated in other threads, you always give similar "explanations", some "proof" for god and all the construct around him. At the same time, you manage to contradict yourself and make fun of others. Besides that, you show an enormous amount of arrogance and your views are very one-dimensional.
This I call foolish, you obviously call it faith.

Please tell me where I have contradicted myself, that I may make it right. Where have I also shown arrogance, I am again a wretched sinner and you must help me as I must help you. As for being one-dimensional, would you rather they be two-dimensional? :rolleyes:

Please show me how my views are very one-dimensional, especially in comparison to yours.

And could you please elaborate the "why so" question, I think the answer I gave

is pretty easy to understand.

Not for me. I am a wretched man and these things are not readily edible to me. Please explain it nicely.

The christians claim the same God but suddently change him to be three! The Muslims also claim the same god, but say that the Jews were wrong not to accept Jesus and the Christans because the deified him. Nevertheless we (Muslims) say that the source is One.

LIES!

Have we not already been through this, triune is NOT three Gods!

LIES!

Have we not already been through this, triune is NOT three Gods!

I knew you 'd say that. :p

I knew you 'd say that. :p

100% + 100% + 100% = 100%

:D

Well, I think the self-contradiction I´ll take back, I was pretty sure I read something self-contradictory from you. But there are so many threads, I cannot find it right now. So I´ll take back that accusation.

Arrogance? Several times, at least from my perspective. For example, you seem to rule out very possibility of a god (or multiple) that is not conform with yours. You believe that you are right, no matter what others say, sometimes you seem to be unable to view things from another perspective. That, I perceive as very arrogant, together with your grand user title "Defender of the Faith"... I ahve to say that sometimes you look like a christian version of Proud_Muslim.
These things also lead to your one-dimensional appearance (i mean in opinion, not in person), I could also call you narrow-minded if you prefer, you only give references to the bible or christian religious writings. I never saw you quoting an objective text. Also, as stated above you sometimes seem to be unable to see things from another point of view, it looks like you do not even consider the views of others. It seems like you only read their posts to find appropriate quotes.
Furthermore, I have the definite impression that you do not deem to consider another possibility of god, or spirituality. You are arrogant to believe that you are right because you have some religious guys to back you up. You try to explain God with God or at least the Word of God, but you don´t seem to consider the possibility that you and ultimately those words are false.
This strong faith (and faith can be very one-dimensional) gives you a certain amount of arrogance. Your God is your arrogance and your narrow mindedness.

You asked me "Why so" as I stated that not everything is the way we perceive it.
I ask you, why so? Why a god? And I have asked you before. But the answers you gave me were empty. You are running in circles, you sprout emty words and yet, you are sure that you bear the truth within you. You may call it faith, but I call it arrogant and narrow-minded.

Well, I think the self-contradiction I´ll take back, I was pretty sure I read something self-contradictory from you. But there are so many threads, I cannot find it right now. So I´ll take back that accusation.

Arrogance? Several times, at least from my perspective. For example, you seem to rule out very possibility of a god (or multiple) that is not conform with yours. You believe that you are right, no matter what others say, sometimes you seem to be unable to view things from another perspective. That, I perceive as very arrogant, together with your grand user title "Defender of the Faith"... I ahve to say that sometimes you look like a christian version of Proud_Muslim.

You are a HATER and a ZIONIST! How can you possibly lower me to PM's standard.. ;)

Well, I do try to bring in notes from commentaries and books from time to time to show that I am not making this up.

As for my "grand" user title (why thank you), I do believe everyone here is defending their faith, regardless of how blasphemous it may be. How is my user title then grand?

I only rule out the possibility of a god of man's invention because such a belief system is utmost heresy and mocks your God and my God. Surely you do not want your God to be blasphemed, even if you claim to not believe in Him? Certainly I do not dismiss these false doctrines for personal reasons for doing so has benefitted me little, if any.

These things also lead to your one-dimensional appearance (i mean in opinion, not in person), I could also call you narrow-minded if you prefer, you only give references to the bible or christian religious writings. I never saw you quoting an objective text. Also, as stated above you sometimes seem to be unable to see things from another point of view, it looks like you do not even consider the views of others. It seems like you only read their posts to find appropriate quotes.

It is because I do not wish to see our God mocked, for it is our job as His eternal slaves to gently chide and correct in matters of ambiguity and heresy. Yes, we are His slaves for all eternity. Neither have I seen you referring to objective text, but we know that this is a thread for religion and any pertaining "objective" texts have most likely been penned by maddened heretics inspired by Satan. You see, to follow God, you must either do so with ALL your soul or not at all. There is certainly no in between and therefore one must either be zealous for the Almighty or be labeled a heathen. There is no passive stance in these spiritual matters that I can see, but surely you will illuminate me on the possibility of such a thing. I also welcome others to nitpick at what I write for I do not want to spread something incorrect as I am sure you too would rather be corrected than spread something false.

Furthermore, I have the definite impression that you do not deem to consider another possibility of god, or spirituality. You are arrogant to believe that you are right because you have some religious guys to back you up. You try to explain God with God or at least the Word of God, but you don´t seem to consider the possibility that you and ultimately those words are false.
This strong faith (and faith can be very one-dimensional) gives you a certain amount of arrogance. Your God is your arrogance and your narrow mindedness.

What at all in nature indicates that there is more than one Deity? If "they" are all Deity, then they are all God and God is one. God is however spirit and can never be reflected in idols made out of wood and steel and gold, items deemed precious by man. As for trying to explain God with God, do tell me, how else do you expect me to "explain" Him? There is nothing I can know about God, save for what He reveals through His Spirit of Holiness. By rejecting the message that I give through the eternal grace of the Spirit of Holiness, you do not reject me or what I say, but reject God and what He says. But before you jump on my neck and say that is arrogant, you and I must very well remember that I may very well be mistaken on certain details and it is the community's responsibility to set me on the right path when I deviate, as I too will do. You claim that this "strong faith" gives me a certain amount of arrogance but verily, would you rather that I have a "weak faith"? Do you yourself not have a strong faith in your beliefs? If not, you are like a house of uncertain straw built on the rocks.

This should illustrate my point:

Matthew 8
24"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash."

You asked me "Why so" as I stated that not everything is the way we perceive it.
I ask you, why so? Why a god? And I have asked you before. But the answers you gave me were empty. You are running in circles, you sprout emty words and yet, you are sure that you bear the truth within you. You may call it faith, but I call it arrogant and narrow-minded.

I tried to give you the texts that you may interpret for yourself but you seldom responded about the texts but about something I said. This led me to believe you weren't really looking for where "God is" but where "God isn't". Thus, you must ask yourself who is being narrow-minded here.

I have seen religionists make this argument as a way to pretend friendly tolerance between religions (i.e. we all share the same god club), especially Christians, Muslims, and Jews. But the only real common factor is that they all believe in a ONE god and they quote the same ancient historical heritage etc. But their individual details create fundamental conflicts that mean that such a common god is impossible or at least severely and mortally schizophrenic.

So no they cannot be worshipping the same god.

Heh, if someone is worshipping the almighty creator of all, they're worshipping the same being, they just have a different name for it. It's not as if they don't try and specify their God where that would mean that they don't follow the same god, but each religion says their god is the god almighty creator of all and if so, there can be only one. There's nothing you can say to refute that. The only thing where each religion is wrong or has differing beliefs is all the politics of that god. They try and say how that god acts, thinks, and whatever, when they cannot possibly know.

If you and I worship Tom Cruise* yet I call him Bubba, and you say Tom does this and that and I say no, Bubba really does this and that when we don't know (for simplicity sake let's say it's in regards to something private with him that we can't know so it's more equal to him being like the unknowable god which everyone makes assumptions about), we're still worshipping the same person, just by a different name. When you see him, you go gaga googoo and yell out his name, and if I see him, I go gaga googoo and yell out his name too. The only thing different is our perspective of him, but Tom is still Tom as the almighty creator of all is still the almighty creator of all.

- N

*note* Tom Cruise is just used as an example. :p

How is God enlightened? He that gives enlightenment does not recieve it.

Of course he doesn't receive it he IS IT.

I tried to give you the texts that you may interpret for yourself but you seldom responded about the texts but about something I said. This led me to believe you weren't really looking for where "God is" but where "God isn't". Thus, you must ask yourself who is being narrow-minded here.

Oh, I did respond to your texts, but sometimes, I just could not see the meaning of them. They did not seem to have a point or a meaning for the current discussion. Hence they appeared to be somewhat empty and useless in the context.


And of course I did not fall back on any texts, why? To the most part, I ask questions. I do not need books for that. Also, it is quite a bother to search for books that say the same things I do just to make a point.

The failure of Muslim nations was exactly due to the fact that they fell into secularism, before Europe did. Muslims were once great exactly beacuse of religion..

I would disagree islam derived it's golden age on the backs of the diverse and educated lands it conquered. In it's conquest of ancient and advanced cultures such as the Egyptian, Syrian, Persian etc islam acquired the vast stores of knowledge that these cultures possessed. At the time islam broke out of the arabian desert, arabic had just developed into a written language, the muslim arabs had nothing to offer these other civilizations but their religion or conflict.


Christianny made Europe backward, Islam made the nomads great and civilised,

Utter nonsense, The advent of christianity coincided with the decline of the roman empire. The decline of the political power of rome left a social vacuum in the west which as it turned out the early church was best able to fill. Unlike islam there is nothing in christian doctrine that defines how to run a government so the church wasn't exactly prepared to overtake the role of governance. Also unlike early islam early christianity was not a religion of conquest.


the first to accept religious plurality even when they ruled the world. All thanks to a shepard in the 8th century that could not read nor write.

Two fallacies



And may peace be upon you.

And also with you :)

And one other thing, before judging could you elaborate on "enlightened all powerfull being".

Peace be upon you.

Developed beyond anger, jealosy, spite, self importance, insecurity, vengefulness. In short beyond all those human characteristics which the torah, bible and quran assign to IT.

I would disagree islam derived it's golden age on the backs of the diverse and educated lands it conquered. In it's conquest of ancient and advanced cultures such as the Egyptian, Syrian, Persian etc islam acquired the vast stores of knowledge that these cultures possessed. At the time islam broke out of the arabian desert, arabic had just developed into a written language, the muslim arabs had nothing to offer these other civilizations but their religion or conflict.

The Shepard -peace be upon him- could not read or write. The men around him could even thought the arabic "alphabet" was not fully developed. :)

The Muslims conquered many lands. Thanks to Allah first and to his prophet -peace be upon him.

The muslims took over lands, rich lands, advanced lands. But the crucial thing is how did they manage. While like you say Christianity was never enough develped to rule. The laws the Muslims had received, however made them well equipped. They didn't ravage the lands like some barbarians. They built rodes, hospitals, cities. They would be justb and firm. So the examplary governance skills of these nomads where due to their religion and that has had it's fruits.

Their social justice was also great. This helped assimilate many in the ranks of Islam. This was because the others were given ample room to be citizens. And they were given that because Islam decreed that. Again thanks to Allah and his prophet -peace be upon him.

But you have to admit that Muslims did not simply copy all that was. They have had their many achievemnts themselves. Achievements to be contributed to Muslims themselves and their zeal in work and science. They have furthered already present sciences and they have come up with many of they own, e.g. sociology (and flight attempts). So it would be a fallacy to contribute al that was to previous civilizations and negate centuries of Muslim Endeavor.

Utter nonsense, The advent of christianity coincided with the decline of the roman empire. The decline of the political power of rome left a social vacuum in the west which as it turned out the early church was best able to fill. Unlike islam there is nothing in christian doctrine that defines how to run a government so the church wasn't exactly prepared to overtake the role of governance. Also unlike early islam early christianity was not a religion of conquest.

Thank you for strengthening my point. They were ill-equipped and not prepared. Thanks to Allah and his messenger -peace be upon him, and the work of many great men, we were apt to the task and we gave the world Baghdad and Andalusia.

Two fallacies

For the first I urge you to do a search on Andalusia. I believe I fully explained to you the fact that we owe allot to that man in the desert -peace be upon him.

And may peace be upon you.

Developed beyond anger, jealosy, spite, self importance, insecurity, vengefulness. In short beyond all those human characteristics which the torah, bible and quran assign to IT.

You mean in your Perceived self-image. And dude he created the universe. He is important.

I would not go on the other terms you used. Because they reflect what you feel is God, and because that discussion would have too much nuances for you anf me to really come to a discussion. Maybe another time, k?

:m:

You mean in your Perceived self-image. And dude he created the universe. He is important.

I would not go on the other terms you used. Because they reflect what you feel is God, and because that discussion would have too much nuances for you anf me to really come to a discussion. Maybe another time, k?

:m:
Importance is man made if he is truly he knows it and has no need of affirmation from his minions

The Shepard -peace be upon him- could not read or write. The men around him could even thought the arabic "alphabet" was not fully developed. :)

The Muslims conquered many lands. Thanks to Allah first and to his prophet -peace be upon him.

The muslims took over lands, rich lands, advanced lands. But the crucial thing is how did they manage. While like you say Christianity was never enough develped to rule.

It was never meant to rule it was meant to be a spiritual guide


The laws the Muslims had received, however made them well equipped. They didn't ravage the lands like some barbarians.[/quote]

That varied from one ruler to the next and also depended upon just who was being conquered. Some indian historians reckon that india's population dropped by 80 million during the centuries of jihad india endured. In addition thousands of old and magnificent temples and shrines were leveled (they were idol worshippers afterall)

They built rodes, hospitals, cities.

most were already there

They would be justb and firm. So the examplary governance skills of these nomads where due to their religion and that has had it's fruits.

No they made extensive use of the newly conquered territories administrators, especially Persians who were well educated in running the affairs of a large empire. Check and see they kept the buearocrats in place and only replaced the top ruling officials in the lands of the middle east.


But you have to admit that Muslims did not simply copy all that was. They have had their many achievemnts themselves. Achievements to be contributed to Muslims themselves and their zeal in work and science. They have furthered already present sciences and they have come up with many of they own, e.g. sociology (and flight attempts).

If they hadn't at the very least continued to develop the aquired knowledge base they would have been inept indeed, all civilizations have done this since the beginning of time.


So it would be a fallacy to contribute al that was to previous civilizations and negate centuries of Muslim Endeavor.

As long as you don't do the same to the Persians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Phoenicians, Minoans, Sumerians, Babylonians etc etc. ;)



Thank you for strengthening my point.

No your point was saying it was christianity the caused the west to deteriorate I simply pointed out that that was incorrect.

we gave the world Baghdad and Andalusia.

Oh my listing acheivements now are we? is it a competition?


For the first I urge you to do a search on Andalusia. I believe I fully explained to you the fact that we owe allot to that man in the desert -peace be upon him.

And may peace be upon you.

I know about Andalusia do you know about constantinople? How many people died because of that man from the desert?

Importance is man made if he is truly he knows it and has no need of affirmation from his minions

He doesn't need it. But I (we) recognise Him to be important, Because He is.

Hadith Qudsi 17:
On the authority of Abu Dharr al-Ghifari (may Allah be pleased with him) from the Prophet (PBUH) is that among the sayings he relates from his Lord (may He be glorified) is that He said:
O My servants, I have forbidden oppression for Myself and have made it forbidden amongst you, so do not oppress one another. O My servants, all of you are astray except for those I have guided, so seek guidance of Me and I shall guide you, O My servants, all of you are hungry except for those I have fed, so seek food of Me and I shall feed you. O My servants, all of you are naked except for those I have clothed, so seek clothing of Me and I shall clothe you. O My servants, you sin by night and by day, and I forgive all sins, so seek forgiveness of Me and I shall forgive you. O My servants, you will not attain harming Me so as to harm Me, and will not attain benefitting Me so as to benefit Me. O My servants, were the first of you and the last of you, the human of you and the jinn of you to be as pious as the most pious heart of any one man of you, that would not increase My kingdom in anything. O My servants, were the first of you and the last of you, the human of you and the jinn of you to be as wicked as the most wicked heart of any one man of you, that would not decrease My kingdom in anything. O My servants, were the first of you and the last of you, the human of you and the jinn of you to rise up in one place and make a request of Me, and were I to give everyone what he requested, that would not decrease what I have, any more that a needle decreases the sea if put into it. O My servants, it is but your deeds that I reckon up for you and then recompense you for, so let him finds good praise Allah and let him who finds other that blame no one but himself.

It was related by Muslim (also by at-Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah).

This sums that up.

It was never meant to rule it was meant to be a spiritual guide.

Then I find it inadequate for life for spritual and materialistic life are two faces of the same coin.

That varied from one ruler to the next and also depended upon just who was being conquered. Some indian historians reckon that india's population dropped by 80 million during the centuries of jihad india endured. In addition thousands of old and magnificent temples and shrines were leveled (they were idol worshippers afterall)

I don't know the intricaties of indian history. I Wouldn't be surprised if those "hindu" "Historians" said that. Certainly after their continuous wars agains Pakistan. I would trust them as I would trust Dick Cheney in the U.S. Off course I need to read about it. But that won't be anytime soon.

most were already there

Yes, so?! No one said that Perisa was uninhabited. However you admit that they did build on. That they erected cities and developed the land.

No they made extensive use of the newly conquered territories administrators, especially Persians who were well educated in running the affairs of a large empire. Check and see they kept the buearocrats in place and only replaced the top ruling officials in the lands of the middle east.

A wise measure by all means. I would do the same.

If they hadn't at the very least continued to develop the aquired knowledge base they would have been inept indeed, all civilizations have done this since the beginning of time.

Clearly the european middle ages don't testify to that. However, you again admit that they were not inept. That they did go and the add to humanity's development.

As long as you don't do the same to the Persians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Phoenicians, Minoans, Sumerians, Babylonians etc etc. ;)

So if were to negate the earlier civs, it wouldn't be a fallacy of your part to negate the Muslim civ. Non mon ami, it would be a fallacy even if I denied those civilizations, Which I didn't. (off course I would be committing one too if I did.) I deeply respect them and try to learn about them in keeping with what that great man -peace be upon him- has thought us; "gathering knowledge is a (Muslim-) duty."


No your point was saying it was christianity the caused the west to deteriorate I simply pointed out that that was incorrect.

Christiannity had control over the roman decays and yet failed to make them better or save them. The advent of Islam organised and made bettered it's dominion. It was good for Muslims as opposed to what the first poster claimed.

Oh my listing acheivements now are we? is it a competition?

It is not, funny you interpret it as such though. ;) It is a mere glimps of the thing that was denied; that even as they followed Islam the Muslims did not fall into present day chaos and backwardness as opposed to what the first poster claimed.

I know about Andalusia

So you know of the good that that man in desert -peace be upon him- thaught us.

do you know about constantinople? How many people died because of that man from the desert?

You mean Istanbul. But what a bout it? A great conquest, the crushing of any further attempt to attack the eastern shores of the mediteranny. You make it sound as terrible as the crusades or the sack of constantinopole by the western christans.

Mehmet II- Al Fatih, the brilliant emperor (by my own pragmatic views), whose motives were far from being purely religious, might have been wrong, but only if he didn't observe the Islamic rules. In the end he remade the great Constantinople from a city of ruines and deacy into a civilized Instanbul. The spill-overs only were enough to more than inspire Europe.

By the way, if the Muslims ever committed anything bad. Than you should comprehend that people make msitakes. And instead of crying:" see what individual #1278967234093209487!! See how horrible civilization N is!!" you should look at the overall picture, You should appreciate how one man- peace be upon him- did not make angels that walked the earth, but made of a great many men elevated men that ruled with Justice. By defining (almost)everything Islam has immunized its adherents against many evils, instead of letting them learn by trial and error by not saying anything about omnipresent human phenomena (e.g. war and politics). It is only to be hoped that the many that claim to be adhering to that Islam nowadays return to the fine principles and guidelines of their reigion. It would do our world good.

And may peace be upon you