View Full Version : Is God benevolent?
Sirius B
05-27-99, 10:08 PM
One question that I have struggled with (in my quest to be a believer) is does God get mad and if so can he truly be benevolent?
I remeber hearing that the bible translators left out several books (of the bible). One such book contained evidence that God was not always inclined to do good. In it he actually had a fight (I'm sure it was self-defense)! It was said, that the name of the left out information was called "the book of Barnibus." (I could be spelling it wrong).
I have often wondered how Satan was able to develope. I mean,...whithin the benevolence and omnipotence of Gods beautiful heaven, where did "vanity" and evil thoughts arise? Maybe God got mad one day and some of the Angels tried to "mimick" this behavior....? (I dunno)
Does anyone have information regarding this?
jessica
05-27-99, 11:05 PM
First, I agree with Lori 100% when she says that the bible was writing by the Holy Spirit and nobody has the right to make their own analysis Why? Easy people see what they want and undestand to their own convenience. Subjetive interpretations use individual perceptions base in their believes system and his unique experiences. All the previous ALWAYS DISTORCIONATE THE REALITY or the true ideas. Maybe that's why people are so confuse.
About if God isn't benevolent, well that depends of his finallity. In the history always habe been exists troubles, wars, conflicts, natural phenomenas,etc. Is that all God's guilt? No, it's just the consequences of our actions. It's so easy to accuse God of being no good or no helpful to us but it's too hard to take responsability over our actions and consequences.
Sirius B
05-28-99, 03:53 AM
"Jessica",
I understand your position on this topic (and it is o.k. to have our own opinions).
Do you or anyone you know, have information re: the book of "Barnibus?"
I'm not blaming God for anything. I am just curious as to where all the "evil" originated, that's all.
There are no answers Sirius B..sorry, dude.
Ok, straight out and to the point.. you
all keep talking of God.. this that ect..
tell me this.. what makes your beliefs
ABOVE any others???? Can you not see how
that looks?????? My way, "God's" way is
the only way... no other options (being
very closed minded here..aren't you?)
all others who disagree are wrong!! You
are going to HELL*echoing* hell, hell, hell..
I am not nor claim to be perfect.. yet, it
appears that you and God think we should be.
control sucks!!!!!! and I want no part of that... you can call it free will, but tell
me how can that be... when the hand of god
is on your ass all the bloody time saying
..do it my way or ELSE!!!!!!!!!! Tell me..
who in their right mind would want to worship..and dedicate their lives to a God
such as this????????
You know..I am sick and tired of christians
thinking their belief in God is above all
else... It is as if all of you have the right
to say..NOOOOOOO our way is right... yet,
you want us to drop to our knees and say
yes, you is right?? Do we not have a right
to our opinions as well..without being handed
a one way ticket to hell???????? Why can't
any of you stop and think...hmmmmmmmm...
this person or that person MAY just have
a point? MAYBE I should explore it....
CHRISTIANS ARE CLOSE MINDED BIG TIME!!!!!
[This message has been edited by Flash (edited May 28, 1999).]
All i wanted to say to "Flash" is this..
I totally agree with you... right on..
Flash,
I hope it's not me who is irritating you in this "holier than thou" way. I try really hard not to be that way on purpose. I think that the exclusivity and superiority conveyed by many Christians does more to hurt the teachings than anything else. You would have to admit that I'm not as close-minded as most of the people who post on this board are. Especially the scientists, regarding their religion, which is inherently more strict than Christianity could ever hope to be. I was reading another chapter in that book last night about Hopi indian prophecy. Sounds very similar to what you're into. All of their beliefs parallel the teachings in the Bible, like almost concept by concept. They just have used different terminology to explain these beliefs. They believe in one Creator, and good and evil spirits, just like I do. Many religions are very much parallel to Christianity as well. I don't discount other beliefs very often because they are all so similar, and at the very least, initiate the same behaviors in people. I guess that you could say that I think of the Bible as the final word. There is no other religion that documents the Gospel of the Son of God. There have been prophets, yes. There have been teachers, yes. But only one Son of God. What are we really trying to argue here? That many Christians are close-minded? Well, no shit, sherlock. Does that mean the only other alternative is to worship some volcano god? No. I think that you have a very sour taste in your mouth regarding the Bible because the people who presented it to you had their heads up their asses, and probably was involved with the Church to achieve a sense of acceptance, and superiority. Those motivations can only lead to corruption. This is the way I look at it...Christians are people too. And yes, sometimes they are motivated by the wrong reasons, and can be judgemental, and basically take a text that is Divine, and that we should all be learning a great deal from, and turn it into some kind of lifestyle performance appraisal. Those people aren't doing themselves or anyone else and good. You have to recognize that people are all the same, even though everyone will say, no, I'm better because of this or that. Don't deny yourself understanding just because people are human (ugh).
Lori,
NO, I am not pointing a finger at you. I
will admit to some degree you are pretty
open minded. sorry...I didn't mean to
make you feel that way... I was pissed
because one of my old friends called..and..
well..nevermind, you get the picture. I
guess I was venting. Jessica said some
of the same things that this person had said.. and I got a little upset.. add
that to a few beers and some wine..and
wham.. Flash got pissed.
I know that people are just people... I am
just so sick and tired of it.
Have you ever had a good feeling about something before? Well thats how I feel
about the wicca/spirit thing... I can not
.. I know that no other religion mentions
Jesus as the son of god... well..my other
phone line is ringing.. get back to ya
later..
Sirius B
05-28-99, 09:31 PM
Flash,
I now know,....there are no answers! I must support your comment about (some) Christians coming across as being more "holy" than anyone else. It does no good for anyone to have feelings of "superiority." I mean, what's the point in being superior? What is to be gained? We all breath air and eat food, why can't anyone be happy with that?
If we are truly made in the image of God then...the benevolence of God is a "farce."
Odysseus
06-11-99, 11:08 PM
Flash-
I've found what non-religious people call being "tolerant" and "open minded" usually boils down to their having no values worthy of the name...and what they decry as being intolerance by people of faith (and not just Christians) shows they don't have the self-discipline to live by any guiding principles. They live day to day, drifting along...A jellyfish does as much...
Are there principled atheists? Of course. But the great mass of people who deny God do so because the existence of one, of absiolutes of right and wrong, would cramp their self-indulgent narcissistic lifestyles....
My dear Odysseus,
I don't really see how your insults are contributing to any sort of discussion of this topic. Why are you so angry if I may ask ?
------------------
we are midgets standing on the backs of giants,
Plato
Odysseus, I think you just made Flash's point. I know plenty of religious people that "talk the talk, but don't walk the walk". A perfect example is how you just replied to Flash. It was unkind and very judgemental. I know a lot of agnostics and atheist that do not live "self-indulgent narcissistic lifestyles". That was very presumptuous of you.
Flash, their are a lot of religious people that fit your description and I pray that I will never be catergorized as such, but you have a mind and a conscience of your own. Investigate christianity like you are investigating wicca, on your own terms. Maybe you will discover something there. Don't close your mind to it just because of the bad experiences.
Have a nice day!
Bev :)
Odysseus
06-13-99, 03:09 AM
Bev, I stand by what I said, and I do not apologize for it. I'm SICK TO DEATH of hearing people who are the enemies of Christianity, or those like you who seem to have but the shallowest understanding of Christianity, or who have bought into the whole bullshit apostate theology of the "mainstream" churches flay anyone who trys to uphold some values with that old line about "judge not, lest ye be judged." I recommend that such people try reading the WHOLE Bible, especially the part where Jesus tell his disciples when the go into a town and the people refuse to receive the Word, then they are to wipe the dust of that town off their sandals and never return. Jesus asks us to forgive, to be understanding, to hate the sin and not the sinner, but he NEVER asks us not to judge in the way that phrase seems to be interpreted today. To the contrary, he tells us "I bring a sword."
Read some C.S. Lewis.."Mere Christianity" and especially "The Screwtape Letters." He does a much better job of defining the kind of people I was talking about than I do.
------------------
May you be in Heaven a half an hour 'fore the Devil knows you're dead
Odysseus:
I agree with your point that too many people these days lack a solid set of principles. However, I doubt religion would be the way to restore some principles to those people. On the contrary -- it's all the bullshit of the anscient religions, rituals, and moralistic fairy-tales that is driving people away. What we are seeing, with increased education and exposure to alternative viewpoints, is a rebellion against the doctrine that no longer makes sense.
Times are indeed changing, and in the modern world principles must be instilled through reasoned argument -- not through appellation to the Bible or any other 'holy' source.
As for your statement to the effect that non-religious people have fewer principles than religious ones -- I think you are wrong. There is narcissism and greed throughout religious communities, and no less sin than in any other sector of society. But what I find revulsive, is when people derive their principles from a Book without any further consideration for the *reasons* these principles are worthy of being upheld. Such behavior smacks of mindless robots being driven by a program. Not only that, but some of the principles are just plain wrong. Excuse me for being judgmental, but I guess given your comments you shouldn't mind...
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
whoaaaaaaa Odysseus!!!!!! Actually, I could
care less for an apology WE ALL have a right
to our opinions!!!!!! ALL!!!!!!!!!! I must
say though...you represent the VERY thing that totally turns my stomach and makes me
want to vomit!! I think your holier than
thou attitude sucks!!!!!! You know...you just make my decision easier for me. If
turning to God makes people get your attitude
I want NO PART OF IT!!!!!!! I do not expect
a pat on the head for my opinions...So get that clear!!!!!! To go ahead and pick up your bloody ass sword ...LMAO!!!!!!
Bev,
what can I say... thank you for your kind words... right now...I am too pissed to
look and explore christianity... Odysseus
just really woke me up ... woke me up to know
I am not ready for this shit...
Odysseus, again you have made Flash's point.And I'm sure that Jesus would not wipe the dust off his sandles after "one post". We are all sinners. And you said it, "hate the sin not the sinner".
"Do not marvel, my brethern, if the world hates you. We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the breathern. He who does not love his brother abides in death. Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." 1 John 3:13-15 NKJ
I prefer to win people over to the Lord by showing them Christ's love for us. The "hell and damnation" stuff is too overwhelming and a turn off for many.
You also presumed incorrectly, I have read the WHOLE Bible, as well as, "Mere Christianity" (along... time ago). I will never claim to understand everything I have read and be able to live my life completely by God's word (it's an ongoing process), but I know that God knows my heart and loves me despite my shortcomings.
Have a nice day!
Bev :)
[This message has been edited by Bev (edited June 14, 1999).]
Odysseus,
I know my above post was one full of rage
toward you. For that I apologize. I in know
way expect an apology out of you or want one
for that matter. I have been trying to work
on my anger..and when I read what you wrote..I lost it.
Now that I am much calmer..I would like to
reply. First, I AM trying to better myself
and to seek truth. Now what I may eventually
find may be a different version than yours..it does not make me a bad person.
What you have read in the above posts from
me...was one of anger and rage toward christians like what you had portrayed in
your post to me. Nothing turns away someone
quicker than brimstone and fire, man..
In alllllll of my life... I have never..never.. truly believed in god...
and have just come to the point of possibly
exploring the idea... but that was through
a friend who did not preached to me...just reading heart to heart things she has shared.
She did not come with a sword... don't get me wrong..she has stood her ground firm... but
never in my life did I ever...ever think I
would come to the point of possibly thinking
it through and exploring it. I am not saying
that once I do explore it that I will say
god save my soul... am not sure that I will
even believe in god... but I am no longer
shutting the idea out totally.. which is
wayyyyyy freaky to me... see...prior I had
explored it, but through the eyes of people
with a hell damnation attitude..ect...
I do not know how this will turn out...but I
am willing to give it a shot... the exploring part...nothing more..not as of yet...
next time...you might think twice before you
slice when it comes to others...
Flash,
crossroads...duh...now I get it...*S*
It takes a lot of balls for you to do what you're doing, and I'm proud of you. *BG*
God gave man choice.
You can choose to do anything you want.
Not all things you choose to do are right and not all things you choose to do are good.
The choice is yours.
If you know what is a bad deed from a good deed you can discern "better not do that - it's bad", how else would you know the difference unless given the rules?
God has been "fighting" (evil) since the day "good lookin' Satan" thought he'd challenge the top jobs position!
Flash
What you are going through at the moment, is something that made me think a lot about the whole cake here. I would also think that a lot of people are thinking about the same thing, but this would be the first time that i have seen one be so open and honest about it.. You are on a great gig Flash, hope you find YOUR truth.
I do agree with you on the part where that guy(cant remember his nick) made that "holier than thou" part, that is also turning my stomach around, and i have encountered many such people, and that had led me to do some research ( like i am doing right now).
Here we are all talking about Christianity vs non-belivers. I dont know how many people there are on this BB that believe in other religions, but it would have been a good thing to get some other input as well.
I am going to do a daring comment here about the benevolent part, I am Norwegian, so this is going to be easy reading for you people :-)
I havent read the bible much, but i have picked up a few lines here and there .
Once again i am coming to the part of that "God created man in his own image" Is man benevolent? Look at that in the big picture. Are we more violent now than we were in the old days? I would say no. We only have bigger and badder weapons so that it looks that way.
When i am thinking about the prophecies the bible makes, about when Jesus is coming back and all that to judge us or something like that, he then KNOWS that Earth isn't a good place to live, and is going to battle anti-christ and all that * what does this have to do with the thread* The prophecies of the bible must then be "true" and that since it is written in a book that originated who knows how long ago ( me not knowing the bible) we are actually re-living what God or his son allready knows the outcome of.
If God allready knew that this was going to happen, why did he create us in the first place? Remember when that time is SUPPOSED to come that he or his son comes back to judge people. there is going to be an awful lot of death on this planet. So is God benevolent?
Why did Jesus die for our sins, when he and his father allready knew what the future of mankind would be? as far as i know, there hasnt been much of a change on that part since he died. So if he/they allready knew how things were going to be 2000+ years later, why havent they "fixed" it sooner? Why not allready then? Torturing mankind for 2000+ years.. So is God benevolent?
Bev . You have read the bible i read, and i am certain that you have a lot of questions yourself. Do you have any answers for me? Do anyone have an answer?
Hope my English was fair enough for you to understand this...:-\
------------------
Just waiting for my peabrain to boot into English :-p
H-Kon
I guess I was a bit open about it ... yikes!! LOL oh well...
You brought up some very good questions...and
I have often thought about some of these things... and like you..have not found any
answers as of yet. There are many things
in the Bible that I just do not understand..
like, why did it take Jesus to be the ultimate sacrifice? Couldn't there have
been another way then to require your (god's)
very own son's blood? When I think of that..
I relate it to our own thoughts...well at least mine... how would it look to people
if someone said they had done this to their
own son to benefit others?
Thing is... I do not believe the bible is
translated correctly...it couldn't be..and
if it was... there are MANY contradictions...
which doesn't make any sense.
How is one to know the truth if it is hidden?
I would love to know the answers to these
questions... perhaps "truth" goes back to the spiritual laws... I don't know... but I
am searching :)
It's learning. We are learning things the hard way. Why? I have no idea, as I am still alive. But rest assured there is a purpose for all of this pain. We need to know the difference between good and evil to be able to appreciate the good (Gospel) right? An appreciation of what is right, through the consequences of what is wrong. We will become spiritually enlightened if we choose to be.
------------------
God loves you and so do I!
CMPHONEIX
06-23-99, 12:14 AM
First I just want to say am so glad this subject can be discussed so honestly, I wish it was more often.
God created man because he wanted to be loved, reasonable request right? We all have a desire to be loved. Well he also knew that a machine loving it's creator isn't exactly very very gratifying. He gave us an option other than service to him. The only thing is that you can't come to his "house" if you choose not to serve him.
This is where there is debate. If God is truly forgiving why won't he let anyone into heaven who wants to go? Well here:
DUH! NO ONE IS GOING TO WANT TO GO TO HELL!
But the ones who will end up in Hell are the ones who didn't listen. They knew the risk they were taking, they heard all the religous "babble" about it, but they ignored it. Not only that, but they didn't want to be forgiven, they preferred doing whatever they wanted. That's not too terrible, except that they didn't care who it effected. They just wanted things their way. This still hasn't answered the question. The thing about these people is that if they lived their lives over they'd probably live the same way. And you're going why when hell is facing you would you live your life the same way? The reason they didn't want to go to hell is because it does not benifit them, they have only themselves in mind. They are the Lucifers of the world saying,"I'm beautiful, and talented and magnificent, I should run this show, no matter what the cost."
Now I am not saying all non-Christians are evil, or that all Christians have a ticket for the "train bound for Glory."
We all know that is hardly the case.
In fact we cannot get to heaven on deeds, but the motives behind them:
"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity,"(love)"I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though i have the gift of phrophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could move mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though i give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing."
This basically says that no matter what we do how we try, or the extent of our deeds, if we have only material, personal, or even heavenly benifits in mind, we are doomed.
That sounds incredibly hard doesn't it? How can God expect us to do that? Here's the answer:
He doesn't!
God knows we can't live up to perfection, not when Satan is more powerful than our will alone, and bugging us at every turn. Only love can create the miracles that can pull us from Satan's clutches. God is Love. He asks only that we Love him. And God loves you so much that he's willing to forgive no matter how many or how big the slip ups are. He loves you so much, that he gave his son to suffer for your sake. That kind of love can move mountains, turn the world upside down, and fill you with an incredible joy for living.
When you love someone, you depend on them, and you want to do things that please them, and things they'll appreciate. So when you follow God you learn to live by his rules. Not because you're a robot, but because you see that these things benefit, not only others and follow god, but they benefit you.
Not to say your life will be easier when you follow God, but contrary to the common belief when you slip up God will be the one picking you up, dusting you off, tending your wounds, and turning you back on the right track.
"But they wait upon the lord shall renew their strngth; they shall mount up on wings like eagles; they shall run and not be weary; they shall walk and not faint."
So to all the people who think God is the police man waiting to beat you over the head at your next slip up, or the dictator threateninig your life unless you do it his way:
God is benevolent and forgiving. He did not leave us here to suffer from our own deeds. He sees our hearts, and will judge them accordingly. He has a plan for us all, if only we will follow him, he will watch over you, and comfort you, through all of your strife.
---------------------------------------------
>CMPHONEIX-----------------------------------
exactly, I couldn't have said it better CMPHONEIX!
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved."
John 3:16&17
He did not say, "believe in Him and do good deeds", or "believe in Him and do not sin", he just said, "believe in Him."
The good deeds, service, and desire not to sin just comes with loving God. He knows that we will sin, but he forgives us when we ask. The relationship with him is the most important part, the rest will fall into place.
Bev :)
[This message has been edited by Bev (edited June 22, 1999).]
CMPHONEIX
06-23-99, 01:42 AM
BEV:
And all the people said amen!
:)
CMPHOENIX
That was a good post, and i understand where you are going with that.
One problem I have with that is:
I am not a christian, but i believe in God. I dont read the bible, but i believe in God. I dont belong to any religion ( but the one of my "own"), but i believe in God.
So does that mean then that I am going to "hell"? I follow some main rules, but i consider them as just pure logic, and common sence, and I am a part of the biggest church that ever was and ever will be: Nature.
So will i go to hell?
------------------
Just waiting for my peabrain to boot into English :-p
Bev.
The same thing here as i just wrote. I dont believe in Jesus, and the reason you can read from my other post up there.
So if I dont believe in God and Jesus as the Christians do, (or maybe any other religion)
Will I get the one way ticket to hell?
*We actually have a small town named that "Hell" in Norway, though it means something else*
------------------
Just waiting for my peabrain to boot into English :-p
generalhurrss
06-24-99, 08:27 AM
H-Kon,
I believe the place you are talking of is called Hades as hell is here on earth. Religious factions seem to forget that god sent satan to reign upon the earth not below it. I can not recall that in the bible. Very benevolent of god, I must say.
Do not worry about the belief either, he might give you a second chance.
If your a good little boy or a good little girl you will go to heaven. I thought we had already been through that pile of shit.
The one hundred and forty four thousand go to heaven Mr Phoenix the believers are resurrected to live out their lives again or have you not read the good book.
Also somewhere along the story telling god destroys an army of some ten thousand men, I think it was to save someone named David, will look this up, anyway my point here is he was not very benevolent to that army, so the crap on the serial killer bit is, errr, let me see, crap.
H-kon,
Christianity says yes. You will go to hell.
(Don't blame the messenger!)
The only way to heaven to be close to God is through Jesus.
generalhurrss,
The way that I have been taught is that even children reach the age of accountabilty, so if they are old enough to ask questions and reason it out, they are old enough to make a choice.
Also, the stuff you wrote about being resurrected and reliving your life, I understand that we will live out a thousand years after tribulation but after that we will live out eternity in heaven. Is that what you are saying? And there is a pit of Hell, God unleashes Satan from it in the last confrontation between him and Christ. It's in Revelations somewhere and at the moment I don't have time to look for it.
Remember H-kon that by accepting Jesus into your life - into your heart (a gift, no strings attached) and truely believing in him, you will go to heaven.
I also want you to know that currently I am not attending any church and I have read my Bible more in the last week or so (because of this board) than I have in the past year. But I know that this is NOT the deciding factors in my salvation!
Bev :)
dumaurier
06-27-99, 11:45 PM
Sirius B wrote, "One question that I have struggled with...is: does God get mad and if so, can he truly be benevolent?"
If you'll permit my view on this:
In the world of existence one can witness two types of laws in operation: physical laws and spiritual laws. The physical laws concern such things as gravity, attraction, opposites, etc. For example, it is a physical law (on this planet) that something
that is thrown up into the air must come down due to the force of gravity. Likewise, there is an evident physical law in the fact that man cannot stay underwater too long without oxygen otherwise he'd drown. Moreover, if you put your hand in fire you will burn it because fire and your hand are simply incompatible. For every effect there is a cause (the visible effect of apples on an apple tree is due to the cause which planted the seed), and there are other such physical laws.
The spiritual laws concern those intangibles which invariably we term "qualities" or "virtues" which only man is aware of since the mineral, vegetable and animal kigdoms have no power of perception. Therefore, an animal cannot be "charitable," for example, nor can it be "compassionate" or "wise". Animals live according to instinct, not according to their awareness and practise of spiritual morality.
Thus we see that in existence there are physical laws and spiritual laws. These laws were created by a Creator (or God, if you wish). They could not have come into existence by themselves because for every effect there is a cause and the fact that there is a creation proves there must be one Almighty One Who was its creator for a Creator without a creation is not possible nor can it be imagined. Consequently, the law of incompatibles states that if a man puts his hand into fire he will burn it; if you throw yourself off a high cliff you will damage your body; if you remain underwater for too long you will drown for you need oxygen to live. Likewise, on the spiritual plane, if a man tells a lie that lie will soon be found out and have a nefarious effect upon the liar; if you are dishonest such dishonesty will come back to haunt you; if you are not compassionate and loving such lack will only be making your own life miserable for no one will be compassionate and loving toward you. Physical laws have their parallel in spiritual laws.
I believe that God gets neither angry nor is He benevolent for such words reflect experiences pertaining to the kingdom of man; God must be, by His very nature, far superior to all human experience since He created us (can a painting be said to be equal to the painter?). But man, who lives within this created existence with all its perfect laws, punishes himnself in being disobedient to these laws and uses such expressions as "the wrath of God" when he is punished for his disobedience. It is not so much that God gets angry but that we have disobeyed His law and suffer the punishment (or reap the reward) inherent within these laws.
In simpler terms, let's suppose you tell a child not to pollute his body and mind with drugs, alcohol, and all such poison. Now, supposing you explain to the child the consequences of using drugs and alcohol but that he grows up being disobedient and unheedful of your warning. He takes drugs and uses plenty of alcohol. His life will become a mess and he will live in misery. Is this child experiencing your wrath or simply the consequences of his own disobedience and stupidity? For your part, you were benevolent in that you issued a warning and gave sound advice out of your love for that child. Think about this.
Some say that, "if there is a God, why is there so much suffering in the world?" And we answer that, if people were truly obedient to God's laws there would be no such thing as suffering in the world. For example, poverty has no reason for being since there is enough material and immaterial wealth on this planet to feed and educate every living human being on this planet. But the manner in which man uses this wealth is what is evil because he thinks only of himself and not his neighbour; yet God has told us to love our neighbours.
Enjoyed talking to you.
------------------
dumaurier
The god of the bible doesn't get angry???
how about
Numbers 11:1
And when the people complained, it displeased the LORD: and the LORD heard it; and his ANGER was kindled; and the fire of the LORD burnt among them, and consumed them that were in the uttermost parts of the camp.
Deut 6:15
For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you lest the ANGER of the LORD thy God be
kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth.
(sounds pretty pissed to me..I mean come on..
destroy... pretty harsh - don't ya think?)
Ps. 7:11
God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day.
Isa 13:9
Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, CRUEL both with WRATH and FIERCE ANGER, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.
Jer 4:8
For this gird you with sackcloth, lament and howl: for the fierce anger of the LORD is not turned back from us.
Ok ok ok... enough said??????
god is love huh??? god is merciful??
generalhurrss
06-30-99, 10:32 PM
Flash,
I am beginning to find it a honour to read your text.
You can show the blind the true path to their religion, but only if they take note.
It astounds me how they can believe that this god is so perfect and yet it is the same as we are for we came from its image.
Everything is imperfect, even a god that wishes to possess a population.
Revelation spells the doom for mankind and it is all brought from the wrath of this god not from us. It is the one that sends forth the destroyers to end the lives of false religion and false authority.
There will be no compassion and no forgiveness, blood will cover this land and millions of lives will be snuffed out for the sake of belief and loyalty.
Satan leads the blind and the blind lead the blind and so forth.
[This message has been edited by generalhurrss (edited June 30, 1999).]
To all the reincarnated 'learners' out there:
Could somebody explain to me what life's experiences teach a 7-month old infant who gets strangled by his own dad? Or perhaps, you could explain what is learned by a baby born with spina bifida, in extreme and all-consuming pain, and dead 10 hours after birth? Or maybe, if you are pro-life and believe in souls, you could explain what is learned by a miscarried fetus two weeks into the pregnancy?
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
Learner
07-01-99, 04:38 AM
Boris
The 7 month old baby that gets strangled is unfortunate, yet the experience is that of the 'fathers' . reincarnation may not be the same thing as predestination. or if it is, would this not be a sacrifice for the sake of
integrity. in the case of birth defects, consider the complexity of genetics, and that
who is to say that the incarnation has taken form at such an early time. in the case of the infant, awareness of any particular event that can shape enlightenment is beyond recognition, therefor what use would it be to
incarnate into a nonchallenging/beneficial
set of circumstances. One time, i was at a web sight that closed with the following statement. - "If you are reading this, then your mother didn't abort you, so send her an
e-mail and say thanks. " - I sent an email to
the author of this websight/quote - " Or, if your mother did abort you and your spirit found better learning, than email your first mother and second mother and tell them both -
thanks ."
think harder
Learner:
If you claim that reincarnation takes stage at some time late in childhood, then I'm sure all the pro-lifers would love to chat with you.
But let me ask you a general question: if reincarnation begins at a late stage, then what makes an infant human? Shouldn't we then treat infants on the equal ground with pets -- at least as far as the law is concerned? Also, given your position you'd have to define the precise moment when a soul enters a body -- and what discernible changes are evident as a result of this abrupt transition. Then, I wonder how you would conceptualize mentally-deficient people within your reincarnation framework (e.g. people with severe Down's syndrome.) And, within the framework of the soul, you face the same challenges conceptualizing senility as you do explaining infancy -- does the soul leave the elderly before they actually die?
And what about brain trauma effects? How do you explain people that completely lack emotions, or people who cannot form a coherent sentence, or people who fail to recognize even their own face in the mirror, or people with severed corpus calossum who end up fighing off their left hand with their right hand? Where's the unifying soul? Where are the inherent cognitive capacities that the soul supposedly supplies to the body? Oh, and while you are at it, why don't you consider intoxication -- how is it that a chemical can affect the state of soul?
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
[This message has been edited by Boris (edited July 02, 1999).]
learner
07-02-99, 04:14 AM
Boris,
i am not sure what is meant by 'spam' , if there is something that has occurred, i am unaware of it, sorry. as for registering, it
is optional and currently i will remain unregistered as it is my choice.
as for the infant being treated as a pet, i believe that pets do not possess the same potential as human sentience. though i do believe that abortion is not unkind. however this is not about the rights of the unborn, it is about the interaction of human Spirit.
what makes an infant human is simply put, human genetics; the capacity of human development alone grants sovereignty out of general reverence. the precise moment is not fixed, and cannot be as this capacity is ever dynamic and circumstancial 'evaluations' may be consuming, particularly if there is an intention of the incarnation - a role to seek, a challenge to overcome, or a time to 'speak' , etc .. when a choice is made, the infant begins to reveal character. a personality begins to take form; the child that grows up to be a scientist may begin to
implore observational skills early, the child that may be faced with degenerative genetics
may be joyful and content, a lover of its own life, the child of an incarnation that has made no significant decisions may be cranky,
happy, or viewed as average,(etc..) this is not an attempt to belie the question, as in this situation consider the billiard table.
in the beginning, there is an order/structure to the formation of billiards, they are seperated by an action, and by facing challenge and ones skill, an attempt is made to reunify a form, to find a proper place for matters utilizing a discipline of intent and
sensible goal. this occurrs more often than not. in the case of the mentally deficient,
there can be astounding lessons to confront.
most individuals are not 'in tune' with the Spirit, even those who are steadfastly religious. for many this is an overwhelming situation, particularly in the world that we currently live in. often there are fundamental lessons that are much clearer when this 'society' is reasonably excluded.
not to say that this individual is not made fun of. but there are many subtle transformations that do occurr within this kind of lifetime; many of which our 'science'
is fully unaware of. there is a man in a near city that suffers from an affliction much like tourette syndrome. he gets put into a situation where he is able to see society as
'it' wishes to 'see' itself. have you ever read Birth of the Clinic by Michel Foucault ?
society marks its territory of tolerance like floors in a building. this is not a world for the handicapped, yet the handicapped trully are a part of our world. what i am pointing out is that it is not merely the brain that constitutes soul. emotions are stimuli as they can record this within the physical body. the speculation of the unifying soul
is a reach at best. such is true that at times, an incarnation may well 'abort' .
the elderly may be left with unsorted memories and chemichal malstructuring - loose
consensus of a life well worn. although, this
does not always occur. when you speak of inherent cognitive capacities, these are well
adorned. what has drawn you to your favorite pastime ? is it a result of prior condition?
or is it a notion of your personal quest ?
perhaps there is a reason you debate here..
though there are plenty of disagreements, you have displayed courtesy and respect for what others have to say; this is something that
is not apart from what i am speaking of. an interest is (in a way) a request. though you disagree, you embrace learning of possibility. give it time. and in closing:
about intoxication of the soul, i believe that to be an assumption ; though it would seem that you are referring to the numbness
and dulling of the senses as being a 'seperation' of the mind and soul, for the most part your incarnation does not leave
you. though the Spirit can become apparent through the physical body in subtle ways. have you ever made a decision to take the long way home from work, later to hear that an accident has occurred on the road you normally take. would you believe the 'luck'?
when intoxicated, it is more difficult to perceive these notions since the senses are dulled. if you wish, i can tell more later.
(what can occur in white, can occur in black)
learner
07-02-99, 04:20 AM
Boris,
i am not sure what is meant by 'spam' , if there is something that has occurred, i am unaware of it, sorry. as for registering, it
is optional and currently i will remain unregistered as it is my choice.
as for the infant being treated as a pet, i believe that pets do not possess the same potential as human sentience. though i do believe that abortion is not unkind. however this is not about the rights of the unborn, it is about the interaction of human Spirit.
what makes an infant human is simply put, human genetics; the capacity of human development alone grants sovereignty out of general reverence. the precise moment is not fixed, and cannot be as this capacity is ever dynamic and circumstancial 'evaluations' may be consuming, particularly if there is an intention of the incarnation - a role to seek, a challenge to overcome, or a time to 'speak' , etc .. when a choice is made, the infant begins to reveal character. a personality begins to take form; the child that grows up to be a scientist may begin to
implore observational skills early, the child that may be faced with degenerative genetics
may be joyful and content, a lover of its own life, the child of an incarnation that has made no significant decisions may be cranky,
happy, or viewed as average,(etc..) this is not an attempt to belie the question, as in this situation consider the billiard table.
in the beginning, there is an order/structure to the formation of billiards, they are seperated by an action, and by facing challenge and ones skill, an attempt is made to reunify a form, to find a proper place for matters utilizing a discipline of intent and
sensible goal. this occurrs more often than not. in the case of the mentally deficient,
there can be astounding lessons to confront.
most individuals are not 'in tune' with the Spirit, even those who are steadfastly religious. for many this is an overwhelming situation, particularly in the world that we currently live in. often there are fundamental lessons that are much clearer when this 'society' is reasonably excluded.
not to say that this individual is not made fun of. but there are many subtle transformations that do occurr within this kind of lifetime; many of which our 'science'
is fully unaware of. there is a man in a near city that suffers from an affliction much like tourette syndrome. he gets put into a situation where he is able to see society as
'it' wishes to 'see' itself. have you ever read Birth of the Clinic by Michel Foucault ?
society marks its territory of tolerance like floors in a building. this is not a world for the handicapped, yet the handicapped trully are a part of our world. what i am pointing out is that it is not merely the brain that constitutes soul. emotions are stimuli as they can record this within the physical body. the speculation of the unifying soul
is a reach at best. such is true that at times, an incarnation may well 'abort' .
the elderly may be left with unsorted memories and chemichal malstructuring - loose
consensus of a life well worn. although, this
does not always occur. when you speak of inherent cognitive capacities, these are well
adorned. what has drawn you to your favorite pastime ? is it a result of prior condition?
or is it a notion of your personal quest ?
perhaps there is a reason you debate here..
though there are plenty of disagreements, you have displayed courtesy and respect for what others have to say; this is something that
is not apart from what i am speaking of. an interest is (in a way) a request. though you disagree, you embrace learning of possibility. give it time. and in closing:
about intoxication of the soul, i believe that to be an assumption ; though it would seem that you are referring to the numbness
and dulling of the senses as being a 'seperation' of the mind and soul, for the most part your incarnation does not leave
you. though the Spirit can become apparent through the physical body in subtle ways. have you ever made a decision to take the long way home from work, later to hear that an accident has occurred on the road you normally take. would you believe the 'luck'?
when intoxicated, it is more difficult to perceive these notions since the senses are dulled. if you wish, i can tell more later.
(what can occur in white, can occur in black)
Well.. the only thing i really learn from this whole thing, is that i dont. There are just as many theories as there are answers. Stand by your particular belief as much as you want, but no one in his or hers right mind can say that they have the answers. I you get an answer, you'll just end up with a tenfold of new questions :(
As for my ticket to hell that i asked about earlier. Well. If i get one, then that is really okay because no one knows the "answers" as of today, and since no one does, then how can i do the "right" thing?
I will follow generalhurrs answer saying that as long as you are good, and do good things, you should be okay. So as of now i am going to take a couple of weeks of this forum to do other things.. maybe i will get wiser then..
The place Hell actually exist Generallhurrs. If you have a map, look just south of Trondheim Norway.. You should see it:-)
------------------
Just waiting for my peabrain to boot into English :\
H-kon, I did answer your question about "the oneway ticket to hell." Look earlier here for my reply.
If you have other questions feel free to ask? I don't know that I can answer them all, but I will try.
Bev :)
general,
*S* thank you... It blows my mind too how
so many can think the bible/god is perfect..
Did you note that not one "christian" had
a come back with the last set of contradictions I had posted under "believe"
LMAO... they just ignored that one all to hell now didn't they??? LMAO...
Flash, I apologize for not having replied to that particular post. I'm taking some classes and next week are finals. I wrote down the verses you stated and I promise that I will read them and get back to you about your post as soon as I have more free time.
I do know that the Bible is very complex and I'm not sure that I can adequately respond or that I am knowledgeable enough on the Bible and the theology behind it to be correct, so it might take me some time to reply. I do not want to mislead you in anyway.
I want you to also understand that my belief in God and that the Bible is his written word is based on "simple" faith and his presence in my life. I have never questioned the Bible as you have, but you have made a good argument and I will try to make the time to study the verses and respond to them honestly.
Bare with me!
Bev :)
Bev,
Hey, no need to apologize... really...and
yuck..summer classes!!!! I do not envy you..not one bit!!
You really mean when you have read the bible
before that you have not come across contradictions? They had jumped out at me
right and left.
You speak of "simple" faith...and the presense of god in your life... if you do not
mind me asking... could you elaborate more
regarding god's presense in your life?
I'm not trying to sound like I am putting on
my boxing gloves..or anything of the like
when I ask this..am being sincere...
when you speak of this presense of god...how
do you know that is what it is? I mean...how
do you know that it is not something you have
made yourself think is there? Is it truthfully that strong that you have no doubt
it is him? If yes, then are you really sure?
How do you know?? I am willing to bet he
has not manifested himself to you as written
in the bible to people such as Moses LOL...
dumaurier
07-05-99, 01:14 AM
Flash, i would like to offer you an alternative consideration. I have read your messages here and can fully understand your frustration with those who claim to know it all and who also claim to have embraced the "Truth" while all others are excluded. Indeed, it is a great frustration!
On the subject of God, Religion and Truth, let me start by looking at our own solar system. You'll admit that there is one sun in this system. You'll also agree with me that this sun shines down on every living thing on this beautiful planet of ours. The sun has no prejudices. Likewise, the rain falls on everything and everyone and makes no distinction whatsoever. The life-giving radiance of good ole Sol and the refreshing vernal showers under any clime have no preferences, no bias, no prejudices of any kind. Agreed?
Thus, there is one sun and it shines on everyone.
This is the way i view God. He has no prejudices and is there for everyone who wants to believe in Him.
Now, religion. I view religion as an entity that has progressive manifestation. All Holy Scripture says that there is only one Creator (name Him God or whatever). So, like the singular sun that shines on everyone and on everybody, be these Chinese, blacks or whites, God also shines on everyone. Consequently, there is really one religion: the religion of God! This religion has had different names. At one time it was called Judaic, at another time Buddhist, Hindu, Christian, and Islamic. But they are all, each one of them, part and parcel of the same religion: the religion of God.
Religion is progressive in the same way that school is progressive. That is to say that when you were in grade 1 you were assigned a teacher to teach that level. When you progressed to grade 2 you had a different teacher. In grade 3 there was a different teacher until you reached university where you also had different teachers for different subjects. You were helped in your learning by different teachers at each step of the progressive ladder that brought you to full maturity.
Religion to me is the same. At one point Abraham taught humanity according to man's capacity at that stage of its human development; then mankind progressed with Abraham's Teachings and the Creator sent Moses. Moses' Teachings were a notch above those of Abraham's (the Ten Commandments) and humanity was in another grade with greater things to learn. Then humanity progressed to yet another grade with the coming of Christ; then to yet another grade with the coming of Mohammad. Thus, it is all the same religion (the religion of God) with different Teachers at every progressive level.
Moses said that if the people (the deniers) had really believed in Abraham they would have believed in Him; Jesus said that if the people (the deniers) had really believed in Moses they would have believed in Him; Mohammad said the exact same thing. Such utterances clearly prove that religion is progressive and is only one, not two or three or four. Religion is One: the religion of the Creator!
If there is One Creator, One Religion that belongs to this Creator, then there's really One Truth! And this Truth is that all religions are one!!!
Now, prejudices are like the dark clouds that interpose themselves between the earth and the sun. They are the veils that obscure insight and true vision. By following in the steps of forefathers and the clergy some have put aside the virtues inherent within the personal and independent search after truth. It is these obscure teachings by forefathers and clergy that act as veils and clouds impeding the true search of truth. If one has been indoctrinated into a certain belief system concocted by the imagination of the worldly and foolish, surely it would take great pains to free one's self from such ignorant imaginings.
Adherence to tradition and to the obscuring thoughts of forefathers and those of the clergy, as i've said, lead to differences and wars. The Truth is plain for all to see. There is one Creator who shines on all regardless of any consideration, and His religion comprises all revealed religions. Reflect and you will find many points of similarities between the great religions--because they are ONE!
------------------
dumaurier
generalhurrss
07-05-99, 11:46 PM
Is not religion the cause of all wars.
How many people have died discussing debates on the madness of a god.
Thou shalt not kill.
Then came the false religions.
Most of you walk down this path without even realising and in a sense it is quite comical.
If there was a god then you have only proven to me that satan reigns over your lives and that the seeds of false religion shall merely grow stronger and stronger, taking you away from the true belief that you so blindly divulge in.
No god will save you from that.
Satan leads the blind and the blind lead the blind and so forth.
Odyseus, try reading the bible with an open mind instead of the mind of a mouse.
Dumaurier:
How do the Pagan religions fit into your picture of One God? Or the Egyptian, or the Greek, etc. etc. etc? What was the reason for God to teach his divine truth only to the peoples of the middle and far east, as opposed the peoples of Africa, Europe, or the Americas? (Now, go easy on prejudice there, we wouldn't want to offend anybody...)
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
generalhurrss
07-07-99, 07:50 PM
Boris,
Wasn't that a job for the missionaries.
Generalhurss:
which missionaries would those be, Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish or Christian?
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
generalhurrss
07-09-99, 08:03 PM
Boris,
I can only imagine that all these religions have played their roles as missionaries, spreading what they believe to be the truth about their god or gods.
It does state in the bible that there is only one god and one of the ten commandments also says that thou shall serve no other god but I, or something close to that.
If that is the case then what the religions of say Hinduism, who believe in one god and yet contradict themselves by having other gods, or even the Greeks who have many gods.
Do these not refer to false religions which will be dispelled in revelation.
How difficult is it to understand the obvious? It is the same with this heaven concept that I endlessly repeat myself about, we are resurrected, we do not go to heaven, it is written in revelation and yet it is ignored, like most everything else in the bible, thats what makes religion the farce it is. Believers make it up to suit them not the god they profess to believe in. It is all twisted for the believers sake not for the sake of some true god.
Then I suppose the new-world religion that is emerging would fit the bill. Though they do claim to converse with the Higher spirits themselves, and they do claim that it is everyone else, including the Christians, who is misguided. So, if God's word was to be spread, he sure chose the wrong mechanism. Missionaries bring with them whatever boneheaded faith they choose to stick to, not the absolute divine truth (which does not, nor will ever, exist). But the challenge still stands: why does God choose to indoctrinate the truth only into the peoples of middle and far east, and totally neglects the Africans or the Americans? It took literally millennia for christianity to reach the Americas; how many souls would have been lost in the process?
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
dumaurier
07-10-99, 06:12 AM
Boris,
You ask,
"How do the Pagan religions fit into your picture of One God? Or the Egyptian, or the Greek...? What was the reason for God to teach his divine truth only to the peoples of the middle and far east, as opposed the peoples of Africa, Europe, or the Americas?"
First, i must say that i do not have any prejudices whatsoever for anyone on this planet of ours. To me the earth is really one country, all peoples are citizens of this great country. It's just a matter of awareness. In time, it is my firm belief, all humanity will have converged into one great big family where national borders will have disappeared forever. Does not the new born babe in India, China, Arabia, London, Haiti, the USA, need as much affection as you or i? Does not a man or woman of any race or nation on this planet weep with great weeping when their child is sent to be murdered in some nonsensical war which has nothing to do with them? Does not the African, Tibetan, Eskimo, Mexican, Persian, American, Italian, German, French, Spanish, Portuguese, and so on, feel the pangs of hunger and thirst as much as you or i when there is nothing to eat or drink? How could we be so coldhearted as to send such truths into the darkest oblivion of our subconscious minds? Let us be fair! All peoples on this planet are equal and deserve just appraisal.
Now, as to the question on Paganism, and the Egyptians and Greeks, history reveals that these ancient peoples worshipped many gods. Some had hundreds of idols even. We do not have the records of all the Prophets which God sent to humanity. This is understandable since writing and books are fairly recent phenomena, as you well know.
We know that Buddha manifested His wisdom in the Far East (China); Zoroaster was a Persian; and Krishna was a Hindu. However, none of the Writings of these Holy Manifestations can be deemed 100% authentic for Krishna, Whose Book (the Baghavad Gita) is considered to be the oldest record of the Books among the Divine Revealed Books), existed well nigh 5,000 years ago. Some have conjectured that this is as far as written record goes. (Great debates continue to flare as to the authentic dates of certain Holy Texts but no answer seems to be in sight). Note that linguists believe that most languages originated in and around the Indian continent!!
Now, we also know that God sent His Messengers near the shores of Europe and Africa with the likes of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Mohammad. In addition, there are wonderful Amer-Indian traditions (South and North American Indian tradions, including the home of the Eskimos in the great north) where the story of Great Messengers is perpetuated from generation to generation.
God does not show favour to any one region of the earth and neglect another. How could we attribute such narrow limitations on the Creator of such a vast universe? All of humanity has its share of His bounty revealed through His Messengers in every divine cycle (by "cycle" i am refering to the inception of a Religion; thus the time between Abraham's Religion and that of Moses was approximately 650 years, and when Abraham's cycle ended, Moses revealed His Religion; approximately 650 years later Christ revealed Christianity and Mohammad revealed Islam about 650 years after Christ, and so on. This has been historically ascertained to a great degree. Such is the principle of Progressive Revelation).
When man is left to himself, without Divine guidance, he becomes like the people in Moses' time when He left His people for awhile to go to the mountain and they forgot God and began worshipping the Golden Calf. It is not that God has deprived anyone of His wonderous bounties, but that people deprive themselves through their ignorance.
There is One God. The Almighty, the Omnipotent, Omniscient Creator, and whatever men impute to Him has no connection with His essence and reality.
------------------
dumaurier
[This message has been edited by dumaurier (edited July 10, 1999).]
Dumaurier:
Good show with the ambivalence toward particular religious form. However, your position begs a question.
Humans have been around for several hundred thousand years in our modern form. Are you willing to defend the position that modern religion is all we could 'incrementally' achieve over <u>that</u> much time, and that *so* much of this achievement (as far as one god, the ten commandments, etc.) has been attained only within the last few millennia?
What makes you so sure that even if there is divine teaching going on, our 'progress' forward has not been more of a circular motion? What makes you so sure that it is *we* who are more correct about God, than the anscient Babylonians were, for example?
But these questions even arise only because you indeed assume the existence of God, and that God's continuing intervention in our affairs. That very assumption, however, (as I have shown numerous times) has absolutely no ground under it.
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
dumaurier
07-13-99, 07:20 AM
Boris,
What i am assuming is that God has always existed; He has never and will never have any beginning nor end. Nor will He ever have any cause that created Him. He is that He is. He is INFINITITE, ABSOLUTE! And He is beyond our understanding and comprehension. This we have discussed at length in various posts.
Having the title of "The Creator," He created. Fire must burn. A Creator *MUST* create! This universe is part of His creation. And He created our sun and its planets. (Yes, i understand about how suns and planets are formed. Nevertheless, it is God Who willed such marvellous Laws that work on physical forms and on forms not visible. "He doeth as He willeth.") And in the solar system that came into being, planet earth issued forth. And God's Laws worked mighty on this earth and brought forth a special kind of life with intelligence--a reflection of one of His All-Glorious attributes. And because God is love, He spoke through a human and informed us of Who He is, was and will be. And He told us what and how to love, and how to behave, and how to turn to Him, and reminded us a thousand times how to love. And through it all He knew that the human creature would take thousands of years to develop to the point where we are today....and still evolving to the end that hath no end.
Divine Revelation is progressive, not regressive. Regression signifies death, progression birth and growth. At one time God's Messenger taught man consciousness and man became conscious that he was. Then God taught man that he was two--man and woman. From this followed the concept of the family and this was according to what God had revealed through His Messenger. Within this concept God created laws and the family grew and prospered. Then God taught man the concept of the clan, then the tribe. Eventually God's Messenger taught man the concept of the city. And when Mohammad revealed Islam, bringing to their knees the savage brutes of Arabia who were more wicked than the fiercest animal (for they buried their young baby girls alive!!!), the concept of the nation was born. Nowhere will you find the concept of "nation" before the Coran was revealed! This concept was an offspring of the previous Teaching of the concept of a city. A nation is nothing but the conglomeration of cities, tribes/clans, families, individuals. All this has come about as a result of Divine Guidance. Today comes another Manifestation who styles Himself Baha'u'llah (the Baha'i faith). Baha'u'llah claims to be the return of the Word of God amongst men and he claims that the next step in human evolution is the unity of all of mankind. Thus we have:
Awareness of the individual
Awareness of the couple
Awareness of the family
Awareness of the clan/tribe
Awareness of the city
Awareness of the nation
Awareness of the unity of mankind.
My guess is that the next step will be the unity between peoples living in far-off planets.
Religion, the Word of God, is as old as God Himself---infinite! It has always been and will always be. It is a sinecure for the lost. It is God's great love for us that He sends His Messenger of which the ruling clergy molest, beat up, condemn, and in the end put to death. But note that religion, despite its many enemies, always prospers. (But don't get me wrong here. I am talking about *RELIGION* and not about those mis-aligned sects and cults that in and of themselves are worthless, causing greater harm than good).
All knowledge comes from God and of this there is no doubt. It is stated in certain Middle-Eastern traditions that Sophocles and even Socrates lived for a few years among the Judaic tribes. It is here where Socrates obtained the concept of One God for, as you know, the Greeks believed in hundreds of idols. Finally these base and ignoble people condemned to death their greatest philosopher all on account that he would not deny God's Singleness. The people of the Torah believed in One God!
God reveals His purpose to us gradually, successively with each Manifestation. Revelation is progressive. True Knowledge is progressive. It is not static.
I leave you with this most interesting article:
RELIGION RENEWED
Creation is the expression of motion. Motion is life. A moving object is a living object whereas that which is motionless and inert is as dead. All created forms are progressive in their planes or kingdoms of existence under the stimulus of the power or spirit of life. The universal energy is dynamic. Nothing is stationary in the material world of outer phenomena or in the inner world of intellect and consciousness.
Religion is the outer expression of the divine reality. Therefore it must be living, vitalized, moving and progressive. If it be without motion and non-progressive it is without the divine life; it is dead. The divine institutes are continuously active and evolutionary; therefore the revelation of them must be progressive and continuous. All things are subject to re-formation. This is a century of life and renewal. Sciences and arts, industry and invention have been reformed. Law and ethics have been reconstituted, reorganized. The world of thought has been regenerated. Sciences of former ages and philosophies of the past are useless today. Present exigencies demand new methods of solution; world problems are without precedent. Old ideas and modes of thought are fast becoming obsolete. Ancient laws and archaic ethical systems will not meet the requirements of modern conditions, for this is clearly the century of a new life, the century of the revelation of the reality and therefore the greatest of all centuries. Consider how the scientific developments of fifty years have surpassed and eclipsed the knowledge and achievements of all the former ages combined. Would the announcements and theories of ancient astronomers explain our present knowledge of the sun-worlds and planetary systems? Would the mask of obscurity which beclouded mediaeval centuries meet the demand for clear-eyed vision and understanding which characterizes the world today? In view of this, shall blind imitations of ancestral forms and theological interpretations continue to guide and control the religious life and spiritual development of humanity today? Shall man gifted with the power of reason unthinkingly follow and adhere to dogma, creeds and hereditary beliefs which will not bear the analysis of reason in this century of effulgent reality? Unquestionably this will not satisfy men of science, for when they find premise or conclusion contrary to present standards of proof and without real foundation, they reject that which has been formerly accepted as standard and correct and move forward from new foundations.
The divine prophets have revealed and founded religion. They have laid down certain laws and heavenly principles for the guidance of mankind. They have taught and promulgated the knowledge of God, established praiseworthy ethical ideals and inculcated the highest standards of virtue in the human world. Gradually these heavenly teachings and foundations of reality have been beclouded by human interpretations and dogmatic imitations of ancestral beliefs. The essential realities which the prophets labored so hard to establish in human hearts and minds while undergoing ordeals and suffering tortures of persecution, have now well nigh vanished. Some of these heavenly messengers have been killed, some imprisoned; all of them despised and rejected while proclaiming the reality of divinity. Soon after their departure from this world, the essential truth of their teachings was lost sight of and dogmatic imitations adhered to.
Inasmuch as human interpretations and blind imitations differ widely, religious strife and disagreement have arisen among mankind, the light of true religion has been extinguished and the unity of the world of humanity destroyed. The prophets of God voiced the spirit of unity and agreement. They have been the founders of divine reality. Therefore if the nations of the world forsake imitations and investigate the reality underlying the revealed Word of God they will agree and become reconciled. For reality is one and not multiple.
The nations and religions are steeped in blind and bigoted imitations. A man is a Jew because his father was a Jew. The Mohammedan follows implicitly the footsteps of his ancestors in belief and observance. The Buddhist is true to his heredity as a Buddhist. That is to say they profess religious belief blindly and without investigation, making unity and agreement impossible. It is evident therefore that this condition will not be remedied without a re-formation in the world of religion. In other words the fundamental reality of the divine religions must be renewed, reformed, revoiced to mankind.
From the seed of reality, religion has grown into a tree which has put forth leaves and branches, blossoms and fruit. After a time this tree has fallen into a condition of decay. The leaves and blossoms have withered and perished; the tree has become stricken and fruitless. It is not reasonable that man should hold to the old tree, claiming that its life forces are undiminished, its fruit unequalled, its existence eternal. The seed of reality must be sown again in human hearts in order that a new tree may grow therefrom and new divine fruits refresh the world. By this means the nations and peoples now divergent in religion will be brought into unity, imitations will be forsaken and a universal brotherhood in the reality itself will be established. Warfare and strife will cease among mankind; all will be reconciled as servants of God. For all are sheltered beneath the tree of His providence and mercy. God is kind to all; He is the giver of bounty to all alike, even as His Holiness Jesus Christ has declared that God "sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust;" that is to say, the mercy of God is universal. All humanity is under the protection of His love and favor, and unto all He has pointed the way of guidance and progress.
Progress is of two kinds, material and spiritual. The former is attained through observation of the surrounding existence and constitutes the foundation of civilization. Spiritual progress is through the breaths of the Holy Spirit and is the awakening of the conscious soul of man to perceive the reality of divinity. Material progress insures the happiness of the human world. Spiritual progress insures the happiness and eternal continuance of the soul. The prophets of God have founded the laws of divine civilization. They have been the root and fundamental source of all knowledge. They have established the principles of human brotherhood or fraternity which is of various kinds, such as the fraternity of family, of race, of nation and of ethical motives. These forms of fraternity, these bonds of brotherhood are merely temporal and transient in association. They do not insure harmony and are usually productive of disagreement. They do not prevent warfare and strife; on the contrary they are selfish, restricted and fruitful causes of enmity and hatred among mankind. The spiritual brotherhood which is enkindled and established through the breaths of the Holy Spirit unites nations and removes the cause of warfare and strife. It transforms mankind into one great family and establishes the foundations of the oneness of humanity. It promulgates the spirit of international agreement and insures universal peace. Therefore we must investigate the foundation reality of this heavenly fraternity. We must forsake all imitations and promote the reality of the divine teachings. In accordance with these principles and actions and by the assistance of the Holy Spirit, both material and spiritual happiness shall become realized. Until all nations and peoples become united by the bonds of the Holy Spirit in this real fraternity, until national and international prejudices are effaced in the reality of this spiritual brotherhood, true progress, prosperity and lasting happiness will not be attained by man. This is the century of new and universal nationhood. Sciences have advanced, industries have progressed, politics have been reformed, liberty has been proclaimed, justice is awakening. This is the century of motion, divine stimulus and accomplishment; the century of human solidarity and altruistic service; the century of universal peace and the reality of the divine Kingdom.
(Abdu'l-Bahá, Foundations of World Unity)
Salutations
------------------
dumaurier
dumaurier,
I have extracted some quotes out of several of you previous post an put some comments of mine with them :
"thus the time between Abraham's Religion and that of Moses was approximately 650 years, and when Abraham's cycle ended, Moses revealed His Religion; approximately 650 years later Christ revealed Christianity and Mohammad revealed Islam about 650 years after Christ, and so on. This has been historically ascertained to a great degree. Such is the principle of Progressive Revelation)."
This is really streching history to your needs : only the years between christ and Mohammad fit your picture, it is believed that Abraham's time (if he ever existed, the only source we have is the bible) was around 1800 BC while the exodus would have been around 1100 BC ok, 650, 700 years, what's the difference but then you have to wait 1100 years until christ unless you would want to fit the boudha in between who was around 550 BC. But could you be kind enough to tell me what great light shone around 1300 and 1950 ? Are you that last light may be :) ?
"He is INFINITITE, ABSOLUTE! And He is beyond our understanding and comprehension. This we have discussed at length in various posts."
This is always very useful : god is beyond our understanding ! When ever there is some problem with a certain dogma we say : it is beyond our understanding. How is it possible to make any statements at all about something that is beyond our understanding ? How can we even claim he exists ?
"(But don't get me wrong here. I am talking about *RELIGION* and not about those mis-aligned sects and cults that in and of themselves are worthless, causing greater harm than good)."
Ok, and who is going to be the judge of what is *RELIGION* and what is misaligned sect or cult ? The enlightend spirit of 1950 perhaps ? ;)
"Creation is the expression of motion...Nothing is stationary in the material world of outer phenomena or in the inner world of intellect and consciousness"
This is entirely inverting the meaning of creation. Once created, the creature remains in his form, it stays the same till it becomes extinct. Sounds pretty static to me.
"This is the century of new and universal nationhood. Sciences have advanced, industries have progressed, politics have been reformed, liberty has been proclaimed, justice is awakening. This is the century of motion, divine stimulus and accomplishment; the century of human solidarity and altruistic service; the century of universal peace and the reality of the divine Kingdom."
This sounds so optimistic it is almost naive. "Progress" is a one-dimensional word, one can only speak of progress in terms of advance in a certain direction, no deviation from this path is allowed and these notions lead to a dictatorial state of mind. One thing that the evolutionists have learned since Darwin is that man is not the ultimate goal of life, it is just an other experiment an other twig on the tree of life.
Progress is a very dangerous word, it makes the goal more worthwhile then coming there. First of all someone is setting a goal, this person has already to much power to begin with and then someone has to make sure this goal is uptained. It doesn't matter if they claim their directives come from god because that is also a claim just like their goal. Sounds all very suspicious and dictatorial to me.
------------------
we are midgets standing on the backs of giants,
Plato
Dumaurier:
I think you missed the point mightily here. No messenger of God ever 'taught' man anything about consciousness, self, sexes or societies. These things arise quite naturally with no need for messengers. But the very claim you make that these things were taught (in refusal to consider the rather natural alternative) betrays your blind conviction in the Christian teachings. This is a dangerous state of mind, because it will either leave you forever within the trap of your faith, or it could lead to an abrupt crashing down of your house of cards, with very unpleasant psychological consequences to yourself. You are a perfect illustration for my arguments against religion.
The claim you make of a timeless, all-powerful and unfathomable creator is no different from a claim of a timeless, unfathomable universe without a creator. There is no fundamental difference between the two. However, the assumption of creator immediately casts a fog of oversimplification and dismissal of scientific explanation -- which is why I so heartily argue against the said assumption.
Claiming that the concept of a nation came from God is probably one of the highest insults to your God you could possibly make. It is indeed nationalism that has spawned all the great wars of history, from the conquests of Alexander the Great, all the way to Hitler's reign of terror. Nations existed long before any Jewish religion arose. Egypt, for example, has been around for at least 5,000 years. In fact, nationalism arises easily out of tribalism coupled to territorialism -- traits exhibited even by cognitively far simpler animals, such as wolves for example. The only reason we have evolved from small territories and city-states to large-territory conglomerations of cities, is because of the wide spread of improved technology which tied together people and land, and made common defense and common function both feasible and profitable. Nationalism killed off American Indians, who by the way had no concept of a 'nation', and did not believe that earth could be owned. In my opinion, the American Indians were far more socially advanced in that respect than any modern society. Which brings me back to the notion of retrograde motion. Plato is right: progress is a very relative and loaded term. This includes your highly questionable (to be mild) claim of religious progress.
It is an old and useless trick to assign something one cannot understand to an entity that is by definition unexplainable. By explaining the phenomena of the world through an unexplainable will of a sentient controller, you demonstrate ignorance of the underlying mechanisms that have been already successfully used to describe said phenomena with no need for the supernatural. This is only in parallel to the same lines of thought used by other 'philosophers' of religion for millennia -- the same methodology that has been used to construct travesties of explanation for everything from the starry sky to the function and causes of disease. I only hope you can perceive the obvious paralleles and realize the dead end in which the almighty God has left you (as had happened to countless others through the ages).
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
dumaurier
07-15-99, 10:25 AM
Boris writes,
No messenger of God ever 'taught' man anything about consciousness, self, sexes or societies."
Boris, you had better read the Torah, the Old Testament, the New Testament, the several Buddhist Scriptures, the Baghavad Gita, the Coran. All great civilizations were founded on the Teachings of a Manifestation of God. It is as plain as day that "consciousness" of the self, the family, tribe, city, nation, were gifts of the Messenger of God to humanity. These Holy Books teach man what to eat, what not to eat, when, how, where. They teach him about sex relations. Before Mohammad revealed His Book, a son had the right to order his mother to marry him and make love to him!!! Mohammad abrogated such evil practises. At one time man had sex with whomsoever he pleased, be this sister, daughter, cousin, aunt, mother. The Prophets created laws to do away with such practises. Moses taught his people hygiene and what to eat and what not to eat. He made it lawful to marry four women due to the situation of the Jews at that time. But Christ abrogated this law by saying that it is better to marry one woman since no man can be fair and just to four wives. Mohammad made laws with regards an animal that was killed for food and said that after the animal had been killed people should eat it within a certain number of specified days. People didn't have refrigerators back then and they kept a dead animal for days, eating it even when maggots had infested its carcass. Muhammad made these laws for the purpose of educating humanity, and to keep them from disease. Muhammad made laws concerning washing the body. "Islamic scientists in Cordoba, with their seventeen great librairies, one alone of which included more than 400,000 volumes, enjoyed luxurious baths at a time when washing the body was considered a dangerous custom at the University of Oxford," quotes Balyuzi in his book, Muhammad and the Course of Islam (George Ronald, Oxford). The concept of "marriage" is not old at all and its institution comes directly from a Prophet's instruction. In the past such a concept as that of the nation was impossible due to the impossibility of its realization. But with the advent of Muhammad the nation came into being. This is no empty assertion. It can be proven. "Over a vast area of the world, extending from the heart of Asia and the boundaries of the Pacific to the shores of the Atlantic, the power of Islam raised men to a high level of achievements and ennobled their lives. Only prejudice can ignore these facts." (Ibid).
As to Boris' assertion that "these things arise quite naturally with no need for Messengers," this statement lacks verification in the above mentioned books. If i were to quote from the Holy Books to prove the contrary, i would have to write long and this would lead to prolixity of which i wish to avoid. However, Boris, you have my email. We could explore this issue in private if you wish, and here i could drown you in the thousands of proofs that exist to support the claim.
Boris writes,
"But the very claim you make that these things were taught (in refusal to consider the rather natural alternative) betrays your blind conviction in the Christian teachings."
First, i have never said i was a Christian. Where have i said this? Second, you are drawing infererences and thus jumping to hasty conclusions. My religion has nothing to do with the Christian teachings. But my religion does encourage me to study ALL religions with an open mind. It teaches me to eliminate religious prejudice completely from my mind. And it also encourages me to seek for Truth everywhere it may be found, for the Truth is one and indivisible; it does not belong to anyone party or faction or religion. The Truth does not belong to science nor to religion. The Truth must be sought with open mind wherever it is. In your posts you have clearly demonstrated a close-minded approach to religion and, therefore, can hardly say that you are open-minded. This fact speaks for itself with regards your assertions.
Boris also writes,
"You are a perfect illustration for my arguments against religion."
Boris, you remind me of the man who has been blindfolded and, with the sun shining full in the sky, asks, "where is the sun"? Please take off the blindfolds and do some historical investigation into the enormous beneficial social consequences of each and everyone of the great revealed religions of the world. Practise looking at the good. Thus far you see bad in everything and, as i have told you before, this could only bring more harm to you.
Boris writes,
"The claim you make of a timeless, all-powerful and unfathomable creator is no different from a claim of a timeless, unfathomable universe without a creator. There is no fundamental difference between the two. However, the assumption of creator immediately casts a fog of oversimplification and dismissal of scientific explanation -- which is why I so heartily argue against the said assumption."
The difference, dear Boris, is flagrantly evident to all who use their intelligence. It is impossible to have "a timeless, unfathomable universe without a creator" for unto all effects there must be a cause. You are personally struggling with a dichotomous conflict: on the one hand you cannot deny causality because scientific study demands it, and on the other, you wish you could!
Boris writes,
"Claiming that the concept of a nation came from God is probably one of the highest insults to your God you could possibly make."
I invite you to email me personally whereby we may explore this topic together. You will be astounded at what historians say about the fact that the concept of the nation originated with the advent of Islam. It never existed before Muhammad's Revelation.
By the way, "Egypt" was not a "nation" 5000 years ago.
Boris concludes,
"By explaining the phenomena of the world through an unexplainable will of a sentient controller, you demonstrate ignorance of the underlying mechanisms that have been already successfully used to describe said phenomena with no need for the supernatural."
On the contrary, dear Boris: you show ignorance by not acknowledging that the very faculty scientists use to discover the attributes of the Creator and His Universal Laws, of which scientists use liberally, is due to His bountious bestowals towards such fools as would disbelieve in Him!
Throughout the ages, the greatest minds, the greatest philosophers and scientists, have believed in the All-Powerful and Compassionate God who created the universe. Einstein was one of these, as i have already pointed out. Socrates was another. It is disbelief in the Creator which has caused minds to wander and to invent such sciences as are useless for the promotion of the unity of the human race.
God is Eternal and will forever be, whereas you, Boris, are naught but a fleeting fancy who has been given one chance in a lifetime to recognize your Creator. You will never have any other chance, my friend.
Peace be upon those of open mind
------------------
dumaurier
Dumaurier:
For your knowledge of the world and evolution of human civilizations, you seem to rely exclusively on anscient writings and legends. Let me ask you: whatever happened to the actual world we inhabit, and our own psychological and physical nature? How come these things do not enter into your consideration when it comes to deciphering of history -- especially the very remote history of which not even written record exists?
Boris, you had better read the Torah, the Old Testament, the New Testament, the several Buddhist Scriptures, the Baghavad Gita, the Coran.
These are literary works. They were created by people. And, like all literature, they merely reflect the wisdom and world outlook of their time. To suggest that family was a gift from God is absurd -- even elephants have families!
It is as plain as day that "consciousness" of the self, the family, tribe, city, nation, were gifts of the Messenger of God to humanity.
Consciousness of the self is not taught; it is inherent in our brain architecture! Nobody is teaching 2-year-old babies about awareness of self; they come already 'premanufactured' with it! Family has always been around, and was taught by no messenger. Every single human society on earth, no matter how remote or anscient, sports family, marriage, and tribalism. But these things are not even restricted to humans; there are monogomous animals out there, and animals which hang together in families and tribes! Your assertion that such basic things as these, including even sex relations, were taught to humanity -- is *frighteningly* absurd! Even mosquitoes can figure out how to reproduce -- give humans <u>some</u> credit! (ever seen the movie 'Blue Lagoon'?)
These Holy Books teach man what to eat, what not to eat, when, how, where.
...
People didn't have refrigerators back then and they kept a dead animal for days, eating it even when maggots had infested its carcass.
And do you suppose that before writing was invented, humans ate anything they came across? What about all the 'primitive' tribes, some of which exist even now, which not only haven't heard of a book, but have no concept of a messenger from God to begin with? It's quite simple Dumaurier. You will not eat a piece of rotten meat because the noxious smell and taste will make you vomit! Our preferences for 'healthy' food are dictated by instinct -- i.e. what tastes and smells good vs. bad, as dictated by our physiology. What an utter absurdity to suggest that people would eat a rotten piece of meat infested with maggots! This is just astonishing! You want to try and feed this rotting, magot-covered piece of meat to an uneducated infant? You think the infant, in his/her ignorance of Mohammad's teachings, would actually even put that thing near his/her mouth??!!!
Muhammad made these laws for the purpose of educating humanity, and to keep them from disease. Muhammad made laws concerning washing the body.
It may amuse you to realize that frequent bathing was practiced by the Greeks thousands of years before Mohammad.
The concept of "marriage" is not old at all and its institution comes directly from a Prophet's instruction.
Oh, and I thought love and attachment to children and parents had something to do with that. Silly me. Please recall that in the old days people lived together in small communities, so you couldn't go around switching girlfriends every week. Women were always highly prized among the dominating males for their child-rearing and house-keeping functions. A desire to reserve at least one woman for yourself and keep her from the others would only be natural (even if there is no love involved). But to see the natural quality and universality of marriage, just turn on the Discovery channel when they are showing a documentary about some rainforest tribe. You'll be amazed, but every single primitive society has always had marriage in some form.
"Over a vast area of the world, extending from the heart of Asia and the boundaries of the Pacific to the shores of the Atlantic, the power of Islam raised men to a high level of achievements and ennobled their lives. Only prejudice can ignore these facts." (Ibid).
Remember the Roman Empire? Remember the Chinese Kingdom? Remember the Aztec empire? Or what about Egypt? Enough said, I'd hope. At least, enough said about the social concept of a nation.
However, you may be referring to the Nation of Islam. This has absolutely nothing to do with the concept of a nation; it is simply a euphemism aimed at giving the religion the same unifying chords that ring with territorial unity.
<hr><hr>
Dumaurier, you truly and absolutely amaze me!!! In this one paragraph, you managed to sound more naive than a reasonably bright pre-schooler! Come on man, must you really proclaim such obvious falsities about such unequivocal facts? Is it for the sake of pure confrontation? Or are you refusing to use your brain, and letting anscient writings do all your thinking?
<hr><hr>
The Truth does not belong to science nor to religion. The Truth must be sought with open mind wherever it is. In your posts you have clearly demonstrated a close-minded approach to religion and, therefore, can hardly say that you are open-minded. This fact speaks for itself with regards your assertions.
You are very correct with respect to my stance toward religion. Thank you for recognizing at least one obvious fact!
But what I fail to see is why you claim that religion can be a source of truth. How are the anscient religious writings any different from modern religious writings? How are modern religious writings any different from modern non-religious writings? Where does the truth you seek arise from in the context of religion?
To put science and religion side by side as sources of truth is astoundingly inappropriate. There are absolutely no valid foundations to any claim that does not stem from natural observation. Period.
Please take off the blindfolds and do some historical investigation into the enormous beneficial social consequences of each and everyone of the great revealed religions of the world.
Enormous beneficial consequences? Please, do elaborate, as this is what I am particularly keen to discuss in this forum. I see none.
Religion has always been around. Human condition varied from civilization to civilization; it had its highs (Greeks, Egyptians) and its lows (certain tropical tribes.) I see no conclusive proof that any religion has ever resulted in social benefits. What I do observe is that religion has always been preeminent within large and prosperous empires -- little wonder, since it was used to hold those very empires together and keep the poor majorities subservient to the dominant tiny ruler castes. These days, we don't need religion to hold countries together -- social contract fulfills that function rather well, wouldn't you agree.
But there is a very interesting point to all this: no major, long-lasting civilization on record has ever tried to exist in a total absense of religion. One could point a finger at the Soviet Union and its failure, but I'd argue the failure resulted from unworkable economic policy and near-military dictatorship, not absense of religion. The real question is: would we actually not be better off *without* religion? Affirmative to that question is my personal position.
It is impossible to have "a timeless, unfathomable universe without a creator" for unto all effects there must be a cause. You are personally struggling with a dichotomous conflict: on the one hand you cannot deny causality because scientific study demands it, and on the other, you wish you could!
Are you under some kind of illusion that a timeless universe is acausal, but a timeless creator is causal??!!! Hello??
What has caused the existence of your ever-present and all-encompasing creator, may I inquire? How is your answer to this question going to be any different than an answer one would give for an eternal, all-encompassing universe?
Please do explain the 'flagrantly evident' distinction here, as I do not understand your claim (and, I wager, neither does anybody else who reads this dialogue!)
By the way, "Egypt" was not a "nation" 5000 years ago.
Define the word 'nation', and don't forget to reference a dictionary while doing so. I do suspect you may be misuing the word.
Throughout the ages, the greatest minds, the greatest philosophers and scientists, have believed in the All-Powerful and Compassionate God who created the universe. Einstein was one of these, as i have already pointed out. Socrates was another.
Please, Dumaurier! Do I really have to expound on the literally countless things that the greatest thinkers and philosophers of all time have gotten dead wrong so far? Besides, you are for some reason ignoring the great thinkers and scientists who actually were atheists and did argue against religious practice! Where do you think all of today's materialism came from??
It is disbelief in the Creator which has caused minds to wander and to invent such sciences as are useless for the promotion of the unity of the human race.
Science was never, ever, ever about "promotion of the unity of the human race"!! It has always been about knowledge and understanding. Sciences were not 'invented'. They grew out of literally playing with nature.
My substitute for religion when it comes to promotion of unity, is education and reason. They accomplish the same thing, but without the blind fanaticism and inevitable intolerance that evolves from Faith in the Truth.
Peace be upon those of open mind.
If you include yourself in that quote, then you must have a rather warped concept of 'open mind'. To you, it seems to connote lack of critical examination, counterargument, or consideration of disagreeable alternatives. And let's not forget the unquestioned acceptance of such groundless claims as "God is Eternal and will forever be". Some open mind you have, I must say.
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
[This message has been edited by Boris (edited July 16, 1999).]
I find it very sad to hear these christian people with their self righteous beliefs and ignorance gone mad behavior. Do you people really know how chrisitanity was started? Do you believe that the new testament is the word of G-d? That we are here on this earth solely to perish in an armageddon type ending to our great world?
Christianity, regardless of how much you believe or how much faith you have was made by the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great. In about 300 BC, he, at Nicea, with his most important staff, conducted a meeting. This meeting is famous, it is called the Council of Nicea. At this meeting, Constantine, declared that it appeared that control was be lost throughout the Roman Empire. He wanted control back. A very decisive and manipulative plan was discussed and agreed upon. This plan was to create a new religion, their by binding all people, Romans, Pagans, Jews, early Jesus followers, etc. into one body, one people, their by quadrupling the numbers of loyal citizens to the Roman Empire.
Constantine and his staff created a new religion, they called catholic or catholicism. Catholicism means universal in Latin. Constantine and his staff made up a universal religion. All citizens of the Roman Empire were converted into the new religion. This was done by force and punishable by death if not adhered to. Over night, the Roman Empire was now armed with an army of people who would give up life and limb to defend their cause and their religion. Christians today are an extension of the ancient Roman Empire, the pope is the new and continual Emperor.
The new religion was based on the Sol Invictus Roman religion and the early principles that Jesus talked about. It also included ideas from the Greeks. As time went on the merging of these religions appeared fool proof, but the thing they didn't consider is that all the writings of their new testament were written filled with contradictions and inaccurately portrayed how the Messiah would come. Very basic ideas were and still wrong. The Jewish Messiah, whom Christians believe was Jesus, was to come from the lineage of King David. Mary, Jesus mother was from King David ancestry; but Joseph was not. Jewish law dictates that patrilineal ancestry is what matters when determining ancestry and geneology, not matrilineal. If, Jesus was indeed a seed of the holy spirit, then he most certainly could not be from a human being nor from the very real ancestry of King David.
My point in this exercise is very simple! When a group of people such as Christians behave as they do and proselytize fervently to the point of bloodshed, as in the Spanish Inquisition or the Crusades, they are forgetting the very first Christian commandment; Love thy Neighbor as thy Self!
Christians and Romans have shed more blood and have caused more horror than any other group/s of people ever in all of the history of this planet. During the holocaust, Christians stood by as the horror took place, Christians were the one major group of people that could have stopped it from occurring but did nothing.
Christianity is a farce! Open your eyes! G-d
said that the world was made perfect, everything was proper and in its place. Perfectly made! Christians are the only group of people that suggest and demand an end of the world! If, Christianity were made from Divine inspiration, then they would not want an end of the world. Maybe its just the conclusion to the last battle of the Roman Empire against the world.
When Reagan was President, he and Casper Weinberger would sit around and talk. All talks were recorded as proper protocol. On one tape Reagan is overheard suggesting to Weinberger that the two of them were as important to biblical history as all of the ancient Jewish patriarchs. Weinberger said how could this be; Reagan replyed that he and himself controlled the destiny of the Christian religion, they were in control of the fate of the religion, they controlled armageddon, they controlled wheather or not Christianity would be proven correct. It will be one sad day when Christians the world over cry in shame for believing in a false religion when their armageddon doesn't occur. The arrogance of Reagan! Enough said, Good-bye. Keith
dumaurier
07-16-99, 02:22 PM
Boris writes,
"...I never made a claim about your particular religion; however it certainly smacks of Judaism like the sweets smack of sugar..."
It smacks of this, dear friend, because you know nothing of Holy Scripture and you fail to see the difference in the Holy Writings. I am saying here that you know not the difference between sweet and sour because you have adopted the philosophy of only sour to reign in your life. As to the first sentence in defense of your claim, here is evidence to the contrary proving your guilt:
"...But the very claim you make...betrays your blind conviction in the Christian teachings. This is a dangerous state of mind, because it will either leave you forever within the trap of your faith...
(posted by Boris on July 14, 1999 09:33 PM, in subject: Is God Benevolent?)
It is evident that in your intellectual fantasizing you neglect the very fact of the reality that you don't know the first thing about religion nor of its Holy Writings (this has been borne out in several of your posts). Anyone who is the slightest bit objective with some knowledge of religion and reading your comments against religion can testify to this truth; your ignorance of this subject called "religion" is obvious, evident, and flagrant. Proof of this is the way you set forth liberal arguement against Holy Scripture without the least substantiation of your statements. No scientist in his right mind would ever set forth whatsoever opposition without facts defending his position.
Boris writes,
"I openly argue for ending the tyranny of 'faith' as prematurely as possible -- that humanity may emerge onto the next stage of cognitive evolution all the sooner, and with less overall suffering."
But how could it be that a man who opposes religion allows himself to speak of "faith" when, of his own admission with regards his position against religion, his claim proves ignorance of the subject!? For, how could one oppose anything of which he understands not due to lack of study? And what can the writer possibly mean when relating "cognitive evolution" to "less overall suffering" when the very "religion" he espouses (science) has been the very cause of more deaths than the combined deaths of human beings in centuries past? For has not "science" in this contemporary age given us the gas chambers in nazi Germany, the H-bomb of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, automatic guns and rifles, poisonous gasses ripping holes in the upper atmosphere of our planet, and the list is long. You see, Boris, one can play the same game as you and look at everything from a negative standpoint. If this be done, you'd lose every card you held!
It is faith in a Bountiful and Compassionate God which keeps the generality of humankind social and adroit. Without religion humans would be insensitive, lacking humanity, and missing one of the two most important thing a human possesses: heart. True wisdom lies in making a balance between the mind and the heart, between science and religion. Boris, in choosing to fly only with the wing of science your inevitable conclusion is bound to have the illusion that it has taken flight but, once off the ground, your fate is to go round and round in circles until you crash below into the muck and mire of that sort of vain imagination which leads to gross materialism and inhumanity. You will admit that a bird requires two wings to wing its flight.
As to your comments on "open-mindedness," it is as i have said: your aim is to destroy. This in no way whatsoever could make you into an openminded person for you have shut your mind from the very outset by refusing to admit that the "other side" may hold some truth.
I shall answer each and every one of your points as time permits. Specifically, i am now in the process of composing an elaborate paper supporting my assertion that the concept of the nation is a direct consequence of the Revelation of Muhammad and His revealed religion, Islam. If you wish, you may start investigating yourself now, for example, by looking up "A History of the Arabs," and "The Arabs: A Short History," by Philip K. Hitti. Suffice this small example for the moment:
"The Faith of Islam," writes Shoghi Effendi, "introduced...the conception of the nation as a unit and a vital stage in the organization of human society, and embodied it in its teaching." (The Promised Day Is Come).
"By the mid-eighteeth century, influenced by the enlightenment, particularly the ideas of Rousseau, and by growing commercial and imperial rivalries, " writes Denis MacEoin, "the first fully developed nation-states emerged in Europe. According to a widely held opinion [by most historians], the true beginnings of fully fledged nationalism are to be seen in the French Revolution of 1789 [1200 after the inception of Islam]. Certainly, with the decline in the absolute control of monarchies in France, England, and America and with the spread of the concepts of the rights of man, the ideas of liberte, egalite, fraternite, and the sovereignty of the people, the state became the domain of the people--the state of the nation, not of the king. Out of this developed the modern nation-state theory." (The Concept of the Nation in Islam).
"The Declaration of Independence in 1581 of the 7 Dutch provinces united in the Union of Ultrcht," Writes Tannabaum, "which proclaimed their independence of Spain [ ruled by Islam], created the first state in modern history to dissociate the idea of the nation from that of loyalty to a dynastic monarch." (E.R. Tannabaum: European Civilization since the Middle Ages.)
"...In [the year] 600 the physiognomy of the world was not different in quality from that which it had revealed in [the year] 400," writes Henri Pirenne in Mohhamed and Charlemagne. "It might appear," says MacEoin, "with the emergence of the various barbarion states in Europe at this period, that the foundations of nationalism were laid. Pirenne, however, rejects this view: 'These States, which have been described as national States, were not really of the great unity which they had replaced.' It is to the emergence of Islam that Pirenne attributes the end of the Western Empire and its tradition, the destruction of the unity of the Mediterranean world, and the gravitation of European civilization to the North. Pirenne again summarizes this development:
'The cause of the break with the tradition of antiquity was the rapid and unexpected advance of Islam. The result of this advance was the final separation of East from West, and the end of the Mediterranean unity...The West was blockaded and forced to live upon its own resources. For the first time in history the axis of life was shifted northwards from the Mediterranean.' This is described by Pirenne elsewhere as 'the most essential event of European history which had occurred since the Punic Wars. It was the end of the classic tradition. It was the beginning of the Middle Ages...'
Significantly, Pirenne attributes the success of the Arabs in bringing about this change where the Germanic barbarians had failed, to nothing less than the religious inspiration of Islam: 'While the Germans had nothing with which to oppose the Christianity of the Empire, the Arabs were exalted by a new faith. It was this, and this alone, that prevented their assimilation.' Pirenne goes on to say that the Arabs assimilated themselves to the civilization they had conquered without losing the identity which Islam gave them: 'The German became Romanized as soon as he entered "Romania." The Roman, on the contrary, became Arabized as soon as he was conquered by Islam...When it was converted to Christianity the Empire, so to speak, underwent a change of soul; when it was converted to Islam both its soul and its body were transformed. The change was as great in civil as in religious society.'
"...On the whole...spread of Arab material and intellectual culture in Europe came about chiefly through the Arab presence in Spain and Sicily...The fundamental significance of the Crusading movement...was that through this movement Europe found its soul." (W. Montgomery Watt, The Influence of Islam on Medieval Europe.)
Thus, the concept of the nation in Europe is attributed to Islamic roots by historians, and the first real "nation" began in 1581, 1,000 years after Muhhamad's Revelation!
This is just a sampling of what you will get from now on.
From this point on, Boris, i challenge you to supply proof and historical statements and evidence for every assertion you make against religion or on any other topic we happen to embark upon. Objections stemming from empty words originating in your own narrow imagination will no longer qualify. Short of this exposition of proofs on your part, i will not answer your posts. On my part, i accept this challenge and i will also post supporting evidence of my assertions.
If you wish to destroy, you better do it properly and with the right tools. Your tongue alone is insufficient. You might fool many of the posters reading here, but you cannot fool everyone.
Salutions
[This message has been edited by dumaurier (edited July 16, 1999).]
I've read about people debatiing over what gets you into heaven or not. I was raised in the christian church and I'd like to share what I was taught.
You can accept it or deny it. I, myself am limbo on the subject, and I'm not sure what to believe.
I do accept reality however, and I do accept that we evolved. I accept the world was not created by the snap of a finger, and I accept that there was a big bang. So I guess that makes me aithiest because I accept reality for what it is. I can "accept" that too.
<hr>
Anyways, here is what I was taught, excluding my own skeptisism and my independent thinking on the matter.
<hr>
If you think you get into "heaven" because you've been a "good guy," you're wrong.
- Christianity is about relationship --- the relationship that God desires to have with man.
- The Bible is about this relationship; it is not written as the history of the universe --- in that regard, the Bible is incomplete.
- God is the supreme creator. The complexity and beauty of nature are evidence of creation, so, as the Bible says, man is without excuse.
- God is perfect. The world, and man - His creation are not. --- They are in a "fallen state". Man fell out of the relationship that God desires.
- God is holy, perfect, without sin. He desires us to be holy. God can tolerate no imperfection in His presence; thus we are separated from God. - Man has the "sin nature" within; we are born prone to sin. All have sinned, falling short of the standard God requires.
- The Ten Commandments were written to convict man; we cannot keep the standard set by the law. No person will live able to never break one of the Ten Commandments.
- We are separated from God in our natural state. The very nature of God, perfection, causes our separation; He can tolerate no sin --- none.
- God is our creator and he desires a restored relationship with us. But how? Man's situation, on our own, is hopeless. Our efforts, through good living or good works, are futile in that we have sinned and because of that are separated from God.
- The answer -- God's plan for man: Jesus, came to earth, lived a perfect life and triumphed over death. Jesus, if we accept Him, is judged on our behalf --- He "stands in" for us at our time of judgement --- the judgement that determines our eternal destiny.
- Jesus' perfection becomes ours and we are found to be without sin, received, accepted, and embraced by God. We are promised eternal life.
- How do we accept this plan?
1. Understand our situation --- our lost condition, our need for "the plan"
2. Believe and accept Jesus as our savior. Faith in Jesus.
3. Repent - Desire to live a life that pleases God, turn away from sin.
4. Confess - Publicly state our belief and desire to accept Jesus.
5. Baptism - In obedience to God's plan, be baptized, symbolically being buried and rising again --- a new birth in Christ Jesus.
6. Live faithfully, strive for spiritual growth, live a disciplined life.
<hr>
So there it is. Do what you want with it.
MaTTo
Ok Dumaurier, you are really getting to me with that Christianity reference. If I must, I apologize -- for I did not ascribe a religion to you; rather what I meant by 'belief in Christian teachings' was your belief in one benevolent, all-powerful god that creates and controls the universe, the accompanying relationship between that god and humans, and the ultimate sources of truth being the holy scriptures. At least in my mind, all of these elements partake of the Judaic tradition -- this is what I meant by 'Christian teachings'.
By the way, I am not completely ignorant when it comes to religion, though I have obviously not devoted years of study to the subject as you seem to have had. However, this has no relation to your complaint that my assault against religion is not backed up by 'fact'. In response to this criticism, I would like to ask you what fact supports your arguments <u>for</u> fidelity of religion -- other than the religion itself!
You complain that I dismiss faith with no knowledge of what it actually implies. Wrong again. I confess I have never committed murder either, yet I know rather well what such an act would imply. I observe faith in others, and its effect on others -- and this is enough for me. By the way, it should also be enough for you -- since you cannot claim to know what faith means to anybody else other than yourself, even despite all your knowledge of religious scriptures.
As to your comments on "open-mindedness," it is as i have said: your aim is to destroy. This in no way whatsoever could make you into an openminded person for you have shut your mind from the very outset by refusing to admit that the "other side" may hold some truth.
One man's destruction is another man's progress. I in no way regret the destruction of Monarchy as a social institution, nor the destruction of the Inquisition. Religion in my view is yet another ugly dinosaur begging to go extinct.
As for admitting that you "may hold some truth" -- I've already done so on multiple occasions, though perhaps not explicitly. The teachings of Holy Scriptures concerning hygiene, morality, compassion and so forth definitely hold truth in them -- the truth inherent in the societies that gave birth to the particular scriptures. However, what you seem to claim is that you hold The Truth, not just 'some truth', when it comes to the existence of God and a Creator. Sorry my man, but I just don't see any fidelity in that claim.
Please stop referring to science as religion. I do not advocate <u>replacing</u> religion with science or anything else. I am arguing for <u>eliminating</u> religion altogether, with no replacement in mind! I have already mentioned that the social functions of religion can be achieved through education and training in the art of critical argument. It is demonstrably true that education results in empowerment, and quashes violence and eliminates destitution -- things no religion has ever done. And an educated audience trained to always question, and to never take things on faith without subsequent reexamination, is not likely to be swayed by fanaticism of any sort.
Science is not a belief system; it is a registry of empirical facts. The only reason science surfaces in religious debates is because many of the facts it has accumulated come in direct contradiction to the claims of various religions. Therefore, science is a useful tool for showing the fallacy of 'Holy Scripture'.
When you mention all the misery brought on by the increased effectiveness of killing machines, you gloss over the underlying truth. Science did not make us build the atom bomb, nor drop it. Science did not force us to gas anybody. In fact, all of these things were done <u>despite</u> the wide spread of religion in the world. Science in itself doesn't build anything; it only forms theories. These theories can be used to create technology -- but such is the feat of engineering, not science. And as for the motives of creating some technology, or the ultimate uses of this technology -- that is entirely out of science's domain -- *entirely*.
Science is in no way intended to instill morals or shape society in any way, though it can certainly be used as a tool for evaluating various approaches to such goals. On the other hand, religion has never succeeded, in any of its variants, in the tasks it purports to address. The predominantly Christian Germany still managed to wage the most horrific conflict in recorded history. The Catholic France went through one of the bloodiest revolutions ever. Islamic nations are famous for their jihads. The Egyptians murdered servants to be buried with their masters. The Aztecs and the Druids sacrificed children, of all else, for the sake of their beliefs! White supremacists engage in murder and attrition based on nothing but religion. Indeed, there are plenty of negatives that come packaged with any system of 'faith' -- because once you have unquestioned acceptance of certain 'holy' teachings, it is all too easy to manipulate that faith, and reinterpret those teachings, to any ends whatsoever. Want to execute dissenters? No problem. Want to pillage the arabic kingdoms? No problem. Want to extend the boundaries of the empire? No problem. Want to collect a tax without people realizing it? Easy.
Without religion humans would be insensitive, lacking humanity, and missing one of the two most important thing a human possesses: heart.
Humans have been insensitive and have certainly lost humanity with their very religion as the cause of such failures. The heart, or rather tha compassion and emotional attributes, that we take such pride in, will not suddenly disappear without religion. In fact, I wager they will remain, and about the same proportion of the populace will tend toward antisocial behavior as does now. If you have factual arguments to the contrary, I would like to hear them. In other words, what makes you think that compassion, emotion, and morality arise out of religion, and could not exist without it???
<hr>
The debate concerning nations is beginning to form a huge digression. If you go back a few posts, you will notice that the concept of the nation played a nearly insignificant role in my arguments to begin with -- and you are blowing it out of proportion while at the same time ignoring the other, far more important, points.
But if we must, here's the definition of 'nation' (Merriam-Webster online) with which I tend to operate:
1 a (1) : NATIONALITY 5a (2) : a politically organized nationality (3) : a non-Jewish nationality <why do the nations conspire -- Psalms 2:1 (Revised Standard Version)>
b : a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory and government
c : a territorial division containing a body of people of one or more nationalities and usually characterized by relatively large size and independent status
Definitions b) and c) are the ones applicable to the anscient world, as the concept of politics embodied in definition a) really didn't exist so widely until fairly recently with the rise of the first oligarchies. As an exception, you will notice that all three definitions certainly applied to the anscient Greece as a federation of city-states. The last two definitions certainly applied to the Egyptian kingdom, so I don't see the reason for your determination to claim otherwise. What is now called 'nation' used to be called 'Kingdom' or 'Empire'; the only real differences are the absense of democratic representative government in the latter, and the absense of divinely-sanctioned ruler caste in the former. The concept of a 'nation' has certainly been evolving in recent times, but linguistic hairsplitting is not appropriate in this forum.
The writings you cite address emergence of large kingdoms and empires specifically in Europe, and only within the last few millennia. They say nothing about existence of nations elsewhere around the world, as well as in more anscient times. As to the causes of the European Renaissance, they are hotly debated amidst both historians and social sciences -- and I do not believe that the arrival of any religion has been accepted by consensus to have been the primary cause.
[This message has been edited by Boris (edited July 16, 1999).]
Darwin Under the Microscope
By Michael J. Behe
I found an interesting article that states (from a scientist), that cells are too complex to have just "evolved."
He is author of "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution"
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_dm11496.htm
Boris, your thoughts?
MaTTo
Well, many great questions have been asked and answered here. And many great answers have been revoked by quotes from eras long past.So this is what we humans have come down to, a race that very rarely looks within for answers, A race that would rather pick up a book, or boot up a computer, rather than to think..So my question is this. What do you think will come of the future of religion(if no cataclism arrives)? will we still chat about the existance of god when we have left all the unansered questions behind us. or Will we still look at a old book for answers.
"only time will tell"
zygos
Yin Yang
07-17-99, 07:24 PM
Peace Zygos, I agree....Religions are born and forgotten all the time. Only the individuals deep personal beliefs will carry us forward through the grind of time. Whether it be Buddah, Allah or Christ, lets hope the universal message is never overlooked or forgotten...
The natures soul lives on and on...
dumaurier
07-18-99, 02:28 AM
Zygos,
When i pick up that "old book," as you say, and read such things as the following, one's duty becomes apparent and crystal clear. It could never be that religion dies out. Just read the following and you'll see what i mean.
"Be generous in prosperity,
and thankful in adversity.
Be worthy of the trust of thy neighbor,
and look upon him
with a bright and friendly face.
Be a treasure to the poor,
an admonisher to the rich,
an answerer to the cry of the needy,
a preserver of the sanctity of thy pledge. Be fair in thy judgment,
and guarded in thy speech.
Be unjust to no man,
and show all meekness to all men.
Be as a lamp unto them
that walk in darkness,
a joy to the sorrowful,
a sea for the thirsty,
a haven for the distressed,
an upholder and defender
of the victim of oppression.
Let integrity and uprightness
distinguish all thine acts.
Be a home for the stranger,
a balm to the suffering,
a tower of strength for the fugitive.
Be eyes to the blind,
and a guiding light
unto the feet of the erring.
Be an ornament
to the countenance of truth,
a crown to the brow of fidelity,
a pillar of the temple of righteousness,
a breath of life to the body of mankind,
an ensign of the hosts of justice,
a luminary above the horizon of virtue,
a dew to the soil of the human heart,
an ark on the ocean of knowledge,
a sun in the heaven of bounty,
a gem on the diadem of wisdom,
a shining light
in the firmament of thy generation,
a fruit upon the tree of humility.
We pray God to protect thee from the heat of jealousy and the cold of hatred. He verily is nigh, ready to answer."
(Bahá'u'lláh, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf)
So, how could religion ever die out? It is as fresh flowing water to a thirsty one. Without such bountiful and wonderful inspiration as offer all Holy Books, man would certainly die spiritually.
Dumaurier:
Remove the reference to God from the text you quoted, and observe that the power of the text is not lessened. God is not necessary to promote moral behavior.
MaTTo:
I'll answer under the Evolution vs. Creation thread; give me a few hours to go over the website you mentioned.
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
dumaurier
07-19-99, 08:11 AM
"O kindreds of the earth! Incline your ears unto the Voice from the divine Lote-Tree which overshadoweth the world and be not of the...men who have repudiated the Manifestation of God and His invincible authority and have renounced His favours-- they in truth are reckoned with the contemptible in the Book of God, the Lord of all mankind."(Tablets of Baha'u'llah)
"But the foolish ones of the earth, being nurtured in evil passions and desires, have remained heedless of the consummate wisdom of Him Who is, in truth, the All-Wise, while their words and deeds are prompted by idle fancies and vain imaginings."
(Ibid)
"The Day-Star of certitude is shining resplendent but the people of the world are holding fast unto vain imaginings. The Ocean of divine knowledge hath risen high whilst the children of men are clinging to the hem of the foolish. But for the unfailing grace of God--exalted be His glory--no antidote could ever cure these inveterate diseases."
(Ibid)
"As the East and the West are illumined by one sun, so all races, nations, and creeds shall be seen as the servants of the One God. The whole earth is one home, and all peoples, did they but know it, are bathed in the oneness of God's mercy. God created all. He gives sustenance to all. He guides and trains all under the shadow of his bounty. We must follow the example God Himself gives us, and do away with all disputations and quarrels." (`Abdu'l-Bahá)
------------------
dumaurier
dumaurier
07-19-99, 08:19 AM
"GOD sends Prophets for the education of the people and the progress of mankind. Each such Manifestation of God has raised humanity. They serve the whole world by the bounty of God. The sure proof that they are the Manifestations of God is in the education and progress of the people. The Jews were in the lowest condition of ignorance, and captives under Pharaoh when Moses appeared and raised them to a high state of civilization. Thus was the reign of Solomon brought about and science and art were made known to mankind. Even Greek philosophers became students of Solomon's teaching. Thus was Moses proved to be a Prophet.
"After the lapse of time the Israelites deteriorated, and became subject to the Romans and the Greeks. Then the brilliant Star of Jesus rose from the horizon upon the Israelites, brightening the world, until all sects and creeds and nations were taught the beauty of unity. There cannot be any better proof than this that Jesus was the Word of God.
"So it was with the Arabian nations who, being uncivilized, were oppressed by the Persian and Greek governments. When the Light of Muhammad shone forth all Arabia was brightened. These oppressed and degraded peoples became enlightened and cultured; so much so, indeed, that other nations imbibed Arabian civilization from Arabia. This was the proof of Muhammad's divine mission.
"All the teaching of the Prophets is one; one faith; one Divine light shining throughout the world. Now, under the banner of the oneness of humanity all people of all creeds should turn away from prejudice and become friends and believers in all the Prophets. As Christians believe in Moses, so the Jews should believe in Jesus. As the Muhammadans believe in Christ and Moses, so likewise the Jews and the Christians should believe in Muhammad. Then all disputes would disappear, all then would be united....Today we must gather...and try with heart and soul to bring about the union of mankind."
(Abdu'l-Bahá)
dumaurier
07-19-99, 08:27 AM
Boris wrote,
"Remove the reference to God from the text you quoted, and observe that the power of the text is not lessened. God is not necessary to promote moral behavior."
Yet the very person who wrote those words i quoted claim they are not His words but words revealed by God!
Who should one believe, Boris? or the person who wrote those words i quoted?
------------------
dumaurier
Yes indeed, Dumaurier, who should one believe? Perhaps, a person who claims to speak for God? Yeah, we are all sane here, no doubt about that...
But I'm sick and tired of this notion of religious progress. For example, way earlier, you mentioned something about the divine institution of marriage. You said that Moses allowed up to 4 wives or something like that, and Jesus narrowed it down to one. But then along comes Mohammed and Islam, and we are back to total polygamy and harems again! Where's your purported progress? Not to mention that Islam served to further subjugate and dehumanize women like no major religion before it!
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
dumaurier
07-21-99, 03:30 AM
Boris wrote,
"But then along comes Mohammed and Islam, and we are back to total polygamy and harems again! Where's your purported progress? Not to mention that Islam served to further subjugate and dehumanize women like no major religion before it!"
Boris, SUBSTANTIATE AND PROVE WHAT YOU SAY HERE!!! Dish out the facts. You have said you wish to see religion disappear so that science can take over. It seems strange to me that you should advocate such a stand yet you yourself do not practise; you have not acted as a scientist here. A scientist would show facts supporting what he claimed. Don't you think it's appropriate that you practised your own "religion" by integrating into your own actions its tenets and beliefs? It would be interesting to see your facts proving Muhammad had anything to do with polygamy and harems. Prove to us how Muhammad "subjugated" and "dehumanized" women. We require extracts directly from the Quran for this. Please post these here for all to see.
Boris, i wager you cannot and never will be able to prove these scandalous claims against Muhammad because, it is my conviction based on my knowledge of the Holy Qu'ran, none of the things you mention, and in the way you represent them, had anything to do with Muhammad or His Book!
[This message has been edited by dumaurier (edited July 20, 1999).]
Dumaurier:
If you don't lay off this denial you are in, I will seriously start wasting the extra hours grabbing your 'factual proof' off the net for you (since you appear to be reluctant to go and see for yourself.) Here's a taste of that 'evidence' for which you've been so beautifully setting yourself up all this time:
"O prophet, tell your wives, your daughters, and the wives of the believers that they shall lengthen their garments. Thus, they will be recognized (as righteous women) and avoid being insulted. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful." 33:59
"Tell the believing men that they shall subdue their eyes (and not stare at the women), and to maintain their chastity. This is purer for them. GOD is fully Cognizant of everything they do." 24:30
"And tell the believing women to subdue their eyes, and maintain their chastity. They shall not reveal any parts of their bodies, except that which is necessary. They shall cover their chests, and shall not relax this code in the presence of other than their husbands,.....They shall not strike their feet when they walk in order to shake and reveal certain details of their bodies. All of you shall repent to GOD, O you believers, that you may succeed." 24:31
Apparently the mens' duty before Allah is to stop staring at women. (Strange... How are they supposed to fall in love if they never dare to pass a lewd thought through their heads?) Despite the rather inhumane (jokingly) restriction, men otherwise appear to be pretty free. I see no mention of the men's dress codes for example -- apparently it's OK for men to go around the streets naked.
Women, on the other hand, owe Allah a bit more respect:
1) lengthen their garments
2) subdue their eyes
3) maintain their chastity
4) "shall not reveal any parts of their bodies, except that which is necessary"
5) "shall not relax this code in the presence of other than their husbands..."
6) "They shall not strike their feet when they walk in order to shake and reveal certain details of their bodies"
Boy, isn't this the fair treatment of the sexes that neo-Muslims claim the original Qur'an espouses?
But what is truly noteworthy is not the Qur'an itself, which is rather mellow. It's the subsequent additions (the so-called Hadiths) -- the equivalent of Christian 'Revelations' -- that truly glorifies Islam as the next great step in evolution of humanity. Wouldn't you agree, Dumaurier?
Just a little quote from one of the Hadiths:
"Women are naturally, morally and religiously defective". (Bukhary).
Real juicy, eh? You have to be either incredibly naive, or in extreme denial, not to be aware of the atrocities perpetrated in the dominantly-Islamic middle eastern states, such as Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, and others. Women are denied education and 'manly' occupations, they are humiliated by extreme dress codes, they are deprived of sexual pleasure through a particularly barbaric and dehumanizing procedure, they are routinely killed by their own family members over even suspicion of infidelity (even if they were raped!), they have no say in the choice of a husband, and in some places they are viewed in the eyes of the law as being equivalent to domestic animals! Clearly, none of these horrors was inherent in Qur'an -- but undeniably every single one of them must be recognized as an 'achievement' of Islam. Islam is a great illustration for my arguments.
No matter how benign, any religion involves a mindless submission to authority. This inevitably leads to tyranny, as both Islam and Christianity have had abundantly demonstrated. You may find it ridiculous, but even Baha'i, if it takes off and becomes a dominant religion, will in time result in atrocities and extremism of one sort or another. But even beside that point, to believe in a man's claim of personally conversing with God, no matter how true the rest of his his words ring, is just pure lunacy. This level of gullibility might be forgivable for a 4-year-old, but an adult is expected to be able to whittle the wheat from such obvious chaff.
"If you deem it best for the orphans, you may marry their mothers - you may marry two, three, or four. If you fear lest you become unfair, then you shall be content with only one, or with what you already have. Additionally, you are thus more likely to avoid financial hardship." 4:3
"You can never be equitable in dealing with more than one wife, no matter how hard you try. Therefore, do not be so biased as to leave one of them hanging (neither enjoying marriage, nor left to marry someone else). If you correct this situation and maintain righteousness, God is Forgiver, Most Merciful." 4:129
Now, if this is not God's unequivocal affirmation of polygamy (no matter how limited), then doggone it Dumaurier, you've proven me a liar. Note how neatly this flies in the face of the Christian dogma. God seems to be having second thoughts, in other words. By the way, are you yet beginning to see this concept of 'incremental revelation' beginning to evaporate before your eyes?
But wait, I haven't hit you with the real whammy yet! It seems that Mohammad, the holy God's Prophet, has stated explicitly, repeatedly, and unequivocally throughout the Qur'an that God Allah himself intends Qur'an to be the last, final, complete and absolute revelation. To extend, reinterpret, or edit the Qur'an is clearly a devastating herecy in Allah's almighty eye. So, in case you haven't guessed it yet, Dumaurier, your very own holy prophet of God Baha'u'llah -- is a heretic, and there's absolutely no question about it, because Allah himself said so in no uncertain words! This in turn means that you are practicing a Satan's religion, Dumaurier -- a perverted and corrupted mockery of the Final Revelatoin, no less! But hey, don't get upset at <u>me</u> for such condemnation; I have nothing to do with it. Seems God himself has revealed these truths, as well as apparently many others, to us poor saps who are just too insensitive to worship the old man.
But hey -- no need to panic! We all know that God doesn't really mean what He says, and the next great holy Prophet will certainly be condemned by the Baha'i faith as heartily as Islam condemns Baha'i. Can you say "vicious circle"?
Lastly, Dumaurier, explain to us ignorant fools why you think Baha'u'llah was a holy prophet, and David Koresh wasn't. (Or do you 'believe' otherwise?)
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
[This message has been edited by Boris (edited July 21, 1999).]
dumaurier
07-25-99, 04:45 PM
This post is a partial reply to Boris. (I have also posted it in the thread, "Proofs & Evidences of the Existence of God).
SPIRITUAL LAWS & MATERIAL LAWS
There are two sides to one coin--heads and tails. There are two aspects to revealed religion--spiritual and material. The spiritual has to do with the virtues of humanity. This Divine Law cannot be abrogated; it is irremovable, eternal, and is renewed at the manifestation of a new Revelation. This is what we term "spiritual Law" which can never be modified, altered or abrogated.
The second part of the Religion of God has to do with the material world. This comprises fasting, prayer, forms of worship, marriage and divorce, the abolition of slavery, legal processes, transactions, indemnities for murder, violence, theft and injuries. This is called the social aspect, or the material side of the Law of God. It refers to material things and, because all material existence is relative and subject to chance and change, this part of the Law is modified and altered in each prophetic cycle in accordance with the necessities of the times. So, for example, with regards the social Laws, Moses permitted polygamy due to the fact that there were more women than men in the tribes of Israel--this was a rational solution for a very real social problem at the time; but Christ abrogated this Law in His time for there was no more need of this. In Arabia, the Arabs had turned to a particular direction during prayer in accordance to the provisions of the Pentateuch, but Muhammad abrogated such a direction by telling His followers to turn to another direction. For us today this sounds silly, but such an action was a great test of faith for those who for generations had accustomed themselves to turn in one direction. The gravity and consequence for the believer of this law can be likened to a law that suddenly stated that it it is no longer allowable to eat with the right hand but that now one had to eat with the left hand. It certainly would be a great test of faith for most people of today who have lived most of their lives--and for generations!--to believe that eating with the right hand was "normal." The evolution of the Spiritual Laws can be seen in that before Muhammad the law of forgiveness was not known but the law of "tooth for tooth, eye for eye" was practised by all. Christ abrogated this. For example, if X stole a chicken from Y, Y had to repay by returning a chicken to X; if X smote Y in the face, Y had the right to smite X in the face. In brief, there was no spiritual Law of forgiveness. But Christ abrogated such a Law by stating that one should forgive a transgressor and turn the other cheek. This was inciting within the believer the notion of forgiveness, which is a spiritual virtue.
Thus, there are two sides to all revealed Religion: Social/material and spiritual. The social or material Laws may be abrogated, but not the Spiritual Laws for these have to do with virtues and man's progress depends on them.
THE CONDITION OF THE ARABS AT THE TIME OF THE APPEARANCE OF MUHAMMAD
Before one casts judgment on the precepts and laws appearing in the Qur'an, one must first understand the social conditions and the mentality of the Arabs to whom Islam was given.
Muhammad appeared in the desert of Hijáz in the Arabian Peninsula, which was a desolate, sterile wilderness, sandy and uninhabited. Some parts, like Mecca and Medina, are extremely hot; the people are nomads with the manners and customs of the dwellers in the desert, and are entirely destitute and bereft of education and science. Muhammad Himself was illiterate, and the Qur'án was originally written upon the bladebones of sheep, or on palm leaves. These details indicate the condition of the people to whom Muhammad was sent. The first question which Muhammad put to these barbarious people was, "Why do you not accept the Pentateuch and the Gospel, and why do you not believe in Christ and in Moses?" This saying presented difficulties to them, and they argued, "Our forefathers did not believe in the Pentateuch and the Gospel; tell us, why was this?" He answered, "They were misled; you ought to reject those who do not believe in the Pentateuch and the Gospel, even though they are your fathers and your ancestors."
These Arab tribes were in the lowest depths of savagery and barbarism, and in comparison with them the savages of Africa and wild Indians of America were as advanced as a Plato. The savages of America do not bury their children alive as these Arabs did their daughters, glorying in it as being an honorable thing to do. Thus many of the men would threaten their wives, saying, "If a daughter is born to you, I will kill you." Even down to the present time the Arabs dread having daughters. Further, a man was permitted to take a thousand women, and most husbands had more than ten wives in their household. When these tribes made war, the one which was victorious would take the women and children of the vanquished tribe captive and treat them as slaves.
When a man who had ten wives died, the sons of these women rushed at each other's mothers; and if one of the sons threw his mantle over the head of his father's wife and cried out, "This woman is my lawful property," at once the unfortunate woman became his prisoner and slave. He could do whatever he wished with her. He could kill her, imprison her in a well, or beat, curse and torture her until death released her. According to the Arab habits and customs, he was her master. It is evident that malignity, jealousy, hatred and enmity must have existed between the wives and children of a household, and it is, therefore, needless to enlarge upon the subject. Again, consider what was the condition and life of these oppressed women!
Moreover, the means by which these Arab tribes lived consisted in pillage and robbery, so that they were perpetually engaged in fighting and war, killing one another, plundering and devastating each other's property, and capturing women and children, whom they would sell to strangers; to own slaves was an honour to these barbarions! How often it happened that the daughters and sons of a prince, who spent their day in comfort and luxury, found themselves, when night fell, reduced to shame, poverty and captivity. Yesterday they were princes, today they are captives; yesterday they were great ladies, today they are slaves.
Muhammad received the Divine Revelation among these tribes, and after enduring thirteen years of persecution from them, He fled. But this people did not cease to oppress; they united to exterminate Him and all His followers. It was under such circumstances that Muhammad was forced to take up arms. This is the truth. Look at it with justice. If Christ Himself had been placed in such circumstances among such tyrannical and barbarous tribes, and if for thirteen years He with His disciples had endured all these trials with patience, culminating in flight from His native land--if in spite of this these lawless tribes continued to pursue Him, to slaughter the men, to pillage their property, and to capture their women and children--what would have been Christ's conduct with regard to them? If this oppression had fallen only upon Himself, He would have forgiven them, and such an act of forgiveness would have been most praiseworthy; but if He had seen that these cruel and bloodthirsty murderers wished to kill, to pillage and to injure all these oppressed ones, and to take captive the women and children, it is certain that He would have protected them and would have resisted the tyrants. What objection, then, can be taken to Muhammad's action? Is it this, that He did not, with His followers, and their women and children, submit to these savage tribes? To free these tribes from their bloodthirstiness was the greatest kindness, and to coerce and restrain them was a true mercy. They were like a man holding in his hand a cup of poison, which, when about to drink, a friend breaks and thus saves him. If Christ had been placed in similar circumstances, it is certain that with a conquering power He would have delivered the men, women and children from the claws of these bloodthirsty wolves.
In such a country, and amidst such barbarous tribes, an illiterate Man produced a book in which, in a perfect and eloquent style, He explained the divine attributes and perfections, the prophethood of the Messengers of God, the divine laws, and some scientific facts.
Thus, you know that before the observations of modern times--that is to say, during the first centuries and down to the fifteenth century of the Christian era--all the mathematicians of the world agreed that the earth was the center of the universe, and that the sun moved. The famous astronomer who was the protagonist of the new theory discovered the movement of the earth and the immobility of the sun. Until his time all the astronomers and philosophers of the world followed the Ptolemaic system, and whoever said anything against it was considered ignorant. Though Pythagoras, and Plato during the latter part of his life, adopted the theory that the annual movement of the sun around the zodiac does not proceed from the sun, but rather from the movement of the earth around the sun, this theory had been entirely forgotten, and the Ptolemaic system was accepted by all mathematicians. But there are some verses revealed in the Qur'án contrary to the theory of the Ptolemaic system. One of them is "The sun moves in a fixed place," which shows the fixity of the sun, and its movement around an axis. Again, in another verse, "And each star moves in its own heaven." Thus is explained the movement of the sun, of the moon, of the earth, and of other bodies. When the Qur'án appeared, all the mathematicians ridiculed these statements and attributed the theory to ignorance. Even the doctors of Islám, when they saw that these verses were contrary to the accepted Ptolemaic system, were obliged to explain them away.
It was not until after the fifteenth century of the Christian era, nearly nine hundred years after Muhammad, that Galileo made new observations and important discoveries by the aid of the telescope, which he had invented. The rotation of the earth, the fixity of the sun, and also its movement around an axis, were discovered. It became evident that the verses of the Qur'án agreed with existing facts, and that the Ptolemaic system was imaginary.
In short, many Oriental peoples have been reared for thirteen centuries under the shadow of the religion of Muhammad. During the Middle Ages, while Europe was in the lowest depths of barbarism, the Arab peoples were superior to the other nations of the earth in learning, in the arts, mathematics, civilization, government and other sciences. The Enlightener and Educator of these Arab tribes, and the Founder of the civilization and perfections of humanity among these different races, was an illiterate Man, Muhammad. Was this illustrious Man a thorough Educator or not? A just judgment is necessary.
The military expeditions of Muhammad, on the contrary, were always defensive actions: a proof of this is that during thirteen years, in Mecca, He and His followers endured the most violent persecutions. At this period they were the target for the arrows of hatred: some of His companions were killed and their property confiscated; others fled to foreign lands. Muhammad Himself, after the most extreme persecutions by the Qurayshites, who finally resolved to kill Him, fled to Medina in the middle of the night. Yet even then His enemies did not cease their persecutions, but pursued Him to Medina, and His disciples even to Abyssinia. (Source: `Abdu'l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions).
Now, having gained a little more insight into the condition of life and society of Arabia at the time of Muhammad's coming, let us go on to examine Boris' comments wherein he presents quotes from the Qu'ran and derides and slanders the Prophet.
------------------
dumaurier
dumaurier
07-25-99, 08:23 PM
Dumaurier:
If you don't lay off this denial you are in, I will seriously start wasting the extra hours grabbing your 'factual proof' off the net for you (since you appear to be reluctant to go and see for yourself.) Here's a taste of that 'evidence' for which you've been so beautifully setting yourself up all this time:
Boris: this kind of threat and menace suits you perfectly. But aside personal feuds, let us go on to examine your objections below.
Boris has provided some Qu'ranic quotes for our enlightenment as follows:
"O prophet, tell your wives, your daughters, and the wives of the believers that they shall lengthen their garments. Thus, they will be recognized (as righteous women) and avoid being insulted. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful." 33:59
dumaurier's comments:
Muhammad seems to be saying here that, since the women were "insulted" by men, they should resort to means whereby such insult would be averted. Thus, Muhammad is showing kindness.
Boris quotes from the Qu'ran:
"Tell the believing men that they shall subdue their eyes (and not stare at the women), and to maintain their chastity. This is purer for them. GOD is fully Cognizant of everything they do." 24:30
Dumaurier's comments:
Again, Muhammad is trying to create a mutual respect between women and men. He not only suggests to women to cover their bodies, but also tells men to not stare at women the way they did.
Boris quotes from the Qu'ran:
"And tell the believing women to subdue their eyes, and maintain their chastity. They shall not reveal any parts of their bodies, except that which is necessary. They shall cover their chests, and shall not relax this code in the presence of other than their husbands,.....They shall not strike their feet when they walk in order to shake and reveal certain details of their bodies. All of you shall repent to GOD, O you believers, that you may succeed." 24:31
Dumaurier comments:
I believe it is necessary for the reader to always keep in mind the context of the people, the traditions, social mores, behaviors of these Arabic peoples of 1200 years ago. Just look at the prohibition of women to cease stomping their feet, for example. It seems that women stomped their feet on the sand in Muhammad's time with the purpose, perhaps, of shaking their breasts and buttocks and thereby arousing the opposite sex. Perhaps, too, women went barechested and even walked in the nude. Muhammad was trying to give these people moral education and thereby uplift social standards of behavior. By doing this, relationships between men and women would also improve in the sense that it would not just be based on sexal attraction but on spiritual beauty.
Boris' comments on the above verses:
Apparently the mens' duty before Allah is to stop staring at women. (Strange... How are they supposed to fall in love if they never dare to pass a lewd thought through their heads?) Despite the rather inhumane (jokingly) restriction, men otherwise appear to be pretty free. I see no mention of the men's dress codes for example -- apparently it's OK for men to go around the streets naked.
Dumaurier replies:
First, on the question of "love," we should start another thread. I have ample thoughts to share with you on this subject. As to the other points, but you see in verse 24:30 that Muhammad is clearly addressing the men , as well. However, there are many places in the Qu'ran where Muhammad addresses men as to their conduct and behavior. You have only selected what suits your arguement.
Boris writes,
Women, on the other hand, owe Allah a bit more respect: 1) lengthen their garments; 2) subdue their eyes; 3) maintain their chastity; 4) "shall not reveal any parts of their bodies, except that which is necessary"; 5) "shall not relax this code in the presence of other than their husbands..."; 6) "They shall not strike their feet when they walk in order to shake and reveal certain details of their bodies"
Boy, isn't this the fair treatment of the sexes that neo-Muslims claim the original Qur'an espouses?
Dumaurier replies:
Again, perspective is needed here, not prejudice. In Arabic culture 1200 years ago women were completely subdued to a man's authority and they were treated as inferior subordinates almost akin to slaves and almost always worse (see my brief prersentation on Arabian culture at the time of the appearance of Muhammad). A man's value rested in the number of camels, goats and sheep he possessed and always counted his women as possessions on the same level as an animal. Thus, he would say, "I am powerful. I have 1000 camels, 500 sheep, and 50 women." Man did whatever he wanted with his camels, sheep and women. Woman had no say in anything and was considered as lowly as an animal, as was witnessed whenever the man decided that the new baby girl just born was ordered to be buried alive because "HE" didn't need anymore women in his harem! But Muhammad wanted to give women authority and make them realize that they had worth and power of their own. Thus, a woman was made to realize her power by altering her behavior through which she demonstrated her independence of men's imposing rule and desires. In order to do this, she had to alter her dress code and behavior. Such dress code and behavior, before Muhammad, had been imposed and determined by men, not by the women themselves!
As to this unequal treatment between men and women which you reproach the Arabian Prophet, here are several extracts contrary to your opinions:
"The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by God, if ye believe in God and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment. (An-Nur, 24:2)
"Let no man guilty of adultery or fornication marry and but a woman similarly guilty, or an Unbeliever: nor let any but such a man or an Unbeliever marry such a woman: to the Believers such a thing is forbidden." ( An-Nur, 24:3)
"It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by God and His Apostle to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys God and His Apostle, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path." (Al-Ahzab, 33:36)
There are countless references in the Qu'ran where fair treatment of women is explicit, unequivocal, and undisputed (Details at "An-Anisa; Qu'ran 4; Women," for example).
Boris writes:
But what is truly noteworthy is not the Qur'an itself, which is rather mellow. It's the subsequent additions (the so-called Hadiths) -- the equivalent of Christian 'Revelations' -- that truly glorifies Islam as the next great step in evolution of humanity. Wouldn't you agree, Dumaurier?
Dumaurier replies:
The Hadiths are the body of tradition and legend about Muhammad and His followers. They are not authoritative as the Qu'ran itself. They are not the Qu'ran! Keep this in perspective.
Boris writes:
Just a little quote from one of the Hadiths: "Women are naturally, morally and religiously defective". (Bukhary).
Real juicy, eh?
Dumaurier replies:
But you will NEVER find such things in the Qu'ran. The Hadiths remind one of the Roman Catholic church making merry of Christ's Teachings and distorting them in order to conform to whatever the church wants people to believe. These are the Hadiths! But you seem to relish in quoting them as if they were authoritative. This can only show your absolute misunderstanding of the subject and proves to what extent you will use anything just to defend your narrow-minded arguements!
Boris writes:
You have to be either incredibly naive, or in extreme denial, not to be aware of the atrocities perpetrated in the dominantly-Islamic middle eastern states, such as Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, and others. Women are denied education and 'manly' occupations, they are humiliated by extreme dress codes, they are deprived of sexual pleasure through a particularly barbaric and dehumanizing procedure, they are routinely killed by their own family members over even suspicion of infidelity (even if they were raped!), they have no say in the choice of a husband, and in some places they are viewed in the eyes of the law as being equivalent to domestic animals! Clearly, none of these horrors was inherent in Qur'an -- but undeniably every single one of them must be recognized as an 'achievement' of Islam. Islam is a great illustration for my arguments.
Dumaurier replies:
It is as you say, "clearly, none of these horrors were inherent in the Qur'an." One might add that none of the "Christian" horrors were due to Christ's Teachings; such as the Inquisitions, the Crusades, etc. None of these atrocities you outline were ever encouraged by either Muhammad or Christ.
While Muhammad lay on his deathbed, he appointed Ali as His successor. But Abu Bakr and others argued that Ali was too young to be leader and so Uthman was chosen to lead the faithful. This very act of disobedience to Muhammad's wishes caused 120 centuries of misery, as you will testify if you make a profound study of events! Consequently, any and all reproaches one can make are really toward the waywardness of man's folly, not of the wisdom and power behind the Revelation of God.
Boris writes:
No matter how benign, any religion involves a mindless submission to authority. This inevitably leads to tyranny, as both Islam and Christianity have had abundantly demonstrated. You may find it ridiculous, but even Baha'i, if it takes off and becomes a dominant religion, will in time result in atrocities and extremism of one sort or another. But even beside that point, to believe in a man's claim of personally conversing with God, no matter how true the rest of his his words ring, is just pure lunacy. This level of gullibility might be forgivable for a 4-year-old, but an adult is expected to be able to whittle the wheat from such obvious chaff.
Dumaurier replies:
The schism so devastating of all past religions has been due to the disobedience of the followers. We've spoken of this in other posts. However, what i am going to address here is what you say concerning the Baha'i Faith. First, consider that no Founder of past religions has ever left humanity a written will and testamount. Abraham did not do this, neither Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster, Moses, or Muhammad. Lacking a written testamount with explicit instructions, man did as best he could and was left to free interpretation of the Teachings. But we must also realize the historical context of the progress of humanity. It is clear that man, up to the time of Muhammad's Revelation, was not sufficiently mature to receive a written will and testament by the Prophet. This had to wait until the coming of Baha'u'llah, Founder of the Baha'i Faith. Past Prophets did not provide a defined administrative order, neither. So, no written will & testamont and no administrative order. The Founder of the Baha'i faith has left a will and testamount with crystal clear provisions with regards the administration of His Faith. It is the only religion in the world with such clear provisions of which has been the cause of prevention of schisms. It is now in its 155th year of existence and has demonstrated world unity as a wholesome religion. It is the fastest growing religion in the world, according to the Christian Science Monitor. Muhammad had not even died yet when Abu Bakr created the foundation of the thousands of sects to eventually appear in Arabia. Christ had been dead not three days when divisions appeared in His religion. But the Baha'i Faith has remained intact for over 155 years and will continue to do so.
Now, as regards your lunacy claim, this is your opinion. Christ said His Message was of God. Muhammad said likewise. All Founders of the nine great world religions have said the same. Baha'u'llah has also stated the same thing. The option is a personal one: you either believe what these Founders say and accept them, or you disbelieve and reject them. The proof of their claims are in the Word which they reveal. If such a Word has the power to influence millions, can one say that Word lacked spiritual power? The Christian civilization was founded on the Word of Christ. The Islamic civilization was founded on the Word of Muhammad. What civilization that endured for centuries and centuries, may i ask, was ever founded on the words of a lunatic?
Boris writes:
"If you deem it best for the orphans, you may marry their mothers - you may marry two, three, or four. If you fear lest you become unfair, then you shall be content with only one, or with what you already have. Additionally, you are thus more likely to avoid financial hardship." 4:3
Dumaurier answers:
Before Muhammad appeared the richer Arab men had up to 1000 wives. Even the not-so-wealthy had hundreds of wives. Some had 50! But this was due to the nature of the Arab peoples who were barbarious, trecherous, and considered sacred the act of going into war, pillaging and destroying other clans and tribes. Savagery was a way of life to them. Thus, when a war was fought the men were slain and there were many women and children remaining. The conquering savages took possession of these women and children as slaves. An orphan, thus was, in most cases, a child of whose father had been murdered in a bloody war. He and his mother were spared for they were valued as "commodities." Muhammad is here making rules which not only protects the mothers and orphans, but limits the number of wives a man should have (whereas before Muhammad he could have as many as 1000 wives, now Muhammad is saying to relinguish this practise and have a maximum of four). But he also is saying that if a man thinks he can't be fair with his wives, he best have only one.
Boris writes:
"You can never be equitable in dealing with more than one wife, no matter how hard you try. Therefore, do not be so biased as to leave one of them hanging (neither enjoying marriage, nor left to marry someone else). If you correct this situation and maintain righteousness, God is Forgiver, Most Merciful." 4:129
Dumaurier answers:
This verse makes it clear that Muhammad desired Arab men to marry only one wife. But, again, one must consider Muhammad's exhortations within the context of the culture and peoples He lived in and with.
Boris writes:
Now, if this is not God's unequivocal affirmation of polygamy (no matter how limited), then doggone it Dumaurier, you've proven me a liar. Note how neatly this flies in the face of the Christian dogma. God seems to be having second thoughts, in other words. By the way, are you yet beginning to see this concept of 'incremental revelation' beginning to evaporate before your eyes?
Dumaurier answers:
No, i'm not, Boris. In fact, it is affirming it!
Boris writes:
But wait, I haven't hit you with the real whammy yet! It seems that Mohammad, the holy God's Prophet, has stated explicitly, repeatedly, and unequivocally throughout the Qur'an that God Allah himself intends Qur'an to be the last, final, complete and absolute revelation. To extend, reinterpret, or edit the Qur'an is clearly a devastating herecy in Allah's almighty eye. So, in case you haven't guessed it yet, Dumaurier, your very own holy prophet of God Baha'u'llah -- is a heretic, and there's absolutely no question about it, because Allah himself said so in no uncertain words! This in turn means that you are practicing a Satan's religion, Dumaurier -- a perverted and corrupted mockery of the Final Revelatoin, no less! But hey, don't get upset at me for such condemnation; I have nothing to do with it. Seems God himself has revealed these truths, as well as apparently many others, to us poor saps who are just too insensitive to worship the old man.
Dumaurier answers:
The Qu'ran has provisions indicating the appearance of the next Manifestation which is to come after Him. Baha'u'llah's coming is clearly prophesied in the Qu'ran and in the Old and New Testamont. If you wish the profuse quotes to be posted here, i shall oblige. This post, you'll agree, has already taken on proportions beyond acceptability . (But if you were to give me your email address we could spare the posters here.)
Boris writes:
But hey -- no need to panic! We all know that God doesn't really mean what He says, and the next great holy Prophet will certainly be condemned by the Baha'i faith as heartily as Islam condemns Baha'i. Can you say "vicious circle"?
Dumaurier answers:
God always means what He says and every promise is always fulfilled. It is a fact that sects always accuse each other. It is not the case with the Baha'i Faith. This is a world religion and bound to embrace the entire human race.
Boris writes:
Lastly, Dumaurier, explain to us ignorant fools why you think Baha'u'llah was a holy prophet, and David Koresh wasn't. (Or do you 'believe' otherwise?)
Dumaurier replies:
Baha'u'llah has established a Faith which circles the globe. In just 155 years there are over 5 million believers worldwide and in every single country of the planet. It is the fastest growing world religion. It has its own Holy Scripture, does not claim to be an offshoot of any other religion but claims to be an entirely independent religion. The power of the Baha'u'llah's Word has transformed the believer to work for the betterment of humanity; to consider science and religion as two wings of the bird of humanity; to work for the establishment of one universal language; to establish educational institutions in every corner of the globe for the furtherance of knowledge; to bring about the brotherhood of man on a world scale; to establish an international tribunal to settle secular disputes; to establish the equality of the rights of men and women worldwide; to eliminate the extremes of wealth and poverty; to encourage family unity, love, peace for all; to eliminate warfare and all exhorbitant expenditures connected to war; to work in finding solutions for contemporaneous problems related to overpopulation, pollution, hunger, injustice, and so on; to promote the unity of God; to promote the unity of all peoples as children of the one same God; to eliminate religious, racial, and all sorts of prejudices which hinder the growth of humanity; in brief, to establish the unity of the human race as one big family.
How can you even dream of putting such men as David Koresh in the same category?
This has been a long one.
------------------
dumaurier
Dumaurier:
Sorry for the aggressive tone there. I'm only human, and your constant nagging for 'proof' was really beginning to get on my nerves. The issues I point out in my post by and large have nothing to do with proof, but rather with the validity of actual arguments used. With that, let's discuss your latest post.
In Arabic culture 1200 years ago women were completely subdued to a man's authority and they were treated as inferior subordinates almost akin to slaves and almost always worse (see my brief prersentation on Arabian culture at the time of the appearance of Muhammad).
Indeed! And they <u>still</u> are! Despite the <u>centuries</u> of Islam. Despite the teachings or intentions of Christ. Despite the wishes of Mohammad. Terror is being committed in those names, just as it has always been. (By the way, pre-Mohammed times were not as terrible and gory as you make them out to be. Certainly the quality of life of both men and women was far below modern minimums, and women were indeed treated like animals. However, I find it hard to envision the daily bloodshed or rampand sexual indicency, at least not in the Arabian peninsula. The behavior you describe seems to fit better to the roaming nomadic tribes of Mongolia who terrorized the Eurasian lands for centuries. As an aside, note that among them, Islam never managed to take off. But if any nation ever needed a Prophet, it was Mongolia.
Woman had no say in anything and was considered as lowly as an animal, as was witnessed whenever the man decided that the new baby girl just born was ordered to be buried alive because "HE" didn't need anymore women in his harem! But Muhammad wanted to give women authority and make them realize that they had worth and power of their own. Thus, a woman was made to realize her power by altering her behavior through which she demonstrated her independence of men's imposing rule and desires. In order to do this, she had to alter her dress code and behavior. Such dress code and behavior, before Muhammad, had been imposed and determined by men, not by the women themselves!
And the directives of Mohammed's came from a woman, I suppose?!! You are arguing that women gained dignity by willing submission to Mohammed's will. So, before they were coerced by men, and now they willingly coerce themselves according to a man's wish! Nice progress, Dumaurier!
Dumaurier replies:
The Hadiths are the body of tradition and legend about Muhammad and His followers. They are not authoritative as the Qu'ran itself. They are not the Qu'ran! Keep this in perspective.
...
But you will NEVER find such things in the Qu'ran. The Hadiths remind one of the Roman Catholic church making merry of Christ's Teachings and distorting them in order to conform to whatever the church wants people to believe. These are the Hadiths! But you seem to relish in quoting them as if they were authoritative. This can only show your absolute misunderstanding of the subject and proves to what extent you will use anything just to defend your narrow-minded arguements!
...
It is as you say, "clearly, none of these horrors were inherent in the Qur'an." One might add that none of the "Christian" horrors were due to Christ's Teachings; such as the Inquisitions, the Crusades, etc. None of these atrocities you outline were ever encouraged by either Muhammad or Christ.
Oh yes, let's keep it in perspective indeed! My point exactly. No religion will ever succeed in rectifying ills. These ills will simply corrupt the religion itself, by re-interpreting and subjugating it at their convenience. And what we end up with in the end is an even worse mess -- atrocities no longer encouraged by just mere tradition, but now also by fanatical 'faith' and 'divine' sanction.
The schism so devastating of all past religions has been due to the disobedience of the followers. We've spoken of this in other posts.
Ah, now perhaps we can finally return to my original claims that religion is not a beneficial phenomenon. It is indeed a signature of all major religions that the overwhelming majority of their followers are so only in name. However, once a religion gets itself established, it is really easy
for the powers that be to use it for manipulating people like marionnettes. And it can be used by people themselves to rationalize just about anything. The very notion of 'faith' is hazardous to both individuals and society at large. While some may benefit from it, I perceive that on the whole it has a negative impact on humanity.
The Founder of the Baha'i faith has left a will and testamount with crystal clear provisions with regards the administration of His Faith. It is the only religion in the world with such clear provisions of which has been the cause of prevention of schisms.
And I can envision clear as day that the next 'Prophet' who doesn't follow Baha'i provisions will be hunted down and persecuted most relentlessly.
Christ said His Message was of God. Muhammad said likewise. All Founders of the nine great world religions have said the same. Baha'u'llah has also stated the same thing. The option is a personal one: you either believe what these Founders say and accept them, or you disbelieve and reject them. The proof of their claims are in the Word which they reveal. If such a Word has the power to influence millions, can one say that Word lacked spiritual power?
What is 'spiritual power'? Did Hitler possess God's blessing in order to subjugate millions to his point of view in a span of just a few years? Or, perhaps Marx and Engels were endowed with 'spiritual power' to foster the world-wide communism movement?
The fact that these religions are so widely accepted is no proof of the claim that they came from God!!! There is not even the tiniest modicum of connection here! As to their socially-beneficial dogmas, I would suggest that such 'knowledge' has always been present, even before it was internalized by the one-God religions and attributed to divine wisdom. In fact, I wager these religions have found quite an ingenious little device to bolster their claims -- they purposefully connected the success of their 'divine' social dogmas with their particular claims about everything else. This cocktail of self-evident truth and outright fabrication has been successfully fed to civilizations of Earth for the last few millennia. In fact, the very same tactic has been used by both Fashists and Communists, as well! However, the success of this ploy speaks only of the uneducated, already used to mindless subjugation, uncritical and factually bancrupt subjects upon whom religion was heaved. Since then, the judeo-christian religions have been deeply embedded into the social fabrics of many cultures as forms of tradition and sources of identity. However, the entrenchedness of these dogmas says nothing of their worth or their source. And I'd say both of the latter are quite uninspiring.
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
[This message has been edited by Boris (edited July 26, 1999).]
dumaurier
07-27-99, 03:43 AM
Boris,
It's been nice talking to you.
------------------
dumaurier
Excuse me please while I be very simple. I am a Christian and believe that the bible is the word of God. The whole bible Old and New testament. If you have read the new testament and believe what is written than there is no way possible that you could not understand that Jesus Christ is the son of God, Jesus lead a sinless life, Jesus is the only way to Heaven and to God, The blood of Jesus was shed so that the believer may be clean and acceptable by God. Jesus is the only way, the truth and the light. Please, please, please if you are confused pick up a bible and read. I promise you if you seek him you will find. Read it for yourself if you are afraid people are interpreting it wrong. Take a leap of faith and pray to God to give you wisdom and truth. He will! Yes, it can seem confusing, but as for me I am seeking wisdom and trusting in the Lord to provide answers. God works in his own time. The fact that some of the people here are seeking answers is a miracle in itself. You are seeking, and you will find! Spritual warfare here on Earth is very real. Satan is very real and has his grasp on many people. Do not turn a deaf ear to Jesus. Do not listen to the lies that Satan whispers to you. Satan is very very attractive and he knows every trick in the book to get you to follow him. If you turn to Jesus and resist Satan, he will flee. You will feel the very real presence of Jesus if you choose to believe and earnestly seek him in prayer. God Bless!
bedlanam
07-27-99, 06:13 AM
boris,
perhaps science has a bit of the same -
" they purposefully connected the success of their 'divine' social dogmas (ecenomic structure)
with their particular claims about everything else. This cocktail of
self-evident truth and outright fabrication has been successfully fed to
civilizations of Earth for the last few millennia. In fact, the very
same tactic has been used by both Fashists and Communists (/capitalists), as well!
However, the success of this ploy speaks only of the uneducated, already
used to mindless subjugation, uncritical and factually bancrupt subjects
upon whom religion (scxience)was heaved"
Good point.
Some would attribute the success of modern civilizations to science and materialism. I don't think that is correct; evolution of nations and economies played a huge role; technology is ultimately only a tool.
What I don't understand is this popular conception that science is a mindset similar to religion. Science is not dogmatic; it is a corpus of theories modelling the natural world. It is based on experiment as opposed to belief, and it regularly changes its theories based on expanding empirical knowledge. Though, of course, before it can go positing cause-and-effect scenarios, science does have to take one assumption on faith: that no measurable process is influenced by anything 'supernatural'. It's only in this (admittedly significant) aspect that science is contrary to theism, and only in this narrow context is science a mindset.
Given that, you'd have to admit that so far the fundamental assumption of science with respect to the supernatural has held flawlessly. Provided absense of any demonstrable supernatural phenomenon, on the other hand, I'd think that going with the scientific assumption is the prudent thing to do.
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
bedlanam
07-28-99, 04:28 AM
boris,
by dogma , i mean 'set of restrictions' - as in - e=mc(sqared), much of science has been in use because of this, but lets say there are other contributing factors that slip into shadows - things of a subtler nature that play a great part (such as the 'unfindable' dark matter) - because this matter was 'left out', new science that 'expands' may be missing that one reaction which contributed to the results (the science it was based on). though this is not a 'fear' or obedient notion, it does point out the no-no's. how unfortunate that some of these would be errors.
First and foremost, science is a conglomerate of empirical knowledge. This consists primarily of known experimental setups and the results they produce. These are things that are true forever, and here to stay.
The theoretical part of science -- that part which suggests explanations for the results and enables one to predict the results given the experimental setup -- is ephemeral and constantly changes to accomodate new empirical data.
The 'laws' of science ought to be viewed not as dogma, and less as restrictions, and more as models designed to mathematically imitate observed phenomena. Thus they are only approximations, and only as complete as our ability to test them. For example, e=mc^2 derives squarely and unequivocally from two basic assumptions: 1) all inertial observers are equivalent, 2) the speed of light is constant across all inertial reference frames. It may be that these assumptions are not precisely true, or it may be that we are missing another assumption or two. However, e=mc^2 has been experimentally verified many times, and to the degree of certainty which the measuring instruments can provide, it holds precisely. But even so, we can't be sure that this fact justifies the two original assumptions; after all it is possible that e=mc^2 can be derived from a totally different set of axyoms as well...
What it boils down to is that systematic observation is the only really robust way to obtain knowledge. The theories that arise from observation are not nearly so robust; while observation is fact, a theory is little more than a set of guesses. Now, it is true that some people tend to elevate scientific theories to the level of dogma and preach them like religion; however these people are totally missing the point. The real point of science is its ultimate statement concerning the only reasonable way to generate new useful knowledge -- through observation.
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.