Are you walking in faith? - Page 4

Actually He is referred to as 'We' and by a series of names or attributes. There are 99 of these and they cover His manifestation in various modes.

Re the Devil: in both Islam and the prior Judaic tradition, the Devil is not evil.

In fact, as Hardeehar says, the Devil is an invention of Christianity and the Judaic figure (and Islamic) is not the (a) Devil at all but is an accomplice of God, an angel perhaps, whose function it is to obstruct mankind in certain regards. See Book of Job for further details.

Yes, yes, yes, 99 attributes and still Allah is referred to as "He" until or unless someone points it out. Yah..good cover story.

next.

No, actually the Devil as in Setan as in Set-An is an Khemtic (Egyptian) neter (god) that was co-opted into Judaism, This figure was expanded upon by Christians and was inherited by Islam as anyone familiar with the saying "the great Satan" would recognize. As if being "evil" is not obstructionist. Please do not attempt to re-create religious history or ideology to make a point.

As replied to earlier Yes Jews believe in Satan (whither one calls it a devil or not is really inconsequential to me). The origins of said satan as said before.

Whatever....

No, seriously, they don't (I should know I have been through formal jewish religious training). Period. It isn't a separate entity -- like the angle of death in the Passover story etc etc... it is wholely an aspect of god.

Very interesting discussion going on here, I wish I had noticed it earlier....

Segovius you have made some interesting statements regarding Islam, I can't help wondering what is your background? I found it interesting how you made the ridiculous assertion about demi-gods and when Nightcrawler quoted those verses correctly you never replied to the subject. Where did you get the false translation you quoted??

Islam also very specifically opposes the ideas you put forth regarding the Devil/Satan. He is not an angel, he is a Jinn named Iblis, one of another creation that, like humans has the power of free will. Out of jealousy, he chose to disobey God's order, and as a result was damned. He asked for respite from damning and was granted that after which he swore that as revenge he would attempt to decieve humans from obedience and so get them damned as well. In addition to Iblis (Satan proper) there are many others among men and Jinn who act in the same way and these are also referred to as Satans.

As far as God "being" the Universe goes, there is of course the school of thought that you mentioned within the framework of Islam. But I think what is being missed in this discussion is a more fundamental point that is a basic belief of Islam and that the Christians and Jews seem to not be able to get a handle on. A Muslim believes that God does not share any of the qualities of the creation. There is nothing even comparable to him.

What this means is that God as a being "transcends" this physical existence. To say that it is easier for a hydrogen atom to come into existence from nothing than God coming into existence from nothing (or the more apt comparison of Hardeehar concerning the likelihood of either remaining since eternity) is not even an applicable comparison. The "existance" of God operates under completely different rules from anything we know. Thus while the Universe having been here since eternity is impossible, as scientific observation shows us, the existence of God since eternity is not because he is not beholden to the physical laws we observe around ourselves everyday.

Once this fundamental belief is accepted there are different ideas people have theorized regarding the nature of the relationship between the Universe and God. These remain theories and as such are not really argued over in knowledgeable Muslim circles as long as they do not step over the lines of the framework.

Please do not attempt to recreate historical theory as basic fact. Muslims believe that God sent messengers to every nation that has existed on earth (as behooves his justice) and so the simple explanation for the similarities is common origin. If you don't believe in God then you will say they inherited it from one another-Is there any way to prove that? If you don't believe in God then it is the only explanation of the similarities. On the other hand, it is a strong pro-God's existence argument that such similar ideas are found in all kinds of languages and all cultures around the globe.

As far as predestination vs. free will is concerned, they are two very different things.

Here is the simple explanation:

God has given man the ability to choose his actions and his response to the things that go on about him. This is free will. He does not have the power to bring anything into existence of his own accord.

Because God has perfect knowledge, he knows of everything that will happen and according to his power he brings it into existence. This is predestination.

WRT how do we know that God exists/ what faith is correct, etc.


It is the Muslim belief that before any physical human(even Adam) was created the souls of everyone were gathered in front of God and asked the question, "Am I not your Lord?". On this, all of us answered "Surely, you are." because we could see him there in front of us. The knowledge of this happening remains in us as instinctual knowledge. Because of this, on the day of reckoning, noone will be able to claim that "I did not believe because I didn't know" or "I couldn't find proof."

We believe that if a person clears his mind of prejudice and obstinacy and honestly examines the world around him, the proofs are multitudinous and powerful enough to reverberate with that inseated knowledge of the creator.

whole article here bold emphasis mine
http://www.newscientist.com/popuparticle.ns?id=in81

"5. What's God got to do with it?

Perhaps your sentiments lie with Karl Popper. Religion, argued the great philosopher of science, lies in the realms of metaphysics and is not open to scientific enquiry. That is the line most biologists take to justify sidestepping the issue. But there is no denying that religion and gods are a core part of human behaviour. That's why I and a growing number of biologists think we must offer some insight into the questions of why religion exists and at what point in human evolution it began.

Humans exhibit one feature that is very odd by animal standards, namely our extraordinary willingness to accept the will of the community and even to die for it. This level of altruism is the key to our success, allowing us to exploit cooperative solutions to the problems of individual survival and reproduction. For these to work, however, the individual has to be prepared to trade immediate personal interests for long-term gains. And high levels of group conformity expose us to the risk of free riders - those who take the benefits of sociality but will not pay the costs.

Of course, we can and do control free riders with policing and appeals to decency. But in the end, both strategies carry only so much weight: who cares if you don't like what I do if I gain enough by doing it. Religion offers a significant advance because the threat of intervention by forces beyond our control - whether now or after death - offers a level of penalty that far exceeds anything the civil estate can manage. But it only works if people believe in the existence of a shared supernatural world.

That's where our species' special talent for mind reading comes in. This phenomenon is best known in the form of "theory of mind": the ability to understand that someone else has a mind driven by belief-states. This might be represented in the sentence: "I believe that you suppose that there is a supernatural being who understands that you and I want to aspire to behave decently." It is this kind of thinking that enables us to go beyond holding personal supernatural beliefs to organising religion as a shared, social phenomenon.

So, our brains allow us to create gods and religions. But is this ability simply an accidental product of the evolution of big brains, or is it an adaptation? My own studies show that in primates, including humans, the volume of the neocortex - and especially the frontal lobe - is directly correlated with group size and social skills. In other words, the evolution of brain size has been driven by the need to provide the computational capacity to support the social skills needed to maintain stability among large groups. And in the case of humans, these social adaptations include religion.

By recognising that religion requires a large amount of mental power, we can also start to ask when it might have evolved. Plotting theory of mind abilities as a function of brain size in our fossil lineage suggests that the complexity required to support religion is likely to have arisen very late in our evolutionary history. It could not have happened before the appearance of Homo sapiens half a million years ago, and possibly not until anatomically modern humans appeared 200,000 years ago. That tallies with evidence for the evolution of language, another prerequisite for religion.

Of course, religion isn't all stick and no carrot. While religious sanctions help enforce conformity, religious experiences make us feel part of the group. Once again, evolution seems to have furnished us with mental mechanisms that make this possible. In recent years neuroscience has revealed the so-called God-spot - part of the brain's left parietal lobe, responsible for our sense of spatial self - an area that shuts down when individuals experience ecstatic states (New Scientist, 21 April 2001, p 24). As well as being linked with a sense of "oneness with the universe", it also creates the blinding flash of light associated with trances and religious experiences.

But perhaps the most powerful device for reinforcing commitment to the group must be endorphins. These brain chemicals are released when the body is under stress. It's surely no coincidence that most religions involve practices such as flagellation or long periods spent singing or dancing, which trigger a flood of endorphins whose opiate-like effects make us feel relaxed and at peace with those we share the experience with.

So, gods are created by big brains to prevent free riders benefiting from cooperative society without paying the costs. But religious experience can also be seen in a more positive light, as a way to help reinforce the group's effectiveness as a bulwark against the vagaries of the natural world.

Robin Dunbar studies evolutionary psychology and behavioral ecology at the University of Liverpool, UK."

I did not respond to Nightcrawler for two simple reasons:

1) I have no wish to enter into a dispute with him or prove him wrong.

2) I am bored. Mind-numbingly.

However, I can prove quite easily that the translation is correct: the issue is called The Satanic Verses. Rushdie's book of that name caused so much trouble precisely because it referenced this issue.

The orthodox Islamic theological position is that Satan inserted these verses into the Qur'an. That is why they are called 'Satanic'.

Now I ask you to ponder: if the quote of mine is false then which verses in the Qur'an does the 'Satanic' label point to and why?

Oth, if my translation is correct then surely that explains why these verses are held to be a Satanic insertion.

As to my 'background' - it is boredom and strife admixed with occasional nausea in Sartre's sense.


True, Iblis is a djinn, I can't recall saying otherwise. In the Christian tradition he is an angel.

Btw, I think you are a little too stark about Iblis - he gets a bad press. There are many Islamic sources that hold him to be the greatest monotheist as he refused to bow before Adam (that was his sin by the way)

Of course in doing this he is obeying God as one should bow to no-one but Him - Iblis refusal makes him a tragic and perhaps Saintly, figure.

You may disagree with this but it has a long precedent in Islamic theology. Peter Awn wrote an excellent book on the subject which I highly recommend: Satan's Tragedy and Redemption


This is true.


Astute observation. Also very true.


Yes, they are really not so important I think.

Also I wish to say I am glad you found this thread and/or it found you. You seem like a breath of fresh air and someone who knows and cares what they are talking about and treats the subject with respect. I applaud you and I if I had a cap I would doff it.

You have alleviated my boredom somewhat and are a welcome relief from the breath-taking inanity and gibbering nonsense that such threads as these inevitably and so predictably conjure up from the Stygian gloom.

Yes indeed one CAN believe in God and prove it entirely wrong point. The history of Islam, Christianity and Judaism shows that they inherited much of thier beliefs from previous sources. It is that Islam (among others) fear being seen as derivative that they need the idea that "we all got a special messenger just for us". in order to make themselves feel special.

Really now? Putting aside for a moment the whole origins of matter thing. There are numerous animal and plant species brought into existance by man. There are a number of molecules in existance brought into existance by man. Heck I believe there are a bunch of Atoms that are man made.

Which is why Islam specifically claims not to be a new religion at all but a return to the original Judaic and Christian dispensations....right.....ok......

Thus we have circular thought. My soul was at an event I cannot verify. My body has re-informed my soul of this event because a book tells me so. When my body dies my soul will judged based on an experience my body never experienced nor had a means of verifying AND to top it all off, if my soul was unable to convince my body of this event then the soul is found guilty of negligence? Lying? Denying God? Riiiiiight. Ok.

It would make more sense to say that regardless, since your soul knew of God prior to meeting body, that regardless of what happens while in the body, the soul gets a pass on Judgement day. You know, since the flesh is so fallible why hold the soul responsible for it's incapacity to recognize God?

Well see, the problem with THAT idea is that neither Christianity or Judaism are "original". Thus the Muslim is back in the same boat: a derivative religion.

But because the knowledge of our actions is known, then we cannot choose differently hence we have no free will.

Are you familiar with this Qur'anic verse:


And if so, what is your understanding of it in the light of your above statement?

As said earlier the only plausible proof of God is the basic "where did the first energy or matter come from". concept.

Everything else can and will be explainable without the need to acknowledge a "personal" God.

So the reason I bolded a bit is because I wanted to expand on it a bit in with my own thoughts.

Personally, I think God - spirituality etc can ultimately be explained by Chemicals, Psychology and Evolution - but I have the same argument that I previously had with chocolate cake.

"I might know that chocolate cake tastes yummy because of the quantum interactions on my tongue firing electrical pulses to my brain which releases chemicals that give me a sense of reward - the whole process is purely robitic, cold, and soulless, infact, I imagined the whole thing - but fuck that, I'll still eat chocolate cake.

As it is I believe with God. The article sums up what I personally believe the "Fundamental truth" lies in explaining God, but as with cake, there is a "beautiful truth" that still can be explored - not hampered by the fact that I know the "Fundamental truth".

So it would appear the fundamental part of the God experience, maybe this is the 'glimpses of awakening' - 'union with God' experience - or as I like to put it "I am God" - is an area of the brain that temporary shuts down our concepts of self awareness and surroundings and gives us an almost unconscious like insight into just being ourself.

I would say that this temporary state, which doesn't appear to last very long for me anyway, is why, once you have experienced it, becomes almost an obsession in some people to repeat. An addiction.

Now, it would appear that once discovered, the route to this discovery will become an unbreakable habit. Thats why Fundies are Fundies, drug addicts are drug addict, sex addicts are sex addicts, and for me - I can simply think and contemplate myself to this state, and thus the pathway to this will be one of the most important defining life moments of an individual. Which is why the mechanism is almost never discarded with, despite the problems that some of these routes could lead to, infact, as with any addiction there will always be side effects from too much of a narrow track, be it drugs, sex, or dissappearing up.....from to much thinking.

As with any addiction, the addicted aren't fully aware, or the reward is greater than the problem, and will go to great lengths to justify the reward, which on-topic, is the great hoops some people have to go through to justify their beliefs in God. Evangelism is one such,

All Evangelism is, is making yourself feel better about the subconscious problem of the addiction, by dressing it up in some moral duty to help others, - and has the side effect benefit, that if you can trick someone into having a similar subconscious state of mind of the same addiction, you dont feel so stupid about your own problem.

What i think we should try, is recognising this state of mind of union with oneself. If you havn't yet discovered it, there are several paths available.

Ejaculation is one, and was practised by all religions - infact, the usual fundie hangup with sex, is nothing more than a denial mechanism designed to make the eventual succumbing to Ejaculation feel on an even higher plateau, of course they'll assign this to God, and fill you with guilt for doing so - Its their evolutionary adaption to keep the species alive. But it works.

Drugs - well I cant say - honestly all sorts of problems could arise.

Meditation, ritual, thinking

or maybe even explore the Jesus saved me bollocks.

Speaking from experience, i think when I created all my best art and music, i must have been operating in such a state where I was in 'union' aswell. So maybe if creativity is your thing then do that.

To put it simply, to deny the state of mind - whether you found it by God, Sex, Drugs, Thinking, arts - is to practically deny the most basic constituent of yourself.

Then atleast we can all understand the feeling. And the world might be a better place.

I used to, at one point. I was the most faithful, bible pounding christian. Then just after 9/11 I more or less lost all of my Christian faith. I cannot cite a specific answer to the 5W's. I no longer believe in the divinity of Jesus. He may well have existed on this Earth at a time, but that is the extent of my belief in the man.

However, I have considered and may well convert to Judaism. I have dwelled on this thought for almost three years. When the time feels right, I will most likely pursue this. But for now, I am just living.

So whats the original religion then smart-arse?

Was this because of 911 do you think or some other reason with deeper roots?

Largely this:

Abrahamic What?

And other religions maligned as "Idolatous" in most "newer" religions.

Although science can't answer this question, simply saying we have no clue so God did it is not an answer either. Your just using God as a placeholder for something that we don't understand.

yes, but who did the Egyptians steal their religion from?

No actually I'm not. I'm saying that in the absence of an answer to that question (or even a plausible hypothesis) is the only basis by which one can postulate the existance of a "God". Science is not about disproving or proving the existance of God, rather it is about finding verifiable answers to phenomenon. Until an explanation for the original existance of strings or whatever else is determined to be the foundation of everything, the existance of God is an allowable hypothesis.

They didn't steal their religion. It is been historically shown that the Egyptian religion is the culmination of religions of the peoples in the upper nile out of Kush/ Ethopia who are the originators of Egyptian society.

Ultimately the origins of these religions come out of the primitive minds of our ancestors.

Or perhaps they just find expression in the primitive minds of our contemporaries...

Wow, this thread sure sees a lot of action in a single day!

I had of course heard of Rushdie's novel previously, but I hadn't ever bothered to look up what the big deal was... It seems rather analogous to the stir the Da Vinci Code created in some Christian circles.

Actually, I know of the incident described by Ibn Ishaq (see the original at the bottom of this page) but I hadn't realized that was what Rushdie referred to as Satanic Verses.

There are differences of opinion concerning the situation, which most definitely took place, that is, at the end of the recitation of the chapter, "The Star", when the Prophet and all the Muslims prostrated, the disbelievers who were listening prostrated as well and the Muslims in asylum in Abyssinia, when they heard of it, thought that the Meccans had become Muslim and some of them actually returned. Most historians say that it was because of the powerfulness of the last verses and the fear that struck everyone present that they fell down in prostration and several historians maintain Ibn Ishaq's version of the story.

In any event even if one takes Ibn Ishaq's version to be the truth, please realise that these are not verses of the Qur'an. Obviously, they were not revealed by God and are not a part of Muslim belief as your post stated; to which Nightcrawler responded correctly.

And God knows best...


This of course sounds nice on the surface-the kind of a Greek tragedy thing that booky types like. However, the Qur'aan is very explicit that the reason the Iblis refused was out of arrogance and when he was asked why he did not prostrate, he replied "Should I prostrate to something that has been created of mud? I am created of fire and he is created from clay!"

Also, obviously if God gives one the permission to bow before someone else, this would be permissible. If he gives the order it would be required.

Now off to lunch...

Well, I didn't claim it was part of Muslim belief - I said it was a verse in the Qur'an (which it is) although it was later abrogated.

What IS an orthodox Islamic belief is that Satan can imitate God and sometimes may even fool the most pious.

I think in part it may have. But mostly it has been deeper stuff. Just trying to rationalize things that I have been taught as the default truth without question my whole life and realizing how little empirical evidence exists for things...
One of the biggest things I've struggled with was trying to understand why you should live your one and only life on Earth soley for the purpose of an afterlife...shouldn't we live life to its fullest for the here and now, since it is the only thing we truly know is real?

And how am I supposed to believe that the text of the bible was God-breathed? I have questions of authenticity and accuracy as well, given how much of it was written so long after events supposedly occured. And then the church itself, selectivley leaving things out to serve their own agenda. Not to mention the supposed 'men of God' who betray people's trust by taking money or abusing children.

In my book, there are just way too many questions and not enough reasoned answers.

Just a point of question... if everything IS God, how can anything NOT be God? There is no unreality, since it's all God, all the time.

ALL religions have huge holes in them which are blindly chased after. It's called "faith".

It's a good point - you are right, there is nothing that is not God. However, we have an illusion that certain things are not God.

To a fundie those things are labeled 'evil'.
To me the 'unGodly' things might be called 'fundies'. Or Bush. Or Blair.

To you it is maybe something else.

The point is that we all make these divisions and we are all wrong (imo) - see, I'm doing it again! There's no getting away from it.

But, philosophically speaking, the illusion is not God as God would equal reality. All that is real is God and all that is illusory.

God sells.

And saves.

Though Buddha sometimes scores on the rebound.

No, it shows that they are similar to each other and to other religions of the world. To jump from that to the conclusion that they must have copied things from each other or some older religion without proof is not logical if some other possibility also exists (i.e. if God had revealed the same message to multiple groups)


But Islam does not claim that they are original either; in fact, just the opposite. As I mentioned before and others have also pointed out Islam believes that messengers were sent to every nation that has ever existed on earth from the time of Adam. So when we find that Zulus have a chapter of their scripture that is a word for word translation of a chapter of the Qur'aan or that some Buddhist scriptures have very similar ideas or that some Native Americans held similar beliefs, it is not astonishing at all-rather, it is to be expected. In fact, if it were not from my own experience in how easily religions become modified due to ignorance/zeal/other reasons, I would be amazed that they aren't MORE similar. The example given by our Prophet of his relation to the other prophets is of a beautifully built house. As people circle around this house they exclaim on how beautiful it is, but they notice that one brick is missing. If only that one brick were in place, the house would be perfect. The final messenger, we believe, is that brick, completing the house of divine guidance. (<<This is paraphrased and not an exact quote, sorry)


Actually, Muslims believe that Muhammad, as the last messenger, is the first messenger to be sent to no single nation but rather as a messenger to all the worlds, including not only humans but also jinn. And yes, that does make me feel special, but not at the exclusion of anyone else.

Really, now, this is elementary. They are not "brought into existence" by man. They are "assembled". Can man create anything out of nothing? Can he do something that defies the laws of nature? No, he is bound to act upon things brought into existence by God according to laws defined by God (i.e. Physical Laws).

Perhaps I can explain this further, because it is really not circular reasoning at all. It's like this: the soul does not need to be "re-informed" by the body because it has instinctual knowledge of the event. Maybe you could say it "unconciously" remembers. A good analogy is this: when I say the word "rose" a picture of a rose pops up in your mind. Do you remember the first time you saw a rose? Do you remember where you saw the rose the picture of which is in your mind? Or perhaps you know some facts like that the earth is round and rotates around the sun, or that F=MA and e=mc^2. Do you remember where you first learned these things? Who taught them to you? So, in spite of not remembering the specific event, the knowledge of it remains within you. This is sort of how we view that event that took place before any human had been born.

We believe that if a person clears his mind of prejudice and obstinacy and honestly examines the world around him, the proofs are multitudinous and powerful enough to reverberate with that inseated knowledge of the creator.

For example, say you had trained a horse from the time it was a colt so that it knew you well. Every day you would bring it some sugar cubes or something.

Now one day you decide to run a little experiment: You bring the horse into a field and release it in the middle of the field. You stand on one side of the field and call to the horse, holding out a sugar cube in your hand. On the other side of the field is a stranger the horse has never seen before calling to it.

Does the horse have free will to choose between the two of you?

Yes.

Do you already know which one the horse would choose?

I do.

So because of the relatively little knowledge you have of the way the horses mind works and it growth and the things it has experienced you are able to accurately tell which it would do given free will.
Now consider God who has perfect knowledge of man and all the experiences that have shaped the man's life and of his attitudes and ideas. Why would he not know what man would do given free will?

Does this mean that man doesn't have free will?
No.

------------------------------------------------------------
What you are really trying to say (I think) is "What is the point of free will if God already knows what will happen?" The answer to that, unfortunately, I do not have. How can a human, that cannot understand anything outside of the physical, hope to guess about the motivation of God?