or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Are you walking in faith?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Are you walking in faith? - Page 5

post #161 of 229
Actually that is a false example.

There is a possibility that the horse will actually go to the stranger (particularly if the horse is particularly curious or the stranger is making an interesting noise), alternatively THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY that you will choose differently that what god knows will occur. Hence, free will does not exist.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #162 of 229
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
Are you familiar with this Qur'anic verse:

Quote:
"Allah leads astray whom he pleases, and he guides whom He pleases, ..."

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

In other verses of the Qur'aan the criteria God uses to choose who will be led astray and who will be guided is given, namely what I mentioned in my response to Sondjata. Not being arrogant, honestly searching for truth, etc. In addition, the actions one does can also effect this as is mentioned many times in the Qur'aan: "Verily Allah does not guide the oppressors," etc.
post #163 of 229
.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #164 of 229
So Man's free-will is not the issue then?
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #165 of 229
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Actually that is a false example.

There is a possibility that the horse will actually go to the stranger (particularly if the horse is particularly curious or the stranger is making an interesting noise), alternatively THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY that you will choose differently that what god knows will occur. Hence, free will does not exist.

This possibility exists because, as I mentioned, you do not have perfect knowledge of the way the horse works and all the things the horse has experienced, its genetics, etc. On the other hand, God has PERFECT KNOWLEDGE of YOU, therefore he knows with ABSOLUTE ACCURACY what you will do. I believe the example stands.
post #166 of 229
Quote:
Originally posted by meelash
[B]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)[b]

But I have not jumped to any conclusion. The evidence is out in plain sight.Proof is abundant when one is not in denial. I'll post one of the most obvious. (Tut)Moses knows all the Egyptian religious laws. We know what these laws are. Boom! Moses suddenly attributes the same laws to a burning bush! Say what?



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)[b]

I stand corrected. I should not have said 'original" in reference to Islam. islam, like Judaism pre-supposes the correctness of an "Adam" story. Which is again without any proof whatsoever. Zulus being pre-literate for quite some time could not have ancient scripture that is a duplication of the Quran. however, given the Zulu's relative proximity to the Zanzibar Coast and the slave raiding that was common in the interior from that location it would not be surprising to find mention of or even ideology from Islam in Zulu works. However; taken as a whole Zulu religous outlook is very different from that found in Arabia. I actually posted a long post which explains breifly why so many religions share certain qualities which are very much expected given the evolution of humanity and the shared responses to environmental stress and the "unknown."

I think it to be particularly arrogant to assume that the messenger of a particular religion is the "final brick". Really I do.


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.

And, well, that's my primary problem with Islam. Pretty convenient to lay claim on the "final messenger." Jews are looking for thier Messaich, Christians are waiting for thiers to return and Muslims are like: "Mohammed was your last chance". Anyways what makes that statement "interesting" is that in the book of Judas, Jesus clearly states that he would be rejected but one after him would be accepted by those that rejected him. INTERESTING ain't it?
As sure as the Bible is missing books
George Bush is missing sense
and violence breeds more violence
But this ain't really about Hussein
Regime change
Crashing Airplanes
or buildings falling in flames
Reply
As sure as the Bible is missing books
George Bush is missing sense
and violence breeds more violence
But this ain't really about Hussein
Regime change
Crashing Airplanes
or buildings falling in flames
Reply
post #167 of 229
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
So Man's free-will is not the issue then?

Man chooses to honestly search for the truth. Man chooses to do things that conform with basic human dignity as opposed to oppressing others for personal gain. God jsut "connects the dots".
post #168 of 229
A: Yes! I hear ya fellowship. Feels lonely in here doesn't it?
15" MacBook C2D 2.33Ghz, ATI 1600 258MB, 120GB HD 5400, 2GB RAM, SuperDrive

17" iMac G5
Reply
15" MacBook C2D 2.33Ghz, ATI 1600 258MB, 120GB HD 5400, 2GB RAM, SuperDrive

17" iMac G5
Reply
post #169 of 229
Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by meelash
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 I have not jumped to any conclusion. The evidence is out in plain sight.Proof is abundant when one is not in denial. I'll post one of the most obvious. (Tut)Moses knows all the Egyptian religious laws. We know what these laws are. Boom! Moses suddenly attributes the same laws to a burning bush! Say what?

The egyptians believed that their pharoahs were gods, and beetles were gods, and all kinds of other junk. Moses brought a message of monotheism. I can't claim to be an expert on Egyptian religious laws. But I can say two things: 1)Similarity does not prove sequential evolution 2) How can you tell that the message brought by Moses was not polluted, after his death, between that time and now and things were not picked up (either out of ignorance or for personal gain of rabbis, kings, etc.) from other faiths?

Quote:
Quote:
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)

I stand corrected. I should not have said 'original" in reference to Islam. islam, like Judaism pre-supposes the correctness of an "Adam" story. Which is again without any proof whatsoever.

1)This is off-topic. The only reason I mention Adam is to get the point across that Prophets have been sent since the first human nation ever existed. 2) The "Adam story" (the Muslim version, obviously) is one of the beliefs of Muslims. I don't know why we would need proof of that?? And what's that have to do with this discussion?

Quote:
Zulus being pre-literate for quite some time could not have ancient scripture that is a duplication of the Quran. however, given the Zulu's relative proximity to the Zanzibar Coast and the slave raiding that was common in the interior from that location it would not be surprising to find mention of or even ideology from Islam in Zulu works. However; taken as a whole Zulu religous outlook is very different from that found in Arabia.

1)You are presupposing that being illiterate precludes having scripture. Ironic, given that the Muslim prophet was also illiterate. 2) This is also irrevelant as that was simply a theoretical example (based on something I heard a long time ago and cannot confirm)
Quote:
I actually posted a long post which explains breifly why so many religions share certain qualities which are very much expected given the evolution of humanity and the shared responses to environmental stress and the "unknown."

I think it to be particularly arrogant to assume that the messenger of a particular religion is the "final brick". Really I do.

If you presuppose that it is false than, yes, it would be arrogant. But someone has to be the last one, right? So should the last one not tell anyone he is the last one out of humility? In fact, we believe that all the messengers that came before gave their nations tidings of 1) the messengers that would come directly after them and 2) the existence and coming of a final messenger including signs to recognize them. The final messenger informed us that he is the final messenger so that noone can be fooled by claimants to prophethood after him.

Quote:
Quote:
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 as he is everyone else's messenger also.

Originally posted by Sondjata
And, well, that's my primary problem with Islam. Pretty convenient to lay claim on the "final messenger." Jews are looking for thier Messaich, Christians are waiting for thiers to return and Muslims are like: "Mohammed was your last chance".

Again, convenient maybe, but if it's true, why not? Firstly, we believe the Jews were supposed to be looking for their Messiah. Jesus the Son of Mary was that Messiah. The majority of them rejected him and therefore, obviously, are still looking for their Messiah. We are told that the majority of them will accept the Anti-Christ when he comes as their Messiah. Secondly, the Muslims are actually also waiting for the Messiah to return. That is, we believe Jesus the Son of Mary will return to defeat the Anti-Christ. The Pious (although misguided, we believe) Christians will join with the Muslims in his army. And lastly, we don't believe "Muhammed was your last chance," we believe he is now your only chance. Unlike the previous books/messages, God has assured that his message will be available, unadulterated, somewhere on earth for the dedicated seeker until the end approaches.

Quote:

Anyways what makes that statement "interesting" is that in the book of Judas, Jesus clearly states that he would be rejected but one after him would be accepted by those that rejected him. INTERESTING ain't it?

Not sure what you're getting at here. I assume from your previous posts that you do not believe the Bible is the authentic word of God given to Jesus. I do not believe that the Bible, in its present state, is the authentic word of God given to Jesus. So, whatever your point is, how would quoting that Bible help to prove it?
post #170 of 229
Quote:
Originally posted by Sondjata
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.

so you dont think then that the Egyptian religion borrowed ideas from Mesopotamia?
post #171 of 229
Quote:
Originally posted by meelash
I assume from your previous posts that you do not believe the Bible is the authentic word of God given to Jesus. I do not believe that the Bible, in its present state, is the authentic word of God given to Jesus. So, whatever your point is, how would quoting that Bible help to prove it?

Does Jesus ever claim the bible was given to him by God?
post #172 of 229
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
Does Jesus ever claim the bible was given to him by God?

Of course - remember, Jesus was riding his Ark and the bush caught fire and then the Bible appeared, turning his wife to stone and melting the Nazis.
post #173 of 229
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
Of course - remember, Jesus was riding his Ark and the bush caught fire and then the Bible appeared, turning his wife to stone and melting the Nazis.

Oh yes I remember now, Jonah ate a whale giving him terrible cramp, so Moses rode an ass into Jerusalem to give money to Solomons temple to cure him.
--------------------*
---------------*
----------*

*
post #174 of 229
Quote:
Originally posted by meelash
This possibility exists because, as I mentioned, you do not have perfect knowledge of the way the horse works and all the things the horse has experienced, its genetics, etc. On the other hand, God has PERFECT KNOWLEDGE of YOU, therefore he knows with ABSOLUTE ACCURACY what you will do. I believe the example stands.

No. Not really.

If perfect knowledge of events exist then there is no free will. You simply cannot do anything but that which is known to occur even if the deity came down from on high to tell you that you were going to make decisions that result in you wearing underpants on your head when you die, nothing will stop the events that lead to that eventual moment, and nothing will stop your actions. You have no free will if there is a perfect creature with perfect knowledge...

No matter how you slice it, percieved free will is not true free will in the presense of a deity of the sort you are proposing.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #175 of 229
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
Of course - remember, Jesus was riding his Ark and the bush caught fire and then the Bible appeared, turning his wife to stone and melting the Nazis.

I think that was Indiana Jesus.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #176 of 229
One thing I dont get:

If those who never hear the Word of God can get into heaven on that technicality, as I was taught in my sentence served in Church as a kid-o then by default missions is a waist of time.

At some point the Bible says all three of the following (dnt know chapter or book, too tierd to look it up)

If a man does not hear the message of the gosple, he is exempt from judgment and -- basicly-- gets a free ticket to heaven

His people need to go preach the good news

and

Be good stewards of the finite resources availible to you.



These seem contradictory...

I was also taught at church as a kid that drinking is a sin -- it says so in the Bible, i was told...but the Bible also says that Jesus made booze from water at a wedding...
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #177 of 229
Quote:
Originally posted by a_greer
One thing I don't get:

If those who never hear the Word of God can get into heaven on that technicality, as I was taught in my sentence served in Church as a kid-o then by default missions is a waist of time.

At some point the Bible says all three of the following (dnt know chapter or book, too tired to look it up)

If a man does not hear the message of the gosple, he is exempt from judgment and -- basicly-- gets a free ticket to heaven

His people need to go preach the good news

and

Be good stewards of the finite resources availible to you.

My understanding is even if people hear God's teachings, people still must go demonstrate how a life in service to the Lord is lived. Bible study and all that, basically.
Quote:
I was also taught at church as a kid that drinking is a sin -- it says so in the Bible, i was told...but the Bible also says that Jesus made booze from water at a wedding...

As for as I've been told is: Drinking alcohol is not a sin, but drinking excessively and becoming drunk is. It's like eating too much food.
post #178 of 229
a_greer: i think it would depend on the brand of religion. my understanding of catholicism [the only christianity i've been really familiar with] is that you have to accept jesus as your personal savior, or repent on your death bed. that ignorance wouldn't suffice. i think there is some kind of exception for children who've not yet been baptized, since they've not yet had the opportunity to sin.

Quote:
Originally posted by blackbird_1.0
As for as I've been told is: Drinking alcohol is not a sin, but drinking excessively and becoming drunk is. It's like eating too much food.

i've heard the same. theres a story [don't remember in detail] in one of the early books (genesis i think), where a man gets kind of wasted, and embarasses himself and his kids. god basically doesn't approve.

in catholic mass, as in others, the blood of christ is served, in the form of a red wine. the best part of an hour long or two hour long service is when they start passing out crackers and booze. there are sects of christianity who've taken different interpretations of alcohol; i think mormons are completely sober for example. irish catholics, by our nature, don't mind even mind drunkeness once in a while. also, there are different beliefs in islam, based on the interpretations, some think of any alcohol as forbidden, some think of drunkeness as the sin.
post #179 of 229
Quote:
Originally posted by thuh Freak
i've heard the same. theres a story [don't remember in detail] in one of the early books (genesis i think), where a man gets kind of wasted, and embarasses himself and his kids. god basically doesn't approve.

in catholic mass, as in others, the blood of christ is served, in the form of a red wine. the best part of an hour long or two hour long service is when they start passing out crackers and booze. there are sects of christianity who've taken different interpretations of alcohol; i think mormons are completely sober for example. irish catholics, by our nature, don't mind even mind drunkeness once in a while. also, there are different beliefs in islam, based on the interpretations, some think of any alcohol as forbidden, some think of drunkeness as the sin.

Yeah. I've heard the same thing.
post #180 of 229
Quote:
Originally posted by thuh Freak
also, there are different beliefs in islam, based on the interpretations, some think of any alcohol as forbidden, some think of drunkeness as the sin.

In Islam, any use of alcohol, even external application for medicinal purposes is forbidden. Other intoxicants may be used for medicinal purposes, even consumed, as long as not enough is used to actually intoxicate.
post #181 of 229
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
No. Not really.

If perfect knowledge of events exist then there is no free will. You simply cannot do anything but that which is known to occur even if the deity came down from on high to tell you that you were going to make decisions that result in you wearing underpants on your head when you die, nothing will stop the events that lead to that eventual moment, and nothing will stop your actions. You have no free will if there is a perfect creature with perfect knowledge...

No matter how you slice it, percieved free will is not true free will in the presense of a deity of the sort you are proposing.

No offense, but this is kind of like talking to a brick wall... Just because someone knew before hand you were going to make a certain decision doesn't mean that you didn't make that decision yourself. I think my analogy was pretty apt, and I even gave a description of how to scale it from man-pet horse to God-man relationship.
post #182 of 229
Quote:
Originally posted by meelash
In Islam, any use of alcohol, even external application for medicinal purposes is forbidden. Other intoxicants may be used for medicinal purposes, even consumed, as long as not enough is used to actually intoxicate.

The Caliph Yazid often used to like a drink of an evening. So did Hisham's nephew the Caliph Walid.

Myself, I often turn to the sublime poetry of Hafez or Omar Khayyam when needing solace:

Quote:
If the wine-serving magian boy would shine in this way
I will make a broom of my eyelashes to sweep the entrance of the tavern.

Without the beloveds face, the rose is not pleasant.
Without wine, spring is not pleasant.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #183 of 229
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
The Caliph Yazid often used to like a drink of an evening. So did Hisham's nephew the Caliph Walid.

Myself, I often turn to the sublime poetry of Hafez or Omar Khayyam when needing solace:

I would add that the son of the second Caliph Omar was caught in drunkenness at least twice--and punished in public for it. And the Caliph Yazid caused civil wars, was responsible for the deaths of thousands of Muslims including the grandson of the Prophet. The group known as the Assassins used to smoke weeed (not sure if it was actually marijuana, but something like that) regularly; and they tried to assasinate Saladin and numerous other pious Muslims. The point: the laws of Islam are not based on imitation of any of those people therefore saying that such and such person did such and such thing has no bearing on the laws of Islam unless that person is 1)The Prophet 2)One of his companions.

And taking the metaphorical poetry of Muslim scholars and skewing it in the way the West does to these poets (especially Maulana Rum (Rumi)) can hardly be used as proof that Islam permits consumption of alcohol. I didn't say Muslims couldn't talk about alcohol. In fact Paradise is described in the Qur'aan as having fountains of wine that will not cause craziness or hangovers (<--paraphrasing)

Curious: what does "shine in this way" refer to?
Who does the "beloved" refer to?

I know I was amazed when I compared the old commentaries on the Mathnavi Maulaaie Rum written by Muslims and the translations and such you buy in, say, Barnes & Noble.
post #184 of 229
Quote:
Originally posted by meelash
Curious: what does "shine in this way" refer to?
Who does the "beloved" refer to?

I believe that in the previous verses I did not quote, Hafez is describing his affection for this young boy and his desire to ....well.....have him 'shine' in a certain way.

Of course this is a metaphor - as is wine. In my understanding 'wine' is the metaphor for the direct experience of God which causes a form of drunkeness. The 'beloved' is God and the practice f expressing admiration for the beauty of young boys is a metaphor for contemplation of beauty which leads to experience of the divine.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #185 of 229
Quote:
Originally posted by meelash
The group known as the Assassins used to smoke weeed (not sure if it was actually marijuana, but something like that) regularly; and they tried to assasinate Saladin and numerous other pious Muslims. The point: the laws of Islam are not based on imitation of any of those people therefore saying that such and such person did such and such thing has no bearing on the laws of Islam unless that person is 1)The Prophet 2)One of his companions.

I've read about the assassins. One of our AI locals took up the moniker of, I think, their leader (Hassan i Sabbah). I believe it was hashish, which is a more potent derivative of the cannabis plant [more difficult to come by in the states, but well worth it ]. iirc, both the term assasain and hashish come from that group. From what I recall about that story, the assassins didn't use the cannabis intentionally, they were tricked, drugged and taken to a paradise-like place on earth in seclusion. then drugged again, they were brought back to society and convinced they had only dreamed of paradise; Hassan would then command them to kill, or risk losing a place in the eternal paradise. link

Islam doesn't have a single contemporary authority governing all muslims, who interprets the faith (like the Pope is to Catholics). I think it is largely left to an individual to read the works and live in a manner they think is consistent. My friend considers himself muslim, and he drinks and smokes pot. I haven't read the texts myself, but my understanding was that the particular verse relating to alcohol and inibrients was ambiguous.
post #186 of 229
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
so you dont think then that the Egyptian religion borrowed ideas from Mesopotamia?

ABSOLUTELY NOT.
As sure as the Bible is missing books
George Bush is missing sense
and violence breeds more violence
But this ain't really about Hussein
Regime change
Crashing Airplanes
or buildings falling in flames
Reply
As sure as the Bible is missing books
George Bush is missing sense
and violence breeds more violence
But this ain't really about Hussein
Regime change
Crashing Airplanes
or buildings falling in flames
Reply
post #187 of 229
Quote:
Originally posted by thuh Freak
Islam doesn't have a single contemporary authority governing all muslims, who interprets the faith (like the Pope is to Catholics).

Well, it's true that since the fall of the caliphate ( actually well before then, when the caliphate was not a kingship/dictatorship and leaders were actually interested in things other than money, women, etc...) there has not been a single place to go for interpretation. Add to this the "problem" that to call someone who claims to be a Muslim a non believer or an evil doer just based on his minor wrongdoings or deliberate misinterpretation is severely discouraged and you have, in the modern world, a lot of room for confusion about what Islam really means. However, it is not accurate to say,
Quote:
I think it is largely left to an individual to read the works and live in a manner they think is consistent.

In the first place, because the original records of Islam are much more complete than those of Christianity, there is not as much room for interpretation. If a matter has been addressed in the Qur'aan and sayings/actions of the Prophet than no interpretation can be made outside of that. As such, the different schools of thought that exist in Islam largely differ simply in "this narration is more accurate than that" or small differences in interpretation. Secondly, this interpretation can only be made by a person who has studied and become well versed in a number of classical Islamic sciences. Of course, in today's world it is impossible to "enforce" this (hence all of the far-out sects that you will hear about), but the fact remains that there are thousands of Muslim scholars around today that can trace their teachers back to the Prophet himself as the Catholic church claims to be able to do. In spite of differences in interpretation (these, as I mentioned, are small and technicalities) they all accept each other as orthodox. And the vast majority of Muslims follow these.
Quote:
My friend considers himself muslim, and he drinks and smokes pot. I haven't read the texts myself, but my understanding was that the particular verse relating to alcohol and inibrients was ambiguous.

I have read the texts myself, in fact I have them memorized. The prohibition of alcohol was done gradually over the Prophet's lifetime- a method that is still used today by Muslims who are engaged in some sin. The first revelation mentioned the overall undesirableness of drinking. The second revelation forbade praying or going near a mosque while drunk. The third forbade alcohol outright. When the third command was proclaimed in the city of the Prophet, the streets literally flowed as people poured out their stores of alcohol (Remember the arabs were, I believe the inventors of some alcoholic drinks- the word "alcohol" comes from arabic). Also, as I mentioned earlier, the Qur'aan is not the single source for law in Islam. Even if the verse in the Qur'aan had been vague, the actions of the Prophet and his companions would have cleared the matter up.

As for your friend, have you asked him whether Islam allows him to do those things? My guess is he is one of a large number of Muslims who's names are Muslim and perhaps grew up in Muslim homes, but do not worry about Islam much, beyond maybe filling that checkbox on surveys, maybe choosing the pro-Palestinian side of arguments....
If I wanted to prove by that logic that praying was not required in Islam, believe me I know a LOT of "muslims" that will, over dinner, passionately argue over what is wrong with the muslim world and how great Islam is, but they neither pray nor do anything in their life that would differentiate them from any non-Muslim. This is easy to do-see above about how we are very wary about labeling others as non-Muslims if they make that claim.
post #188 of 229
Quote:
Originally posted by meelash
[B]

The egyptians believed that their pharoahs were gods, and beetles were gods, and all kinds of other junk. Moses brought a message of monotheism. I can't claim to be an expert on Egyptian religious laws. But I can say two things: 1)Similarity does not prove sequential evolution 2) How can you tell that the message brought by Moses was not polluted, after his death, between that time and now and things were not picked up (either out of ignorance or for personal gain of rabbis, kings, etc.) from other faiths?[b]

Dude! "Junk"? And no, Beetles were not considered a god Think of the rank silliness of the idea. I can kill a beetle at will. Why would I think that a beetle is a god. Clue for you: all those "deified" animals are mere representations of concepts. the dung beetle for example represents the transformative nature of Amen (The hidden one).

While indeed nature shows us that similarity does not mean sequential evolution, history is a nice guide. The obvious
"fact" stated that the Hebrews" spent some 400 odd years in Egypt supports sequentialism. It's like someone claiming that even though America is the single largest superpower in the world, every country that has some trace of what could be taken as "american influence" is not actually American influence at all. Doesn't make sense does it.

As for polluted ideas. I'm all in agreement with that. I think the whole chain has been polluted. The problem lies in that folks don't want to admit that their particular system of belief may be polluted.


Quote:

1)This is off-topic. The only reason I mention Adam is to get the point across that Prophets have been sent since the first human nation ever existed. 2) The "Adam story" (the Muslim version, obviously) is one of the beliefs of Muslims. I don't know why we would need proof of that?? And what's that have to do with this discussion?

True, off topic but. No Adam is not the first human. Judeo-Chirstian-Islamic belief makes such a claim. There is no proof of an Adam. Don't even get me started on the rank inconsistencies of "Adam" and "eve."

Quote:

1)You are presupposing that being illiterate precludes having scripture. Ironic, given that the Muslim prophet was also illiterate. 2) This is also irrevelant as that was simply a theoretical example (based on something I heard a long time ago and cannot confirm)

Mohammed knew of the various scriptures that existed during his time. If you say that he could not read and write then so be it. Let's not confuse oral traditions with scripture which by its definition requires something in writing.

Quote:

If you presuppose that it is false than, yes, it would be arrogant. But someone has to be the last one, right? So should the last one not tell anyone he is the last one out of humility? In fact, we believe that all the messengers that came before gave their nations tidings of 1) the messengers that would come directly after them and 2) the existence and coming of a final messenger including signs to recognize them. The final messenger informed us that he is the final messenger so that noone can be fooled by claimants to prophethood after him.

No sir. The last one has no clue he is the last one sine he (or she) has no clue what will happen after his or her departure from the material realm. The claim of "last prophet" is a nice stroke of genious to solidify one's base of belief. it is not humility at all. No different than those proclaiming the world is flat and that's all there is to it. No doubt they were convinced of the correctness of thier statement.. But of course when a religion needs to tie up all it's loose ends it needs to create a closed circle of thinking among it's adherents. Hence: God told me I was last. I told everyone else that God told me I was last. After my death they will repeat this message. It is blasphemous to question this message. etc.


Quote:


Again, convenient maybe, but if it's true, why not? Firstly, we believe the Jews were supposed to be looking for their Messiah. Jesus the Son of Mary was that Messiah. The majority of them rejected him and therefore, obviously, are still looking for their Messiah. We are told that the majority of them will accept the Anti-Christ when he comes as their Messiah. Secondly, the Muslims are actually also waiting for the Messiah to return. That is, we believe Jesus the Son of Mary will return to defeat the Anti-Christ. The Pious (although misguided, we believe) Christians will join with the Muslims in his army. And lastly, we don't believe "Muhammed was your last chance," we believe he is now your only chance. Unlike the previous books/messages, God has assured that his message will be available, unadulterated, somewhere on earth for the dedicated seeker until the end approaches.


As you said: 'If'. There is no "actually" in the statement. That is the very issue.

Secondly it is no more contradictory for a Muslim to claim that a dead person, Mohammet, [b]is[\\b] the last chance than a Christian saying that Jesus [b]is[\\b] the last chance.

Also by your own admission. If Muslims are awaiting the return of Jesus and the whole "birth-death-ressurection-vengance" theme is a URL=http://garveys-ghost.blogspot.com/2006/04/abrahamic-what.html]rewrite[/URL] of the Ausarian drama, then why the "junk" comments like "beetles are gods"? Because judaism and be inheritance Christianity and Islam are invested in the discrediting of those "idolatous" religions that fed them in order to maintain themselves. Nooooo. those Idolators couldn't possibly have been the authors of our moral code! No!! Moses got it from a Bush!!


Quote:

Not sure what you're getting at here. I assume from your previous posts that you do not believe the Bible is the authentic word of God given to Jesus. I do not believe that the Bible, in its present state, is the authentic word of God given to Jesus. So, whatever your point is, how would quoting that Bible help to prove it?

[

I do not ascribe the the belief that any particular scripture is the word of any god. All scripture is the result of the thinking of men and women (mostly men). Because of this I recognize that each system is limited and flawed (including my own). While each system is flawed one can take the writings and the history of those ideas and map out who informed or influenced who. Since I have not vested interest in any of the texts I don't need for them to fit into a neat paradigm.
As sure as the Bible is missing books
George Bush is missing sense
and violence breeds more violence
But this ain't really about Hussein
Regime change
Crashing Airplanes
or buildings falling in flames
Reply
As sure as the Bible is missing books
George Bush is missing sense
and violence breeds more violence
But this ain't really about Hussein
Regime change
Crashing Airplanes
or buildings falling in flames
Reply
post #189 of 229
Quote:
Originally posted by blackbird_1.0
As for as I've been told is: Drinking alcohol is not a sin, but drinking excessively and becoming drunk is. It's like eating too much food.

It all comes down to who/what beliefs you are actually willing to let micro-manage your day-to-day existance.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #190 of 229
Quote:
Originally posted by meelash
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)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it a severe sin to misquote, or in this case paraphrase the Quran?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #191 of 229
Quote:
Originally posted by meelash
I have read the texts myself, in fact I have them memorized. The prohibition of alcohol was done gradually over the Prophet's lifetime- a method that is still used today by Muslims who are engaged in some sin. The first revelation mentioned the overall undesirableness of drinking. The second revelation forbade praying or going near a mosque while drunk. The third forbade alcohol outright. When the third command was proclaimed in the city of the Prophet, the streets literally flowed as people poured out their stores of alcohol (Remember the arabs were, I believe the inventors of some alcoholic drinks- the word "alcohol" comes from arabic). Also, as I mentioned earlier, the Qur'aan is not the single source for law in Islam. Even if the verse in the Qur'aan had been vague, the actions of the Prophet and his companions would have cleared the matter up.

i didn't realize it was so clear cut and explicit. i thought the wording was still ambiguous. i thought the explicit "no drinking rule" was a later interpretation not from the prophet directly, and to be held in less regard. thanks for the clarification.

Quote:
As for your friend, have you asked him whether Islam allows him to do those things? My guess is he is one of a large number of Muslims who's names are Muslim and perhaps grew up in Muslim homes, but do not worry about Islam much, beyond maybe filling that checkbox on surveys, maybe choosing the pro-Palestinian side of arguments....

[yes, he is of arab descent, has a muslim name and born in a muslim community.] well, actually, when it occurred to me that he was muslim and drinking, i made a comment about it. he told me that there are many muslims who abstain, but that they have a generally more strict interpretation of the works than he. i do suspect he's more of a relaxed muslim. he told me that the verse was more about drunkeness than drinking (and, i dont think i've ever seen him really drunk).
post #192 of 229
Quote:
Originally posted by SpamSandwich
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it a severe sin to misquote, or in this case paraphrase the Quran?

This is not the Qur'aan but rather a saying of the Prophet, known as a Hadith. And you are correct it is a severe sin to misquote either thing. Paraphrasing (that is, expressing the same message in different words my way of explanation) is allowed as long as it is made clear that it is not an exact quote and not misconstrued as the actual thing. In any event it would be impossible for me to quote anything to you exactly since translation almost always involves some element of paraphrasing--more especially so in the case of books with a lot of layers of meaning, metaphors, complex structures etc...
post #193 of 229
Quote:
Originally posted by meelash
No offense, but this is kind of like talking to a brick wall... Just because someone knew before hand you were going to make a certain decision doesn't mean that you didn't make that decision yourself. I think my analogy was pretty apt, and I even gave a description of how to scale it from man-pet horse to God-man relationship.

No, it isn't apt at all. The man predicts that the horse will go to him, he does not know. This isn't semantics; the man has doubt. Your god doesn't doubt, the man has no choice.

ubi dubium ibi libertas
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #194 of 229
Quote:
Originally posted by Sondjata
ABSOLUTELY NOT.

yet it would appear that the Meso's had a fully fledged religious story based on this http://www.ufrsd.net/staffwww/stefanl/myths/orion.htm
before the Egyptians developed a similar story
post #195 of 229
hey, i was just hacking around the host of the link i posted above and found this



which is very nice - its the 13th constellation of the zodiac, but it doesn't get listed as part of the zodaic any more.

Yet the picture seems quite familiar with a certain description of someone, i quite cant remember his name, who also has a connection with 13...the constellation only gets the briefest of kisses by the sun as the sun travels around the ecliptic, and maybe shouldn't be considered as one of the twelve major discliplines of the sun because of that. Infact it could be argued that Ophichus has visions of the sun without ever really meeting it.

edit...yes this guy

post #196 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK

yet it would appear that the Meso's had a fully fledged religious story based on this http://www.ufrsd.net/staffwww/stefanl/myths/orion.htm
before the Egyptians developed a similar story


So much wrong. So little time.
Horus is not represented as the "solar god" he is hawk headed in his normal representation.
Amen-Ra is associated with the sun. The Khemetic Calendar which dates back to 4000BC, prior to the rise of the first dynasty does indeed associate the major neters with various constelations but should not be mistaken as representative of the various mythos involving those characters.
As sure as the Bible is missing books
George Bush is missing sense
and violence breeds more violence
But this ain't really about Hussein
Regime change
Crashing Airplanes
or buildings falling in flames
Reply
As sure as the Bible is missing books
George Bush is missing sense
and violence breeds more violence
But this ain't really about Hussein
Regime change
Crashing Airplanes
or buildings falling in flames
Reply
post #197 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK

yet it would appear that the Meso's had a fully fledged religious story based on this http://www.ufrsd.net/staffwww/stefanl/myths/orion.htm
before the Egyptians developed a similar story


So much wrong. So little time.
Horus is not represented as the "solar god" he is hawk headed in his normal representation.
Amen-Ra is associated with the sun. The Khemetic Calendar which dates back to 4000BC, prior to the rise of the first dynasty does indeed associate the major neters with various constelations but should not be mistaken as representative of the various mythos involving those characters.

As sure as the Bible is missing books
George Bush is missing sense
and violence breeds more violence
But this ain't really about Hussein
Regime change
Crashing Airplanes
or buildings falling in flames
Reply
As sure as the Bible is missing books
George Bush is missing sense
and violence breeds more violence
But this ain't really about Hussein
Regime change
Crashing Airplanes
or buildings falling in flames
Reply
post #198 of 229
Okay, since you don't like my example, let's use yours. "if the deity came down from on high to tell you that you were going to make decisions that result in you wearing underpants on your head when you die..." If this unlikely scenario were to take place, according to the Muslim concept of free will, you WOULD be able to make decisions other than those that would lead to that end result. But God would already know beforehand his informing you would have that result. So even if you ended up not having "underpants on your head when you died" God would have known that that would happen beforehand.

For example, if God were to tell you that tomorrow someone will ask you such and such a question and you will answer "yes." Then when tomorrow came you would have the free will to answer "no." But if you answered "no," God would already know that that is what would happen.

The thing is, God does not do such things, especially not on an individual basis and never with enough preciseness for the cause and effect to be recognized beforehand. So there is not really that much confusion in practice. You see, by the actors in the events, that is us humans, knowing what is going to happen, that knowledge changes the system resulting in a different thing happening and if they find out about that, again that knowledge changes the system, etc... ad infinitum. An infinite loop. As long as we are kept in the dark, there is no problem because the predestination does not interfere in the free will.

Consider this example: A man was walking in the market when he sees someone noone else can see. He recognizes the person as the Angel of Death and recognizes a surprised look on his face. In shock, and fearing for his life, the man consults an advisor who tells him to leave for a distant country immediately. The man does so and the day he arrives in the distant country he dies while walking through the marketplace. When the Angel of Death comes to him, he asks him why he had appeared surprised when he saw him the first time. The angel of death replies that he was surprised because he knew that he was supposed to take that man's life in the far away marketplace so many days later and he didn't understand what he was doing so far away from there.

In this example, the man of his own free will chooses to travel to the distant country, but that he will do so is already known.

In short the Islamic concept of free will and predestination is that both exist but they do not tamper with each other. They are completely separate phenomenon running parallel to each other, arriving at the same location but without having any affect on the other. If knowledge of predestination were to interfere in the life of the one with free will, you would have the problems that you keep referring to.




I love latin!
Utinam barbari spatium proprium tuum invadant!
Sorry, couldn't help it...
post #199 of 229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sondjata

Dude! "Junk"? And no, Beetles were not considered a god Think of the rank silliness of the idea. I can kill a beetle at will. Why would I think that a beetle is a god.

I can't answer "why" for you. Why would people believe that a Pharoah who has to eat, drink, piss, poop, and everything else like the rest of is worthy of worship? Why would people worship stone idols that their own hands built? Why would people (even today) burn the wife to death alive with the dead husband as the egyptians buried the wives along with the dead husband? How should I know? It doesn't make the fact that Egyptians worshipped the Scarab any less factual. And, once again, this is off-topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sondjata

While indeed nature shows us that similarity does not mean sequential evolution, history is a nice guide. The obvious
"fact" stated that the Hebrews" spent some 400 odd years in Egypt supports sequentialism. It's like someone claiming that even though America is the single largest superpower in the world, every country that has some trace of what could be taken as "american influence" is not actually American influence at all. Doesn't make sense does it.

It also does not make any sense to suppose that everything done similar to the way things are done in America in any country around the world must necessarily have been copied from America or that nothing done in America has been copied from somewhere else. Therefore your "proof" still does not cut it. It establishes possibility; it does not prove that possibility to be reality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sondjata

As for polluted ideas. I'm all in agreement with that. I think the whole chain has been polluted. The problem lies in that folks don't want to admit that their particular system of belief may be polluted.

No, the problem lies in telling which of the folks are correct and which are not. This is the essential search that each of us must take up on his own, honestly, and without "giving-in" to outside influence and popular opinion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sondjata

Don't even get me started on the rank inconsistencies of "Adam" and "eve."

I'm trying not to. That's why I mentioned it was off-topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sondjata

Mohammed knew of the various scriptures that existed during his time. If you say that he could not read and write then so be it. Let's not confuse oral traditions with scripture which by its definition requires something in writing.

1) I can rephrase: "You are presupposing that being illiterate precludes having divine revelation." Although, in common use, I think you could refer to an unwritten divine revelation as scripture. Did Muslims not have a "scripture" until the first time it was all written down in one place? In any event, the holy books of the Zulus are passed-on orally, not written down. Doesn't change the point though...
2) Do you have proof the Mohammed knew of the various scriptures that existed during his time? The only people who claim this are non-Muslim historians who base their claim upon the fact that the Qur'aan has similarities with the various scriptures. So you are claiming that since they are similar, he copied them. To prove this, you say that he had knowledge of them. And to prove he had knowledge of them, you bring the fact that they are similar. Whoa....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sondjata

No sir. The last one has no clue he is the last one sine he (or she) has no clue what will happen after his or her departure from the material realm.

What??!! Let me get this straight. God is the one who sends the messengers. Are you saying God doesn't know, "This is the last messenger I am going to send." I think you should perhaps rethink this *interesting* statement.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sondjata

the whole "birth-death-ressurection-vengance" theme

I've never heard of this. Perhaps you should study Islam's beliefs before lumping them together with what you know of Christian beliefs. Assuming this has something to do with Christianity at all. Explanation, anyone??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sondjata

I do not ascribe the the belief that any particular scripture is the word of any god. All scripture is the result of the thinking of men and women (mostly men). Because of this I recognize that each system is limited and flawed (including my own). While each system is flawed one can take the writings and the history of those ideas and map out who informed or influenced who. Since I have not vested interest in any of the texts I don't need for them to fit into a neat paradigm.

I still don't see what the point was that you were expressing by saying "INTERESTING, ISN'T IT?" in your other post. Except, now you've agreed that there was no point quoting the book of Judas to prove it.
post #200 of 229
I'm trying to think of a summary of what I am trying to tell you in these back and forth exchanges.... In Islam, the freedom is granted for someone to believe something differently- even in an Islamic state. So I cannot possibly object to your doing so and remain true to my faith. However, my advice to you is, before jumping to conclusions based on prejudice and preconceived notions, actually research what you are bashing; search for the truth critically and impartially. And do not base your beliefs on what the status quo opinion is on a certain subject such as history and science; these things have been shown again and again not only to change radically in short periods of time as new information and new methods become available. Instead, study the subject for yourself, if you are going to use it as the basis for decisions that affect not only your life and death but also what may or may not happen after your death. It's too important to trust to someone else, even if everyone proclaims that person the best scientist or historian around.....
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Are you walking in faith?