Well, we are talking about Islam - rather than in the abstract so I take it you are prepared to accept that Muslims believe the Islamic view even if you don't and they don't see it that way.
It's not about being right and it can't be ISLAMICALLY SPEAKING (I felt he need to somehow stress that) because the Islamic view is simply this:
if there is a God He cannot be limited - therefore you cannot do anything as a human that goes against his will.
Are you suggesting that someone who follows Islam might be thinking to themselves "Maybe Islam has it all wrong, but God must have willed that I find Islam believable, and since I can't fight God's will, I'll stop worrying if I've got the right story"? I rather doubt this line of thinking occurs very often.
My whole point was that the idea of applying the "will of God" to what one believes, to what is revealed to one person and not to another, etc. is a generic formula that can equally be used to support any faith... and you can be fairly certain that the person reciting this formula is not doing so in order to count himself or herself outside of the Chosen Ones who have been selected by God to see The Truth.
You can wrap it up in any specific Islamic, Christian, or Jewish wording you like... the end result is just a trick for claiming one's own view as superior and for discounting counterargument.
But Set is not the product of a monotheistic religion, which is what I was referring to.
If you have the idea of one single God then you have the problem of explaining the existence of 'evil' if you also want to postulate that He is not solely responsible for everything that happens..
That's not true. Only a religion that defines God as "love" has the problem of explaining Evil. One can have a single God who is both good and evil, after all good and evil are ony relative states much like "positve" and "negative."
Surely a roach who get's stepped on believes that a great evil has befallen it, yet the person who kills the roach believes he or she has done nothing wrong. One may say that roaches have no souls. But that is not a universally agreed upon idea. There are many societies that have sacred animals and to kill one would be doing a great evil. Yet if one is not a part of that society of religious faith, killing such an animal would result in no feelings of guilt.
So there is no need to have a conflict of God being Omnipotent and capable of "evil." it is a conflict purely created by the human mind to comfort itself, though in some circles a rather short tempered God is more desireable.
Many religions have lots of contradictions. Sure, there's "Thou shalt not kill" and other appeals to peace and gentleness. But there's also plenty of talk of war, who and who not you should allow to live, who is an enemy of God and needs to be smote (though it's sometimes unclear if the believer should simply sit back and let God do the smiting, or lend a helping hand.)
I think its disingenuous to look only at the good and kindly and tolerant aspects of the teachings of a religion, and call those the "core beliefs", while brushing aside doctrines of intolerance and cruelty as if somehow those don't "count".
And I think it is unfair to do the opposite.
Doctrines of cruelty and intolerance? Many of these are not core beliefs of religions. Many doctrines of cruelty and intolerance of the Church were never mentioned in the Torah or Bible. Stoning men who's beards aren't a fist in length isn't mentioned in the Qu'ran. The Torah never mentions killing people because they don't believe your religion.
Many of the practices you speak of or refer to are either taken out of context or exaggerated by radicals into what you see. Anyone who's read the Qu'ran will know that you must "follow the word of G-d, not interpret".
The only people I know of in the Torah that it's "understood" why you kill them are the Children of Amalek. But that isn't about religion as much as survival, as they constantly tried to kill everyone else off...
Doctrines of cruelty and intolerance? Many of these are not core beliefs of religions. Many doctrines of cruelty and intolerance of the Church were never mentioned in the Torah or Bible. Stoning men who's beards aren't a fist in length isn't mentioned in the Qu'ran. The Torah never mentions killing people because they don't believe your religion.
Many of the practices you speak of or refer to are either taken out of context or exaggerated by radicals into what you see. Anyone who's read the Qu'ran will know that you must "follow the word of G-d, not interpret".
The only people I know of in the Torah that it's "understood" why you kill them are the Children of Amalek. But that isn't about religion as much as survival, as they constantly tried to kill everyone else off...
I see. So this God of the "burning bush" and "pillar of fire' and "fire on Sodom" just can't seem to handle issues of survival for his chosen few. Then later, tells folks to turn the other cheek. This same "never changing god" who's word is good for "reproof." Yet we should "interpret" that the command to "not kill" really means "do not kill...unless.."
I see. So this God of the "burning bush" and "pillar of fire' and "fire on Sodom" just can't seem to handle issues of survival for his chosen few. Then later, tells folks to turn the other cheek. This same "never changing god" who's word is good for "reproof." Yet we should "interpret" that the command to "not kill" really means "do not kill...unless.."
You don't see. You don't even make any sense. I never said anything about a "never changing G-d", not that you aren't intentionally misinterpreting that concept anyway. G-d specifically says "DO NOT KILL" but also says that you should do what you have to for survival. Take that as "don't start the fight, just finish it" mentality. Not openly hostile to people, but willing to do what needs to be done to protect yourself.
I never said to interpret anything. I said that if you follow the word of G-d then you follow it. If you inerpret it to mean what you say then your a politician.
I said that if you follow the word of G-d then you follow it. If you inerpret it to mean what you say then your a politician.
Interpreting what is written is the essence of religion. Unfortunately that is lost on most religious people today. Many feel that what is preached to them is the way it is, instead of examining and discovering things for themselves.
Religion is about self discovery and faith, not about doing what you're told. It is a tool for helping you live your life, not a set of rules governing your life.
You don't see. You don't even make any sense. I never said anything about a "never changing G-d", not that you aren't intentionally misinterpreting that concept anyway. G-d specifically says "DO NOT KILL" but also says that you should do what you have to for survival. Take that as "don't start the fight, just finish it" mentality. Not openly hostile to people, but willing to do what needs to be done to protect yourself.
I never said to interpret anything. I said that if you follow the word of G-d then you follow it. If you inerpret it to mean what you say then your a politician.
I believe ( ha ha haaa) that the others took care of the "do not kill" part for me.
The "never changing" part is from the New Testament. Look it up.
Comments
Originally posted by segovius
Well, we are talking about Islam - rather than in the abstract so I take it you are prepared to accept that Muslims believe the Islamic view even if you don't and they don't see it that way.
It's not about being right and it can't be ISLAMICALLY SPEAKING (I felt he need to somehow stress that) because the Islamic view is simply this:
if there is a God He cannot be limited - therefore you cannot do anything as a human that goes against his will.
Are you suggesting that someone who follows Islam might be thinking to themselves "Maybe Islam has it all wrong, but God must have willed that I find Islam believable, and since I can't fight God's will, I'll stop worrying if I've got the right story"? I rather doubt this line of thinking occurs very often.
My whole point was that the idea of applying the "will of God" to what one believes, to what is revealed to one person and not to another, etc. is a generic formula that can equally be used to support any faith... and you can be fairly certain that the person reciting this formula is not doing so in order to count himself or herself outside of the Chosen Ones who have been selected by God to see The Truth.
You can wrap it up in any specific Islamic, Christian, or Jewish wording you like... the end result is just a trick for claiming one's own view as superior and for discounting counterargument.
Originally posted by segovius
But Set is not the product of a monotheistic religion, which is what I was referring to.
If you have the idea of one single God then you have the problem of explaining the existence of 'evil' if you also want to postulate that He is not solely responsible for everything that happens..
That's not true. Only a religion that defines God as "love" has the problem of explaining Evil. One can have a single God who is both good and evil, after all good and evil are ony relative states much like "positve" and "negative."
Surely a roach who get's stepped on believes that a great evil has befallen it, yet the person who kills the roach believes he or she has done nothing wrong. One may say that roaches have no souls. But that is not a universally agreed upon idea. There are many societies that have sacred animals and to kill one would be doing a great evil. Yet if one is not a part of that society of religious faith, killing such an animal would result in no feelings of guilt.
So there is no need to have a conflict of God being Omnipotent and capable of "evil." it is a conflict purely created by the human mind to comfort itself, though in some circles a rather short tempered God is more desireable.
Originally posted by shetline
Many religions have lots of contradictions. Sure, there's "Thou shalt not kill" and other appeals to peace and gentleness. But there's also plenty of talk of war, who and who not you should allow to live, who is an enemy of God and needs to be smote (though it's sometimes unclear if the believer should simply sit back and let God do the smiting, or lend a helping hand.)
I think its disingenuous to look only at the good and kindly and tolerant aspects of the teachings of a religion, and call those the "core beliefs", while brushing aside doctrines of intolerance and cruelty as if somehow those don't "count".
And I think it is unfair to do the opposite.
Doctrines of cruelty and intolerance? Many of these are not core beliefs of religions. Many doctrines of cruelty and intolerance of the Church were never mentioned in the Torah or Bible. Stoning men who's beards aren't a fist in length isn't mentioned in the Qu'ran. The Torah never mentions killing people because they don't believe your religion.
Many of the practices you speak of or refer to are either taken out of context or exaggerated by radicals into what you see. Anyone who's read the Qu'ran will know that you must "follow the word of G-d, not interpret".
The only people I know of in the Torah that it's "understood" why you kill them are the Children of Amalek. But that isn't about religion as much as survival, as they constantly tried to kill everyone else off...
Originally posted by FaydRautha
And I think it is unfair to do the opposite.
Doctrines of cruelty and intolerance? Many of these are not core beliefs of religions. Many doctrines of cruelty and intolerance of the Church were never mentioned in the Torah or Bible. Stoning men who's beards aren't a fist in length isn't mentioned in the Qu'ran. The Torah never mentions killing people because they don't believe your religion.
Many of the practices you speak of or refer to are either taken out of context or exaggerated by radicals into what you see. Anyone who's read the Qu'ran will know that you must "follow the word of G-d, not interpret".
The only people I know of in the Torah that it's "understood" why you kill them are the Children of Amalek. But that isn't about religion as much as survival, as they constantly tried to kill everyone else off...
I see. So this God of the "burning bush" and "pillar of fire' and "fire on Sodom" just can't seem to handle issues of survival for his chosen few. Then later, tells folks to turn the other cheek. This same "never changing god" who's word is good for "reproof." Yet we should "interpret" that the command to "not kill" really means "do not kill...unless.."
Originally posted by Sondjata
I see. So this God of the "burning bush" and "pillar of fire' and "fire on Sodom" just can't seem to handle issues of survival for his chosen few. Then later, tells folks to turn the other cheek. This same "never changing god" who's word is good for "reproof." Yet we should "interpret" that the command to "not kill" really means "do not kill...unless.."
You don't see. You don't even make any sense. I never said anything about a "never changing G-d", not that you aren't intentionally misinterpreting that concept anyway. G-d specifically says "DO NOT KILL" but also says that you should do what you have to for survival. Take that as "don't start the fight, just finish it" mentality. Not openly hostile to people, but willing to do what needs to be done to protect yourself.
I never said to interpret anything. I said that if you follow the word of G-d then you follow it. If you inerpret it to mean what you say then your a politician.
Originally posted by segovius
Where did God say 'Do not kill' ?
.
.
Top left.
Originally posted by FaydRautha
I said that if you follow the word of G-d then you follow it. If you inerpret it to mean what you say then your a politician.
Interpreting what is written is the essence of religion. Unfortunately that is lost on most religious people today. Many feel that what is preached to them is the way it is, instead of examining and discovering things for themselves.
Religion is about self discovery and faith, not about doing what you're told. It is a tool for helping you live your life, not a set of rules governing your life.
Originally posted by FaydRautha
You don't see. You don't even make any sense. I never said anything about a "never changing G-d", not that you aren't intentionally misinterpreting that concept anyway. G-d specifically says "DO NOT KILL" but also says that you should do what you have to for survival. Take that as "don't start the fight, just finish it" mentality. Not openly hostile to people, but willing to do what needs to be done to protect yourself.
I never said to interpret anything. I said that if you follow the word of G-d then you follow it. If you inerpret it to mean what you say then your a politician.
I believe ( ha ha haaa) that the others took care of the "do not kill" part for me.
The "never changing" part is from the New Testament. Look it up.