That is true, but surely the view is that ONLY God has any reality - that is to say that all else has an apparent existence but this is in actuality an illusion.
For example - in Christianity if evil occurs then it is 'real' and it is Satan that causes it not God. In Islam however, everything is the will of God.
But then how can 'evil' exist ? Is it the will of God ? Of course not, God could not will evil, and evil can have no independent existence as an entity alongside God.
Hence it is an illusion. It only seems real because of our (human) lack of understanding.
This is identical to Maya and enlightenment in Buddhist and Hindu traditions.
All religions are essentially one, with varying cultural and historical emphases and corruptions.
Btw - your 'everywhere in the universe at the same time' from above presupposes a God that is distinct from the Universe in order that He can 'be in it everywhere'. This in turn necessitates two realities - the universe and God. This cannot be if God is the only reality.
It is only explicable if God is synonymous with creation (which I did not mean to imply) or that the creation is an illusion (which is my belief).
The path you take regarding reality is obviously one of greek philosophy, Platon maybe? What is reality? When is something qualified to be part of reality? For me something is reality if an action in that space or time can have consequences that are not in the control of me to decide or change the consequences or undo them again with my will.
For example if I kill someone, that someone will die and disappear. Even if I miss that someone later on or regret his/her killing, no matter how strong my will is, there is no way I can change the result of his/her death in such a way as to reverse it and make him/her alive again. That suffices for me to make clear that it is indeed reality and his/her death real. Not to talk about possible consequences like punishment in this life, with emprisonment or death, and in after-life with burning in hell.
So, even if you can make the case that everything is not real, the killing, the death as well as the regret, missing and punishment in this life and in hell in the after-life, it is not possible to make a distinction between that unlikely but possible illusion and real reality, so why arguing about it?
Besides, according to the Quran, everything God creates is real, otherwise He would create lies, which you don't want to imply. In the Quran, God explicitly said that He created the humans with the free will and the universe in order to separate the truth from the lies, whatever that means.
As to the concept of evil, that is one derived from christianity and is not part of Islam or the Quran. The idea behind that is that the devil is a completely independent entity that is at war with God, and that God is ultimately good while the devil is ultimately evil.
In Islam however the devil is not at war with God, but only with the humans. The devil just wanted to try to seduce as many humans as possible onto the wrong path of disbelief in God and selfish sinning. God allowed the devil to try that and gave the devil life-time until judgment day, after which, as God promised, He would punish the devil and all the humans that would follow the devil with eternal burning in hell.
So, in a sense, you are right, everything is the will of God, because He allows it, but God is not the cause, as the humans have a free will to resist or give in to the seductions and to belief or disbelief in God. On top of that God is even helping the humans in the war between the devil and the humans with prophets, messages and angels.
As to your notion that all religions have something in common or are basically the same, this is somewhat true, and is implied in the Quran, in which it is written that Adam was the first prophet God has chosen, and that since then numerous prophets were sent to every community of humanity to make sure that every human knows of God and what He expects from humanity. Otherwise it would have been unfair to punish humans in hell, when they have never heard of God.
The way I understand that is this: everything is the will of God - there can be no argument about that. So if you kill someone it follows that this was God's will.
I disagree with your notion that everything is God's will because it collides with the free will God granted to humans. I'm pretty sure that on a macro-level everything is God's will, because He has access to every time-frame in the future and the past at once and can therefore easily form fate on a macro-level without having to negate humans their free-will on a micro-level, say individual level.
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
The 'unreality' aspect comes in with our human perception. You may know intellectually that a thing is God's will or you may believe it from reading the Qur'an, that's one thing, but you can never know the mind of God or what His will is ahead of time. This would be blasphemy.
But you still have an opinion. So do I - we can't help it, it's part of being human. But it follows that the opinion must be wrong. Even if it's right it's wrong because we can never know. Otherwise we would be God.
So are our opinions are unreal in this sense. And we ourselves are unreal in relation to God - we are not Him and we therefore are unreal relatively.
Just because our opinions and judgments are most likely partly or wholy wrong since we don't know every circumstance, as only God knows all of them, it doesn't mean that our opinions and judgments are unreal, just imperfect. In a similar way, we are not unreal, just because we are not God. God has created us and therefore we are real.
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
Also we never know why God wills a thing. I will give you an example: I hate Bush (as I believe I have made clear on numerous occasions) but I still know that it must be God's will that Bush is in power and killing Iraqis and will most likely soon start killing Iranians and/or Syrians. This will make me more angry than I already am but I also know it is the will of God or else it wouldn't happen.
How then can my opposition to Bush be 'real' ? It is real in the sense that it seems to exist but it can not be objectively real as I do not wish to oppose the will of God. It's just that I don't know the reasons for Bush being in power - I will never know the plan or see the big picture or glimpse the mechanism behind how the universe works - and this 'unknowing' leaves a gap into which my own (necessarily false) opinions can flow.
How can these opinions be real ? They are opinions and we can and should act on them. But they mean nothing.
That's what I mean when I say that God controls our fate on a macro-level but not on a micro-level. Wars between countries and people obviously fall under the category of macro-level fate. Bush and co just follow their own individual free wills but nonetheless their free-will-actions and consequences are being instrumentalised in the macro-level.
Everything is real, the decisions of Bush and co as well as your hate and opposition of them as it's all part of the micro-level free will of humans as well as the macro-level fate aka God's will.
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
There is an Islamic saying that I'm sure you know: everything passes away except for the face of God.
When this whole entire universe and everything that ever existed has been dissolved for billions of eternities He will still be there unchanged. What is real in that context ?
Exactly, but again just because the universe gets sometime in the future destroyed doesn't mean that it was unreal. It was real and will be destroyed really.
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
How can something be somewhat true ? I don't think it is so much implied in the Qur'an as explicitly stated.
I said "somewhat true", because they are not anymore the same religions, most have changed into polytheistic or mystical religions.
I think it has to do with the fact that most religions were inspired by prophets when humans didn't have the capabilities to read and write and didn't have scriptures, so it was based on oral methods and on traditions set forth from father to son, from mother to daughter and were likely to be changed over the time. Wars and natural catastrophes also changed those oral-based religions and traditions considerably, etc..
Some tribes that received a prophet even rejected the messages from God, killed the prophets and just integrated those elements from the messages they liked and changed others to suit their preferences, etc..
But I was wondering, (all day infact), If everything is the will of God, why would God will millions of people to find the wrong religion? why cannot he will me to know the truth when I go looking for it?
Well (and this is just my opinion) I say that is looking at it from the wrong end as it were (stop tittering at the back).
If one is going to postulate a Creator God and moreover one who is 'good' (let's say these are our parameters in this discussion - God may not be good but that is another story)
Actually this is a very interesting topic. According to islam and the Quran God Himself instructed Himself or limited Himself to being merciful and forgiving.
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
... then when He sits down with His metaphorical blank canvas to plan out creation, He necessarily includes certain possibilities and includes certain others.
This must be the case or else He would not be God (you could argue that the creator of everything doesn't have to be God and that is a possibility - the Gnostics believed that the world was Fubar because it was the imperfect work of an upstart angel/demon - again possible but a different issue).
So if it is the case and there are a million possibilities for you, say, then even if some were opposites then they would also all be 'the will of God' in the sense He laid out the possibilities. He doesn't even have to have the knowledge of which ones you would choose - thus avoiding the predestination trap the fundies often get mired in, it is enough that He allowed 20 options and disregarded 100 others (for example) - of course we will never know the ones He refused to allow.
Absolutely fascinating idea, have you developed it yourself?
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
Anyway, I think the concept of 'right' and 'wrong' religions is erroneous and misleading. They are all 'right' in their original form and they are a'' 'wrong' in their corrupted form.
Corruption and decay are just what happens to things in this world. It's the way it is and we all end up that way.
The 70 year old guy who is weak, feeble and ill is not 'wrong' compared to a fit and healthy 20 year old. He is just how he naturally is after 70 years on the planet. Same with religions, they suffer decay, get old and go senile.
Of course the Church actively help the process wherever possible but then were off-topic and into the realms of the nature of evil and the Devil rather than God.
I agree most religions were victims of decay and corruption as most were based on orally preserved traditions and messages without an actual textbased book of revelation like in the three monotheistic religions, judaism, christianity and islam. I'm not claiming that in these mentioned religions corruption hasn't taken place, but it's much less than in older religions. In islam the corruption came in through the hadiths, but the text of the Quran is relatively well preserved.
Yes, but he has different 'aspects' - as you know these are the 99 names of God (there is a hundredth name actually also that no-one knows. This is OT but a sublime metaphysical concept).
Each 'name' is how God acts (or reacts) in a certain situation.
Not necessarily, there are quite a few of the 99 names that don't show how God acts or reacts, for example "God, the Great(er) One".
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
I guess it covers all the bases - the point is that the face of God that you perceive is 'justice'. That is. it is the exact, just and appropriate response to you as you are in that moment.
So if you are genuinely repentant then you will meet God the forgiver. If you are genuinely needy you will meet God the helper.
If you are a hypocrite then you meet a different face. This is interesting actually because it means people see the God that they 'deserve'. Xian fundies almost always see a 'punishing' God and indeed, He does have this aspect - to those who deserve it.
Some Christians see a just and loving God and this says something about themselves too.
I agree, but it's still all part of the one big defining attribute of being merciful and forgiving. And the Quran makes quite clear that despite the mercifulness and forgiving character of God, He is still willing to punish in the afterlife those that didn't believe in God and those who commited bad deeds and didn't return, speak repent, before they died.
According to the Quran it's not a requirement to be a follower of the islamic religion to prevent the punishment in the after-life as long as you believe in God and commit good deeds.
Many people I know (and I'm talking about a lot of Christians here too) are far more worried about Christian fanaticism then terrorism. And they should be.
What, specifically, are they worried about here? (And perhaps you might define "Christian fanaticism" for this discussion.)
Well, they are worried about 'faith' replacing logic. The subordination of the scientific raison d'etre to a model which does not require objective verification but is merely a matter of belief and towing the 'party line'.
Well, "faith" is obviously an important aspect of many religious worldviews (actuall...most worldviews if you think about it)...I would suggest that a Christian without faith isn't really a Christian.
Now...perhaps you are referring to (and even suggesting) that faith and reason are mutually exclusive. If this is so I would disagree.
Quote:
My friend when asked to describe the literalists said this:
"You are a compassionate person (meaning Mrs Segovius) but your compassion comes from the heart and it finds an echo in your belief. A literalist comes at it the other way: they might also be compassionate but it doesn't come from themselves - they are compassionate (or whatever) because scripture tells them to be."
That is a rather odd definition. Not one I would use. A (Christian) literalist (as I would define them) is one the believes in the accuracy and inerrancy of scripture...basicaly he/she believes the Bible is right (in what it talks about)...though it might not be complete (talking about everything). Of cousre even within Christian thought there is great debate about what ought to be interpreted literally and what is more likely metaphorical. Typically the context and style of the particuar scripture helps immensely. For example one would likely be better served reading the Psalms and Proverbs less literally...but when reading the gospels (which take more the form of historical narrative) reading things more literally is reasonable.
Quote:
Ie - they subordinate themselves to an authority and abdicate their free will.
Well, Christian doctrine does require one to subordinate oneself to an authority...that is the authority of God, Jesus Christ. As a Christian your wife (and friends) would agree with this (I assume).
Quote:
It's just the point we're at now. That's why my friends and I are concerned.
But what exactly are you concerned about? Are you concerne for your safety (you mentioned a greater concern of this than terrorism)? Or are you just "concerned about where the world is going"?
faith is merely a substitute for the lack of knowledge.
Of course it is. But we live our entire lives by faith since we cannot have total and absolute knowledge of everything.
Quote:
Similarly with 'literalists' - we decided it was inappropriate because they do not take the Bible literally - if they did, they would soon be confronted with hardcore contradictions.
Well...no...not really.
Quote:
imo this is not necessarily original Christian doctrine.
In your opinion...which doesn't appear to be based on fact.
Quote:
More specifically: the resurgence in stupidity from 'faith based' and 'rational' quarters
Please tell me that you are not equating stupidity to faith.
Comments
Originally posted by segovius
That is true, but surely the view is that ONLY God has any reality - that is to say that all else has an apparent existence but this is in actuality an illusion.
For example - in Christianity if evil occurs then it is 'real' and it is Satan that causes it not God. In Islam however, everything is the will of God.
But then how can 'evil' exist ? Is it the will of God ? Of course not, God could not will evil, and evil can have no independent existence as an entity alongside God.
Hence it is an illusion. It only seems real because of our (human) lack of understanding.
This is identical to Maya and enlightenment in Buddhist and Hindu traditions.
All religions are essentially one, with varying cultural and historical emphases and corruptions.
Btw - your 'everywhere in the universe at the same time' from above presupposes a God that is distinct from the Universe in order that He can 'be in it everywhere'. This in turn necessitates two realities - the universe and God. This cannot be if God is the only reality.
It is only explicable if God is synonymous with creation (which I did not mean to imply) or that the creation is an illusion (which is my belief).
The path you take regarding reality is obviously one of greek philosophy, Platon maybe? What is reality? When is something qualified to be part of reality? For me something is reality if an action in that space or time can have consequences that are not in the control of me to decide or change the consequences or undo them again with my will.
For example if I kill someone, that someone will die and disappear. Even if I miss that someone later on or regret his/her killing, no matter how strong my will is, there is no way I can change the result of his/her death in such a way as to reverse it and make him/her alive again. That suffices for me to make clear that it is indeed reality and his/her death real. Not to talk about possible consequences like punishment in this life, with emprisonment or death, and in after-life with burning in hell.
So, even if you can make the case that everything is not real, the killing, the death as well as the regret, missing and punishment in this life and in hell in the after-life, it is not possible to make a distinction between that unlikely but possible illusion and real reality, so why arguing about it?
Besides, according to the Quran, everything God creates is real, otherwise He would create lies, which you don't want to imply. In the Quran, God explicitly said that He created the humans with the free will and the universe in order to separate the truth from the lies, whatever that means.
As to the concept of evil, that is one derived from christianity and is not part of Islam or the Quran. The idea behind that is that the devil is a completely independent entity that is at war with God, and that God is ultimately good while the devil is ultimately evil.
In Islam however the devil is not at war with God, but only with the humans. The devil just wanted to try to seduce as many humans as possible onto the wrong path of disbelief in God and selfish sinning. God allowed the devil to try that and gave the devil life-time until judgment day, after which, as God promised, He would punish the devil and all the humans that would follow the devil with eternal burning in hell.
So, in a sense, you are right, everything is the will of God, because He allows it, but God is not the cause, as the humans have a free will to resist or give in to the seductions and to belief or disbelief in God. On top of that God is even helping the humans in the war between the devil and the humans with prophets, messages and angels.
As to your notion that all religions have something in common or are basically the same, this is somewhat true, and is implied in the Quran, in which it is written that Adam was the first prophet God has chosen, and that since then numerous prophets were sent to every community of humanity to make sure that every human knows of God and what He expects from humanity. Otherwise it would have been unfair to punish humans in hell, when they have never heard of God.
Nightcrawler
Originally posted by segovius
The way I understand that is this: everything is the will of God - there can be no argument about that. So if you kill someone it follows that this was God's will.
I disagree with your notion that everything is God's will because it collides with the free will God granted to humans. I'm pretty sure that on a macro-level everything is God's will, because He has access to every time-frame in the future and the past at once and can therefore easily form fate on a macro-level without having to negate humans their free-will on a micro-level, say individual level.
Originally posted by segovius
The 'unreality' aspect comes in with our human perception. You may know intellectually that a thing is God's will or you may believe it from reading the Qur'an, that's one thing, but you can never know the mind of God or what His will is ahead of time. This would be blasphemy.
But you still have an opinion. So do I - we can't help it, it's part of being human. But it follows that the opinion must be wrong. Even if it's right it's wrong because we can never know. Otherwise we would be God.
So are our opinions are unreal in this sense. And we ourselves are unreal in relation to God - we are not Him and we therefore are unreal relatively.
Just because our opinions and judgments are most likely partly or wholy wrong since we don't know every circumstance, as only God knows all of them, it doesn't mean that our opinions and judgments are unreal, just imperfect. In a similar way, we are not unreal, just because we are not God. God has created us and therefore we are real.
Originally posted by segovius
Also we never know why God wills a thing. I will give you an example: I hate Bush (as I believe I have made clear on numerous occasions) but I still know that it must be God's will that Bush is in power and killing Iraqis and will most likely soon start killing Iranians and/or Syrians. This will make me more angry than I already am but I also know it is the will of God or else it wouldn't happen.
How then can my opposition to Bush be 'real' ? It is real in the sense that it seems to exist but it can not be objectively real as I do not wish to oppose the will of God. It's just that I don't know the reasons for Bush being in power - I will never know the plan or see the big picture or glimpse the mechanism behind how the universe works - and this 'unknowing' leaves a gap into which my own (necessarily false) opinions can flow.
How can these opinions be real ? They are opinions and we can and should act on them. But they mean nothing.
That's what I mean when I say that God controls our fate on a macro-level but not on a micro-level. Wars between countries and people obviously fall under the category of macro-level fate. Bush and co just follow their own individual free wills but nonetheless their free-will-actions and consequences are being instrumentalised in the macro-level.
Everything is real, the decisions of Bush and co as well as your hate and opposition of them as it's all part of the micro-level free will of humans as well as the macro-level fate aka God's will.
Originally posted by segovius
There is an Islamic saying that I'm sure you know: everything passes away except for the face of God.
When this whole entire universe and everything that ever existed has been dissolved for billions of eternities He will still be there unchanged. What is real in that context ?
Exactly, but again just because the universe gets sometime in the future destroyed doesn't mean that it was unreal. It was real and will be destroyed really.
Originally posted by segovius
How can something be somewhat true ? I don't think it is so much implied in the Qur'an as explicitly stated.
I said "somewhat true", because they are not anymore the same religions, most have changed into polytheistic or mystical religions.
I think it has to do with the fact that most religions were inspired by prophets when humans didn't have the capabilities to read and write and didn't have scriptures, so it was based on oral methods and on traditions set forth from father to son, from mother to daughter and were likely to be changed over the time. Wars and natural catastrophes also changed those oral-based religions and traditions considerably, etc..
Some tribes that received a prophet even rejected the messages from God, killed the prophets and just integrated those elements from the messages they liked and changed others to suit their preferences, etc..
Nightcrawler
But I was wondering, (all day infact), If everything is the will of God, why would God will millions of people to find the wrong religion? why cannot he will me to know the truth when I go looking for it?
Originally posted by segovius
Well (and this is just my opinion) I say that is looking at it from the wrong end as it were (stop tittering at the back).
If one is going to postulate a Creator God and moreover one who is 'good' (let's say these are our parameters in this discussion - God may not be good but that is another story)
Actually this is a very interesting topic. According to islam and the Quran God Himself instructed Himself or limited Himself to being merciful and forgiving.
Originally posted by segovius
... then when He sits down with His metaphorical blank canvas to plan out creation, He necessarily includes certain possibilities and includes certain others.
This must be the case or else He would not be God (you could argue that the creator of everything doesn't have to be God and that is a possibility - the Gnostics believed that the world was Fubar because it was the imperfect work of an upstart angel/demon - again possible but a different issue).
So if it is the case and there are a million possibilities for you, say, then even if some were opposites then they would also all be 'the will of God' in the sense He laid out the possibilities. He doesn't even have to have the knowledge of which ones you would choose - thus avoiding the predestination trap the fundies often get mired in, it is enough that He allowed 20 options and disregarded 100 others (for example) - of course we will never know the ones He refused to allow.
Absolutely fascinating idea, have you developed it yourself?
Originally posted by segovius
Anyway, I think the concept of 'right' and 'wrong' religions is erroneous and misleading. They are all 'right' in their original form and they are a'' 'wrong' in their corrupted form.
Corruption and decay are just what happens to things in this world. It's the way it is and we all end up that way.
The 70 year old guy who is weak, feeble and ill is not 'wrong' compared to a fit and healthy 20 year old. He is just how he naturally is after 70 years on the planet. Same with religions, they suffer decay, get old and go senile.
Of course the Church actively help the process wherever possible but then were off-topic and into the realms of the nature of evil and the Devil rather than God.
I agree most religions were victims of decay and corruption as most were based on orally preserved traditions and messages without an actual textbased book of revelation like in the three monotheistic religions, judaism, christianity and islam. I'm not claiming that in these mentioned religions corruption hasn't taken place, but it's much less than in older religions. In islam the corruption came in through the hadiths, but the text of the Quran is relatively well preserved.
Nightcrawler
Originally posted by segovius
Yes, but he has different 'aspects' - as you know these are the 99 names of God (there is a hundredth name actually also that no-one knows. This is OT but a sublime metaphysical concept).
Each 'name' is how God acts (or reacts) in a certain situation.
Not necessarily, there are quite a few of the 99 names that don't show how God acts or reacts, for example "God, the Great(er) One".
Originally posted by segovius
I guess it covers all the bases - the point is that the face of God that you perceive is 'justice'. That is. it is the exact, just and appropriate response to you as you are in that moment.
So if you are genuinely repentant then you will meet God the forgiver. If you are genuinely needy you will meet God the helper.
If you are a hypocrite then you meet a different face. This is interesting actually because it means people see the God that they 'deserve'. Xian fundies almost always see a 'punishing' God and indeed, He does have this aspect - to those who deserve it.
Some Christians see a just and loving God and this says something about themselves too.
I agree, but it's still all part of the one big defining attribute of being merciful and forgiving. And the Quran makes quite clear that despite the mercifulness and forgiving character of God, He is still willing to punish in the afterlife those that didn't believe in God and those who commited bad deeds and didn't return, speak repent, before they died.
According to the Quran it's not a requirement to be a follower of the islamic religion to prevent the punishment in the after-life as long as you believe in God and commit good deeds.
Nightcrawler
P.S: To all christians, I wish a merry christmas.
Originally posted by segovius
Many people I know (and I'm talking about a lot of Christians here too) are far more worried about Christian fanaticism then terrorism. And they should be.
What, specifically, are they worried about here? (And perhaps you might define "Christian fanaticism" for this discussion.)
Originally posted by segovius
Well, they are worried about 'faith' replacing logic. The subordination of the scientific raison d'etre to a model which does not require objective verification but is merely a matter of belief and towing the 'party line'.
Well, "faith" is obviously an important aspect of many religious worldviews (actuall...most worldviews if you think about it)...I would suggest that a Christian without faith isn't really a Christian.
Now...perhaps you are referring to (and even suggesting) that faith and reason are mutually exclusive. If this is so I would disagree.
My friend when asked to describe the literalists said this:
"You are a compassionate person (meaning Mrs Segovius) but your compassion comes from the heart and it finds an echo in your belief. A literalist comes at it the other way: they might also be compassionate but it doesn't come from themselves - they are compassionate (or whatever) because scripture tells them to be."
That is a rather odd definition. Not one I would use. A (Christian) literalist (as I would define them) is one the believes in the accuracy and inerrancy of scripture...basicaly he/she believes the Bible is right (in what it talks about)...though it might not be complete (talking about everything). Of cousre even within Christian thought there is great debate about what ought to be interpreted literally and what is more likely metaphorical. Typically the context and style of the particuar scripture helps immensely. For example one would likely be better served reading the Psalms and Proverbs less literally...but when reading the gospels (which take more the form of historical narrative) reading things more literally is reasonable.
Ie - they subordinate themselves to an authority and abdicate their free will.
Well, Christian doctrine does require one to subordinate oneself to an authority...that is the authority of God, Jesus Christ. As a Christian your wife (and friends) would agree with this (I assume).
It's just the point we're at now. That's why my friends and I are concerned.
But what exactly are you concerned about? Are you concerne for your safety (you mentioned a greater concern of this than terrorism)? Or are you just "concerned about where the world is going"?
Originally posted by segovius
faith is merely a substitute for the lack of knowledge.
Of course it is. But we live our entire lives by faith since we cannot have total and absolute knowledge of everything.
Similarly with 'literalists' - we decided it was inappropriate because they do not take the Bible literally - if they did, they would soon be confronted with hardcore contradictions.
Well...no...not really.
imo this is not necessarily original Christian doctrine.
In your opinion...which doesn't appear to be based on fact.
More specifically: the resurgence in stupidity from 'faith based' and 'rational' quarters
Please tell me that you are not equating stupidity to faith.