It is possible that Islam has a better understanding of God than Christianity

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,943
541
126
I just dropped my pencil, it hit the floor. You lose again.
That isn't an answer to my question. It remains logically possible that the universe was created again with the false memory of your pencil experiment. It's also logically possible that the pencil in fact fell upwards, and your perceptions were altered in real-time to create an illusion of gravity. There are literally infinite logical possibilities that your perceptions were false. How do you rule them out?

No, you continuosly make dumb arguments like the one I quoted at the top of this post.
If it is such a dumb question, why can't you answer it?

This is what you do, you pretend we live in the Matrix.
How do you exclude the logical possibility that we do?
 
Last edited:

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,328
126
I understand Catholicism does, but Judaism does not. I cannot say for each of the various sects of Protestantism, though. I am pretty sure you are right about Islam.

Does Judaism really "allow" you to question your faith and the teachings of Judaism and even encourage it? That is generally an insanely big no-no in religions because to question the religion is to question god himself and thats usually when he gets all pissy and smitefull.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Your argument is stupid because Islam is ancient and archaic. If this thread was about the Baha'i faith, I'd probably agree with you.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
440
126
Does Judaism really "allow" you to question your faith and the teachings of Judaism and even encourage it? That is generally an insanely big no-no in religions because to question the religion is to question god himself and thats usually when he gets all pissy and smitefull.

Actually, directly from the 10 commandments in any form of translation from the old testament, questioning is a real big no-no.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,328
126
so what do you know other than you posted a link that you probably know very little about...........

The universe obeys certain rules—laws to which all things must adhere. These laws are precise, and many of them are mathematical in nature. Natural laws are hierarchical in nature; secondary laws of nature are based on primary laws of nature, which have to be just right in order for our universe to be possible. But, where did these laws come from, and why do they exist? If the universe were merely the accidental by-product of a big bang, then why should it obey orderly principles—or any principles at all for that matter? Such laws are consistent with biblical creation. Natural laws exist because the universe has a Creator God who is logical and has imposed order on His universe (Genesis 1:1).

The Word of God

Everything in the universe, every plant and animal, every rock, every particle of matter or light wave, is bound by laws which it has no choice but to obey. The Bible tells us that there are laws of nature—“ordinances of heaven and earth” (Jeremiah 33:25). These laws describe the way God normally accomplishes His will in the universe.

God’s logic is built into the universe, and so the universe is not haphazard or arbitrary. It obeys laws of chemistry that are logically derived from the laws of physics, many of which can be logically derived from other laws of physics and laws of mathematics. The most fundamental laws of nature exist only because God wills them to; they are the logical, orderly way that the Lord upholds and sustains the universe He has created. The atheist is unable to account for the logical, orderly state of the universe. Why should the universe obey laws if there is no law-giver? But laws of nature are perfectly consistent with biblical creation. In fact, the Bible is the foundation for natural laws.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/God-natural-law

That is the "god of the gaps" argument. Basically when we get to the limits of our current knowledge you invoke god, or intelligent design, to fill in the "gaps". As our scientific knowledge progresses there are new and often bigger gaps in which the "god of the gaps" is then moved to.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,328
126
Actually, directly from the 10 commandments in any form of translation from the old testament, questioning is a real big no-no.

I know Catholics aren't allowed to question it, pretty much a one way trip downstairs to them but even though Judaism is based on a lot of the same stuff I am not very familiar with it so I figured I would ask.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,328
126
Umm you have been brainwashed by the Muslims!!!

What_does_Islam_teach_about_tolerance_for_other_faiths
KORAN commands to kill infidels:
Allah is an enemy to unbelievers. - Sura 2:98
On unbelievers is the curse of Allah. - Sura 2:161
Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. - 2:191

Nowhere does the Koran tell Muslims to Love infidels.......
******************************************************

What Does Islam Teach About Peace?

Before turning our attention to a discussion of violence, it seems prudent to first consider what Islam teaches about peace. The Qur'an, the holy book of Islam, commands Muslims to be at peace with one another, and declares peace upon all Allah's worshippers (Surah 6:54; Surah 27:59). The follower of Islam is to call to remembrance, "...the Favor of Allah bestowed upon you when you were enemies, and how He united your hearts, so that by His Favor you became brothers." (Surah 3:103) However, the true gauge of peace is not found in one's conduct toward those of like faith, but rather in the behavior shown to others.

Some texts in the Qur'an lead one to believe that Muslims and non-Muslims are able to co-exist peacefully. To express the tolerant nature of Islam, it is written, "There is no compulsion in religion..." (Surah 2:256) Furthermore, followers of Islam are commanded to return peace for peace to those who are unbelievers. (Surah 4:90; Surah 8:61).

Though peace is charged, it is easily displaced by intolerance, hatred and warring. The Qur'an instructs, "Fight those who neither believe in Allah nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, and do not embrace the religion of the truth, being among those who have been given the Book (Bible and the Torah), until they pay tribute out of hand and have been humiliated." (Surah 9:29)

In the very texts which incite peace, the Muslim is commanded to "...restrain their hands, take them and kill them wherever you find them." (Surah 4:91) And again, "...O Prophet, urge the believers to fight. If there are twenty patient men among you, you shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred, they shall overcome a thousand, for they are a nation who do not understand." (Surah 8:65)

It is confusing, even distressing to see such extreme disagreement. Peace and war are commanded in the same text, upon the same people. However, the Qur'an permits itself the right of abrogation. "If We supersede any verse or cause it to be forgotten, We bring a better one or one similar. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things!" (Surah 2:106)

A command which is given (i.e., to be peaceful to 'unbelievers'), may be supplanted by a subsequent direction (i.e., to kill 'unbelievers'). And indeed, the frequency of commands to deal peacefully and with forbearance fails in comparison to those which provoke fighting, killing and destruction upon unbelievers.

Luke 19:27

English Standard Version (ESV)

27 But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’”
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
Does Judaism really "allow" you to question your faith and the teachings of Judaism and even encourage it? That is generally an insanely big no-no in religions because to question the religion is to question god himself and thats usually when he gets all pissy and smitefull.

Depends on which flavor of Judaism you're talking about. The dogmatic form - orthodox Judaism - not so much. The less dogmatic forms, definitely yes, and more so than with other religions. It has to do with questioning everything from the existence of God to the price of gasoline being a common Jewish cultural trait. So perhaps it isn't so much a function of the religion - it's just that the less dogmatic forms accommodate the cultural trait pretty well.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,667
440
126
Depends on which flavor of Judaism you're talking about. The dogmatic form - orthodox Judaism - not so much. The less dogmatic forms, definitely yes, and more so than with other religions. It has to do with questioning everything from the existence of God to the price of gasoline being a common Jewish cultural trait. So perhaps it isn't so much a function of the religion - it's just that the less dogmatic forms accommodate the cultural trait pretty well.

ahh yes, but is anything less that basing your entire faith on the literal text not actually following your religion? I mean is it really the same religion anymore if you can pick a choose what you want to think is real from you religious texts and what you think is wrong?

I think it's funny as all get out that some people that claim to be of a certain religion, but still think parts of what they claim to be apart of is "wrong" or at least "off" on what it teaches. I tell people, "Hey if you are able to cherry pick what you like from your choice of religion and discard the rest, then maybe you can understand why I can discard everything your religion teaches."
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
ahh yes, but is anything less that basing your entire faith on the literal text not actually following your religion? I mean is it really the same religion anymore if you can pick a choose what you want to think is real from you religious texts and what you think is wrong?

I think it's funny as all get out that some people that claim to be of a certain religion, but still think parts of what they claim to be apart of is "wrong" or at least "off" on what it teaches. I tell people, "Hey if you are able to cherry pick what you like from your choice of religion and discard the rest, then maybe you can understand why I can discard everything your religion teaches."

That's all more or less true, though somewhat oblique to the point I was addressing that is particular to Jewish culture and religion. Part of the Jewish religion, even separate from the broader culture, is the idea that God did not answer all questions of morality in the scriptures. Hence, even in orthodox Judaism, a certain amount of intellectual discourse on subjects of morality is encouraged, within certain boundaries. That is essentially what much of the "Talmud" is IIRC: different Rabbis of the age discussing/debating/disagreeing on different issues. That tradition of questioning is stronger in Jewish culture than in most others IMO, and it extends to questioning within the secular realm. For example, many Jews are not only critical of Israel but actively favor the Palestinians in that ongoing conflict, while very few Palestinians or Arabs favor the Jews or Israel. The difference is with one culture that encourages questioning and self-criticism versus another which does not.

To address your argument in particular, it would seem to follow that either literalism or atheism is the most intellectually consistent approach, and perhaps that is so. But two people who both think of themselves as literalists inevitably still reach different conclusions when reading the same text. More importantly, the non-literalist is able to bend the religion to accommodate the real world, whereas the literalist must bend the real world to accommodate the religion (for example, on the question of evolution). While the non-literalist might not be intellectually consistent, and perhaps should concede to atheism rather than continue to mold the religion as they see fit, he is at least better able to interact with the world rationally and hence has an overall more functional world view than the literalist.

Another way of putting it is, from the standpoint of the atheist, the non-literalist is a considerably better alternative because we'd rather see the religions being bent to accommodate the world than see the world re-made to accommodate someone's religion.

- wolf
 
Last edited:

crashtestdummy

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2010
2,893
0
0
ahh yes, but is anything less that basing your entire faith on the literal text not actually following your religion? I mean is it really the same religion anymore if you can pick a choose what you want to think is real from you religious texts and what you think is wrong?

I think it's funny as all get out that some people that claim to be of a certain religion, but still think parts of what they claim to be apart of is "wrong" or at least "off" on what it teaches. I tell people, "Hey if you are able to cherry pick what you like from your choice of religion and discard the rest, then maybe you can understand why I can discard everything your religion teaches."

You're assuming that people use religion solely as a rigid structure from which to define the world, treating traditional scripture as infallible truth. I would define this as religious fundamentalism. While there are certainly many who have this approach, I would say that far more use their religion as a rough guide for their own personal explorations and attempts to derive meaning from life. Even in the Catholic Church, where the institution is quite rigid about permissible theology and moral code, most Catholics I know don't subscribe to the stances on abortion, gay rights, sex before marriage, the three natures of God, transubstantiation, etc that the church does. Yet, if you were to ask them, they would still define themselves as Catholic.

Almost all religions have this spectrum, and its members regularly move up and down the spectrum. There's an old joke among Jews that "you don't have to believe in God to be a Rabbi", as your ability to lead ceremony is far more important than your personal views. One of the most brilliant men I ever knew was a devout Muslim, but drank alcohol and was a theoretical physicist who did his PhD on relativistic quantum mechanics. When asked if science and Islam ever clashed for him, he said "Science does not concern miracles. I know God spoke to Muhammad, but there is no repeatable experiment to test it. Therefore, science does not care about God." This would be a hard position to hold as a fundamentalist, but does not make him any less of a believer.

I think it's sometimes a little too easy to make this a fight of opposite sides. In reality, there are infinite gradations of belief, and where you stand is really a matter of personal choice (I'm way over on the atheist side, but have grown to have a lot of respect for the communal and cultural aspects of religion).
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
You're assuming that people use religion solely as a rigid structure from which to define the world, treating traditional scripture as infallible truth. I would define this as religious fundamentalism. While there are certainly many who have this approach, I would say that far more use their religion as a rough guide for their own personal explorations and attempts to derive meaning from life. Even in the Catholic Church, where the institution is quite rigid about permissible theology and moral code, most Catholics I know don't subscribe to the stances on abortion, gay rights, sex before marriage, the three natures of God, transubstantiation, etc that the church does. Yet, if you were to ask them, they would still define themselves as Catholic.

Almost all religions have this spectrum, and its members regularly move up and down the spectrum. There's an old joke among Jews that "you don't have to believe in God to be a Rabbi", as your ability to lead ceremony is far more important than your personal views. One of the most brilliant men I ever knew was a devout Muslim, but drank alcohol and was a theoretical physicist who did his PhD on relativistic quantum mechanics. When asked if science and Islam ever clashed for him, he said "Science does not concern miracles. I know God spoke to Muhammad, but there is no repeatable experiment to test it. Therefore, science does not care about God." This would be a hard position to hold as a fundamentalist, but does not make him any less of a believer.

I think it's sometimes a little too easy to make this a fight of opposite sides. In reality, there are infinite gradations of belief, and where you stand is really a matter of personal choice (I'm way over on the atheist side, but have grown to have a lot of respect for the communal and cultural aspects of religion).

Jesus Christ! Are you unfamiliar with the If you see something say something campaign? That guy could be building nuclear bombs for Iran.
 

Murloc

Diamond Member
Jun 24, 2008
5,382
65
91
I agree that dividing God into a trinity and that sort of stuff is total bullshit.
I think that the islamic view of God makes more sense objectively.
Why should be god divided in parts or why should there be more than one god?
it's way simpler to think that there is one and that's it.
 

micrometers

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2010
3,473
0
0
I agree that dividing God into a trinity and that sort of stuff is total bullshit.
I think that the islamic view of God makes more sense objectively.
Why should be god divided in parts or why should there be more than one god?
it's way simpler to think that there is one and that's it.

The concept of the trinity also is similar to a number of pagan mythologies of the time period, Mithraic and Orphic cults.

Islam is actually very similar to Unitarian universalism IMO in how it surveys other religious belief.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
You guys should never have even entertained this thread with so many pages. The Islamic faith says it is the END of Gods messages. Mo was the LAST PROPHET. This cannot be considered a "better understanding of God" because it is utterly limiting in what God, an unlimited perfect being, can be. Again this is why I brought up the Baha'i faith. He keeps talking about Islam in ways that just don't hold true to modern Islam. Baha'i is what he's looking for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahá'í_Faith
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,502
1
81
Christianity IMO has a "ticking time bomb" version of God. Basically, God creates people. The first man, Adam fucks up and eats the apple (which btw none of us had a choice in), and thus we're all doomed to sin unless we accept jesus into our hearts, even though some people are false christians who don't have the true understanding of Jesus. So he creates the world only to blow it up in the indeterminate future.

Islam's take of God is that there is one God which created the world and that he has sent various prophets and holy men through the centuries to different people across the world, revealing himself through them. So they would include all the various holy persons throughout the world, from Jesus to Buddha to Moses, etc. And they are all equally valid for the people that they are revealed to.

Islam is specific to the Arabs (though others are free to convert) and is about surrender to the one true god which was revealed to man from the beginning. In many ways it resembles to me efforts by progressive Christians to find the meaning of "early christianity".

On a purely theological level, ignoring society and so forth, I think it may be the best understanding of monotheism of the three, since it is more pluralistic and in many ways the acceptance of other "prophets" as manifestations of God would be how I would do monotheism if I really were to take it seriously.

Wouldn't you need direct confirmation from "GOD" to determine if Islam's take on "GOD" is more correct than Christianity's. Otherwise is comes down to your word over someone's else.
 
Last edited:

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Does Judaism really "allow" you to question your faith and the teachings of Judaism and even encourage it? That is generally an insanely big no-no in religions because to question the religion is to question god himself and thats usually when he gets all pissy and smitefull.


It does, and it actually celebrates it. You have to be willing to accept your view is wrong, but arguing over it is something Jews love to do. Get two Jews together in a room to "discuss" the Torah and you will get three points of view. :)

There were two great Rabbis in the old days, Hillel and Shammai. They had opposing views on quite a number of things, and both had great swaths of followers. They respected each other as well, which is important.

The Talmud records over 300 differences of opinion between Beit Hillel (the House of Hillel) and Beit Shammai (the House of Shammai). The Rabbis of the Talmud generally sided with the rulings of the School of Hillel, although the Sages believed that both views were valid.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/hillel.html

Even the core teachings are up for discussion and debate as to their meaning. Naturally, if you are going to debate against the accepted norm you need to have a lot of support for your position. Judaism changes slowly over time as we learn and understand more. The Torah is a many layered book. As you study more you learn the deeper layers. The surface layer is the vital stuff, but more and more is inside its pages than can be seen at first glance.

It really is fascinating.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Luke 19:27

English Standard Version (ESV)

27 But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’”

We already covered this in another thread. You are quoting one line of a parable:

Parable of the Ten Servants

11 The crowd was listening to everything Jesus said. And because he was nearing Jerusalem, he told them a story to correct the impression that the Kingdom of God would begin right away. 12 He said, “A nobleman was called away to a distant empire to be crowned king and then return. 13 Before he left, he called together ten of his servants and divided among them ten pounds of silver,[b] saying, ‘Invest this for me while I am gone.’ 14 But his people hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We do not want him to be our king.’

15 “After he was crowned king, he returned and called in the servants to whom he had given the money. He wanted to find out what their profits were. 16 The first servant reported, ‘Master, I invested your money and made ten times the original amount!’
17 “‘Well done!’ the king exclaimed. ‘You are a good servant. You have been faithful with the little I entrusted to you, so you will be governor of ten cities as your reward.’
18 “The next servant reported, ‘Master, I invested your money and made five times the original amount.’
19 “‘Well done!’ the king said. ‘You will be governor over five cities.’
20 “But the third servant brought back only the original amount of money and said, ‘Master, I hid your money and kept it safe. 21 I was afraid because you are a hard man to deal with, taking what isn’t yours and harvesting crops you didn’t plant.’
22 “‘You wicked servant!’ the king roared. ‘Your own words condemn you. If you knew that I’m a hard man who takes what isn’t mine and harvests crops I didn’t plant, 23 why didn’t you deposit my money in the bank? At least I could have gotten some interest on it.’
24 “Then, turning to the others standing nearby, the king ordered, ‘Take the money from this servant, and give it to the one who has ten pounds.’
25 “‘But, master,’ they said, ‘he already has ten pounds!’ 26 “‘Yes,’ the king replied, ‘and to those who use well what they are given, even more will be given. But from those who do nothing, even what little they have will be taken away. 27 And as for these enemies of mine who didn’t want me to be their king—bring them in and execute them right here in front of me.’”
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke 19&version=NLT
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
The concept of the trinity also is similar to a number of pagan mythologies of the time period, Mithraic and Orphic cults.

Not really. The Trinity is complex, and most Christians do not even understand it. Here is my layman's take on it, for easy explaination:

God is one being comprised of three parts. These three parts are commonly called God the Father (aka God), God the Son (aka Jesus) and God the Spirit (aka Holy Spirit). The three parts are all required to create one complete being, but God is perfect, so each of these three required parts can exist independantly of each other.

God the Father is the mental portion
God the Son is the physical portion
God the Spirit is the life force portion

Man also has these three parts, but being imperfect being we cannot exist without all three combined together. You die with you are missing even one of these three parts.

When God created Man in His own image, He did not make man look like Him...in other words, Adam was not a physical duplicate of God. God made man with the three parts which He also was made of.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
Faith is belief without supporting evidence. This is the meaning of the word. If you believe something without supporting evidence, you have a faith based belief. It really is that simple.

Water is liquid H2O. This is the meaning of the word water. If you see water, you are seeing liquid H2O. It really is that simple.

You are claiming words have whatever meaning you wish them to have in order to avoid the implications that everyone holds faith based beliefs. Stephen Hawking and Isaac Asimov both agree that holding faith based beliefs are not a problem, and they are actually required. Why are you ashamed to admit you have them too?

There is no shame in admitting the truth in this matter. When you believe something without any supporting evidence, you hold a faith based belief. No shame in it.

It is amazing how hard people work to try to justify their own make believe.

I am not assuming that leprechauns don't exist...

With your logic, nothing can be declared real or not real... as Cerpin is trying to explain to you.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
Not really. The Trinity is complex, and most Christians do not even understand it. Here is my layman's take on it, for easy explaination:

God is one being comprised of three parts. These three parts are commonly called God the Father (aka God), God the Son (aka Jesus) and God the Spirit (aka Holy Spirit). The three parts are all required to create one complete being, but God is perfect, so each of these three required parts can exist independantly of each other.

God the Father is the mental portion
God the Son is the physical portion
God the Spirit is the life force portion

Man also has these three parts, but being imperfect being we cannot exist without all three combined together. You die with you are missing even one of these three parts.

When God created Man in His own image, He did not make man look like Him...in other words, Adam was not a physical duplicate of God. God made man with the three parts which He also was made of.

There is nothing complex about make believe. The Malazan Book of the Fallen series is 100x more complex than the ridiculousness that is the bible.
 

SNC

Platinum Member
Jan 14, 2001
2,166
201
106
Does Judaism really "allow" you to question your faith and the teachings of Judaism and even encourage it?

Not sure if islam allows you to question it, but you better not decide to opt out.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/world...60-iranian-pastor-may-face-imminent-execution

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-09-30/...nt-crimes-apostasy-execution?_s=PM:MIDDLEEAST

And regardless of what his original "crime" is the easiest one to convict on and carries the strictest punishment death, is apostasy. Not rape, but choosing a belief.

So I guess the question is: if you are to only believe in one thing or die, is it really a choice?