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

[cybrsage]

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...

You keep pretending that having a faith based belief means nothing is real. You also keep pretending words do not have meanings when you dislike what those meanings. Stop pretending these things, it makes you look silly.

I hate to have to invoke the dictionary, but you keep pretendign faith does not have a defintion. It does. In the context of our discussion, faith means:

faith

   /feɪθ/ Show Spelled[feyth] Show IPA
noun

2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

If you have no facts by which to substantiate your claim, you are using faith. It really is that simple. You really have no choice but to accept this as true, since this is the very meaning of the word faith.

Pretending this is not true makes you look foolish, it makes people wonder why you are so afraid of admitting what is obviously true - you hold faith based beliefs.

Why are you afraid to admit what is obviously true?

 

[cybrsage]

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.

Have you read the Bible?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You keep pretending that having a faith based belief means nothing is real.

You yourself claimed that declaring a belief to be "faith based" was tantamount to claiming it was false.

You also keep pretending words do not have meanings when you dislike what those meanings.

Words do not have objective meanings.

Stop pretending these things, it makes you look silly.
Physician, heal thyself!

{snip}

If you have no facts by which to substantiate your claim, you are using faith.

Why do you accuse others of exactly that which you are yourself guilty?

Why are you afraid to admit what is obviously true?

That's pretty fucking rich coming from the master evader of questions which make you uncomfortable.

 

[shadow9d9]

Have you read the Bible?

Have you read Malazan Book of the Fallen's 10 book series?

 

[Darwin333]

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


http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke 19&version=NLT

I stand corrected and appreciate the context. I usually do my own homework but obviously I failed to do so in this case.

There are however plenty of other horrible atrocities in the bible that one could use, such as God killing a bunch of innocent babies and children instead of smiting the asshole he was mad at. My point is that there are plenty of things in both books that are horrible and have been or are being used to persecute other people.

 

[brandonb]

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.

You seem quite educated on religion. *props*

However, when I went to my Catholic studies a few years ago. The priest there says when God created Man in his own image, he was referring to Love. God is the most perfect loving thing in existance. Satan was perfect in selfishness (the opposite of love). Man is in between on a scale not perfect loving or selfish. He mentioned (and there is a phrase in Genesis that eludes so it, after Cain killed Abel) that other men were out there, but they were living in selfishness. When God created Adam in his image, he created men with a loving nature. Not necessarily created Man in general.

13 Cain said to the LORD, “My punishment is more than I can bear. 14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”

15 But the LORD said to him, “Not so[e]; anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over.” Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. 16 So Cain went out from the LORD’s presence and lived in the land of Nod,[f] east of Eden.

What is your opinion on that? Just curious (not that it has any relevancy to the topic at hand).

 

[Darwin333]

Have you read the Bible?

I have, cover to cover more than once. Its a very difficult read with no real plot, it jumps all over the place and is full of contradictions. Some of the Christian religions even believe that the New replaces the old, what happened there? Did God fuck up his own religion the first go 'round so he completely changed it? Did he start taking some xanex at some point and thats why he stopped smiting people so much or something?

What I find ironic is that I have read the bible far more than almost every Christian I know. If I had to wager based off my own experience I bet that I have read the bible far more than 75% of the Catholics in the country.

 

[cybrsage]

You yourself claimed that declaring a belief to be "faith based" was tantamount to claiming it was false.

Ah, now you get to the crux of your misunderstanding.

Something being faith based does not make it false. Why you would think I hold the contrary position baffles me, since I readily admit my belief in God is faith based.

Do I say God is not real because my belief in God is faith based? Obviously not, that would be ludicrous. Yet you somehow think I believe faith fased beliefs are false.

Now that you know this, does it change how you think?

 

[cybrsage]

I have, cover to cover more than once. Its a very difficult read with no real plot, it jumps all over the place and is full of contradictions. Some of the Christian religions even believe that the New replaces the old, what happened there? Did God fuck up his own religion the first go 'round so he completely changed it? Did he start taking some xanex at some point and thats why he stopped smiting people so much or something?

One of the problems is in the understanding of the order of the Bible. Different groups order it differently. It jumps around a lot because all the books are not in chronological order.

What I find ironic is that I have read the bible far more than almost every Christian I know. If I had to wager based off my own experience I bet that I have read the bible far more than 75% of the Catholics in the country.

I agree with you on this, and it is a sad state of affairs. If a person believes a god is real, they should learn and understand as much about that god as they can. Think about it, I say the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is real. This is a HUGE thing! This means I need to study and learn what God wants from me. This is not to be taken lightly, but so many do.

It is also why there are so many problems today wrt religion. It is very sad.

 

[cybrsage]

You seem quite educated on religion. *props*

However, when I went to my Catholic studies a few years ago. The priest there says when God created Man in his own image, he was referring to Love. God is the most perfect loving thing in existance. Satan was perfect in selfishness (the opposite of love). Man is in between on a scale not perfect loving or selfish. He mentioned (and there is a phrase in Genesis that eludes so it, after Cain killed Abel) that other men were out there, but they were living in selfishness. When God created Adam in his image, he created men with a loving nature. Not necessarily created Man in general.

I have heard of this view as well. It has merit. IMO, love is included in the Spiritual portion.

What is your opinion on that? Just curious (not that it has any relevancy to the topic at hand).

I am still researching that. Most of what I have read says they are other brothers and sisters of Cain and Abel. Initially, they are just sisters (which are not all mentioned), but he was also worried about future brothers coming for vegence. Others say it is a reference to the Neanderthal and other versions of mankind, that modern man is the version God created.

 

[cybrsage]

Have you read Malazan Book of the Fallen's 10 book series?

Never heard of it before this thread. Is it good?

 

[shadow9d9]

Never heard of it before this thread. Is it good?

Think of it as A Game of Thrones, over multiple dimensions, with a bigger and better backstory, and a conclusion.

To be fair though, the first book is a bit unsteady and the 2nd book isn't great, but it goes straight up from there. The scope, characters, and overall story are the best in the business imo.

 

[cybrsage]

Think of it as A Game of Thrones, over multiple dimensions, with a bigger and better backstory, and a conclusion.

To be fair though, the first book is a bit unsteady and the 2nd book isn't great, but it goes straight up from there. The scope, characters, and overall story are the best in the business imo.

Sweet! I will look it up. I HATE how George-I wish I was JRR so much I added a second R to my middle name-RR Martin has messed up that series.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Sweet! I will look it up. I HATE how George-I wish I was JRR so much I added a second R to my middle name-RR Martin has messed up that series.

I'm halfway through the 3rd book...please say it isn't so!

 

[Baasha]

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.


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.

LOL.. what a crock of shit.

Abrahamic religion is by primitives, of primitives, and for primitives. It was created for slaves (jews) whose only solace in life was to "escape" the slavish existence they were forced into several centuries ago. Thus, their idiotic notion of "chosen" people etc. A rudimentary psycho-analysis of their "religion" makes it amply clear that all abrahamic cults, I mean, "religions", arose from within the context of slavery and subjugation in harsh climates (desert).

Feces has several "layers" of matter, analogous to the abrahamic cults. It in no way makes them profound like you want them to be.

Further, there are many basic tenets of these abrahamic cults, starting with judaism, that are utterly unquestionable as far as orthodoxy is concerned. Go to a center of judaism and question the mythology of adam/eve etc. and see how they "love" questioning! 🙄

judaism, along with the other two, are jewish tribal folklore mixed with zoroastrian beliefs, a religion FAR older than judaism but often gets ignored.

any and all abrahamics have to accept the cosmology of the bible; earth being created 6000 years ago with humanity descending from one couple etc. these are all utterly disproven with something you may not be familiar with; facts.

even islam is bounden to the jewish mythology of adam/eve, young earth etc. all three desert cults are soteriological in nature, clearly slavish in nature, philosophy, and origin. Thus, most secular jews have unequivocally rejected the idiotic fairy tales contained in that glorified book of terrorism and chattel called the bible.

 

[Baasha]

Ah, now you get to the crux of your misunderstanding.

Something being faith based does not make it false. Why you would think I hold the contrary position baffles me, since I readily admit my belief in God is faith based.

Do I say God is not real because my belief in God is faith based? Obviously not, that would be ludicrous. Yet you somehow think I believe faith fased beliefs are false.

Now that you know this, does it change how you think?

First and foremost, there are no sages in the western hemisphere, period. Never have been, never will be.

Secondly, your understanding of faith is ridiculous and frankly erroneous. Faith implies lack of substantiation. "Truth" implies experience. The desert cults of the middle east have no experience of the divine to speak of. they are merely prophetic, stuck in the historicity of their mythologies, and highly localized to the tribes of the ancient ME.

Since you admit your "faith" in your YAHOO god is based on nothing, holding on to that fantasy merely fans your ego. It does nothing in terms of substantiating that which you hold on to. There is nothing in the abrahamic cults to allow a person to "experience" the divine. There is an eternal gap between the divine and the creation/manifestation. Any inquiry into bridging this gap (though failed attempts through kabbalah/sufism/gnosticism) has been met with opprobrium, torture, death, and denigration by the orthodoxy in all three cults.

Essentially what you're saying is that you will go on holding on to some blind faith and when questioned, merely retort that others too have "faith" and thus it's okay. This, quintessentially, describes the shallowness of the abrahamic cults.

 

[micrometers]

This is a fascinating read on this topic. It is about how Muslims view Jesus

http://muslimmatters.org/2012/01/11/finding-the-jesus-of-islam-in-early-christianities/

I half read it, but from what I gather, the important bit is that Christianity was largely formed after Jesus's death, by Paul, mainly. Muslims have their scholarly critiques about the validity of the testaments from that period. Many of those critiques IMO are similar to modern scholarship critiques of Christianity like you can find in many religious studies departments.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Ah, now you get to the crux of your misunderstanding.

Something being faith based does not make it false. Why you would think I hold the contrary position baffles me, since I readily admit my belief in God is faith based.

You said in this post:

You claimed that my statement that he did not show any support is a faith based belief. In order for my statement to be faith based, there would have to be no evidence to support it. This means you say there was support for his position (which would invalidate my claim), I want you to show this proof. Since you therefor claim he posted support for his position, you need to quote this proof.

Here you claimed that an allegation that a belief is faith-based imposed upon the claimant the burden of demonstrating the falsity of the faith based belief -- in effect equating the allegation of a faith basis of a belief to a claim that the belief was false.

If that were not true, then you did not have grounds to expect me to "invalidate" your your claim.

Do I say God is not real because my belief in God is faith based?

According to the standard you yourself set, claiming your belief is faith based imposes upon you the burden to "invalidate" that belief.

Obviously not, that would be ludicrous. Yet you somehow think I believe faith fased beliefs are false.

Forgive me for taking you at your word. I should've known better. 🙄

Now that you know this, does it change how you think?

Nope.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

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.

Neither Islam nor Christianity have a better understanding of God. Since God does not exist, the Christian "understanding of God" is just as fallacious as the Islamic version.

 

[shadow9d9]

I'm halfway through the 3rd book...please say it isn't so!

He has severe writer's block.. the series is unlikely to end within Martin's lifetime.

 

[cybrsage]

I stand corrected and appreciate the context. I usually do my own homework but obviously I failed to do so in this case.

Happens to all of us. I applaud you for saying such, though. It is a rarity here! 🙂

There are however plenty of other horrible atrocities in the bible that one could use, such as God killing a bunch of innocent babies and children instead of smiting the asshole he was mad at. My point is that there are plenty of things in both books that are horrible and have been or are being used to persecute other people.

God has always punished the people of a nation for the actions of its leader. Sucks, but that is how it is. Makes you understand just how important your leaders are.

 

[cybrsage]

You said in this post:



Here you claimed that an allegation that a belief is faith-based imposed upon the claimant the burden of demonstrating the falsity of the faith based belief -- in effect equating the allegation of a faith basis of a belief to a claim that the belief was false.

If that were not true, then you did not have grounds to expect me to "invalidate" your your claim.

That is the thread where you claimed that he showed support when he did not. You then started to blather about everyone living in the matrix and reality does not exist so none of us are real. Not a really good thing to remind people of, unless you want everyone to realize you are a basket case who believes the universe popped into existance 1 second ago...then vanishes and starts over again every second.

Forgive me for taking you at your word. I should've known better. 🙄

Nope.

😀 I somehow expected you to continue to try and pretend that I am saying my own God does not exist.

Please explain your logic in this. Is it because I am not real, and the universe ended 1 second ago and started all over again as if it was never here, thereby invalidating my evidence that gravity exists? 😀

 

[cybrsage]

First and foremost, there are no sages in the western hemisphere, period. Never have been, never will be.

That depends on who you ask, and in reference to what faith.

Secondly, your understanding of faith is ridiculous and frankly erroneous. Faith implies lack of substantiation. "Truth" implies experience. The desert cults of the middle east have no experience of the divine to speak of. they are merely prophetic, stuck in the historicity of their mythologies, and highly localized to the tribes of the ancient ME.

I used the dictionary. You are saying the dictionary does not know the meaning the of word. This is foolish.

Faith is a word. Words have meanings. Dictionaries are where you look to find what these meanings are. Some words have more than one meaning, at which point you need to find the one which applies. Legal meanings are often slightly different from common meanings as well, so legal matters require a legal dictionary. Same with medical.

When using a common meaning of a common word, a common dictionary is the authority of what a word means. You do not have to LIKE it, but saying the dictionary is wrong wrt the meaning of words is silly.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

That is the thread where you claimed that he showed support when he did not.

Patently false. I never made that claim, and I defy you to show where I did.

In fact, you tried to infer that I made that claim from the claim that your belief was faith-based. That's the point. You previously treated the claim that a belief was faith based as equivalent to the claim that the belief was false.

EDIT to add: It's worth noting that I defied you to cite this claim you continue to attribute to me in posts #400, #402, #404, #426, #428, #431, #439, and #457, and you could not fulfill that demand at any point. You are deliberately spreading misinformation about me.

You are a LIAR.

You then started to blather about everyone living in the matrix and reality does not exist so none of us are real.

Patently false, again, and I defy you to cite sources for these blatant falsehoods.

You are a LIAR.

Not a really good thing to remind people of, unless you want everyone to realize you are a basket case who believes the universe popped into existance 1 second ago...then vanishes and starts over again every second.

I don't believe that. I want to know how you can rule it out without simply taking it on faith.

😀 I somehow expected you to continue to try and pretend that I am saying my own God does not exist.

You said your belief in God is faith based, and you previously treated a claim that a belief is faith based as equivalent to the claim that the belief was false.

Please explain your logic in this.

It's your "logic." It's not my fault that it is absurd.

 

[cybrsage]

You said in this post:



Here you claimed that an allegation that a belief is faith-based imposed upon the claimant the burden of demonstrating the falsity of the faith based belief -- in effect equating the allegation of a faith basis of a belief to a claim that the belief was false.

No, I did not. You claimed I was wrong for saying he posted no supporting evidence. I requested that you show said supporting evidence. You refuse to do so, saying something about how the universe does not exist.

This also has nothing to do with you also claiming that I said faith based beliefs are false. Still waiting for you to come up with any support for that one as well...considering I both believe God is real AND understand it is a faith based belief.

Are you going to claim the universe does not exist again as an attempt to weasel out of that one?