Religion… What do you think?

Avatar image for frozen
frozen

40350

Forum Posts

258

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 14

#14951  Edited By frozen  Moderator

@mastermercenary: Allow me to redistribute the feeling.

Loading Video...
Loading Video...
Loading Video...

Avatar image for mastermercenary
MasterMercenary

181

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@mrdecepticonleader: Don't misunderstand me please... This thread is older than my registration in this site... So I have no time to read all of the pages.. Excuse me for that

As for the videos I've posted, we can debate as many comicviners do... Like uhmm telling your opinion and dicussing with each other.

Avatar image for mastermercenary
MasterMercenary

181

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@frozen: Saw the first video... This is my opinion:-

1. Misleading title: I didn't see how O'Reilly was scared.

2. Irrelevance : I'm a Muslim... So I'm not bothered with Christians at all

Note: O'Reilly was rude to Dawkins.

Avatar image for mrdecepticonleader
mrdecepticonleader

19714

Forum Posts

2501

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

@mrdecepticonleader: Don't misunderstand me please... This thread is older than my registration in this site... So I have no time to read all of the pages.. Excuse me for that

As for the videos I've posted, we can debate as many comicviners do... Like uhmm telling your opinion and dicussing with each other.

I am not misunderstanding you. I am not suggesting you read through all this thread either.

Oh no I am not disregarding that. Just asked you a couple of questions based on your post.

Avatar image for rev_sulphur
rev_sulphur

2044

Forum Posts

10590

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 5

@mrdecepticonleader: Don't misunderstand me please... This thread is older than my registration in this site... So I have no time to read all of the pages.. Excuse me for that

As for the videos I've posted, we can debate as many comicviners do... Like uhmm telling your opinion and dicussing with each other.

You would be better served not posting videos and just give your own opinion on something or bring something up you want to talk about.

Avatar image for mastermercenary
MasterMercenary

181

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@rev_sulphur: I saw people posting videos about unholy trinity or something like that I wont post a video anymore. @mrdecepticonleader: All right no mistake was made @frozen: Watched the second video and my thoughts are the same as the first ones

The third video is what I've been waiting for.. And you didn't let me down

1. Dodging the question with his speech

2. The wrong information he got

- stoning for adultery: An unmarried person who commits adultery is punished by flogging 100 times; while the married get stoned to death. In the first situation, the sinner hadn't the halal 'permissible' ( so he did the prohibited which makes his punishment is way merciful than the other but still harsh because adultery can affect the individual, the family and the society. On the other hand, the married one had the halal already so there is no valid reason to commit adultery. You should put also in mind that the punishments are hardly implemented due the lack of evidence.

- death for apostasy: One of the videos I posted talked about this.. If you read the Sunna 'teachings and practices of Mohammad'... There no one was killed for changing his/her personal religion but for those who came for the purpose of treason.. And this is nothing new with that since a lot of countries make a death penalty for treachery.

-punishment for breaking the Sabbath: I don't know what's that..care to explain?

-slavery: Well this takes a huge part in Islamic law ... Bilal Bin Rabah was a slave and then he became one of our prophet companion. Plus Islam Encourages to free them.

-equality of women: Well we Muslims don't believe in that... We simply believe that men and women complete each other.. Let me give you an example.. You bought a 1000 pieces jigsaw puzzle. Lets visual that you solved 999 of them ( those present men ) and you couldn't find the last piece ( women ) would your joy be the same as if you did all the 1000?

-kindness towards animals: A woman went to Hell because she didn't feed her cat and a man entered Paradise for quenching the thirst of a dog.

3. Contradictions: Richard said that there are horrible bits in Quran, if you mean wars , fights or something like that... I can explain... Islam began in a time where Muslims were being driven from their homes , persecuted and killed... Plus peaceful =/= pacifist. Physical solution are the last resorts.

I noticed that the point of being an atheist is to follow science as religion and science contradict each other... But that's wrong. Islam encourages people to learn and teach.

Note: I don't think atheists have no moral codes.. I believe they aren't subjective.

Avatar image for pooty
pooty

16236

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14957  Edited By pooty

@mandarinestro: My problem is no where in the scriptures is it confirmed that Luke is talking about Mary. Also no scripture confirms that Heli is related to Mary. We also have no way to confirm if Jesus is ruling in heaven. So we'll agree to disagree. New question please. Was John the last person inspired by God to write his word? Are any other books inspired by God?

@mastermercenary: Greetings. A few questions please. @mastermercenary

1) Why do you believe Muhammad was a Prophet of Allah?

2) Was Muhammad the last Prophet of Allah?

3) Islam believes Jesus was a virgin birth and sent by God. Why don't you believe he was the Son of God or our Savior?

Avatar image for lordraiden
lordraiden

9699

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@mastermercenary That is a lot of youtube videos dude! For someone questioning the point of this thread and then posting half a dozen youtube videos in one post sounds like your trying get your view/point across a little to hard and too much? Don't spam the thread, go easy, go slow is my advice.

Avatar image for king_saturn
King_Saturn

250025

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Scene Still Funny After All These Years...

Loading Video...

Avatar image for rev_sulphur
rev_sulphur

2044

Forum Posts

10590

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 5

#14960  Edited By rev_sulphur

@mastermercenary said:

I noticed that the point of being an atheist is to follow science as religion and science contradict each other... But that's wrong. Islam encourages people to learn and teach.

That is not what Atheist means. If you want to be taking serious you have to at least know the subject you are talking about. Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; Atheism is not a religion. There are no additional, claims, laws, commandments, rules, doctrines, presuppositions, stand alone ideologies, dogmas, and/or faith based beliefs required by or inevitably derived from atheism. You seriously need to educate yourself with the very basics before anyone will listen to you.

Avatar image for nick_hero22
nick_hero22

8769

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@sc said:

@joshuadbr: Oh thats fine, a lot of people are addressing you and have questions, I can imagine how intimidating/time consuming addressing each one would be. I do not mind if you do not have time to answer my own. That being said you prescribe to being open and I assume you value honesty and reason, and so I am sincerely curious about some of your positions. So if you get time could you try some of my questions as well?

1. Do you believe that God created the devil, and that he was an angel cast down from heaven?

2. In your own words how would you define evolution, as in the theory of evolution?

I definitely want to hear his response to my objection against the moral and cosmological argument in the video he posted.

Avatar image for mr_clockwork91
Mr_Clockwork91

2625

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0



- stoning for adultery: An unmarried person who commits adultery is punished by flogging 100 times; while the married get stoned to death. In the first situation, the sinner hadn't the halal 'permissible' ( so he did the prohibited which makes his punishment is way merciful than the other but still harsh because adultery can affect the individual, the family and the society. On the other hand, the married one had the halal already so there is no valid reason to commit adultery. You should put also in mind that the punishments are hardly implemented due the lack of evidence.

- death for apostasy: One of the videos I posted talked about this.. If you read the Sunna 'teachings and practices of Mohammad'... There no one was killed for changing his/her personal religion but for those who came for the purpose of treason.. And this is nothing new with that since a lot of countries make a death penalty for treachery.

The penalty is based on the Qur'an 4:89:

"They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-"

-punishment for breaking the Sabbath: I don't know what's that..care to explain?

-slavery: Well this takes a huge part in Islamic law ... Bilal Bin Rabah was a slave and then he became one of our prophet companion. Plus Islam Encourages to free them.

Sharia allows slavery. Mohammed himself owned 40 unfortunate slaves

-equality of women: Well we Muslims don't believe in that... We simply believe that men and women complete each other.. Let me give you an example.. You bought a 1000 pieces jigsaw puzzle. Lets visual that you solved 999 of them ( those present men ) and you couldn't find the last piece ( women ) would your joy be the same as if you did all the 1000?

If I just bought a thousand piece puzzle, I would be pretty stoked that I just did it all myself. Your analogy doesn't make any sense to me. Women's testimony is half of a mans. Sometimes their testimony is inadmissible.

-kindness towards animals: A woman went to Hell because she didn't feed her cat and a man entered Paradise for quenching the thirst of a dog.

LOL

3. Contradictions: Richard said that there are horrible bits in Quran, if you mean wars , fights or something like that... I can explain... Islam began in a time where Muslims were being driven from their homes , persecuted and killed... Plus peaceful =/= pacifist. Physical solution are the last resorts.

Isis? O Prophet, fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is Hell, and wretched is the destination. (Koran 9:73)

O you who have believed, fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness. And know that Allah is with the righteous. (Koran :123)

Not equal are those believers remaining [at home] - other than the disabled - and the mujahideen, [who strive and fight] in the cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred the mujahideen through their wealth and their lives over those who remain [behind], by degrees. And to both Allah has promised the best [reward]. But Allah has preferred the mujahideen over those who remain [behind] with a great reward (Koran 4:95)

I noticed that the point of being an atheist is to follow science as religion and science contradict each other... But that's wrong. Islam encourages people to learn and teach.

What the hell? The "point" of being an atheist is lack of belief on any claimed God or Gods. Atheism makes no claim on science. People may come to atheism through science but science is not a causation of atheism just a correlation. Islam does not encourage people to learn and teach if the doctrine is not open for review or refinement, no room for religious freedoms or secularism and you can't draw....

Note: I don't think atheists have no moral codes.. I believe they aren't subjective.

Aren't subjective? What do you mean? Morality has never been and never will be objective. The fact that people argue over objective morality furthers the point of subjective morality. Ask 10 people this question;

"If you had to choose between your favorite pet or your most hated neighbor to save from drowning and could only save one, who would you save?" I grantee you would not get the same answer every time.

Avatar image for dshipp17
dshipp17

7650

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#14963  Edited By dshipp17

@pooty said:

@mandarinestro: My problem is no where in the scriptures is it confirmed that Luke is talking about Mary. Also no scripture confirms that Heli is related to Mary. We also have no way to confirm if Jesus is ruling in heaven. So we'll agree to disagree. New question please. Was John the last person inspired by God to write his word? Are any other books inspired by God?

@mastermercenary: Greetings. A few questions please. @mastermercenary

1) Why do you believe Muhammad was a Prophet of Allah?

2) Was Muhammad the last Prophet of Allah?

3) Islam believes Jesus was a virgin birth and sent by God. Why don't you believe he was the Son of God or our Savior?

Based on the context of the scripture, there's no need for the Gospel of Luke to specifically say that Mary was Jesus' connection to David; it's an obvious implication, if Jesus was a virgin birth; Mary is the only possible connection to David; Mary is in Nathan's bloodline; the Bible does establish Joseph's bloodline in Matthew; so, Luke would obviously be establishing Mary's bloodline. If the scripture says Jesus is ruling in Heaven, than Jesus is ruling in Heaven; the Bible says the confirmation will take place in the future, during or at the end of the Tribulation period.

Avatar image for pooty
pooty

16236

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@dshipp17 said:

@pooty said:

@mandarinestro: My problem is no where in the scriptures is it confirmed that Luke is talking about Mary. Also no scripture confirms that Heli is related to Mary. We also have no way to confirm if Jesus is ruling in heaven. So we'll agree to disagree. New question please. Was John the last person inspired by God to write his word? Are any other books inspired by God?

@mastermercenary: Greetings. A few questions please. @mastermercenary

1) Why do you believe Muhammad was a Prophet of Allah?

2) Was Muhammad the last Prophet of Allah?

3) Islam believes Jesus was a virgin birth and sent by God. Why don't you believe he was the Son of God or our Savior?

Based on the context of the scripture, there's no need for the Gospel of Luke to specifically say that Mary was Jesus' connection to David; it's an obvious implication, if Jesus was a virgin birth; Mary is the only possible connection to David; Mary is in Nathan's bloodline; the Bible does establish Joseph's bloodline in Matthew; so, Luke would obviously be establishing Mary's bloodline. If the scripture says Jesus is ruling in Heaven, than Jesus is ruling in Heaven; the Bible says the confirmation will take place in the future, during or at the end of the Tribulation period.

it's not obvious. it's only obvious to people who WANT or INSIST that the Bible is true. But to secular readers, we require more then "it's just obvious". Secular readers know that the bible never records the womens blood line. Secular readers also know that mistakes happen even with the most detailed writers. Also if mary was the only connection to Jesus then there is no need to state Joseph lineage. Again only people who WANT or INSIST that the Bible is true would say "if the scripture says jesus is ruling in heaven then jesus is ruling in heaven" without any tangible or concrete evidence. Because you are a Christian you are biased toward the Bible. You want or insist that it makes sense. So like other Christians, you will interpret the scriptures so that it will confirm to your Christian bias. But to people without Christian bias, we require more evidence.

Avatar image for dshipp17
dshipp17

7650

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#14965  Edited By dshipp17

@pooty said:

@dshipp17 said:

@pooty said:

@mandarinestro: My problem is no where in the scriptures is it confirmed that Luke is talking about Mary. Also no scripture confirms that Heli is related to Mary. We also have no way to confirm if Jesus is ruling in heaven. So we'll agree to disagree. New question please. Was John the last person inspired by God to write his word? Are any other books inspired by God?

@mastermercenary: Greetings. A few questions please. @mastermercenary

1) Why do you believe Muhammad was a Prophet of Allah?

2) Was Muhammad the last Prophet of Allah?

3) Islam believes Jesus was a virgin birth and sent by God. Why don't you believe he was the Son of God or our Savior?

Based on the context of the scripture, there's no need for the Gospel of Luke to specifically say that Mary was Jesus' connection to David; it's an obvious implication, if Jesus was a virgin birth; Mary is the only possible connection to David; Mary is in Nathan's bloodline; the Bible does establish Joseph's bloodline in Matthew; so, Luke would obviously be establishing Mary's bloodline. If the scripture says Jesus is ruling in Heaven, than Jesus is ruling in Heaven; the Bible says the confirmation will take place in the future, during or at the end of the Tribulation period.

it's not obvious. it's only obvious to people who WANT or INSIST that the Bible is true. But to secular readers, we require more then "it's just obvious". Secular readers know that the bible never records the womens blood line. Secular readers also know that mistakes happen even with the most detailed writers. Also if mary was the only connection to Jesus then there is no need to state Joseph lineage. Again only people who WANT or INSIST that the Bible is true would say "if the scripture says jesus is ruling in heaven then jesus is ruling in heaven" without any tangible or concrete evidence. Because you are a Christian you are biased toward the Bible. You want or insist that it makes sense. So like other Christians, you will interpret the scriptures so that it will confirm to your Christian bias. But to people without Christian bias, we require more evidence.

In the context of the scripture, it should be obvious for any reader. People use context to infer a connection, where it's not specifically spelled out in reading, all the time. The Bible is true, whether I insist or want it to be true or not; the Bible has been tested in increasing frequency in modern times, and it's been revealed that the Bible is true in all tests that can be devised; the Bible was a perfect match to the Dead Sea Scrolls, where applicable (e.g. whether the wording matched thousands of years later). The Gospels are unique in that they acknowledged women, for the first time; the Gospels used women to convey Jesus' resurrection, too; in any other case, women would not have been placed in such a significant role, at that time period; that being the case, the Luke bloodline is for Mary, and Mary is the only connection to David, in the context of Jesus. You can say that Joseph's lineage was being stated, because Matthew was more traditional, while Luke was more radical.

Avatar image for king_saturn
King_Saturn

250025

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14966  Edited By King_Saturn

@dshipp17 said:

@pooty said:

@dshipp17 said:

@pooty said:

@mandarinestro: My problem is no where in the scriptures is it confirmed that Luke is talking about Mary. Also no scripture confirms that Heli is related to Mary. We also have no way to confirm if Jesus is ruling in heaven. So we'll agree to disagree. New question please. Was John the last person inspired by God to write his word? Are any other books inspired by God?

@mastermercenary: Greetings. A few questions please. @mastermercenary

1) Why do you believe Muhammad was a Prophet of Allah?

2) Was Muhammad the last Prophet of Allah?

3) Islam believes Jesus was a virgin birth and sent by God. Why don't you believe he was the Son of God or our Savior?

Based on the context of the scripture, there's no need for the Gospel of Luke to specifically say that Mary was Jesus' connection to David; it's an obvious implication, if Jesus was a virgin birth; Mary is the only possible connection to David; Mary is in Nathan's bloodline; the Bible does establish Joseph's bloodline in Matthew; so, Luke would obviously be establishing Mary's bloodline. If the scripture says Jesus is ruling in Heaven, than Jesus is ruling in Heaven; the Bible says the confirmation will take place in the future, during or at the end of the Tribulation period.

it's not obvious. it's only obvious to people who WANT or INSIST that the Bible is true. But to secular readers, we require more then "it's just obvious". Secular readers know that the bible never records the womens blood line. Secular readers also know that mistakes happen even with the most detailed writers. Also if mary was the only connection to Jesus then there is no need to state Joseph lineage. Again only people who WANT or INSIST that the Bible is true would say "if the scripture says jesus is ruling in heaven then jesus is ruling in heaven" without any tangible or concrete evidence. Because you are a Christian you are biased toward the Bible. You want or insist that it makes sense. So like other Christians, you will interpret the scriptures so that it will confirm to your Christian bias. But to people without Christian bias, we require more evidence.

In the context of the scripture, it should be obvious for any reader. People use context to infer a connection, where it's not specifically spelled out in reading, all the time. The Bible is true, whether I insist or want it to be true or not; the Bible has been tested in increasing frequency in modern times, and it's been revealed that the Bible is true in all tests that can be devised; the Bible was a perfect match to the Dead Sea Scrolls, where applicable (e.g. whether the wording matched thousands of years later). The Gospels is unique in that it acknowledge women, for the first time; the Gospels used women to convey Jesus' resurrection, too; in any other case, women would not have been placed in such a significant role, at that time period; that being the case, the Luke bloodline is for Mary, and Mary is the only connection to David, in the context of Jesus.

So then why does Luke constantly reference Joseph and him being of the House of David and of David's Lineage and not Mary ? If it's so obvious then explain why both Luke 1 : 26 - 27 ( which I should add doesn't even reference Mary's name just that she was a virgin betrothed to Joseph of the House of David ) and then you have Luke 2 : 4 which again reference Joseph and how he is of the House of David. If the context is so clear that Luke's lineage and genealogy is of Mary's side and not Joseph then why does Luke on multiple occasions reference Joseph being of the house of David and not Mary at all ? Why is the Genealogy in Luke clearly starting Joseph and not Mary ?

Avatar image for pooty
pooty

16236

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@dshipp17: In the context of the scripture, it should be obvious for any reader

What is obvious is: neither passage mentions Mary. Both passages mention Joseph. No scripture states who Heli is. Those are known facts. Not interpretations. Facts.

The Bible is true, whether I insist or want it to be true or not;

Debatable

the Bible has been tested in increasing frequency in modern times, and it's been revealed that the Bible is true in all tests that can be devised;

This is so wrong. The first verse in the Bible says "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". That statement hasn't even been proven true. No test has shown that men were created from dust. No test confirm women came from a rib. No test confirm the existence of a talking snake. no test confirm the Nile was turned to blood. no test confirm that hell exist. no test or archeological findings prove jesus was raised from the dead. so no, the Bible has not been proven true.

The Gospels is unique in that it acknowledge women, for the first time

Have you read the entire Bible. Ever heard of Ruth or Esther? they have books named after them. and they are women. but even in the Gospels you can't show ONE time where a women's lineage was given.

the Luke bloodline is for Mary, and Mary is the only connection to David, in the context of Jesus

You are entitled to your opinion but your opinion is not confirmed nor supported by any scripture

Avatar image for mandarinestro
Mandarinestro

7651

Forum Posts

4902

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

@pooty: And you are biased against the Bible then. You say you believe a Creator exists, and you differ from atheists in the part where you use your feelings and sense the presence of a higher power. Yet now you ask for tangible evidence, when by using those standards a Creator or Higher Power doesn't exist.

Avatar image for jonesugar
Jonesugar

9

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Lately, I have seen religion as a power struggle, profitable business of people gathering for a social outlet. And the worst is that on yahoo answer Christian act more like zealots. As if its an agenda to demand that everyone believes by being morally vile. This makes me not want to come in contact with shadow and near minded people. At this point no human being can bring me to God but God.

Avatar image for dshipp17
dshipp17

7650

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@dshipp17 said:

@pooty said:

@dshipp17 said:

@pooty said:

@mandarinestro: My problem is no where in the scriptures is it confirmed that Luke is talking about Mary. Also no scripture confirms that Heli is related to Mary. We also have no way to confirm if Jesus is ruling in heaven. So we'll agree to disagree. New question please. Was John the last person inspired by God to write his word? Are any other books inspired by God?

@mastermercenary: Greetings. A few questions please. @mastermercenary

1) Why do you believe Muhammad was a Prophet of Allah?

2) Was Muhammad the last Prophet of Allah?

3) Islam believes Jesus was a virgin birth and sent by God. Why don't you believe he was the Son of God or our Savior?

Based on the context of the scripture, there's no need for the Gospel of Luke to specifically say that Mary was Jesus' connection to David; it's an obvious implication, if Jesus was a virgin birth; Mary is the only possible connection to David; Mary is in Nathan's bloodline; the Bible does establish Joseph's bloodline in Matthew; so, Luke would obviously be establishing Mary's bloodline. If the scripture says Jesus is ruling in Heaven, than Jesus is ruling in Heaven; the Bible says the confirmation will take place in the future, during or at the end of the Tribulation period.

it's not obvious. it's only obvious to people who WANT or INSIST that the Bible is true. But to secular readers, we require more then "it's just obvious". Secular readers know that the bible never records the womens blood line. Secular readers also know that mistakes happen even with the most detailed writers. Also if mary was the only connection to Jesus then there is no need to state Joseph lineage. Again only people who WANT or INSIST that the Bible is true would say "if the scripture says jesus is ruling in heaven then jesus is ruling in heaven" without any tangible or concrete evidence. Because you are a Christian you are biased toward the Bible. You want or insist that it makes sense. So like other Christians, you will interpret the scriptures so that it will confirm to your Christian bias. But to people without Christian bias, we require more evidence.

In the context of the scripture, it should be obvious for any reader. People use context to infer a connection, where it's not specifically spelled out in reading, all the time. The Bible is true, whether I insist or want it to be true or not; the Bible has been tested in increasing frequency in modern times, and it's been revealed that the Bible is true in all tests that can be devised; the Bible was a perfect match to the Dead Sea Scrolls, where applicable (e.g. whether the wording matched thousands of years later). The Gospels is unique in that it acknowledge women, for the first time; the Gospels used women to convey Jesus' resurrection, too; in any other case, women would not have been placed in such a significant role, at that time period; that being the case, the Luke bloodline is for Mary, and Mary is the only connection to David, in the context of Jesus.

So then why does Luke constantly reference Joseph and him being of the House of David and of David's Lineage and not Mary ? If it's so obvious then explain why both Luke 1 : 26 - 27 ( which I should add doesn't even reference Mary's name just that she was a virgin betrothed to Joseph of the House of David ) and then you have Luke 2 : 4 which again reference Joseph and how he is of the House of David. If the context is so clear that Luke's lineage and genealogy is of Mary's side and not Joseph then why does Luke on multiple occasions reference Joseph being of the house of David and not Mary at all ? Why is the Genealogy in Luke clearly starting Joseph and not Mary ?

The answer to your question is to view in the context of the time; Luke was adhering to tradition, in the examples you reference; it was tradition to recognize the man over the woman, at that time. In the applicable location (e.g. the reference to Nathan; Luke 3: 31-32), Mary is implied to be the bloodline connection to David; that's where Luke got radical for his time period; the prime factor is that Mary was Jewish; if either author wanted Mary excluded, than she would have been a gentile; Mary is the only connection to David for Jesus; in the context of scripture, you can say it was a little later in the Bible that Mary's bloodline traces back to David, through Nathan (e.g. in referencing Jesus in Revelation).

Avatar image for king_saturn
King_Saturn

250025

Forum Posts

509

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@dshipp17 said:


So then why does Luke constantly reference Joseph and him being of the House of David and of David's Lineage and not Mary ? If it's so obvious then explain why both Luke 1 : 26 - 27 ( which I should add doesn't even reference Mary's name just that she was a virgin betrothed to Joseph of the House of David ) and then you have Luke 2 : 4 which again reference Joseph and how he is of the House of David. If the context is so clear that Luke's lineage and genealogy is of Mary's side and not Joseph then why does Luke on multiple occasions reference Joseph being of the house of David and not Mary at all ? Why is the Genealogy in Luke clearly starting Joseph and not Mary ?

The answer to your question is to view in the context of the time; Luke was adhering to tradition, in the examples you reference; it was tradition to recognize the man over the woman, at that time. In the applicable location (e.g. the reference to Nathan; Luke 3: 31-32), Mary is implied to be the bloodline connection to David; that's where Luke got radical for his time period; the prime factor is that Mary was Jewish; if either author wanted Mary excluded, than she would have been a gentile; Mary is the only connection to David for Jesus; in the context of scripture, you can say it was a little later in the Bible that Mary's bloodline traces back to David, through Nathan (e.g. in referencing Jesus in Revelation).

But why does Luke constantly give credence to Joseph being of the House of David if it was not important to the story ? I mean I could see Luke using Joseph over Mary if it's tradition... but why such emphasis on Joseph being of the House of David and of David's Lineage but not a damn thing of Mary at all ? I mean Luke could not even put Mary as a footnote in scripture how her lineage was of the House of David but go through multiple passages to say Joseph is of the David's Lineage when it lacks importance in context ? You don't have one single shred of scripture to prove that this was Mary's Genealogy in Luke... but there such is a whole heck of a lot to think this was talking about Joseph's line again.

Avatar image for dshipp17
dshipp17

7650

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@dshipp17 said:

So then why does Luke constantly reference Joseph and him being of the House of David and of David's Lineage and not Mary ? If it's so obvious then explain why both Luke 1 : 26 - 27 ( which I should add doesn't even reference Mary's name just that she was a virgin betrothed to Joseph of the House of David ) and then you have Luke 2 : 4 which again reference Joseph and how he is of the House of David. If the context is so clear that Luke's lineage and genealogy is of Mary's side and not Joseph then why does Luke on multiple occasions reference Joseph being of the house of David and not Mary at all ? Why is the Genealogy in Luke clearly starting Joseph and not Mary ?

The answer to your question is to view in the context of the time; Luke was adhering to tradition, in the examples you reference; it was tradition to recognize the man over the woman, at that time. In the applicable location (e.g. the reference to Nathan; Luke 3: 31-32), Mary is implied to be the bloodline connection to David; that's where Luke got radical for his time period; the prime factor is that Mary was Jewish; if either author wanted Mary excluded, than she would have been a gentile; Mary is the only connection to David for Jesus; in the context of scripture, you can say it was a little later in the Bible that Mary's bloodline traces back to David, through Nathan (e.g. in referencing Jesus in Revelation).

But why does Luke constantly give credence to Joseph being of the House of David if it was not important to the story ? I mean I could see Luke using Joseph over Mary if it's tradition... but why such emphasis on Joseph being of the House of David and of David's Lineage but not a damn thing of Mary at all ? I mean Luke could not even put Mary as a footnote in scripture how her lineage was of the House of David but go through multiple passages to say Joseph is of the David's Lineage when it lacks importance in context ? You don't have one single shred of scripture to prove that this was Mary's Genealogy in Luke... but there such is a whole heck of a lot to think this was talking about Joseph's line again.

I do, as Matthew mentions Solomon, while Luke mentions Nathan; if Joseph was from Solomon, than Mary is from Nathan.

Avatar image for pooty
pooty

16236

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@pooty: And you are biased against the Bible then. You say you believe a Creator exists, and you differ from atheists in the part where you use your feelings and sense the presence of a higher power. Yet now you ask for tangible evidence, when by using those standards a Creator or Higher Power doesn't exist.

You and I discussed this in post 14390. It starts with

" I have no scientific reason for believing in a Creator"

then i end it with

" I'm probably wrong(about a creator) and just not ready to admit it."

That does not mean I throw all logic and reasoning out of the window. I still know that facts/evidence/proof should be required when making most decisions.

You think i'm biased against the Bible? Here is a link from this thread 2yrs ago. I was the biggest Bible supporter around. I literally was defending the Bible against multiple non-believers at once. I LOVE the Bible. It's my favorite book of all time

http://www.comicvine.com/forums/off-topic-5/religion-what-do-you-think-12335/?page=150

Avatar image for pooty
pooty

16236

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@dshipp17 said:

@king_saturn said:

@dshipp17 said:

So then why does Luke constantly reference Joseph and him being of the House of David and of David's Lineage and not Mary ? If it's so obvious then explain why both Luke 1 : 26 - 27 ( which I should add doesn't even reference Mary's name just that she was a virgin betrothed to Joseph of the House of David ) and then you have Luke 2 : 4 which again reference Joseph and how he is of the House of David. If the context is so clear that Luke's lineage and genealogy is of Mary's side and not Joseph then why does Luke on multiple occasions reference Joseph being of the house of David and not Mary at all ? Why is the Genealogy in Luke clearly starting Joseph and not Mary ?

The answer to your question is to view in the context of the time; Luke was adhering to tradition, in the examples you reference; it was tradition to recognize the man over the woman, at that time. In the applicable location (e.g. the reference to Nathan; Luke 3: 31-32), Mary is implied to be the bloodline connection to David; that's where Luke got radical for his time period; the prime factor is that Mary was Jewish; if either author wanted Mary excluded, than she would have been a gentile; Mary is the only connection to David for Jesus; in the context of scripture, you can say it was a little later in the Bible that Mary's bloodline traces back to David, through Nathan (e.g. in referencing Jesus in Revelation).

In one sentence you say " Luke is adhering to tradition". then you say "luke is being a radical". So in one scripture Luke is adhering to tradition AND being a radical. You are twisting the scriptures to suit your way of thinking.

Avatar image for mr_clockwork91
Mr_Clockwork91

2625

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@pooty: I'm starting to have faith that dshipp is Kevin Sorbo...

Avatar image for pooty
pooty

16236

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@pooty: I'm starting to have faith that dshipp is Kevin Sorbo...

Impossible. Kevin was born in 1958. Dshipp existed with God before the Big Bang(seriously.. ask him). they can't be the same person

Avatar image for mr_clockwork91
Mr_Clockwork91

2625

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@pooty: Oh yeah I remember that conversation. My mind was full of wat when I read that post...

Avatar image for mastermercenary
MasterMercenary

181

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@pooty: Hey there

1) Why do you believe Muhammad was a Prophet of Allah?

Mohammad (PBUH) has a miracle like every other prophet ( including Jesus PBUH)... His miracle is preserved... It's the Quran. It hasn't been changed for more than 1400 years and it won't. So the answer is because of the Quran.

2) Was Muhammad the last Prophet of Allah?

since Quran is preserved and it stated that in

Chapter 33:41

Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of ALLAH, and the seal of the Prophets and ALLAH has full knowledge of all things.

the answer is yes.

3) Islam believes Jesus was a virgin birth and sent by God. Why don't you believe he was the Son of God or our Savior?

We believe that Allah is the most powerful, the merciful, the all seeing and the all hearing. Allah is the only one who can forgive sinners because he is the God.

In chapter 112

Say, "He is Allah , [who is] One,

Allah , the Eternal Refuge.

He neither begets nor is born,

Nor is there to Him any equivalent."

@mr_clockwork91

1.

The penalty is based on the Qur'an 4:89:

"They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-"
-this is Cherry picking , have you read the previous verse, it's about the monafiqin (hypocrites) who claim to be Muslims but they actually aren't.. pretty much a treason to me to act like a Muslim in order to help the enemies of Islam.
Sharia allows slavery. Mohammed himself owned 40 unfortunate slaves
- I've never said slavery is prohibited... Our prophet had slaves -not sure about the numbers- but I'm sure that Mohammad treated them properly. Chapter 24:32
"And marry the unmarried among you and the righteous among your male slaves and female slaves. If they should be poor, Allah will enrich them from His bounty, and Allah is all-Encompassing and Knowing."
If I just bought a thousand piece puzzle, I would be pretty stoked that I just did it all myself. Your analogy doesn't make any sense to me. Women's testimony is half of a mans. Sometimes their testimony is inadmissible.
I was going to make it simple but I'll explain it directly ro you.
Know, as stated clearly in the Noble Qur'an, that men have a degree of responsibility over women since they pay the Mahr (bridal money), spend on behalf of women, protect them and satisfy their needs in general. Men also are required to wage Jihad; they have stronger bodies and behave better than women.
Put in mind that the word men (and its derivatives) is mentioned 32 times in the Qur'an, while the word women (and its derivatives) is mentioned 42 times.
LOL
?

Isis? O Prophet, fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is Hell, and wretched is the destination. (Koran 9:73)

O you who have believed, fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness. And know that Allah is with the righteous. (Koran :123)

Not equal are those believers remaining [at home] - other than the disabled - and the mujahideen, [who strive and fight] in the cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred the mujahideen through their wealth and their lives over those who remain [behind], by degrees. And to both Allah has promised the best [reward]. But Allah has preferred the mujahideen over those who remain [behind] with a great reward (Koran 4:95)

Isn't it clear.. ISIS and Al Qaeda are not muslims. You state that Islam is a religion of violence according to few thousands ( if not less ) and left the millions of muslims.. there are 1.4 billion muslims.. which means we are the quarter of the population. If we are terrorist, Shouldn't we be dead by now. The first two verses, like I said before, was about the hypocrites and disbelievers who persecuted muslims so we had the right to foght back. About the last verse, It seems you don't know what Jihad means...It means struggle against horrible thing such as hunger, poverty , depression , and ignorance.. So I'm a mujahid right now!!!

What the hell? The "point" of being an atheist is lack of belief on any claimed God or Gods. Atheism makes no claim on science. People may come to atheism through science but science is not a causation of atheism just a correlation. Islam does not encourage people to learn and teach if the doctrine is not open for review or refinement, no room for religious freedoms or secularism and you can't draw....

Can you please explain to me this sentence "Islam does not encourage people to learn and teach if the doctrine is not open for review or refinement, no room for religious freedoms or secularism and you can't draw"with an example .other than that can you explain to me why someone would have "lack of belief on any claimed God or Gods"believing in God is a natural belief while something came from nothing isn't.

Aren't subjective? What do you mean? Morality has never been and never will be objective. The fact that people argue over objective morality furthers the point of subjective morality. Ask 10 people this question;

"If you had to choose between your favorite pet or your most hated neighbor to save from drowning and could only save one, who would you save?" I grantee you would not get the same answer every time.

look sorry for this mistake... I ll correct it here

please tell me what you think of this

no god = no objective morality = subjective morality constantly changing over time according the new ideas and cultures...

Have you ever heard of Lawrence Krauss ? He claimed that incest marriage are not prohibited. What do you think of that?

Avatar image for mr_clockwork91
Mr_Clockwork91

2625

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@mastermercenary said:

@mr_clockwork91

1.

The penalty is based on the Qur'an 4:89:

"They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-"
-this is Cherry picking , have you read the previous verse, it's about the monafiqin (hypocrites) who claim to be Muslims but they actually aren't.. pretty much a treason to me to act like a Muslim in order to help the enemies of Islam.
Cherry picking, not really, I'm reading your book in it's literal sense. So if you can't deal with the fact that Islam is not a religion of peace then maybe you should grow thicker skin.
Sharia allows slavery. Mohammed himself owned 40 unfortunate slaves
- I've never said slavery is prohibited... Our prophet had slaves -not sure about the numbers- but I'm sure that Mohammad treated them properly. Chapter 24:32
"And marry the unmarried among you and the righteous among your male slaves and female slaves. If they should be poor, Allah will enrich them from His bounty, and Allah is all-Encompassing and Knowing."
Are you seriously trying to justify slavery? You should be ashamed of yourself! If Allah is all-encompassing and knowing, he would know slavery is wrong and forcing people to marriage might was well another form of slavery...masters can have sex with female slaves whenever they want Surah 4:3
If I just bought a thousand piece puzzle, I would be pretty stoked that I just did it all myself. Your analogy doesn't make any sense to me. Women's testimony is half of a mans. Sometimes their testimony is inadmissible.
I was going to make it simple but I'll explain it directly ro you.
Know, as stated clearly in the Noble Qur'an, that men have a degree of responsibility over women since they pay the Mahr (bridal money), spend on behalf of women, protect them and satisfy their needs in general. Men also are required to wage Jihad; they have stronger bodies and behave better than women.
Put in mind that the word men (and its derivatives) is mentioned 32 times in the Qur'an, while the word women (and its derivatives) is mentioned 42 times.
Men shouldn't be responsible over woman or other human beings that aren't their children. A woman should have responsibility for herself. Also "men also are required to wage jihad"? So forcing men to wage acts of violence is immoral.

Isis? O Prophet, fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is Hell, and wretched is the destination. (Koran 9:73)

O you who have believed, fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness. And know that Allah is with the righteous. (Koran :123)

Not equal are those believers remaining [at home] - other than the disabled - and the mujahideen, [who strive and fight] in the cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred the mujahideen through their wealth and their lives over those who remain [behind], by degrees. And to both Allah has promised the best [reward]. But Allah has preferred the mujahideen over those who remain [behind] with a great reward (Koran 4:95)

Isn't it clear.. ISIS and Al Qaeda are not muslims. You state that Islam is a religion of violence according to few thousands ( if not less ) and left the millions of muslims.. there are 1.4 billion muslims.. which means we are the quarter of the population. If we are terrorist, Shouldn't we be dead by now. The first two verses, like I said before, was about the hypocrites and disbelievers who persecuted muslims so we had the right to foght back. About the last verse, It seems you don't know what Jihad means...It means struggle against horrible thing such as hunger, poverty , depression , and ignorance.. So I'm a mujahid right now!!!

Yes they are. They do it in the name of Allah and Sharia law which is the most literal interpretation. Your definition of Jihad can be interpretative subjectively. So a struggle or threats against Islam or depression can be processed as any other religion or the western world...

What the hell? The "point" of being an atheist is lack of belief on any claimed God or Gods. Atheism makes no claim on science. People may come to atheism through science but science is not a causation of atheism just a correlation. Islam does not encourage people to learn and teach if the doctrine is not open for review or refinement, no room for religious freedoms or secularism and you can't draw....

Can you please explain to me this sentence "Islam does not encourage people to learn and teach if the doctrine is not open for review or refinement, no room for religious freedoms or secularism and you can't draw"with an example .other than that can you explain to me why someone would have "lack of belief on any claimed God or Gods"believing in God is a natural belief while something came from nothing isn't.

If Islam encourages people to learn and teach then why can you not question your own book? Why can't you accept the fact of evolution? Why can't you live peacefully with other religions? And why are some forms of art forbidden? Bronze age values at it's finest.

Believing in a God or Gods is not natural, you are indoctrinated at birth by culture you are born into.

Why would someone have a lack of belief in God or Gods? No evidence for their existence and does not corroborate with science.

So God just being there is natural? While something actually did come from something isnt? Where did that thing come from you might ask? I don't know but at least I can answer honestly rather than just say god did it and walk away.

Aren't subjective? What do you mean? Morality has never been and never will be objective. The fact that people argue over objective morality furthers the point of subjective morality. Ask 10 people this question;

"If you had to choose between your favorite pet or your most hated neighbor to save from drowning and could only save one, who would you save?" I grantee you would not get the same answer every time.

look sorry for this mistake... I ll correct it here

please tell me what you think of this

no god = no objective morality = subjective morality constantly changing over time according the new ideas and cultures...

Have you ever heard of Lawrence Krauss ? He claimed that incest marriage are not prohibited. What do you think of that?

Yes I know who he is, and he is probably smarter than you and I put together. You are misrepresenting his words. it’s not clear to him that incest is wrong, and then he went on to argue that there are biological and societal reasons why incest is not a good idea, but that he’d be willing to listen to rational arguments for sexual and emotional interactions between siblings, for instance…not that he’d encourage such behavior. It’s a nuanced and complicated reply in too short a time, but otherwise, he’s not wrong. He is just stating that he would be willing to listen to RATIONAL arguments for such.

Avatar image for mastermercenary
MasterMercenary

181

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@mastermercenary said:

@mr_clockwork91

1.

The penalty is based on the Qur'an 4:89:

"They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-"
-this is Cherry picking , have you read the previous verse, it's about the monafiqin (hypocrites) who claim to be Muslims but they actually aren't.. pretty much a treason to me to act like a Muslim in order to help the enemies of Islam.
Cherry picking, not really, I'm reading your book in it's literal sense. So if you can't deal with the fact that Islam is not a religion of peace then maybe you should grow thicker skin.
So that's It? Grow thicker skin? what are your qualifications to understand the full meaning of Quran? enlighten me please?
Sharia allows slavery. Mohammed himself owned 40 unfortunate slaves
- I've never said slavery is prohibited... Our prophet had slaves -not sure about the numbers- but I'm sure that Mohammad treated them properly. Chapter 24:32
"And marry the unmarried among you and the righteous among your male slaves and female slaves. If they should be poor, Allah will enrich them from His bounty, and Allah is all-Encompassing and Knowing."
Are you seriously trying to justify slavery? You should be ashamed of yourself! If Allah is all-encompassing and knowing, he would know slavery is wrong and forcing people to marriage might was well another form of slavery...masters can have sex with female slaves whenever they want Surah 4:3
You need to know that Islam didn't adopt the idea of slavery,so you can't blame Islam on something it never adopted. But on the other hand Islam organized it? Making the only valid way to get one is by capturing the enemies' soldiers, And make lots of ways to get rid of it, starting with the encouragement to free the slaves, and freeing them if you killed someone accidentally, had sex in the days of Ramadan etc.. you misunderstand about the marriage of slaves,, we don't force them to marry, they choose whoever they want to marry if they want so but if they won't then that's their decision not ours.... about having sex with female slaves.. as slavery, Islam didn't adopt the idea... but it gave her the rights as the wife. The ironic is that you see this thing wrong, but pornstars is OK. Where is your morality?
If I just bought a thousand piece puzzle, I would be pretty stoked that I just did it all myself. Your analogy doesn't make any sense to me. Women's testimony is half of a mans. Sometimes their testimony is inadmissible.
I was going to make it simple but I'll explain it directly ro you.
Know, as stated clearly in the Noble Qur'an, that men have a degree of responsibility over women since they pay the Mahr (bridal money), spend on behalf of women, protect them and satisfy their needs in general. Men also are required to wage Jihad; they have stronger bodies and behave better than women.
Put in mind that the word men (and its derivatives) is mentioned 32 times in the Qur'an, while the word women (and its derivatives) is mentioned 42 times.
Men shouldn't be responsible over woman or other human beings that aren't their children. A woman should have responsibility for herself. Also "men also are required to wage jihad"? So forcing men to wage acts of violence is immoral.
In most of the families, the husband/father is the one who is the responsible to get money in order to live... so that's makes him the responsible over his family, including his wife.. but that doesn't mean he can interfere in everything in here life.. And about Jihad again.. I'll explain it down.

Isis? O Prophet, fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is Hell, and wretched is the destination. (Koran 9:73)

O you who have believed, fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness. And know that Allah is with the righteous. (Koran :123)

Not equal are those believers remaining [at home] - other than the disabled - and the mujahideen, [who strive and fight] in the cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred the mujahideen through their wealth and their lives over those who remain [behind], by degrees. And to both Allah has promised the best [reward]. But Allah has preferred the mujahideen over those who remain [behind] with a great reward (Koran 4:95)

Isn't it clear. ISIS and Al Qaeda are not muslims. You state that Islam is a religion of violence according to few thousands ( if not less ) and left the millions of muslims.. there are 1.4 billion muslims.. which means we are the quarter of the population. If we are terrorist, Shouldn't we be dead by now. The first two verses, like I said before, was about the hypocrites and disbelievers who persecuted muslims so we had the right to foght back. About the last verse, It seems you don't know what Jihad means...It means struggle against horrible thing such as hunger, poverty , depression , and ignorance.. So I'm a mujahid right now!!!

Yes they are. They do it in the name of Allah and Sharia law which is the most literal interpretation. Your definition of Jihad can be interpretative subjectively. So a struggle or threats against Islam or depression can be processed as any other religion or the western world...

OK I'll be an atheist for a day and I'll bomb some building and kill all the religious people out there in the name of atheism.. sounds right? when our religion gets hijacked nobody bats an eye... About struggle against Islam? LOL .. Islam never said to fight non-Muslim unless they started fighting or took our home.

What the hell? The "point" of being an atheist is lack of belief on any claimed God or Gods. Atheism makes no claim on science. People may come to atheism through science but science is not a causation of atheism just a correlation. Islam does not encourage people to learn and teach if the doctrine is not open for review or refinement, no room for religious freedoms or secularism and you can't draw....

Can you please explain to me this sentence "Islam does not encourage people to learn and teach if the doctrine is not open for review or refinement, no room for religious freedoms or secularism and you can't draw"with an example .other than that can you explain to me why someone would have "lack of belief on any claimed God or Gods"believing in God is a natural belief while something came from nothing isn't.

If Islam encourages people to learn and teach then why can you not question your own book? Why can't you accept the fact of evolution? Why can't you live peacefully with other religions? And why are some forms of art forbidden? Bronze age values at it's finest.

I questioned the Quran at a time and I read the evolution .. First thing it's not a fact it's a theory. secondly.. I did some research about Atheism, Judaism , Christianity and Islam so my faith is now fixed.. If I was close-minded as you claim, I won't debate with you. in Al-Andalus.. Jews were living with the Muslims there. When the Christians took it.. Jews left with us. Don't get brainwashed by the media.And what kind of arts are forbidden, tell me pls

Believing in a God or Gods is not natural, you are indoctrinated at birth by culture you are born into.

Why would someone have a lack of belief in God or Gods? No evidence for their existence and does not corroborate with science.

So God just being there is natural? While something actually did come from something isnt? Where did that thing come from you might ask? I don't know but at least I can answer honestly rather than just say god did it and walk away.

All things that began to exist need a cause

Even though we are able to explain that we had a beginning ( Big Bang Theory ), We can't determine the cause of that beginning

Now observe the universe and its perfect order, structure and systems and tell me there is no creator

OK? what was the cause of the creator? and what the cause of the cause of the creator? and what is the cause of the cause of the cause of the creator? This can be endless which lead us that the creator hasn't being created.

So for god to exist, he must exist without a beginning therefore he doesn't need a cause which makes him eternal... without a bound between his creation or the realms he created ( time, space and matter)

Aren't subjective? What do you mean? Morality has never been and never will be objective. The fact that people argue over objective morality furthers the point of subjective morality. Ask 10 people this question;

"If you had to choose between your favorite pet or your most hated neighbor to save from drowning and could only save one, who would you save?" I grantee you would not get the same answer every time.

look sorry for this mistake... I ll correct it here

please tell me what you think of this

no god = no objective morality = subjective morality constantly changing over time according the new ideas and cultures...

Have you ever heard of Lawrence Krauss ? He claimed that incest marriage are not prohibited. What do you think of that?

Yes I know who he is, and he is probably smarter than you and I put together. You are misrepresenting his words. it’s not clear to him that incest is wrong, and then he went on to argue that there are biological and societal reasons why incest is not a good idea, but that he’d be willing to listen to rational arguments for sexual and emotional interactions between siblings, for instance…not that he’d encourage such behavior. It’s a nuanced and complicated reply in too short a time, but otherwise, he’s not wrong. He is just stating that he would be willing to listen to RATIONAL arguments for such.

So the only thing that keep an atheist from having an incest marriage is biological reasons ( chromosomes and genes) and societal reasons (society thoughts), So if there is a new culture that supports this kind of marriage... they can do that with condoms since the two reasons became invalid, which means also a subjective morality.

To end this... you said god does not corroborate with science . read about our god and tell me if there are any contradictions with him and science

Avatar image for pooty
pooty

16236

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@mastermercenary:

Yet they make the Jinns equals with Allah, though Allah did create the Jinns; and they falsely, having no knowledge, attribute to Him sons and daughters. Praise and glory be to Him! (For He is) above what they attribute to Him! To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth: how can He have a son when He hath no consort? He created all things, and He hath full knowledge of all things. That is Allah, your Lord! There is no god but He, the Creator of all things; then worship ye Him; and He hath power to dispose of all affairs.

This is my favorite verse in the Quran!! It shows that Allah needs no help. He can take care of all things himself. A few more questions.

1) What are your favorite verses in the Quran?

2) Where you raised Muslim?

3) What country do you live in?

4) Have you studied any other religions?

Thanks

Avatar image for mastermercenary
MasterMercenary

181

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@pooty: Hey

1) Well, you started with a very hard question. I love them all, But if I have to choose one. It'll be the last two verses in Al-Isra

Say, "Call upon Allah or call upon the Most Merciful. Whichever [name] you call - to Him belong the best names." And do not recite [too] loudly in your prayer or [too] quietly but seek between that an [intermediate] way. [17:110]

And say, "Praise to Allah , who has not taken a son and has had no partner in [His] dominion and has no [need of a] protector out of weakness; and glorify Him with [great] glorification." [17:111]

I like them because:-

  • Like your favorite verse.. they show that Allah need no son, partner or a savior.
  • Knowing the existence of the 99 names of Allah.
  • Showing how Allah has a different concept compared to other religions.

2) yes, my parents are Muslims Alhamdulillah ( all praise is due to Allah )

3) I am a Palestinian who lives in the UAE.

4) More like researches not studies.. I had my own suspicions about the existence of god at a time... So I did my researches about Atheism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, And know I can say that I completely believe in Allah as my god and Islam as my religion.

No problem, what religion do you practice... where are you from and tell me about your religious experience.

-Joe

Avatar image for pooty
pooty

16236

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@mastermercenary:

Cool. You live in UAE. What percentage of people in your country is Islamic? What percentage is Christian? Just a guess is fine.

I'm in American. Born and raised Christian. Two years ago I was the biggest Christian defender. Due to events in my life and some questions raised on this site, I am no longer religious at all. I am not an atheist either. I believe in a creator but don't believe HE wrote any books. @consolemaster is another Muslim I've enjoyed speaking with. in case you didn't know of him

Avatar image for mrdecepticonleader
mrdecepticonleader

19714

Forum Posts

2501

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

@pooty said:

@mandarinestro said:

@pooty: And you are biased against the Bible then. You say you believe a Creator exists, and you differ from atheists in the part where you use your feelings and sense the presence of a higher power. Yet now you ask for tangible evidence, when by using those standards a Creator or Higher Power doesn't exist.

You and I discussed this in post 14390. It starts with

" I have no scientific reason for believing in a Creator"

then i end it with

" I'm probably wrong(about a creator) and just not ready to admit it."

That does not mean I throw all logic and reasoning out of the window. I still know that facts/evidence/proof should be required when making most decisions.

You think i'm biased against the Bible? Here is a link from this thread 2yrs ago. I was the biggest Bible supporter around. I literally was defending the Bible against multiple non-believers at once. I LOVE the Bible. It's my favorite book of all time

http://www.comicvine.com/forums/off-topic-5/religion-what-do-you-think-12335/?page=150

Thanks for the nostalgia trip :) Ha ha.

Avatar image for pooty
pooty

16236

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for mr_clockwork91
Mr_Clockwork91

2625

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@mastermercenary: What are my qualifications? Or so you are arguing from authority is that it? My understanding is that I can read the Qur'an for what it is.

Islam didn't adopt slavery? Arab slave trade. The only way to free slaves is if they convert to islam. Tell me how this is any better?

Porn stars choose to have consensual sex with another consensual person, the slaves you claim do? I highly doubt it. Ever heard of Stockholm syndrome

I've never heard of an atheist bombing religious building in the name of atheism. But I have heard of planes being hijacked and flown into the world trade center in the name of Islam.

Evolutionary theory is a fact. You are misinterpreting the term " Scientific Theory" with its colloquial everyday use of theory in general speech. In science; A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon. So evolution is a fact.

Figurative art, and anything that can be construed as an idol such as living things...

The universe is not perfect and I can say I don't know that there was a creator.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The Big Bang theory at least has evidence to support it's claims.

Again its ok to believe that God is eternal but the universe is not? God did not create time, man did, its a man made measurement.

And yes, I don't know why you are not getting this. If you do not conform to my ideas of morality, I consider you immoral. The only thing greater than my morality is societal morality. Even that is different from society to society.

There is no such thing as objective morality. Just subjective.

So if anyone not just atheists, so stop with the ad hominem attacks, commit incest, I would view it as immoral.

But in the beginning there was Adam and Eve, then they had children, I wonder who they had sex with to reproduce...

Also your god can not be scientifically tested and is unfalsifiable. Therefore he does not corroborate with science. Plus Mohammed flew to heaven on a horse with wings. Are you serious? Horses don't fly and that is a huge contradiction to science.

Avatar image for mrdecepticonleader
mrdecepticonleader

19714

Forum Posts

2501

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

@pooty said:

@mrdecepticonleader: Thanks for the nostalgia trip :) Ha ha.

Those were the days, my friend!!

Indeed. Can't believe it was over two years ago. Time just flies by.

Avatar image for chillxpill
ChillxPill

1401

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14988  Edited By ChillxPill

Religion builds barriers. Should it? No. I dislike legalistic believers who shove their beliefs down others throats.

I make it my mission to have friends who have differnt beliefs. It helps because I'm educating myself, and teaching others at the same time.

I don't believe that just because I'm a Christian I can't have a great conversation with anyone else who thinks differently, even with Atheist.

Avatar image for pooty
pooty

16236

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Religion builds barriers. Should it? No. I dislike legalistic believers who shove their beliefs down others throats.

It's cool you feel that way. But is that what the Bible teaches? Isn't the true religion supposed to separate you from the world and non believers?

John 15:19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.

2 Corinthians 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?

I make it my mission to have friends who have differnt beliefs. It helps because I'm educating myself, and teaching others at the same time.

Since you have the true religion why would you make it your mission to be friends with unbelievers? What can a non-believer teach you? Jesus spoke to unbelievers but he was not friends with any unbelievers. I don't recall any believer being friends with non believers. And in the Bible, believers are taught to teach non believers. never told to listen to them

I don't believe that just because I'm a Christian I can't have a great conversation with anyone else who thinks differently, even with Atheist

Agreed. Hoping we can have a great conversation! I bold my comments to separate our post. i'm not yelling

Avatar image for nick_hero22
nick_hero22

8769

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@mr_clockwork91: I'm atheist, and your critique against moral realism is abysmal to be honest. Just because people disagree on what the values are doesn't mean they don't exist, so actually what you said is a non-sequitur because ideology and socio-economical factors could hinder ones ability to recognize these values. In the previous pages I highlighted an atheistic moral framework which allows for the possibility of objective moral values, so I will simply quote myself down below.

"You can easily create a form of objective morality under atheism. You can combine Egoism and Contractarianism to create a far more preferable moral system than the arbitrary morality that Christians espouse. Under this moral system humans would receive there value because they are instrumental to helping someone ("Me" for example) to accomplish some set of X goals or because they provide me with some type of benefit (emotional, mental, or physical). The reason for why we value people under Egoism is because of self-interest. Now, lets go back and think about what Dr. Shelly Kagan said about this hypothetical contract (Social Contract). Under this moral system the necessity for such a contract would stem from "us" being motivated by our self-interest. What I mean here is that the reason we would engage in this type behavior is because it is necessary to further our own interest such as attaining wealth, health, and prosperity. So, we would create moral rules (or laws) that would foster such a atmosphere, but in order for this to work they must be universal. What I mean by universal is that that have to work for everyone in order for this to be a success, so we can go back to the part where Dr. Shelly Kagan talks about the "Veil of Ignorance" when creating these moral rules. With the veil of ignorance applied in this hypothetical contract, I don't know if I would turn out to be one of the winners or losers in society so when I formulate these rules I would want them to cover my skin in both cases (remember Egoism) just like every other person involved in this process would. This kinda of mentality would contribute to that fostering of an atmosphere of universality since no one wants be screwed if they aren't successful in the real world. These moral rules would be pertinent to myself self-interest because my self-interest is further propagate by society and my interactions with society. For example, I wouldn't want someone to sneak up on me and knife me in the back COD-style, so when making these rules murder would be prohibited because it is not in my self-interest to be murder nor would it be in the self-interest of anyone else taking part in this process; so we would ban murder in order to help all of us achieve a greater level of security and well-being. This is essentially a rough outline of what a somewhat working atheistic moral system could look like."

Avatar image for mr_clockwork91
Mr_Clockwork91

2625

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@mr_clockwork91: I'm atheist, and your critique against moral realism is abysmal to be honest. Just because people disagree on what the values are doesn't mean they don't exist, so actually what you said is a non-sequitur because ideology and socio-economical factors could hinder ones ability to recognize these values. In the previous pages I highlighted an atheistic moral framework which allows for the possibility of objective moral values, so I will simply quote myself down below.

"You can easily create a form of objective morality under atheism. You can combine Egoism and Contractarianism to create a far more preferable moral system than the arbitrary morality that Christians espouse. Under this moral system humans would receive there value because they are instrumental to helping someone ("Me" for example) to accomplish some set of X goals or because they provide me with some type of benefit (emotional, mental, or physical). The reason for why we value people under Egoism is because of self-interest. Now, lets go back and think about what Dr. Shelly Kagan said about this hypothetical contract (Social Contract). Under this moral system the necessity for such a contract would stem from "us" being motivated by our self-interest. What I mean here is that the reason we would engage in this type behavior is because it is necessary to further our own interest such as attaining wealth, health, and prosperity. So, we would create moral rules (or laws) that would foster such a atmosphere, but in order for this to work they must be universal. What I mean by universal is that that have to work for everyone in order for this to be a success, so we can go back to the part where Dr. Shelly Kagan talks about the "Veil of Ignorance" when creating these moral rules. With the veil of ignorance applied in this hypothetical contract, I don't know if I would turn out to be one of the winners or losers in society so when I formulate these rules I would want them to cover my skin in both cases (remember Egoism) just like every other person involved in this process would. This kinda of mentality would contribute to that fostering of an atmosphere of universality since no one wants be screwed if they aren't successful in the real world. These moral rules would be pertinent to myself self-interest because my self-interest is further propagate by society and my interactions with society. For example, I wouldn't want someone to sneak up on me and knife me in the back COD-style, so when making these rules murder would be prohibited because it is not in my self-interest to be murder nor would it be in the self-interest of anyone else taking part in this process; so we would ban murder in order to help all of us achieve a greater level of security and well-being. This is essentially a rough outline of what a somewhat working atheistic moral system could look like."

My point, if you don't form to my morality, I consider you immoral. Once again it is subjective. If it were objective, we wouldn't be arguing what is right and what is wrong.

You can combine egoism and Contractarianism or I can choose Utilitarianism.

But your statement is a moot point, as I stated that the only greater thing than my morality is societal which I would have to adhere by or I would be cast out as a deviant person.

Avatar image for mastermercenary
MasterMercenary

181

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@mr_clockwork91 said:

@mastermercenary: What are my qualifications? Or so you are arguing from authority is that it? My understanding is that I can read the Qur'an for what it is.

we were talking about apostasy with evidence and logic then you said "I'm reading your book in it's literal sense. So if you can't deal with the fact that Islam is not a religion of peace then maybe you should grow thicker skin" what does that imply?

Islam didn't adopt slavery? Arab slave trade. The only way to free slaves is if they convert to islam. Tell me how this is any better?

I'm really trying to take you seriously here but I just can't... Arab is a race/an ethnicity which existed before Islam which is a religion.. Learn your history.

As I mentioned before.. There are lots of ways to free a slave ( killed someone accidentally, had sex in the days of Ramadan ...) while there is one way to get one (placing captives/prisoners of war in the private custody of Muslims).. AND slaves who converted to Islam aren't automatically free.

Porn stars choose to have consensual sex with another consensual person, the slaves you claim do? I highly doubt it. Ever heard of Stockholm syndrome.

But that doesn't mean it's right.. And yes I've heard of it, but that's completely different... Slaves aren't hostage. Don't mix things up.

I've never heard of an atheist bombing religious building in the name of atheism. But I have heard of planes being hijacked and flown into the world trade center in the name of Islam.

You didn't take the point.. If someone did horrible things and he was an atheist.. do you accept the hatred towards you from the people because of him? I don't think so.. But we had Stalin whose crimes are way uglier than the radical "Muslims".

Evolutionary theory is a fact. You are misinterpreting the term " Scientific Theory" with its colloquial everyday use of theory in general speech. In science; A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon. So evolution is a fact.

-scientific theory is a general statement intending to explain nature that is confirmed by all available evidence such that it can be used to predict new, as yet unobserved phenomena.

-fact is an objective, verifiable observation. It is the same everywhere. It can be, and has been, verified many times.

Most theories cannot ever be transformed into fact. No amount of facts supporting such theories makes this so. Remember, a theory is a general statement intended to explain facts.

-Theories explain facts, so they can't become one... but you can use scientific laws to explain theories or just make another one..

Figurative art, and anything that can be construed as an idol such as living things...

Well, I'll be honest with you.. this question is awesome. First, Only things with souls are prohibited to draw.. because it has rivalry against Allah, and a challenge towards him. If there was -for example- a criminal and you had to draw him then there is no fault in this.And also in fashion design.. you can use incomplete structure or drawing to help...

The universe is not perfect and I can say I don't know that there was a creator.

That's your vision.. I have no power on it.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The Big Bang theory at least has evidence to support it's claims.

I used cause and effect method to explain the existence of god.. which counts as an "Extraordinary Evidence" since it's logical and sensible.

Again its ok to believe that God is eternal but the universe is not? God did not create time, man did, its a man made measurement.

define universe to me? All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole. So we and stars -for example- are part of the universe and we are not eternal;so the universe isn't. *tactical facepalm* time existed from the beginning of life if not before.. human measured it. It's like saying that Oxygen didn't exist until it was discovered.

And yes, I don't know why you are not getting this. If you do not conform to my ideas of morality, I consider you immoral. The only thing greater than my morality is societal morality. Even that is different from society to society.

So are you close-minded that much? you're ideas about morality aren't true. I agree on that societal morality is greater than self-morality , but it can be fixed since society are individuals with self-morality.. so when the individuals fix their morality the society will be a better place with a better morality... Exactly like Islam who guides the individual and the society.

There is no such thing as objective morality. Just subjective.

you said

"Aren't subjective? What do you mean? Morality has never been and never will be objective. The fact that people argue over objective morality furthers the point of subjective morality. Ask 10 people this question;

"If you had to choose between your favorite pet or your most hated neighbor to save from drowning and could only save one, who would you save?" I grantee you would not get the same answer every time."

stop resyncing the same idea over time... Torah, Gospel and Quran have their own codes of morality.. While I believe the first two have been changed and re-written, Quran hadn't, hasn't and wont have change(d).. which means objective moral codes.

So if anyone not just atheists, so stop with the ad hominem attacks, commit incest, I would view it as immoral.

I completely agree with this.. but are the majority of criminals Muslims?

But in the beginning there was Adam and Eve, then they had children, I wonder who they had sex with to reproduce...

Another great question, Humans grew in number by being born from Adam and Eve. Our mother Eve was having twins every time she was giving birth. One of them was always a boy and the other was a girl. Adam was making the twins who were born at the same time marry the previous or the next twins. The girl who was born with Abel was ugly but the girl who was born with Cain was beautiful. Under those circumstances, Adam wanted Abel to marry the girl born with Cain and Cain to marry the girl born with Abel. However, Cain did not consent that, he did not want to give the beautiful girl born with himself to Abel and he wanted to marry with her himself.

As Allah has created Eve from the rib bone of Adam as a partner to him, He can also create the sisters and the brothers born in different times as strangers to each other. Afterwards, the human kind increased and He prohibited the marrying of sisters and brothers even if they were from different twins.

Being halal of that marriage is based on the command of Allah. Because, the badness of something is because of Allah’s prohibiting it and the favorableness of something is because of Allah’s commanding it or unrestricting it. That is, what Allah commands becomes favorable and what Allah forbids becomes bad.

so it was for the necessity.

Also your god can not be scientifically tested and is unfalsifiable. Therefore he does not corroborate with science. Plus Mohammed flew to heaven on a horse with wings. Are you serious? Horses don't fly and that is a huge contradiction to science.

When you believe in Allah and Islam, you'll know that Allah is over all things competent, He only says to it, "Be," and it is. It's no challenge towards him.

Let me put some scientific miracles in Quran

1-And the mountains as stakes? 78:7

And at the mountains - how they are erected? 88:19

No Caption Provided

2-And He subjected for you the sun and the moon, continuous [in orbit], and subjected for you the night and the day. 14:33

And it is He who created the night and the day and the sun and the moon; all [heavenly bodies] in an orbit are swimming. 21:33

It is not allowable for the sun to reach the moon, nor does the night overtake the day, but each, in an orbit, is swimming. 36:40

No Caption Provided

3-And it is He who has released [simultaneously] the two seas, one fresh and sweet and one salty and bitter, and He placed between them a barrier and prohibiting partition. 25:53

Is He [not best] who made the earth a stable ground and placed within it rivers and made for it firmly set mountains and placed between the two seas a barrier? Is there a deity with Allah ? [No], but most of them do not know. 27:61

And not alike are the two bodies of water. One is fresh and sweet, palatable for drinking, and one is salty and bitter. And from each you eat tender meat and extract ornaments which you wear, and you see the ships plowing through [them] that you might seek of His bounty; and perhaps you will be grateful. 35:12

He released the two seas, meeting [side by side];

Between them is a barrier [so] neither of them transgresses. 55:19 and 55:20

No Caption Provided

there are more just READ

http://www.missionislam.com/science/book.htm

Avatar image for chillxpill
ChillxPill

1401

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@pooty: Barriers: The Bible says treat others as you would like to be treated. So yes it does. I don't believe anyone would be happy about others acting like they didn't exist just because you think differently.

Friends: I don't really see it as "what can a non-believer teach me". I see it as what can I teach a non-believer. That's where the whole educated part comes into play. I'm learning, but not to convert. I'm learning about other cultures as well so I don't see the harm in that. Just because that person may be a non-believer that doesn't mean I can't learn anything from that person. I've seen a lot of Christians (even myself) that could learn a thing or two about how to be tolerant ,devoted, deep thinkers, and even a better person on the inside.

Alright, but you seem nice so I wouldn't have taken it that way anyway hahaha.

Avatar image for mastermercenary
MasterMercenary

181

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@pooty said:

@mastermercenary:

Cool. You live in UAE. What percentage of people in your country is Islamic? What percentage is Christian? Just a guess is fine.

I'm in American. Born and raised Christian. Two years ago I was the biggest Christian defender. Due to events in my life and some questions raised on this site, I am no longer religious at all. I am not an atheist either. I believe in a creator but don't believe HE wrote any books. @consolemaster is another Muslim I've enjoyed speaking with. in case you didn't know of him

according to Wikipedia

76% Muslims

9% Christians

15% other religions (mostly Hinduism and Buddhism)

same percentages on the other sites

so you are agnostic.. since you guys are not biased. I have two questions

1- why would someone believed in god suddenly doesn't?

2- what do you think of Islam and Muslims

Btw, too nice too meet you. :D

Avatar image for pooty
pooty

16236

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@pooty: Barriers: The Bible says treat others as you would like to be treated. So yes it does. I don't believe anyone would be happy about others acting like they didn't exist just because you think differently.

Friends: I don't really see it as "what can a non-believer teach me". I see it as what can I teach a non-believer. That's where the whole educated part comes into play. I'm learning, but not to convert. I'm learning about other cultures as well so I don't see the harm in that. Just because that person may be a non-believer that doesn't mean I can't learn anything from that person. I've seen a lot of Christians (even myself) that could learn a thing or two about how to be tolerant ,devoted, deep thinkers, and even a better person on the inside.

Alright, but you seem nice so I wouldn't have taken it that way anyway hahaha.

Yes, you should treat others as you would like to be treated. I do that to strangers. I treat them with respect, kindness, compassion. Make light conversation. I'm not saying ignore unbelievers but the Bible clearly states you shouldn't be friends with them. Be friendly. but not friends. Learning about other cultures is cool. But going by Jesus example, he spoke to unbelievers about the Word but then was only friends with believers. You could learn about other cultures from fellow believers who are of different cultures. The Bible says the world should hate you. That they will persecute you. Please understand i'm not condemning you or saying your doing anything wrong. But when I hear a Christian say things like " I think homosexuality is fine or you don't have to believe in Jesus to be saved or i'm friends with unbelievers.... I wonder if they are reading the same Bible that speaks against these things. Thanks for responding!!

Avatar image for pooty
pooty

16236

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@pooty said:

@mastermercenary:

Cool. You live in UAE. What percentage of people in your country is Islamic? What percentage is Christian? Just a guess is fine.

I'm in American. Born and raised Christian. Two years ago I was the biggest Christian defender. Due to events in my life and some questions raised on this site, I am no longer religious at all. I am not an atheist either. I believe in a creator but don't believe HE wrote any books. @consolemaster is another Muslim I've enjoyed speaking with. in case you didn't know of him

according to Wikipedia

76% Muslims

9% Christians

15% other religions (mostly Hinduism and Buddhism)

same percentages on the other sites

so you are agnostic.. since you guys are not biased. I have two questions

1- why would someone believed in god suddenly doesn't?

2- what do you think of Islam and Muslims

Btw, too nice too meet you. :D

Let me ask. Do you think location has anything to do with a persons belief? For Ex: in america 80% of people are Christian. But in your land 80% are Muslim. Do you think that's just a coincidence or could people confirm to a certain religion because it is the norm?

0) To clarify i'm not agnostic. Agnostics have not decided whether a god exist or not. I have decided one exist. I'm just not convinced he writes books. You could call me a deist or spiritual but not religious.

1) Like most major decisions it was not suddenly. It took almost 2yrs of research and questioning before i lost faith. I never experience anything bad in my life to make me lose faith. It was simply: religion stopped making sense.

2) I think of Islam the same way I think of Christianity. The vast majority of Muslims are nice, good humans. But a few extremist give them a bad name like ISIS, Bin Laden etc. I think Muslims are more dedicated. I like the fact that Islam does not confirm to trends as much as Christianity. IMO, Islam doesn't care what the world thinks. They are gonna do what ALLAH said no matter what the world thinks. I love the character of Jesus. But I love how Islam refuses to put anyone on ALLAH'S level. Sadly, I don't think God inspired the Quran or the Bible. I think it is a man made religion. But I continue to discuss religion because 2 yrs ago, i was very religious. who knows what will happen in the next two years

Avatar image for nick_hero22
nick_hero22

8769

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@nick_hero22 said:

@mr_clockwork91: I'm atheist, and your critique against moral realism is abysmal to be honest. Just because people disagree on what the values are doesn't mean they don't exist, so actually what you said is a non-sequitur because ideology and socio-economical factors could hinder ones ability to recognize these values. In the previous pages I highlighted an atheistic moral framework which allows for the possibility of objective moral values, so I will simply quote myself down below.

"You can easily create a form of objective morality under atheism. You can combine Egoism and Contractarianism to create a far more preferable moral system than the arbitrary morality that Christians espouse. Under this moral system humans would receive there value because they are instrumental to helping someone ("Me" for example) to accomplish some set of X goals or because they provide me with some type of benefit (emotional, mental, or physical). The reason for why we value people under Egoism is because of self-interest. Now, lets go back and think about what Dr. Shelly Kagan said about this hypothetical contract (Social Contract). Under this moral system the necessity for such a contract would stem from "us" being motivated by our self-interest. What I mean here is that the reason we would engage in this type behavior is because it is necessary to further our own interest such as attaining wealth, health, and prosperity. So, we would create moral rules (or laws) that would foster such a atmosphere, but in order for this to work they must be universal. What I mean by universal is that that have to work for everyone in order for this to be a success, so we can go back to the part where Dr. Shelly Kagan talks about the "Veil of Ignorance" when creating these moral rules. With the veil of ignorance applied in this hypothetical contract, I don't know if I would turn out to be one of the winners or losers in society so when I formulate these rules I would want them to cover my skin in both cases (remember Egoism) just like every other person involved in this process would. This kinda of mentality would contribute to that fostering of an atmosphere of universality since no one wants be screwed if they aren't successful in the real world. These moral rules would be pertinent to myself self-interest because my self-interest is further propagate by society and my interactions with society. For example, I wouldn't want someone to sneak up on me and knife me in the back COD-style, so when making these rules murder would be prohibited because it is not in my self-interest to be murder nor would it be in the self-interest of anyone else taking part in this process; so we would ban murder in order to help all of us achieve a greater level of security and well-being. This is essentially a rough outline of what a somewhat working atheistic moral system could look like."

My point, if you don't form to my morality, I consider you immoral. Once again it is subjective. If it were objective, we wouldn't be arguing what is right and what is wrong.

You can combine egoism and Contractarianism or I can choose Utilitarianism.

But your statement is a moot point, as I stated that the only greater thing than my morality is societal which I would have to adhere by or I would be cast out as a deviant person.

No, the reason people cannot recognize these objective moral values is because of ideology and socio-economical factors. This is not to say that they aren't there to be recognized is just that people have trouble differentiate between social constructs that arise for ideology and those values. Contractarianism and Utilitarianism are interpretation of those values this doesn't translate to therefore no objective values are present. If you hold that to be the case then how does that explain why the laws should be followed in the first place. If laws have no objective reality then why should everyone agree to follow them? What justification is there for punishing the people who rape and kill if there is no objective reality that the nature of those action correspond to?

Avatar image for mastermercenary
MasterMercenary

181

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@pooty said:

Let me ask. Do you think location has anything to do with a persons belief? For Ex: in america 80% of people are Christian. But in your land 80% are Muslim. Do you think that's just a coincidence or could people confirm to a certain religion because it is the norm?

0) To clarify i'm not agnostic. Agnostics have not decided whether a god exist or not. I have decided one exist. I'm just not convinced he writes books. You could call me a deist or spiritual but not religious.

1) Like most major decisions it was not suddenly. It took almost 2yrs of research and questioning before i lost faith. I never experience anything bad in my life to make me lose faith. It was simply: religion stopped making sense.

2) I think of Islam the same way I think of Christianity. The vast majority of Muslims are nice, good humans. But a few extremist give them a bad name like ISIS, Bin Laden etc. I think Muslims are more dedicated. I like the fact that Islam does not confirm to trends as much as Christianity. IMO, Islam doesn't care what the world thinks. They are gonna do what ALLAH said no matter what the world thinks. I love the character of Jesus. But I love how Islam refuses to put anyone on ALLAH'S level. Sadly, I don't think God inspired the Quran or the Bible. I think it is a man made religion. But I continue to discuss religion because 2 yrs ago, i was very religious. who knows what will happen in the next two years

Is it a factor?

Yes, since the Arabian Peninsula was the source of Islam (Mecca to be precise ), It played a huge factor in the population of Muslims. Same goes with the United States since they have European descents who were christian also.

Is it the only factor?

No, Europeans (Roman Empire) were Christians even though Europe wasn't the source land of Christianity .. so there are lots of factors that plays it such as.

1. Death and rise of new tribes and clans with different ideology.

2. converting to other religion.

3. Trades with people who have different ideology.

4. Wars.

etc

0) sorry, it's my bad.

1) makes sense.

2) thanks for your honesty.

Avatar image for deactivated-097092725
deactivated-097092725

10555

Forum Posts

1043

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

Moderate Muslim organisations in my country came together recently and publicly paid tribute to a soldier killed in the name of Islam. In unison, they denounced terrorism committed in the name of their religion and expressed their grief to their fellow Canadians. This needs to happen in other countries. More noise needs to be generated publicly by other Islamic groups around the world, each categorically stating any and all terrorism in the name of Islam is a slight against their religion and all it stands for. To point at Al Qaeda and ISIS/ISIL and the Taliban (and other groups similar) and declare them non Muslims. Those who have been silent are either afraid, or condone it. There is no such thing as neutrality when death and destruction is being committed in the name of your religion. Get loud. And then, even louder. Maybe then some of the valid criticisms hurled in their direction can be silenced and maybe their considerable influence on the community can help stop the idiots amongst them who think being a "jihadist" is an honourable vocation in life.