28 Apr 08
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeBump for legochessmaniac.
I once met an Islamic fundamentalist and had a chat with him.
He told me I was going to hell unless I converted to Islam.
Specifically, he claimed that merely believing in God and Jesus was insufficient to save me from hell; I had to believe in Allah and Muhummad.
So, I have nothing to lose by believing in Islam, and everything to gain.
Don't you agree?
I'm interested in your reply.
28 Apr 08
2 edits
Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole'Fr. Sheehan, Archbishop of Germia. in his Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine 1944 wrote of Islam:
Bump for legochessmaniac.
I'm interested in your reply.
“The fragments of revealed truth which the religion contains were borrowed from Judaism or Christianity.” In other words, if Islam drew upon both creeds, there is a certain truth in saying that it is simultaneously a Judaic and a Christian heresy.'
In other words, and no offense to Muslims who were raised this way, Mohammed was a false prophet who "borrowed" alot from the Jewish and Christians. Where do you think they derived the idea to pray five times a day? The early Christians. Some of the more devout Christians still do. Where did they get the idea not to eat pork? the Jews. A lot of the Islamic morals, as well, were "borrowed" from the Christians. A heresy created by one man, but one that is still flawed.
Take into consideration, for instance, that the Mohammed says that Christians and Jews have corrupted the Bible. Why didn't Mohammed rewrite the Bible? Instead, Muslims continue to use it. So much for "divinely inspired." If he was truly under divine inspiration, he would have seen this major flaw. Islam is an illusion. Simple as that.
He preyed on the less intellegent by demoting Christ, the self-proclaimed, as well as scripturally fortold 'Son of God,' to a prophet, as Mohammed claimed to be. If Christ was indeed divinely inspired, as Mohammed recognized him as a mere prophet, then how could this 'Jesus' be still a prophet if he claimed to be the 'Son of God'?
Simplified: Mohammed taught that Jesus Christ was 'divinely inspired' as a prophet. Yet, for sure, if Christ said he was the 'Son of God,' also making known the truth of the 'Trinity', wouldn't Mohammed have to claim Christ as a false prophet? Either Christ is a false prophet who preached of the Trinity, or he is indeed the 'Son of God,' which makes Mohammed, as someone who denied the trinity, a false prophet.
Also, because of the many customs derived from Christianity, if Mohammed denounced Christ as a prophet, he would have to find other explanations for his use of the Christian morals.
The early Mohammedans spread through conquest, as history tells us. These early Islamist extremists would have been the ones who heard Mohammed's words most straightforward. In other words, Osama Bin Laden can lay to claim correctly that he is in fact the only 'real' traditional Islamist out there.
The most recent generations of Mohammedans have actually started to realize that in order to be accepted in society (a weak move indeed) they must take into consideration the 'prophet' Christ's teachings on morals and love towards all. But doesn't this compromise Mohammed's conquest? Yes. Which is why the liberal Islamists are really not followers of Mohammed, as they claim to be, and the real ones are still waging war in the middle-east and the Gaza Strip.
Will the real Mohammedans please stand up?
Pawnokeyhole, you'd be going to hell if Islam was real. So would I. So would every peace loving person on the planet. Mohammed was a false prophet, so you have nothing to fear from the real Islamists, except maybe torture and death. And even then, those of us who believe in martydom for a true faith shouldn't even have fear of being beheaded.
- LCM
........................................
Post Scriptum:
'David C'
Your theory that I said the world was populated by three men and their mother holds less water than Noah's ark. (pardon the pun)
If you would have done your RESEARCH, you would have read:
'Together with his sons, his wife, and his sons' wives, Noah went into the ark because of the waters of the flood.'
(NAB GEN 7:7)
There. Four women, four men. Also, in the old testament, and this was before the laws of Moses, one could marry one's cousin. One could not, however, have a child by someone who they weren't married to. They didn't even need the Mosaic Laws to figure that out. This man (Noah) was 'inspired' to build an ark. He would have known at least a little decency. That, or his arthritis was acting up really bad.
28 Apr 08
Originally posted by legochessmaniacSo, four men and four women...super, I appreciate you clearing that up. I'm trying to figure out why "seeing his father's nakedness and telling his brothers about it" implies he impregnated his mother. Maybe I'm missing something?
Post Scriptum:
'David C'
Your theory that I said the world was populated by three men and their mother holds less water than Noah's ark. (pardon the pun)
If you would have done your RESEARCH, you would have read:
'Together with his sons, his wife, and his sons' wives, Noah went into the ark because of the waters of the flood.'
28 Apr 08
Originally posted by David CActually, it's really interesting what different interpretations of the same texts can clear up. But, notice that in this area of the Bible, it only mentions people in relation to other people when necessary?There is no other logical reason why Noah would curse this offspring Canaan.
So, four men and four women...super, I appreciate you clearing that up. I'm trying to figure out why "seeing his father's nakedness and telling his brothers about it" implies he impregnated his mother. Maybe I'm missing something?
Additionally, his (Ham's) "father's nakedness" could refer simply to the nakedness of his father, but that doesn't account for Canaan's birth. The other definition, says that Ham saw the nakedness of his father's wife, who, under the obvious, belonged to Noah, and thus would be a part of Noah. Taking into account the realization that Canaan is the directly associated with this act, implies that "seeing [Noah's wife's] nakedness" was a wording that kept the Bible family-friendly. Notice that the bible doesn't say that Ham "...saw his father naked and told his brothers"?
Some people may argue that theologians who have studied this oddity in depth have way too much time on their hands. These scholars seem to think they're using their intellects to their highest capability.
Does that clear anything? It's not the easiest to interpret, but it does make more sense than a grandson being cursed for no apparent reason.
Also, in one version of the Bible the name is Ham. In another, Cham. For what reason I know not.
- LCM
29 Apr 08
Originally posted by legochessmaniacWhat you are demonstrating here is clear irrational thinking that makes many atheists steer clear of religious people. So far you have in my opinion presented a believable case for religion.
Actually, it's really interesting what different interpretations of the same texts can clear up. But, notice that in this area of the Bible, it only mentions people in relation to other people when necessary?There is no other logical reason why Noah would curse this offspring Canaan.
Additionally, his (Ham's) "father's nakedness" could refer simpl ...[text shortened]... Bible the name is Ham. In another, Cham. For what reason I know not.
- LCM
Now you are saying that it is ok to ADD a piece of fabricated nonsense to an obviously trivial story about Noah and his sons. What does it matter why Noah cursed that one son? Why do you need to have a reason ? Do you really think that the best reason has to impregnating his mother? It makes people wonder what other stuff you add to the Bible to make it sound 'logical.'
29 Apr 08
Originally posted by Rajk999Have I spoken irrationally? There is a time and a place for everything, and a reason for everything almost everthing. I tend to think that there are certain logical explanations for those events NOT designated as "miracles" or "mysteries." Do you have a better explanation of that one story in the bible? Keep in mind that I said, "Some people may argue that theologians who have studied this oddity in depth have way too much time on their hands. These scholars seem to think they're using their intellects to their highest capability." I did not come to this conclusion myself, but it made perfect sense to me, at least, and I thought it a good idea to share what knowledge I have.
What you are demonstrating here is clear irrational thinking that makes many atheists steer clear of religious people. So far you have in my opinion presented a believable case for religion.
Now you are saying that it is ok to ADD a piece of fabricated nonsense to an obviously trivial story about Noah and his sons. What does it matter why Noah cursed that ...[text shortened]... ther? It makes people wonder what other stuff you add to the Bible to make it sound 'logical.'
Irrationallity is in the eye of the beholder. Why did the Beatles sing, "We all live in a yellow submarine"? It wasn't irrational at all, they were on drugs! It's completely logical that a mind altering drug caused illogic in the subjects of the phenomena.
In the same way, the "dirty snowball" philosophy I put forward earlier, indicates that: no matter how hard we try to understand something, our minds, or at least our sub-conscience (what some people refer to as their souls) will always be biased, due to the previous influences of society.
When taking into account logic, one MUST look at all the answers. As chess players, you all know that one will never know all the possibilities, but one instead goes with the most reasonable solution, to his best intellectual capabilities.
In the same way, people will never know for certain whether God, a deity who is sayed to exist in everything, exists or not. Even if humankind built a supercomputer to process creation's origin, the computer would be overwhelmed trying to understand the entirety of space itself occupies. Not to mention just as confused as it's programmers.
In the same way, how can we, as logical as we are, say that we have examined every sub-particle--every strand of energy (if one's a string theory believer)--and still say that a deity does not exist? Show me that it is possible to examine the universe, and I'll reconsider my claim.
It is the Chessboard paradox. We will never know all the answers, but we go with what we know. If what we know is entirely to the credit of those we've encountered, what, then, are our own thoughts? For THAT we attempt to comprehend all we have been taught--a task nigh impossible after childhood, once the mind becomes consumed with animallistic lust for pleasure.
If atheists owe their beliefs to previous atheists, (And what one of you does not, in some small way or another?) shouldn't they take into consideration their predecessors' compitence? Theists do all the time, and they, without the unbiased simplicity of a child, fail to comprehend this deity's ultimate existence, which is why new schismatic, self-exalting denominations are formed, as previously mentioned about the "prophet" Mohammed.
..............................................................
Is this a "piece of fabricated nonsense"? Do you have a better interpretation of this story? There is reason behind the story, which I will examine later in this post.
Is this story "trivial"? Theists are supposed to believe that the entire Bible was written under the inspiration of the "Holy Spirit," or "God's Spirit," through various authors scattered throughout the history of the world. Is there a better explanation by atheists of how such a book could never contradict itself? Theists try to throw Bible quotes at their opponents all the time. But keep in mind, those trying to pick a fight with other theists are quite often those who disagree with something in the Bible. These people are breathing heresy, and indeed this is a major problem with the Protestant churches.
"What does it matter why Noah cursed that one son?" The Jews used this (written in the Hebrew Pentateuch, which was probably interpreted differently) as reason to have rule over the Canaanites, a vile, sinful group said to have descended from Canaan. They (the Canaanites) were said to have had as much reasoning to their "moral's" as many hardcore atheists do.
"Why do I need to have a reason?" Why do atheists need to have a reason for their origin? Because they still lack a believable one. As to my reasoning, I'll say what I know when it's been sayed by reputable theologians. When I speculate, I do so only under logic, and make known that it is, in fact, merely a speculation. I have at least that much duty. No deception.
Atheists regard the Bible as a book. What type of book, I don't want to know. Theists regard it as a lifeline to defend their actions. Without the Bible and Tradition, there IS NO REASON TO FAITH, beyond good unbiased logic, and who has that anymore? Or, a better argument still: who would be willing to listen to unbiased logic when the entire world seems biased?
I could hopefully defend the morals of theists, but it would be a long task which many of you would no doubt become bored very quickly. Or amused. Or intrigued. But if you wish to engage in logical, psycological, mental, verbal, and theological warfare concerning morals which will almost inevitably be proven as reasonable and binding, either by myself or by an individual observing this thread, as a prerequisite, I ask that queries concerning such topics be systematically conducted ONLY in succesion to the previous answer. In other words, if you want to be given a logical reason why morals are the way they are, one at a time, please.
- LCM
30 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by legochessmaniac[/b]The theistic definition of "love," regardless of what atheists confuse with narcissism, is the willingness to do anything for the one you love. Now, for any person, place, thing, or event, doing anything, even sacrificing one's life in the name of "love," is a stupid thing. Atheists know that it is stupid to do anything for any reason if it doesn't benefit them. Theists also know that it's stupid not to have a reason, which is why they have a good one.
[b]The theistic definition of "love," regardless of what atheists confuse with narcissism, is the willingness to do anything for the one you love. Now, for any person, place, thing, or event, doing anything, even sacrificing one's life in the name of "love," is a stupid thing. Atheists know that it is stupid to do anything for any reason if it doesn't b ...[text shortened]...
(1) I’ll generally accept your definition of love here, with a small caveat: the Greek agape always includes (but is not limited to) eros. The “willingness” is not some non-passionate response, but is rooted in the passionate concern and caring for the other.
(2) I don’t have any idea why you would characterize atheists’ views on love the way you have. You seem to assume that loving (as well as being loved) is per se “stupid”, absent the promise of some other reward (e.g., eternal life).
Although I would not stretch this analogy too far, that is like saying that listening to music is stupid unless there is some other reward involved. Or, more to the point, that making (composing, playing) the best music that one is capable of, for another to listen to, is per se stupid unless there is some other reward involved.
(3) I have loved people that were quite incapable of doing anything of material benefit for me. I have loved people that, after about a 10-minute interchange of a few words, I would never see again. I wish I were a better lover: it is rewarding in itself, of itself, for itself. There is sheer joy in loving. Joy enough, sometimes, to “lay down your soul” (Greek: psuche) for.
(4) I do not love everyone. Those that I do love owe me nothing in return (including loving me back). That is what plain love is (intimate loving is another category). You either choose to love or you don’t; turning it into a transaction of any kind turns it into something else—maybe something good, but something else. Perhaps what you’re talking about is just acting compassionately, whether one loves or not.
30 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdThere are different kinds of atheists, like there are different kinds of Christians. You raise an interesting point, that while some atheists may understand the fundamentals of, "love," others are, well, not so sentient. There are "logical" atheists, those who understand society's fundamentals, and live within those boundaries; there are "practical" atheists, those who do what society widely accepts out of--peer pressure--from a theistic society; and there are other various levels. This also applies, sadly, to many theists.
The theistic definition of "love," regardless of what atheists confuse with narcissism, is the willingness to do anything for the one you love. Now, for any person, place, thing, or event, doing anything, even sacrificing one's life in the name of "love," is a stupid thing. Atheists know that it is stupid to do anything for any reason if it doesn't be rhaps what you’re talking about is just acting compassionately, whether one loves or not.
And what of atheists such as the controversial Princeton philosopher Peter Singer, who champion genecide of children younger than a month? Their argument is that humans, as nothing but evolved apes, have absolutely NO reason for any kind of sympathy, which is based upon our superiority to other animals, thus implying our dedication to a deity's moral laws. They also say that "civilization" was given a set of "morals" only by theists. What of these atheists? These are the real atheists. These are the ones whose argument is strongest. These are the ones who've conveniently cut practically all ties with those who have morals.
Who, then, are those atheists who have morals? Either semi-logical human beings or cowards! And yet they may not realize that they absentmindedly support theists' morals.
My accusation was based off of that. Define for me, then, if you disagree, what good reason have atheists for morals? If they have "logic," it is based off of a theistic society! If they have morals because of logic, what good reason have they for not being theists? Again, I pose the question: If they have absolutely nothing to lose (except their dislike of certain "morals" ) by acknowledging that a deity does exist, and everything to gain, what type of atheists are you? Please logically define your support of any ideologies relating to theists.
And again, I say that I will logically defend theist's morals. Why do the "atheists" hesitate?
Note, though, I don't hold any hatred towards atheists, whatever tone you may have percieved in this post. Merely hatred towards the true atheists' ideologies. Nothing personal.
Will the real atheists please stand up?
- LCM
30 Apr 08
Originally posted by legochessmaniacWhat a ridiculous post.
There are different kinds of atheists, like there are different kinds of Christians. You raise an interesting point, that while some atheists may understand the fundamentals of, "love," others are, well, not so sentient. There are "logical" atheists, those who understand society's fundamentals, and live within those boundaries; there are "practical" ...[text shortened]... ]. Nothing personal.
Will the real atheists please stand up?
- LCM
If you're going to shout about the views of someone like Peter Singer, then you ought know what views actually belong to him. Somehow in your little fantasy world, Singer's view that neonates fail to satisfy criteria for personhood and therefore must be argued for on other grounds (such as utilitarian grounds) equates to claiming that neonates should be exterminated because humans are nothing more than evolved apes. I mean, I'm not trying to say that I agree with Singer's views (particularly regarding his views of personhood), but is it too much to ask for you silly little godbotherers to do some research?
30 Apr 08
Originally posted by legochessmaniacI do not believe that Theists invented morals or own them in any way.
Who, then, are those atheists who have morals? Either semi-logical human beings or cowards! And yet they may not realize that they absentmindedly support theists' morals.
If they have morals because of logic, what good reason have they for not being theists?
The only reason I am not a theist is the only possible valid reason I can think of: I don't believe that a God exists.
Again, I pose the question: If they have absolutely nothing to lose (except their dislike of certain "morals" ) by acknowledging that a deity does exist, and everything to gain, what type of atheists are you?
I would have a lot to loose by deluding myself that a nonexistent deity exists. I can think of nothing of value that I would gain. That is what type of atheist I am.
And again, I say that I will logically defend theist's morals. Why do the "atheists" hesitate?
Go ahead - defend them.
30 Apr 08
Originally posted by legochessmaniacYou should run for public office.
Have I spoken irrationally? There is a time and a place for everything, and a reason for everything almost everthing. I tend to think that there are certain logical explanations for those events NOT designated as "miracles" or "mysteries." Do you have a better explanation of that one story in the bible? Keep in mind that I said, "Some people may argu ...[text shortened]... are the way they are, one at a time, please.
- LCM
You know how to BS your way out.
Anyway, do you think Ham had blue eyes or brown ?
What about Shem, why was he blessed?
30 Apr 08
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeIt is. It has always struck me as a kind of dialectical synthesis from dualistic-theism and monism or pantheism.
I have a sophisticated theologian friend who claims that panentheism is also an option.
Various panentheists seem argue somewhat over whether the en should properly be attached to the pan or to the theism. 🙂
30 Apr 08
Note to Brobluto and Rajk—
Well, Rajk has known me for some years, and is unlikely to be surprised by my comments. Within a juridical model of salvation, Rajk’s longstanding view on this subject makes the most sense. Within a healing (soterias) model of salvation (quite literally a “soteriological soteriology”—or, as I think Irenaeus put it, a “soterias of soterias” ), Brobluto’s likely makes more sense. Both models have long been part of the church—the latter seems more common in the post-apostolic era and among the Greek Orthodox churches today; Protestantism seems generally to hew to the former, while still insisting on sola fide: hence Rajk’s critique.
Either way, every salvational model is faced with these three choices:
(1) God saves (everyone);
(2) God fails to save (at least some); or
(3) God chooses not to save (at least some).
—Note that (1) does not preclude some notion of “hell”, only that it is not eternal, despite translations of the various aion words in the NT. There is a strong stream in the early church, and in the Orthodox churches today, that views “hell” as being something more like the purgatory of Roman Catholicism (though I may not have a very good understanding of purgatory).