for Friends are non-Muslims

[Teh_Curious]

here in Oz there has been many muslims converting to christianity, i was talking (well arguing) with a preist when a large group of Muslims walked up to him and asked him how to be come a christian, the look of surprise and joy on that preists face it was like all his christmases had come at once. alot of Muslims who come to Oz especially from africa convert to diff religeons christianiy and Bhuddism seem to be most popular, mainly because they were forced to be Muslims in their home country

[submit]

So here's my take...


No doubt there are many people worldwide "reverting" to Islam. That's fine! I don't have a problem with that. But it makes me wonder how many Muslims would "convert" to other religions if there wasn't severe punishment for apostasy in Islam ??? I know many people who have escaped from the East in fear that they'll be killed by authorities/extremists because they've denounced Islam.

Well actually it's quite rare to find a Muslim converted to another religion. This is mainly because the way Islam holds a <b>true</b> Muslim is unique. Christianity holds christians with pure blind faith. Buddhism holds buddhists with spirituality and free will. But Islam holds Muslims with strict discipline AND spirituality AND proof AND faith.


The TRUE Muslim doesn't convert because he is convinced by Islam. If a true practising, very well-knowledged, deeply spiritual, Muslim converted, i would want to know why. But the Muslims that convert are the ones that were either oppressed into being Muslims, or are very ill-knowledged about Islam, or are some weird sect like Ismalism, or not practising Muslims.

From memory (Society & Culture - my senior year), the average Muslim family (one wife) consists of about 5 children, whereas, for non-Muslim couples its about 2. I applaud Islam for its fertility rates thumb.gif


Okay... so at the end of the day, it's all about being "fruitful & multiplying" (God's very first commandment to Adam & Eve).

Well i know SOMEONE would raise the issue of birth rates. Lol. But Muslims have a higher percentage then the world birth rate. Meaning there ARE people converting to Islam.

Keep producing souls like John Paul II, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Bob Geldof & Muhammad Ali & we'll have no reason to compare quantities but rejoice at the quality of life smile.gif Amen?

True True.

RT, I'm anticipating your right hand punch wink.gif

Lol. I respect your opinion. *shakes hands*.

God bless.

may God bless you too :)

[Ruggedtouch]

Peace :peace:


So here's my take...


No doubt there are many people worldwide "reverting" to Islam. That's fine! I don't have a problem with that. But it makes me wonder how many Muslims would "convert" to other religions if there wasn't severe punishment for apostasy in Islam ??? I know many people who have escaped from the East in fear that they'll be killed by authorities/extremists because they've denounced Islam.

Well, it is quite obvious that converting out of islam can be dangerous with the dynamic of fatwa inspired goon squads potentially hunting you down. In no other religious faith on the planet does one making an adult choice to leave or change his or her religion carry the threat of death. How utterly weak a faith must be that it must control it’s adherents through threats and intimidation.


Think about it, what is the best way to get someone to believe as you wish for them to? FEAR. Scare the hell out of him. Tell the people that evolutionists are on a paved road to hell...., tell people that leaving the faith will cause god(s) to abandon them (and back up those threats with Mafioso enforcers), and you will deter them (for a time) until they LEARN better.


I find it laughable that one should dismiss Hinduism and its idol-worshipping as false and unsupported while at the same time being wholly unable to provide the slightest evidence that your, (the collective “your”), religion and it's various customs are in any way garnered greater authority. Moslem’s appeals to Allah as "the Lord of the Universe, the One God" are no more demonstrated than those of the Greek Gods. Yet, all religions make these claims. Each claim to be the only way to god, that the others are wrong, and all use some form of mind control to gain and keep their members. Christianity uses heaven and hell, the concept of sin, a corrupted nature no one can escape, the requirement of a savior to ameliorate the gap between gods and men. Reincarnation is the device used by Buddhism and Hinduism, wherein the "punishment" is a repeatable life that would stress the soul in ways it stressed other in its previous life. Every religion cloaks itself under dynamics which affect commercial life, educational (teaching the doctrine of the religion is inerrant even in the face of overwhelming proof contrary to the religious doctrine), and psychological (gods with a vested interest in the behaviors of men, who can see their sins, who are able to mete out justice -- all of these are severe and inescapable mental leveraging that dictates human behavior-- i.e., psychologies).


Certainly every religion, believing itself the arbiter of what is "god-given" takes on the mantle of authority. While I will say that religious belief served a purpose in human history, for the most part there are better models that serve human requirements for these things, and they do it in terms of the common good as opposed to an external authority commanding us on pain or threat of punishment to do the things that are morally justified. As time goes on, these wholly secular environments will grow larger and more potent, and religion will fade (and yes, there will be many false starts and huge errors).

From memory (Society & Culture - my senior year), the average Muslim family (one wife) consists of about 5 children, whereas, for non-Muslim couples its about 2. I applaud Islam for its fertility rates :thumb:
Let's face it, the sexual revolution has done the West NO favours! When Blessed Mother Teresa was asked by an American journalist how she can believe in a Loving God when there is so much poverty, disease, animosity & misery in the world, she replied by saying that all the people whom God sent to put an end to these atrocities were aborted in their mother's womb. I'll let you ponder that though for a while.


Okay... so at the end of the day, it's all about being "fruitful & multiplying" (God's very first commandment to Adam & Eve). Keep producing souls like John Paul II, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Bob Geldof & Muhammad Ali & we'll have no reason to compare quantities but rejoice at the quality of life :) Amen?


RT, I'm anticipating your right hand punch ;)


God bless.

It’s an odd notion of using uncontrolled breeding in an attempt to overwhelm another population. Suppose moslems’ did, then what?


Somehow, I don’t envision an explosive growth rate among 3rd world nations, (third world because they’re 7th century in they’re worldviews), particularly positive for the planet, especially uncontrolled growth among those who’s formula for a worldview is embodied by “You love life”, “We love death”.


You, (and in particulal Moslems), don’t seem to have any real plan for what you would do when you do outbreed the rest of the population. As we see in every corner of the globe when Moslems are left to their own devices, ethnic/religious hatreds, violence, poverty and disease seem to be the norm. We see this dynamic repeated everywhere such that Moslem populations are growing faster than their nations of origin can support them. The result is legions of Moslems who are lacking in any marketable job skills, people with a perverse sense of entitlement who are utterly unemployable and incapable of providing for themselves and their families such that their rage and ineptitude is directed at the infidel West as an excuse for their own self inflicted failures.


Absent the “infidels” to have as the focus of their hatreds, moslems just find cause to hate other Moslems (Shia, sufi, what have you).


You’re not well thought-out on this.


Here, check the link below to see how this dynamic manifests itself.


http://www.unicef.org/protection/files/e...rriage.pdf

[Faith Hope Charity]

Peace be with you, Submit :peace:

Well actually it's quite rare to find a Muslim converted to another religion. If a true practising, very well-knowledged, deeply spiritual, Muslim converted, i would want to know why. But the Muslims that convert are the ones that were either oppressed into being Muslims, or are very ill-knowledged about Islam, or are some weird sect like Ismalism, or not practising Muslims.

Ever heard of Daniel Ali? He's a scholar in both Islam & Christianity & he's also a poet. He was born into a devout Muslim family in Northern Iraq. He was a Kurdish Sunni before converting to Christianity at the age of 35. I'm reading his book at the moment (Inside Islam) & the thing I admire most about him is that he writes objectively & portrays Islam in a very positive light. I guess that dispels your theory!

Christianity holds christians with pure blind faith.

I'll let that one pass.

But Islam holds Muslims with strict... proof.

How so? Islam (like many other religions) is a FAITH tradition based on belief in revelation. It's not a scientific method used in experimentation to gather facts. What exactly does it prove?

Well i know SOMEONE would raise the issue of birth rates. Lol. But Muslims have a higher percentage then the world birth rate. Meaning there ARE people converting to Islam.

Indeed! It really doesn't bother me. I just get frustrated because Islam sets double standards. It allows infidels to abandon their faith but not its own.

Lol. I respect your opinion. *shakes hands*.

Funnily enough, I met a Muslim man the other day at the shops & after chatting to him for about 10 minutes, we realized we hadn't introduced ourselves, so I extended out my hand but he refused to shake it (I'm a woman - young enough to be his granddaughter). Should I take it personally or does it have something to do with Islamic practice? I was ready to give him a hug - LOL!

may God bless you too

Thanks! He already has :)

[Faith Hope Charity]

May the peace of our Lord & Saviour, Jesus Christ, find a way into your heart, RT.


Round 2...

at the same time being wholly unable to provide the slightest evidence that your, (the collective “your”), religion and it's various customs are in any way garnered greater authority.

You know what, kiddo, we could provide you with all the evidence in the world but you still wouldn't believe because for you to admit that we're right means admitting you've been wrong all along & that could have psychological effects on you.


Let me ask you, how do you know that your parents are really your parents? Have you ever undertaken a DNA test to ensure that you're their child or do you wholeheartedly accept it as truth on their authority (which is an act of faith)?

Each claim to be the only way to god, that the others are wrong

Hmmm... not quite! Catholicism on Islam...


<b>"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day. The Church's bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race" (CCC 841-842).</b>

Christianity uses heaven and hell, the concept of sin, a corrupted nature no one can escape, the requirement of a savior to ameliorate the gap between gods and men.

Out of curiousity... what's your philosophy on good & evil? Do you believe in universal morals or is everyone a god unto themselves?

As time goes on, these wholly secular environments will grow larger and more potent, and religion will fade (and yes, there will be many false starts and huge errors).

I wouldn't bet on it if I were you!


I think that's all I'll comment on for the time being. Submit (or another Muslim) can handle the rest on Islam.


I've turned the other cheek for ya :punch:

[Ruggedtouch]

<i>May the peace of our Lord & Saviour, Jesus Christ, find a way into your heart, RT.
</i>


Thanks, but I'm not worthy.


FHC - your comments are in blue highlight. The "quote" thingy isn't working.


<i>Round 2...</i>



You know what, kiddo, we could provide you with all the evidence in the world but you still wouldn't believe because for you to admit that we're right means admitting you've been wrong all along & that could have psychological effects on you


Ya’ know what, kiddo, no you can’t. I know where you’re going with this. The first thing we must understand is that faith, in and of itself, is not a pathway to access knowledge.


Since the criteria of evidence and proof is not necessary under the constructs of faith (i.e., things are to be believed in <i>spite</i> of proof or evidence), there are no ways to apply a standard to the claim asserted. Under the guidelines of faith, there is nothing to separate the belief in the gods of ancient Rome or Greece, for instance, from the gods of modern society. Each statement of belief carries the same level of validity, i.e., none.


Faith cannot be used as a tool to access knowledge because it is random. Faith-based assertions carry validity <i>(sic)</i> not because there is any criteria to back them up, but because a group of people deem it so, and by definition, faith asks that one does not question validity. If one is questioning their faith, it is considered that they are also losing their faith, not strengthening it.


But who says that faith cannot be used as a tool to gather knowledge? Aren't there things in this world that fall under the heading of "mysterious" and thus must be believed simply because? While it is true that there are things that are mysterious, it is not true that they will always remain that way, nor is it true that simply believing in them from an unquestioning faith supports their validity. If this were the case, then anyone who had faith in the existence of leprechauns would have the same support of reality as those who profess a faith in the existence of gods. It is precisely our ability to reason that brings the mysterious to understanding-- one can have eternal faith in the sun rising and traveling around the vault of the sky, but one would be wrong eternally; it is science and reason that pulled the curtains from our eyes and showed us that it is the earth that turns, not the sun that tracks.


Ultimately, there is a deep difference between trust and faith. Faith is belief despite or contrary to evidence, whereas trust requires evidence to be maintained. People talk about "faith" in one's doctor, and "faith" in one's friends, but I guarantee you it's really trust based upon their behavior-- if your doctor butchers you or a loved one or a friend fully betrays you, your "faith" is gone. What you had all along was trust, which they betrayed, which is why you no longer trust them.


With faith, you would continue to trust them no matter what they did to you.


Biblically/scripturally speaking, god doesn't want us to discover-- he couldn't care less, and in fact punishes men for trying to attain knowledge he considers threatening (Tree of Knowledge, Tower of Babel) -- and in fact he tells us to not worry about where our meals will come from (the lilies of the field). No, Jehovah wants faith and adoration. That's it. There's not a single instance of Jesus saying,


"Consider your beliefs. Think them through. Scrutinize, and doubt claims of absolute authority without proof and support". In fact, he says precisely the opposite.


Matthew 8:13 - And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour.


Matthew 9:28 - And when he was come into the house, the blind men came to him: and Jesus saith unto them, Believe ye that I am able to do this? They said unto him, Yea, Lord.


Matthew 18:6 - But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.


Mark 9:23 - Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.


Mark 9:24 - And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.


Mark 11:23 - For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.


Mark 11:24 - Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.


1 Corinthians 13:7 - Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.


(etc, etc, etc)


<i>Let me ask you, how do you know that your parents are really your parents? Have you ever undertaken a DNA test to ensure that you're their child or do you wholeheartedly accept it as truth on their authority (which is an act of faith)</i>?



I have <i>trust</i> that my father is, in fact, my father in part because I kinda’ look like him. More to the point, your analogy is a poor one. Whether or not my parents are my <i>real</i> parents or not still place both them and me in a demonstrable reality. Not so with your asserted god(s).


But consider where theism has an extraordinary standard within it's own assertions. If we are somehow wrong about my parents actually being who they claim, there really isn't any impact. A naturally occurring event or person's existence is fairly low yield in outcome if we're completely wrong. But theism makes claims of an eternal nature -- issues that affect our existence during <i>infinity</i> Doesn’t that raise the stakes considerably as opposed to whether or not I have a blood tie to my parents?


The second aspect of this argumentation follows under the aphorisms that when you make extraordinary claims, you need to provide extraordinary evidence. If the assertions you make cannot support the contention of even an ordinary claim (i.e., it's not extraordinary that two individuals claim to be my parents -- then how can <i>lesser</i> standards support a far more extraordinary claim, like there exists a supernatural realm?


<i>Hmmm... not quite! Catholicism on Islam...</i>



<b>"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day. The Church's bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race" (CCC 841-842).</b>



Hey – quote verses all you wish. Your argument is circular. I am “assuming” this empirically because countless culture after culture has done this same thing. Would you say the gods of Greece and Rome and Babylon and the Norsemen are all “real” or were they made up to explain things that couldn’t readily be explained? Assuming you admit these other cultures did do precisely that, why does the god of the desert you believe in not adhere to an obvious conclusion that men create gods for any number of reasons? Why does yours exist and theirs do not?


By what authority do you exempt the god(s) from the very discipline you insist must be in effect for all existence? It's an old counter argument, but its one the theist cannot solve. You cannot demand a standard for all of existence, and then exempt something that is in existence of the very standard you insist must be applied to all things. If you permit yourself to exempt one, then I can exempt one as well. Therefore, if your god is excused for being created from nothing, then why can't the universe be excused for being created by nothing?


<i>Out of curiousity... what's your philosophy on good & evil? Do you believe in universal morals or is everyone a god unto themselves? </i>



Morality isn't the province of Judaism or Christianity or Islam. Whatever did we do before religion? How is it we are here despite our ancestor’s total lack of moral compass?


Obviously, people learned to co-exist with one another before there were religious beliefs. Well, then how did we survive at all? Clearly, even though we had no knowledge of gods, somehow we didn't all kill one another because -- we're clearly here. So there must have been some morality.


Your idea that it's god-implanted is mere assertion. There are two possibilities: One, that morality is the sentient labeling we give to behavior that supports the species and allows it to survive, and is fully natural, or Two, that morality is implanted by a divine being (for humans and animals both).


Okay, you opt for #2, I opt for #1. Now it's time to go out and compare notes and put on the table the evidence that will define either #1 as knowledge, or #2 as knowledge. You now have to prove god exists before you can even begin to prove morality is god-implanted.


I cannot logically resolve a vengeful, vicious god. “His” message comes with an underlying threat that <i>is</i> repulsive. He can wash away all sins if he wants to. He doesn't want to. Thus he permits the eternal condemnation of <i>most</i> of his children. If his concern was truly safety, he'd change his behavior to one that really embraces safety.


If I were "infinitely merciful" there would be no act that could possibly circumvent my infinite mercy. The comparisons to humans don’t ever work, even as an illustration, because theists insist on a perfect and ultimate and unlimited god. Infinite love and mercy should be what it is-- infinite love and mercy. Eternal damnation is a contradiction to those attributes, and there is no way to reconcile a god who establishes amorality as morality.


For myself, I'll cite Jane Goodall's study of chimpanzees as the natural analogy to human tribal customs that evolves into law (and which codes morality). Furthermore, we consistently see humans -- with no specific religious connotation, have survival-based laws that preclude wanton murder and thievery. Furthermore still, we see simple indigenous tribes have better morality than industrial nations have -- for instance, many tribes have no concept of thievery because they communally share everything.


I will also cite clear differences in moral precepts. Egyptian royalty married brother to sister; i.e., engaged in incest by our standards, and functioned fairly successfully for thousands of years. In today's culture, such liaisons are forbidden. Which is morally correct?


Clearly there is a broad range of morality, it has changed in time according to culture, and it shows clear analogy to lower animals in their social behavior as well.


Morality is both transitory and fully natural in its source. Take gods away tomorrow and humans would behave pretty much like they do with gods in place. We are a mixture of selfishness and cooperation and it serves us pretty well. Most people do behave morally.


Help me out here, FHC. So I'm conflicted on how to handle a domestic issue, and the absolutely universal law of God is not making it clear how I should proceed. Here's my conflict, from Leviticus 25:45-46


________________________________________


<i>"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession." </i>


________________________________________


Here's my problem. One of the 4 year old children of the heathens around me actually has converted to Judaism. Now, technically he is still heathen, at least by blood. Can I buy this child anyway, or does the conversion override the bloodline issue? I suspect that a 4 year old isn't old enough to make such a decision regarding their status, so I can buy and enslave him anyway.


Can you enlighten me on how the bible resolves such a conflict?


Thanks.


<i>I wouldn't bet on it if I were you!</i>



Bet on it. History proves it. Every god, with time, is swept away and looked upon as myth.


Where is the worship of Osiris? Of Isis, worshipped for 5,000 years. Where is Zeus, Odin, Jupiter? Where are the Druids, now as silent as Stonehenge, as cold and as silent as the Sphinx.


Dust, all. Antiquities. So it will be with Jehovah, Allah, Jesus, Vishnu.


It’s already happening, and as science makes them less relevant, we see the rise in fundamentalism. Why is Islam so reactionary? Because its adherents sense all around them the growing tide of humanism. Islam defames the U.S. and Russia and other nations as godless because… well, because as time goes on we do grow more godless. And as time goes by, and gods don’t return to this earth, as gods don’t prove salvation, we grow yet further away from fantasy and fiction. And that terrifies the believers. Deep down, you know there is only faith and belief to support the “belief”. As mankind grows in scientific knowledge, those things once ascribed to the gods are taken away, leaving the gods to sit and judge, nothing more, and even of that, only the dead, a state of being no one ever returns from to testify whether or not the claims are true.


<i>I think that's all I'll comment on for the time being. Submit (or another Muslim) can handle the rest on Islam.</i>



I'm taking on all of ya'. Praise Zeus (PBUH).


<i>I've turned the other cheek for ya :punch:</i>



Theists like to portray critical assessment as some sort of weakness to the naive, but it's really the strength of science: Eliminate the ideas that are proven or provable and make the mechanisms withstand all criticism. That is how we get to knowledge. In fact, FHC, it's how you came to your belief systems, to <i>some</i> extent. You just left out the critical assessment part. You wouldn't believe as you do if you hadn't eliminated competing concepts and ideas, assuming you chose your religion and didn't merely inheret the belief system you were born into. So don't use a process for yourself and then try to denigrate others for using the exact same process to come to a knowledgeable conclusion.

[Faith Hope Charity]

Peace RT,


<b>Thanks, but I'm not worthy.</b>


Yes, you are.


<b>Ya’ know what, kiddo, no you can’t. I know where you’re going with this. The first thing we must understand is that faith, in and of itself, is not a pathway to access knowledge.</b>


You're kinda right! It's the other way around - knowledge is a pathway to acquiring faith.


<b>Since the criteria of evidence and proof is not necessary under the constructs of faith (i.e., things are to be believed in <i>spite</i> of proof or evidence), there are no ways to apply a standard to the claim asserted. Under the guidelines of faith, there is nothing to separate the belief in the gods of ancient Rome or Greece, for instance, from the gods of modern society. Each statement of belief carries the same level of validity, i.e., none.</b>


Ultimately, it does boil down to faith. That's the point I was trying to make to Submit in my earlier post. I could mention the fact that God sent His only Son to the world as evidence but not even the people during Jesus' time accepted Him & proof was staring them right in the face!


Another one of my infamous analogies... Do you believe that Shakespeare wrote 'Romeo & Juliet'. Why is it easy to believe in history but not religion? You weren't sitting beside Shakespeare as he wrote. You choose to believe in documentation & oral tradition, right? Well, faith is even stronger than that. I have more doubts that Shakespeare is the author of R&J than that God exists.


<b>Faith cannot be used as a tool to access knowledge because it is random. Faith-based assertions carry validity (sic) not because there is any criteria to back them up, but because a group of people deem it so, and by definition, faith asks that one does not question validity. If one is questioning their faith, it is considered that they are also losing their faith, not strengthening it.</b>


Ways of coming to know God...


By natural reason man can know God with certainty, on the basis of his works. But there is another order of knowledge, which man cannot possibly arrive at by his own powers: the order of divine Revelation.



Created in God's image and called to know and love him, the person who seeks God discovers certain ways of coming to know him. These are also called proofs for the existence of God, not in the sense of proofs in the natural sciences, but rather in the sense of converging and convincing arguments, which allow us to attain certainty about the truth. These ways of approaching God from creation have a twofold point of departure: the physical world, and the human person.


As St. Paul says of the Gentiles: 'For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made'.


The human person: with his openness to truth and beauty, his sense of moral goodness, his freedom and the voice of his conscience, with his longings for the infinite and for happiness, man questions himself about God's existence. In all this he discerns signs of his spiritual soul. The soul, the seed of eternity we bear in ourselves, irreducible to the merely material, can have its origin only in God.


The world, and man, attest that they contain within themselves neither their first principle nor their final end, but rather that they participate in Being itself, which alone is without origin or end. Thus, in different ways, man can come to know that there exists a reality which is the first cause and final end of all things, a reality that everyone calls God <b>(CCC)</b>


<b>Ultimately, there is a deep difference between trust and faith. Faith is belief despite or contrary to evidence, whereas trust requires evidence to be maintained. People talk about "faith" in one's doctor, and "faith" in one's friends, but I guarantee you it's really trust based upon their behavior-- if your doctor butchers you or a loved one or a friend fully betrays you, your "faith" is gone. What you had all along was trust, which they betrayed, which is why you no longer trust them.</b>


That's 'blind faith'.


<b>Biblically/scripturally speaking, god doesn't want us to discover-- he couldn't care less, and in fact punishes men for trying to attain knowledge he considers threatening (Tree of Knowledge, Tower of Babel) --</b>


Well, I can only speak on behalf of Catholicism (I'd be stoked with input from Muslims on this matter too), our purpose in this life is to <i>know, love & serve God</i>. God created each one of us with an intellect. We can't love Him if we don't know Him. Knowledge is good but pride is bad. We shouldn't try to be Him.


<b>I have trust that my father is, in fact, my father in part because I kinda’ look like him. More to the point, your analogy is a poor one. Whether or not my parents are my real parents or not still place both them and me in a demonstrable reality. Not so with your asserted god(s).</b>


It's a shame you don't believe in your Heavenly Father - you were made in His image & likeness. Are you aware that science has proven every single human on earth is descended from one woman - formally known as Eve???


<b>But theism makes claims of an eternal nature -- issues that affect our existence during infinity Doesn’t that raise the stakes considerably as opposed to whether or not I have a blood tie to my parents?</b>


How can you possibly not believe in life after death? Have you ever lost a loved one? Don't you still feel their presence? Or do you just cease thinking about them altogether once they're gone? Do you believe in spirits? Demons? Ghosts? What's your essence? Do you have a human nature? Please define your nature for me in relation to other natures.


<b>how can lesser standards support a far more extraordinary claim, like there exists a supernatural realm?</b>


How can we know the existence of a Supreme Being?





The argument of the unmoved mover (ex motu).
The argument of the first cause (ex causa).


The argument of necessity (ex contingentia).


Many things in the universe may either exist or not exist. Such things are called contingent beings.


It is impossible for everything in the universe to be contingent.


Therefore, there must be a necessary being whose existence is not contingent on any other being(s).


The argument of degree (ex gradu).


Various perfections may be found in varying degrees throughout the universe.


These degrees of perfections assume the existence of the perfections themselves.


The argument of design (ex fine).


<b>(St Thomas Aquinas)</b>



<b>Would you say the gods of Greece and Rome and Babylon and the Norsemen are all “real” or were they made up to explain things that couldn’t readily be explained? Assuming you admit these other cultures did do precisely that, why does the God of the desert you believe in not adhere to an obvious conclusion that men create gods for any number of reasons? Why does yours exist and theirs do not?</b>


There is one God. There are many false idols - & not all are figures. People worship money, food, pleasure, fame - anything that takes your love & attention away from the true God is idolatry.


<b>Therefore, if God is excused for being created from nothing, then why can't the universe be excused for being created by nothing?</b>


Because the universe is finite. God was not created out of nothing. God is uncreated. If He were created then there'd be a power above Him. God is not composite or made up of parts. If you'd like to know more, read the Catechism.


<b>Whatever did we do before religion?</b>


I'm sorry, I can't comprehend the notion.


<b>Your idea that it's god-implanted is mere assertion. There are two possibilities: One, that morality is the sentient labeling we give to behavior that supports the species and allows it to survive, and is fully natural, or Two, that morality is implanted by a divine being (for humans and animals both). Furthermore still, we see simple indigenous tribes have better morality than industrial nations have -- for instance, many tribes have no concept of thievery because they communally share everything. Clearly there is a broad range of morality, it has changed in time according to culture, and it shows clear analogy to lower animals in their social behavior as well.</b>


I believe strongly in the Natural Moral Law. But according to you who is its author? Are you saying its relative? Subject to change? Who decides? What you consider to be right, others might deem wrong, & vice versa. If certain Muslims/Christians/Jews/e.t.c., can go to bed with a clear conscience after beating someone to death, having pure intentions, then who are you to say that they've acted immorally? Every Philosopher who believed in the 'Golden Rule' believed in a higher power.


<b>I cannot logically resolve a vengeful, vicious god. “His” message comes with an underlying threat that is repulsive. He can wash away all sins if he wants to. He doesn't want to. Thus he permits the eternal condemnation of most of his children. If his concern was truly safety, he'd change his behavior to one that really embraces safety.</b>


Now we're starting to get somewhere! I knew you were angry & bitter with God. So was the Psalmist. Ever read the lamentations contained in the book of Psalms? Are you a former Christian?


God isn't vengeful. He is justice itself. Yet another poor human analogy... If you do something wrong, your parents will punish you - not because they want to hurt you but because they love you. They're not going to let you run loose, defy them, harm yourself & not suffer any consequences. But throughout it all, they'll never cease to love & care for you. It's the same with our Creator. We condemn ourselves to eternal damnation by choosing freely to commit evil. God doesn't will anyone to enter hell but He doesn't force us all into Heaven either. I think I've used this example before on these boards... If you meet the girl/guy of your dreams & you wish to marry him/her, you can't demand that they spend the rest of their life with you against their will. That's not true love. They have he God-given gift of freedom to accept or reject your invitation.


<b>Morality is both transitory and fully natural in its source. Take gods away tomorrow and humans would behave pretty much like they do with gods in place. We are a mixture of selfishness and cooperation and it serves us pretty well. Most people do behave morally.</b>


If you're going to make extraordinary claims, you need to back them up with extraordinary evidence. Please try again.


<b>Help me out here, FHC. So I'm conflicted on how to handle a domestic issue, and the absolutely universal law of God is not making it clear how I should proceed. Here's my conflict, from Leviticus 25:45-46</b>


Here's my problem. One of the 4 year old children of the heathens around me actually has converted to Judaism. Now, technically he is still heathen, at least by blood. Can I buy this child anyway, or does the conversion override the bloodline issue? I suspect that a 4 year old isn't old enough to make such a decision regarding their status, so I can buy and enslave him anyway.


Can you enlighten me on how the bible resolves such a conflict?


Sure thing, pal!


"Now before faith came, we were confined under the law, kept under restraint until faith should be revealed. So that the law was our custodian until Christ came. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a custodian (Mosaic Law)... for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to a promise" <b>(St Paul's Letter to the Galatians 3:23-29)</b>.



<b>Thanks.</b>


Anytime Mate!


<b>Bet on it. History proves it. Every god, with time, is swept away and looked upon as myth.</b>


False gods - yes. The one true God, Alpha & Omega - impossible!


<b>It’s already happening, and as science makes them less relevant, we see the rise in fundamentalism.</b>


You're in for a big surprise, my friend! Take my word for it (<i>trust</i> me).


<b>I think that's all I'll comment on for the time being. Submit (or another Muslim) can handle the rest on Islam. I'm taking on all of ya'. Praise Zeus (PBUH).</b>


Hahaha! Whoa... Look out!


<b>Theists like to portray critical assessment as some sort of weakness to the naive, but it's really the strength of science: Eliminate the ideas that are proven or provable and make the mechanisms withstand all criticism. That is how we get to knowledge. In fact, FHC, it's how you came to your belief systems, to some extent. You just left out the critical assessment part. You wouldn't believe as you do if you hadn't eliminated competing concepts and ideas, assuming you chose your religion and didn't merely inheret the belief system you were born into. So don't use a process for yourself and then try to denigrate others for using the exact same process to come to a knowledgeable conclusion.</b>


St Anselm defined Theology as "Faith seeking understanding."


Through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts; it is in particular theological research which deepens knowledge of revealed truth. From the intimate sense of spiritual realities which believers experience, the Sacred Scriptures grow with the one who reads them <b>(CCC 94).</b>



Here are some snippets from an essay I wrote recently...


"Generally speaking, Theology and Science use different methods in their effort to ascertain truth and knowledge. Theology utilises methods that are based upon subjective interpretation of personal intuition or experience, and/or the authority of a perceived prophet or a sacred text through revelation. Science, on the other hand, uses the scientific method; an objective process of investigation based upon physical evidence, subject only to observable and verifiable phenomena. Similarly, there are two types of questions which theology and science attempt to answer: questions of observable and verifiable phenomena (such as the laws of physics, of human behaviour), and questions of unobservable phenomena and value judgements (such as how the laws of physics came to be, and what is “good” and “bad”). Science and theology are quite compatible although they appear to contradict each other in terms of how they approach the world. In understanding reality, science pursues the “what” and the “how,” whereas theology is more interested in the “why.” There is great value in both. Theology and science need not be enemies" <b>(various sources).</b>



May God richly bless you, RT. You can count on our prayers.

[Ruggedtouch]

<i>Yes, you are.
</i>


Check your PM inbox.


<i>You're kinda right! It's the other way around - knowledge is a pathway to acquiring faith.
</i>


This is counter intuitive to me.


The question of gods is the only question humans allow to escape the strictures of what constitutes knowledge. Everything else within our knowledgebase is required to adhere to strict guidelines before being embraced as actual fact, as best as we humans can manage to discern the truth. That does not always mean that the truth is readily evident or even that the evidence is interpreted correctly. The point is, the evidence needs to be looked at, and tested, and corroborated, and thrown against other evidence that may be contrary. For instance, one can theorize about a black hole, and have no solid evidence, but continue to seek it. The assertion about the black hole remains speculative, but not confirmed. Then, as evidence mounts (as tools become more sophisticated) the speculation becomes more solid, more likely to be a fact. Then, when confirming evidence is achieved, one can satisfactorily embrace the speculation has become fact.


Ultimately, it does boil down to faith. That's the point I was trying to make to Submit in my earlier post. I could mention the fact that God sent His only Son to the world as evidence but not even the people during Jesus' time accepted Him & proof was staring them right in the face!


I have to ask, what <i>evidence</i> can anyone share to demonstrate that in fact, Jesus was Gods’ son sent to earth? The question becomes, when (or how) does one decide or conclude that an unknowable entity exists, or does one forever remain a Hamlet?


Taking this further, within the Christian environment, Genesis is not about to change into anything more specific. We know what it says, and if we are going to approach this in a way that humans approach the attainment of knowledge (i.e., support and falsify, test and verify), Genesis is <i>not</i> going to be fleshed out in more detail. There it sits, creationism in 2 short poetic chapters. There is no indication that we can ever know anything more about the most significant event in human history and all indications are that as more fossils are found, as scientific tools become more sophisticated and exacting, evolution is going to be more and more supported and defined.


The second question is, if one is not going to discount any possibility, then one better be fully prepared to take that to its logical conclusion. Therefore, the J-C account is only one of several thousand creation accounts, and I suggest it's time to start looking for evidence of the Lodge in the Sky that is derived from the Iroquois mythology. But wait, first let's make sure the Chaos / Zeus paradigm is eliminated... ah, but then there's that Viking thing too... and what about the Aztecs...


<i>Ways of coming to know God...
</i>


It is recognized that science doesn't bend when it comes to an incontrovertible truth. Most people don't like incontrovertible truths especially if it removes from them their comfort zone. Most people prefer to believe in gods and spirits and heavens and hells because it comforts them (that most believe they are going to heaven should tell you something about why they believe as they do). It would be nice if the god paradigm were true. That would make things easier (though also depressingly unexplainable) ? human knowledge would be hopeless in a god-model because that ultimate answer is forever beyond us). I’d like to live in paradise too, and see my dead loved ones, and so on. It’s just like the deep desire makes me careful about accepting models and paradigms without adequate support. That’s how we discern truth from falsehood, not what we <i>feel</i>about something, but what are the realities of it.


<i>That's 'blind faith'.
</i>


It would be nice if the god paradigm were true. That would make things easier (though also depressingly unexplainable) – human knowledge would be hopeless in a god-model because that ultimate answer is forever beyond us). I’d like to live in paradise too, and see my dead loved ones, and so on. It’s just like the deep desire makes me careful about accepting models and paradigms without adequate support.


We have no solid evidence of any gods or any supernatural realms, this despite multiple <i>millennia</i> of theories and claims and suppositions and books and icons and so on. Not one single verifiable shred of evidence that a god exists (and even an argument that states that if there were proof, it would defeat his requirement for pure faith), and in fact, a very youthful science that shows more and more every day that a god isn't even <i>needed</i> for reality to exist... god theories crumble quickly under the light of scientific knowledge.


If there is an impersonal "spring-winder" god, he remains unproven, and by definition -- if he is uninvolved -- he is not about to make himself known in a way we are accustomed to or not. Therefore, atheism once again stands as the only conclusion a rational person can make. Atheism is not a belief per se. For instance, someone could not have ever heard of a theistic model. They are atheist by definition but have no active belief.


There are two worldviews: the one that establishes reality as all encompassing and has no need for the supernatural realm. This is the "rational" (within the bounds of reason exclusively) worldview.


The other view, the theistic view, asserts that reality requires a supernatural causation; thus, the supernatural --and less diplomatic sounding-- "irrational" (outside the bounds of reason exclusively) worldview.


And please note these conventions have nothing to do with the common ideas that a rational person is a well thought out person and an irrational one is a chaotic maniac. These are philosophical conventions, nothing more.


Both the theist and the materialist require some level or faith or trust (respectively) in order to believe their worldviews are reality. The theist's theological faith is an acceptance of the existence of a divine being who via supernatural means establishes all of reality including the laws of nature and logic which allow for the existence of knowledge. The materialist relies on <i>a priori</i> logic that states that reality is self-caused, and empirical events allow for the existence of knowledge. For myself, I don't conceive of my atheism as a belief as much as I conceive it as a conclusion based on the asserted models out there and the lack of evidence to support those assertions. As an example, one can't really consider oneself as having the "belief that Santa doesn't exist". It's just a fact-- Santa doesn't exist, and only those who would assert he does are required to support the claim with evidence.


Until then, Gods, Demons, Jinn, etc., remain an unsupported, untested and unproved assertion that even those who embrace it admit cannot really be explained or defended.


<i>Well, I can only speak on behalf of Catholicism (I'd be stoked with input from Muslims on this matter too), our purpose in this life is to know, love & serve God. God created each one of us with an intellect. We can't love Him if we don't know Him. Knowledge is good but pride is bad. We shouldn't try to be Him.
</i>


Theists acknowledge that god(s) is /are ultimately incomprehensible. If you cannot understand him, then how do you understand what he expects of you? This is a good example of a self-contradictory assertion, although you may not see it that way. Of course, as you know, I would have no reply to you if you told me that this "understanding" is revealed to you. Revelation is a viable method, though the act of sharing a revelation is no different from it being hearsay.


Given that this would be such a great life if existence conformed to our wishes, isn't it much harder to face the cold-hearted truths of reality when life <i>doesn't</i> conform to our desires? I think it's <i>vastly</i> harder to accept the materialist perspective, because it does leave us on our own. The evidence leaves us as responsible for our own destiny, the arbiters of justice (or lack thereof), always responsible for the kind of world we live in.


From where I sit, it's nobler to believe in that which is supported and corroborated, despite how uncomfortable it might be. It's easy to foist it all on a god who must to be ultimately responsible for <i>everything</i> if you define that he's <i>created</i> everything.


<i>It's a shame you don't believe in your Heavenly Father - you were made in His image & likeness.
</i>


Which heavenly father? I’m assuming you mean the one you believe to be the true god. However, there are literally hundreds of competing claims. I see not a single thing that separates one from another.


<i>Are you aware that science has proven every single human on earth is descended from one woman - formally known as Eve???
</i>


I’ve seen nothing to support that claim.


<i>How can you possibly not believe in life after death? Have you ever lost a loved one? Don't you still feel their presence? Or do you just cease thinking about them altogether once they're gone? Do you believe in spirits? Demons? Ghosts? What's your essence? Do you have a human nature? Please define your nature for me in relation to other natures.
</i>


Tell me. What do you remember before you were born? Anything? No, of course not. It’s pretty self evident, pre-natal and post mortem are indistinguishable from one another.


As to the rest of your paragraph, you’re speaking of “feelings”, and a host of non-material concepts including emotions. Emotions can be shown to exist in lower creatures; for instance, nurturing and parental caring can be seen in higher apes. As you go lower down the chain, you can see a marked "lessening" of these sorts of carings, until, as you get to simple-brained creatures, they no longer exist. There is nothing to indicate that emotions are not the result of chemicals and neurons in the brain. Certain drugs for instance can create a feeling of deep love, based upon activation of brain chemicals.


This is a perfectly valid explanation for emotions, and it doesn't require the mumbo-jumbo of gods to explain it.


Non-material concepts are not fully non-material. You need a brain to substantiate them. Damage or impact to the brain directly affects the development and delivery of the concepts. You are simply assuming a spiritual nature for these things, and not submitting any case to support it. I am submitting they are the effects of the brain along with neurons and chemicals within the brain, and I can demonstrate how they can be manipulated by physical impact.


By way of example, I can


1. end all thought by killing that brain


2. create an emotion by chemical inducement of that brain


3. limit the thought and emotion of the brain by removing sections of it.


All the poetry about feelings and spirit and so on -- reside only in the brain. Remove it, and away it all goes. All of it. Even belief in gods.


Now you demonstrate the spiritual source, which you assert is the actual reason emotions exist and disassemble my case, please.


How can we know the existence of a Supreme Being?


<i>There is one God. There are many false idols - & not all are figures. People worship money, food, pleasure, fame - anything that takes your love & attention away from the true God is idolatry.
</i>


I will make an assumption that you are suggesting your particular supreme being but yours is not the only asserted Supreme Being.


From the atheistic point of view, the theist cannot withstand a world wherein humans are the final owners of our destiny, that acts need to be watched over and adjudicated by a figure from on high (and never seen), and that human progress is inherently hindered, impossible without the guidance of the father figure. Finally, the theist is in a psychological dilemma of superiority/inferiority -- they are so vaunted by their gods that the entire realm of existence was created exclusively for them, but they are so unworthy that they are but worms in the sight of their deities. That is a prescription for a maladjusted personality, and again, it's evident by the seething passions that theistic belief has whipped up time and time again.


Consider:


Pascal's Wager-- the underlying threat of the theistic argument-- "Gamble that there is a god on the chance he will not send you to an eternity of torture."


Fallacies:


a. What if you have chosen the wrong god? You will spend an eternity apart from your “real” god for making such an egregious error


b. "Betting" on god displays prideful ego and might anger god, and you might spend eternity apart from him for making such an egregious error


c. God might prefer courage of one's convictions instead of cowardice and self-deceit, in which case you might spend eternity apart from him for making such an egregious error


d. What if the gods deplore such self-serving narcissism and instead embraces the atheist for not succumbing to threats of a human nature? In that case you might spend eternity apart from him for making such an egregious error.


e. What if the gods are revolted by the very suggestion that there is something like an "eternal punishment"? In that case you might spend eternity apart from him for making such an egregious error.


<i>Because the universe is finite. God was not created out of nothing. God is uncreated. If He were created then there'd be a power above Him. God is not composite or made up of parts. If you'd like to know more, read the Catechism.
</i>


Your comments are couched in terms of using the Bible to prove the Bible is true. You have to because the argument for gods by definition requires faith, not knowledge. The question of course, whether or not there is a god, is answered by theists in the same way-- you must choose to assume the thing it is you wish to prove is true, but that's a viciously circular argument. It's irrelevant what attributes and other human qualities theists force upon their alleged gods. The fact is we see an old universe and that clashes with the timeline of Genesis.


God could have chosen to establish existence in such a way that there was no mistaking his presence, but he does not do that. As our technology and science grows, and our view of reality broadens, we see more and more and in no place do we see the claims of theism in evidence exclusive of any other explanation. Why be purposely obscure? I go by empirical evidence. The theistic assertions of the way it all began ends in an assertion of a supernatural entity purposely outside of the natural we can never know. But empirically we have progressed in our science and technology to see farther and farther, deeper and deeper, and there's no reason to assume it won't continue.


<i>I'm sorry, I can't comprehend the notion.
</i>


You’re being dishonest. The three Abrahamic faiths are relatively recent in humans reign on the planet. We’re obviously here. We’ve obviously evolved.


<i>I believe strongly in the Natural Moral Law. But according to you who is its author? Are you saying its relative? Subject to change? Who decides? What you consider to be right, others might deem wrong, & vice versa. If certain Muslims/Christians/Jews/e.t.c., can go to bed with a clear conscience after beating someone to death, having pure intentions, then who are you to say that they've acted immorally? Every Philosopher who believed in the 'Golden Rule' believed in a higher power.
</i>


As I noted in my prior post, morality is both transitory and subjective.


Speaking of morality, If I was a god, (and I’m speaking of the Judeo-Christian god, although the same characteristics would apply equally to most gods) these are the things I wouldn’t do as they are not demonstrable of a moral compass:


I wouldn't set up a test for my children that was impossible for them to pass, purposely tempt them, and when they did fail it I wouldn't curse my children, and their children, and their children and their children and...


I wouldn't drown them all.


I wouldn't be the general of some of them and order some of them to put others to the sword -- but keep the female virgins for their pleasure.


I wouldn't create a Satan and allow him any power over my children.


I wouldn't create a hell and condemn my children to it forever, even if they did call me names and spit on me and hurt me or didn't acknowledge me.


I wouldn't allow vials to be poured out carrying disease and death and destruction.


The list of things this "loving father" does is horrifying in the extreme. You may think that bashes him, but I didn't write the book that describes him doing such things, remember?


<i>If you're going to make extraordinary claims, you need to back them up with extraordinary evidence. Please try again.
</i>


Simple, and I backed it up previously. Many civilizations have existed without any acknowledgement of your particular god(s). The fact that civilizations have come and gone without the requirement of your particular god(s) is, of course, not extraordinary, it’s just a fact.


<i>Sure thing, pal!
</i>


Great. It would appear that there’s nothing “morally” wrong with selling child and making a few bucks.


<i>False gods - yes. The one true God, Alpha & Omega - impossible!
</i>


It is readily admitted --at least by this materialist-- that ALL world-views operate on some level of faith (theistic) or trust (atheistic) that reality conforms to standards that are <i>perceivable</i>. Given that fundamental reality, I can only operate on what stands as evidence to discern what is real, what is supported, and what is most authoritative. Since you already admit that gods don't lend themselves to proofs, then all god claims, those of Abrahamic lineage as well as those other "obscure" beliefs, as well as Hinduism, Buddhism <i>et al</i> are all <i>equally</i> likely, unless -- once again -- some proof is presented to show one has primacy over the other.


Until that happens, and we all know it won't unless Jesus actually does come back, then as long as we are alive evolution remains the most supported, most logical, most demonstrable paradigm by which we can explain the existence of life on Earth, while creationism remains unsupported assertion, clearly more mythology that requires "special explanations" as to why a god would purposely obscure something as simple as how it all began rather than it being a viable recapitulation of any historical happenstance.


<i>You're in for a big surprise, my friend! Take my word for it (trust me).
</i>


I think you’re an intelligent woman who demonstrates with every post that you have a passion for your belief and can express it better than anyone on this board.


However, I have no reason to believe that Zeus will condemn me to everlasting torment for not succumbing to what he has not provided evidence to support. Thanks Zeus.


[<i>color=#3366FF]Hahaha! Whoa... Look out![/color]</i>


Actually, I’ve been rushing this response before the moderators block my log-in.


<i>St Anselm defined Theology as "Faith seeking understanding."
</i>


That’s very poetic but it doesn’t tell us anything. As an epistemological method or philosophy, science has every right to demand theism hold to the same standards science holds itself to-- hypothesis, experimentation, falsification, peer review, etc. in order for an assertion to be considered valid. This is fair because science has stringent demands it holds against itself, and it's goal is to arrive at truth as best as possible by vigorous methods-- which are open to any who cares to repeat them.


Theism on the other hand, has this "faith, not proof" standard, so by its own standards theism must give equal weight to <i>all claims based upon faith</i> as being <i>just as likely true</i> as the theism's own professed beliefs-- even science! Scientists, by theists' standards, could shrug and say, "Since you don't have to show me no steenkin' proofs I don't have to show you no steenkin' proofs!" and still comfortably adhere to theisms expressed standards of "knowledge". If theism finds this unacceptable, then theism must devise why it feels it can exempt itself from standards it demands other beliefs are required to adhere to.


<i>Here are some snippets from an essay I wrote recently...
</i>


Nicely done. Let me offer a counter proposal.


I'll be accused of "religion-bashing" by some more than likely, of being "prideful and vain" by pointing these things out, but it all comes down to what is more likely, so consider the following:


A god created existence in only 6 days, but did so in such a way to make it look immensely old and left massive clues to support that belief... and this god put forth a test to only two humans without(at least in terms of the Judeo-Christian god) giving them either the ability to make a considered choice nor did he bother to tell them the consequences would extend to every person born after them... and this god then inspired a book but did not allow the original to last in case the condemned to damnation by definition humans worship those texts... and allowed copies of copies to multiply so that huge civilizations would clash with one another over interpretations... and this god then comes down to earth as a human to act as a mediator to experience human weakness and pain and sin that he created in the first place anyway, and he's letting billions upon billions of people suffer thusly and choose eternal damnation on an ongoing basis in order to satisfy this need to experience the aforementioned... and finally in a climactic battle wherein agony and suffering will spread over the globe this god will battle his nemesis that he himself created and could blink to make disappear if he really wanted to...


<b>or</b>


Existence is natural, patterns form out of the exchange of energy, life evolved in some places, competition for that life implemented social structures, sentience ignited that social structure to a more and more complicated degree... and allowed for technology to extend the perceptions of humans to further and further reaches, chipping away at old, perhaps poetic and elegant but nonetheless outdated beliefs created by a ruling class that knew the power of ignorance and fear in people made them vastly more controllable?


Just a side note - we see stars forming today by the way, in the Pleiades-- various stages of stars being formed are quite visible. Knowing the speed of light one can measure distances, showing billions of years is required to establish the size and distances we see.


When you look at the very deepest foundation of the entire doctrine, when you go to the theological reason the entire book was written, you are left with this conclusion the bible tells us over and over:


Ignorance is bliss

[Faith Hope Charity]

Peace!


RT, I'll reply to your post tomorrow. I've had a long day. Hope you'll still be here.


Moderators, why do you plan on blocking RT?


Have I missed something? He hasn't crossed the line in my book. Is there an entry I don't know about???


Whatever happened to the 1st Amendment? Freedom of Speech, ya'll (I'm not even American - LOL).


RT, stick to the rules, dude!


I better cut it out before I get banned too.


Take care all!

[PUPPET]

No doubt there are many people worldwide "reverting" to Islam. That's fine! I don't have a problem with that. But it makes me wonder how many Muslims would "convert" to other religions if there wasn't severe punishment for apostasy in Islam ??? I know many people who have escaped from the East in fear that they'll be killed by authorities/extremists because they've denounced Islam.

Just as our muslim brothers Survivded and Still do in Europe, Russia, and Tukmenistan and Kazakstan


PErsonal encouters with brothers from these areas , They could not Read Salaah openly, or give Azaan, they had no Free access to islamic litreature / quraans


In the above scenario, Faith lies inside a persons mind and heart and soul,


a person can choose to believe whatever they want, NoONE can tell weather someone takes Jesus or Allah as God. If a person is true to his faith then in these circumstances unfortunately they have to practise silently, for fear of being victimised in their so call "muslims only society"


not shout out from Roof tops I have renonunced islam. SO i dont buy your argument