Total posts: 459
-->
@Stephen
Stephen - you repeat them because you probably have sort of sick deviancy that enjoys it.
And whatever spin you label your repetition of it - it is you choice and your posts which include them.
Get a life - and at least try and stay on topic.
It is not like this is the first time you have been asked.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
So your are speaking for others then and how it is that they define as god/s?
No. I am speaking for no one else.
I think it speaks for itself.I think you should speak for yourself and not others that you don't know or have ever met.
I am not speaking for others.
I like that you believe that you are your own god but unless I have misunderstood you; affirming the WE and US all believe that it is we and us that are god/s or is stretching it a bit and I am sure that there must be many that would take offence at you claiming to be a god to the point of calling you a blasphemer. I know that you have said that :
Stop lying. I don't think I am my own god. I put a definition on the table. That is all i have done. I don't care about offence because that was not my intention.
"I don't give a rat's arse about blasphemy. I cannot blaspheme against something that does not exist. And if religious people get upset - well good for them. It is not my job to make people feel happy about nonsense".#89And I agree with you. Christians get upset for the least of things from my own experience. Such as when I speak of the miraculous ten years pregnancy of the "virgin" Mary?But that said do you for instance , know how a Hindu defines any one of his /her god or goddesses? Or do you know of any Muslims , like you, that believe they are a god.And an after thought would be; if as you say , `you are your own god` then as per the OP, how do you define yourself? Or is this you definition of you/god >>>>?
all people get upset about some stuff. christians do - so do hindus and muslims - and so does stephen. and perhaps even me. how would I know how a hindu defines any of his or her gods? nor would I know how a muslim defines their god. It is not a question that I have thought about much before secmer asked it.
I am not defining myself - that is a pointless exercise - human if anything. But I never said I was god. That is your overactive imagination and paranoia working overtime again. I gave a definition of what god was - from my perspective.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
But I am sure Dimtim8967 will be absolutely delighted with your in depth and thoughtful experienced contribution to his thread, in any language. You do know that Dimtim believes that he is his own god , don't you?
Always stirring aren't you, Stephen? Well I suppose that makes sense as you have not even once contributed to this topic in a meaningful manner. And you have the gall to accuse others of not doing so either.
I answered a question in another thread. And you could not even get that right. I never said I was god. The question was how do you define god. And I replied that it was whatever was the ultimate authority in someone's life.
Since I don't believe in god or any god, then I certainly do not consider myself god. Just because I have provided a definition for god does not mean that I am suggesting that I am god.
I am the master of my own fate for better or for worse. This however does not mean I think I am god. It only means that the definition I have expressed to define god fits that description. It is not more than that. So stop being ridiculous. And stop twisting what people are saying.
It effectively says that there is no god - because everyone definitionally is their own god - making the notion of god as a specific or a general term redundant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kadin
Nontrinitarian Christians
Isn't that an oxymoron?
Can there be a non-trinitarian christian? surely, any definition of a christian must include Jesus as God? Otherwise it is not really a christian definition - just someone pretending to be one.
I can like Gandhi, but I would not call myself a ghandistian. Or I can like stalin - does not make me a stalinist.
Is christianity - a religion - a way of life - a cover all provision for anyone born in the west or anyone who likes Jesus?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Observation. Intuition. Psychology.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
God is the one we find worthy above all others. Hence we worship it. It might be a superstitious person or thing. It might be a power or principle - but in most cases it is simply us.We are our own god - because we think we are more worthy than anyone else - we worship ourselves.I am the captain of my own soul - the master of my own destiny. The most important in this world is me.I am the center of my own universe. Everything I do - is about me and for me and to make me succeed and go forth.So which is it ? "we" "us" "ourselves" or in your own case "I" and "me", or a "god"?
We and us are humanity. I in this particular case is me. Or generally speaking it also could be all of humanity. I think it speaks for itself.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
So filthy you keep repeating it - almost like a badge of honor. I think it is time you sucked it up princess.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Why are you so upset that I feel there is more to the Jesus story? A story that you believe is a complete "myth " anyway?
You misunderstand me. I am not upset. You can believe whatever you want about Jesus. I even encouraged you to explore it IN YOUR own THREAD. My issue is - that you keep bringing Jesus and christianity into this topic. This topic is about the Jewish god and the Islam god. What part of that is so difficult to understand? Oh that is right. NOTHING is difficult about that.
Stephen asked: How do you know that the bible is "just a book to Christians"? <<<<<<<Please don't ignore that question.See that, "the bible is just a book" are the words that you have used there . The Reverend tradesecret used a similar expression to you and he is a devote pastor
Now I am really smiling. I knew if I kept needling you would once again reveal your paranoia. I didn't expect it from this one though. How many other people on this site have called the bible a book? Oodles. Are they all the Reverend tradesecret as well? Obviously they must be. I also said above that humans are animals. Did you reference that with anyone as well? Perhaps I am zed? Or perhaps I ragnar? Or perhaps i am Poly? Give it a break Stephen. I am not tradesecret. (Although reading his posts that you keep referring to he - he seems to be a giant amongst those on here, and what is it that you keep trying to put on - oh that is right. yes I would be proud to be mistaken for him.) He must have really upset you - for you to keep seeing his ghost everywhere. perhaps I should read more of his stuff - hey he might even - - convert me. You would really love that. Please don't stop. This is too much fun.
You are one in a million Stephen. but Please keep to the topic. This is about the Jewish and the Islam god.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
I speak of acknowledging results, but not submitting. . . For there exist situations, moments in life, where the end result looks assured, a bully shall beat the stuffing out of me, should I defy them.But that is not the only result, should I submit, something 'inside me, shall die instead. . .A poor man's martyr, one who survives that which distresses, but by such sentiments and ideas, do I imagine those who have died for their faith felt.That someone else appears likely to be victorious, need not be victorious over my soul.(Poetically speaking)
With respect, you are talking about the soul. That something which provides to humanity, what some may call humanity. What separates them from the animals. Animals have no morality system. They do what they do - for their own interests. Humanity is just another animal. An animal who can think philosophically and by using an moralistic sense - something which seems to have derived from a belief in god.
Animals do not worship god. There are no animal temples. They have no religion. They live and they die. What separates humanity from the animals is a intellectual ability to imagine god. it is this imagination which provides to us the notion that something is right or it is wrong. Although I see you are doing so poetically, it is inconsistent with atheism. Atheists have no morality of their own, they have to borrow it from religions. Atheists have no beliefs, except there is no god. it goes without saying that this means they cannot consistently have morals. Yet atheists do have morals. They say that they do not borrow them from religions - so where do they come from? I say - morality is an invention of humanity borrowed from a superstitious belief. To evolve - we need to divest ourselves of morality.
I confess, a man beyond morality, is beyond my ken.Morality is a part of the human condition, as I see it.Arising even in the murk.Existentialism.
Neitche imagined it. I am simply trying to apply it.
I can believe that you would act as you see right, but that does not mean I agree 'with you, upon that which you view as right.Valuing morality, society, and existence, as a dog eating dog, survival of the fittest, just not to my tastes.If I reckon your suggested system correctly.
I think perhaps you have misunderstood me somewhat. I am not claiming to be right. Nor am I claiming that you are wrong. I think right and wrong belong to a moralistic system. I do think I am being consistent. And that you are being inconsistent. All I am doing is taking the philosophies of evolution and atheism as part and parcel of the same thing - and extending their particular distinctions in a true trajectory. To not do this would be to deny who I am. I am alone in this universe. I have no purpose but what I make of it. Survival of the fittest. Strongest survives. Amoral system. Outcome orientated and measured. Whatever it takes. It is neither right nor wrong. It is what it is.
Many books and interactions, result in a learning of reality, through the minds of others.Might may exist in many avenues, then perhaps it can exist in virtue.I believe your views exist, in you, in others, in parts of society, though perhaps not vogue, at the moment.
I think it exists in all of us. It is slowly revealing itself more and more as we embrace who we really are. There are still far too many cloaks of morality and institutional mores that hold onto us and which try and prevent us from living. Yet, soon. And then it will become normal once again. As we once again become the animals - the beasts that we are on the inside. Why is it that the more progressive and sophisticated we are - the rarer our meat becomes - and the more we move towards vegetarianism. We like the beast - and to be the beast - eating grass - and eating our kill.
In the most progressive there is the hint of the primitive. Or rather the exotic. and the future.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
just curious what you believe, or myself believe.
that's ok. Mostly we are all inconsistent in our views - and moreso if we are vague.
Your system described is. . . explicit, precise.
I try to be as consistent with my understanding of the world as possible. The reason why my view is so explicit and precise is because it is moreso consistent with the position that there is no god and that humanity makes its own rules as we go along. In other words, morality is whatever I decide it is - not some institution or book. Or even the values that others consider typically valuable such as life, democracy, fairness, justice, accountability. If anything has a value it is the notion of consistency - because it at least gives me perspective and a framework to measure against. Hence - since life has happened to me - then I desire to make it all about me and the way I see it. Now this of course could lead me into two paths. One, specific for my individuality or for the betterment of society as a whole. I prefer the former option - yet understand that for me to achieve this consistently and more fully, it will require me also pursuing the outcome for the betterment of society within the same parameters. Anything short of this means I cannot truly be happy.
My own morality/ethics are vaguely known to myself, but I can't quite agree with such a utilitarian philosophy as your focus on survival of the fittest.
Why not? You are suggesting that the means and the ends ought to be balanced. That the destination and the journey are both important. Unfortunately, I take the view that can only hold up if a god exists. Since god does not exist, then there are no absolute morals that require me worrying about the journey. How I get to an end is entirely up to me and once I get to that end then - I have achieved what I wanted - and am fulfilled. There is no logical explanation except for moral conscious that would require me to worry about the journey otherwise.
I can acknowledge results, but knowing an end result, need not mean one submits to it.
Results are a measure. That is why you can acknowledge them. Yet what other way is there to objectively understand anything except by its results. True, we don't have to submit to anything - yet - I am talking about an outcome. Whether we want it to happen or not - there will always be an outcome. Outcomes are inevitable.
Means, are worthy as ends in themselves, to my way of thinking.
Yes, I can see that. Yet it is inconsistent to an atheist. An atheist has no valid reason to be concerned about the means apart from morality. This is something which atheists imbibe from morality systems. And morals per se - arise from religious convictions. Morals intrinsically are saying that right and wrong exists. Atheism suggests implicitly that there are no rights or wrongs, just learning experiences along the way.
I would rather people act as they believe is right, justified, than what they believe will emerge victorious.
Yet, you would find it difficult to take the view that I should act as I believe is right - and that is to destroy religion. Again - inconsistent. No offence meant by the way - just trying to clear away some of the misconceptions. I don't believe that I am right - since I don't I believe in right or wrong. Nevertheless, it is inconsistent and in my view actually is self contradiction.
Doesn't mean I 'ignore the survival instinct in humans. Or that I deny people often have opposite ideas of 'right.
People believe all sorts of things. This is what I love about human nature. I don't mind that people think very differently to me. For me this is part of the tapestry of life. Yet, this does not mean that any person is right or wrong. Survival instinct is flee or fight. Fleeing can take various manners as can fighting. The only negative outcome really is to die. Even if you lose a fight but survive - then you have another day to fight. Unless of course you are so seriously wounded that you don't want to fight anymore - then you really are a waste of air. And should kill yourself.
Personally I consider religion 'stronger than irreligion, but depends how one defines religion, perhaps.
Religion has evolved for some reason. I can agree with that. Was it make humanity stronger or weaker? Good question. IDK. Yet, for the human to continue to evolve - he needs to be able to adapt and fly - this means letting go of the past - and the errors in thinking - such as right and wrong. This is the only way that individuals will be able to evolve into the next phaze in our journey.
I even think that there's truth in religion to some people, or truth in pieces of some religions.Though I can admire your motivations, in that you view religion as false, that I assume you think it is better for people not to be influenced by it.
Truth is truth. It is quite different from right and wrong. Truth is that which accords with reality. Right and wrong is what accords with someone's understanding of reality. The two although similar are quite different. Religion is based in someone else's understanding of reality - not with the reality itself.
Though there's likely a more explanatory philosophy on right and wrong, I lack it myself. And can only speak in the morality I was raised.Can't say I'm a fan of American foreign policy myself, though it could be worse.
Yep US policy sucks.
I'm still not convinced by the strongest being 'ought to pursue their own ends, or the 'justification of such.That 'someone will win in conflicts, I cannot deny, that some people will have their way I cannot deny.But I'm not sure I support a philosophy of admiring strength above virtue.
Obviously or you would not have replied so. But why not? What is the logical reasoning for why you think that some can pursue this but others cannot. Strength is not just the might of the brute beast. Might can be intelligence. Might can be money. Might can be good looks. Might can be the ability to reason. Might is not just brute strength. But might is might and the mightiest - whoever they are - and they will win.
I believe in evolution, rather than Earth being created in six days.I 'am an atheist, as atheism is commonly understood.But believing in the 'existence of natural selection, is different from 'applying it to social interactions in a. . . stringent manner.
Glad to hear. I think consistently it needs to be applied in every field, otherwise, we take on board a false dichotomy. If we borrow from the religions around us in the way we interact, then we deny who we really are.
I suppose I oppose your view of morality, if I'm viewing it right,As pragmatic system of advocating that which survives,Because I see flaws in it, though I could be wrong.I oppose other systems of morality as well, though 'how I oppose different systems varies. In ways I can't recall off the top of my head.
Ok.
Our different views of morality coexisting, would for the moment, exist as it does in this moment.I am not able, nor do I desire to ban you from this site for possessing different views. Instead I'd rather hear you out, consider your ideas, discard or improve my own.. . .
Does it exist? If I applied my view it would soon become extinct. I would be canceled quicker than Donald Trump. The fact is - the world is so inconsistent now in its thinking that my position is abhorrent despite the fact that it is pure atheism through and through. Yet many would disagree with me and that is ok. I cannot pretend to be right.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
No, possessing a belief that one is right, alone will not mean they will succeed.
That is exactly my point. Success will be understood as the one left standing. Not by someone else's understanding of success or not. There is no right or wrong - just us.
Even without war and death, slavery has been declared unlawful, at various points in history.Even before the American Civil War was lost and won,Slavers, slaves, abolitionists, and owners, had different ideas of slavery being right or wrong.
Slavery is part of history. It was neither right nor wrong. It has been declared lawful and unlawful. Those who declared it either were the ones who had the power and the strength. It is an idea.
I would like to believe that by word and action, a common path can be found.That it is not necessary to cull from the world, any who disagree.That even to a degree, disagreement could be had.
That is nice. In a world where people can disagree and still forge forward together. But it, respectfully, will go nowhere. It cannot for it has no singleness of mind, of vision. Only of being nice to each other, of compromise, of stalling - in reverse for the most part. It however is doomed to fail - like all the rest in history who cannot take what is given to take.
. . .
To act in a fashion one views as right, is not 'only emotion, I assert.For that emotion is derived 'from my idea of right, at the justice or injustice perceived.
. . .
I love your quotes - where do you get them all from? But I never said I disagreed with emotion. Emotion is simply a reflection of what is going on in my heart. Yet, emotion is not a gauge of a measure of right and wrong. It is only a measure of me and my views, whether right or wrong and how they are offended.
It appears to me, that you justify the burning of books by lionization of strength.Yet what you 'mean by this is yet unclear to me.
I justify the burning of books, and probably worse than that - genocide by the philosophical position of the ends matter. Whatever it takes to get what we want is justified. It is the destination. The ends - the utilitarian approach - the outcomes we desire. How we get there is irrelevant in the sands of time - it is only the getting that matters. To rid the world of untruth - such as religion is a glorious thing. A pursuit well worth pursuing.
You state survival of the fittest in whatever survives,That the strongest ought fight and pursue their own ends,You state it is neither right nor wrong to abuse another.
How can it right or wrong to abuse someone? Surely that is just someone else's morality. It is not mine. True if someone abused me - then I would fight back. Not because what they did was wrong - but because it was preventing me from doing what I wanted to do. It is not wrong of them to do it. People hate America interfering in their politics - so they get annoyed when they invade a country with guns - but they are happy to let them interfere by giving money by way of foreign aid. I think this is two faced and hypocritical. Stop with the guns and stop with the foreign aid. Or - just send in the bombs and finish of the problems.
The strongest ought to pursue their ends is justified and inevitable. It is what it is. It has always been the way and it will always be the way. In our modern world we think we are sophisticated enough to control our own evolution. This is nonsense. We can no more control our evolution that we can control the wind or the sun or the universe we live in. Yet, this is why we need to not stop the strong from pursuing what they want.
When intellectual's are burned by the ignorant,It appears to me you answer that, by right of the strong.
When the strong wins, then we will see who is the intellectual and who is the ignorant. What many today claim as intelligent, many others decry as foolishness.
When millions are slain for difference of blood,It appears to me you answer that, by right of the strong.
I am not sure what blood has to do with this. I don't particularly think any sort of blood or race is superior or stronger than another. In fact - they all bleed when they get cut -and the blood all flows red. There are strong and weak in every race and tongue.
When collars are cast about necks, medical experiments commenced upon unwilling,It appears to me you answer that, by right of the strong.
If science can be trusted in any field, it can be trusted in every field. Science -and the pursuit of it ought to be given carte blanche to do everything it can - and to go wherever it is possible.
I do not deny that what 'happens in life, 'happens.I 'do oppose a moral system, by which one's concern is only in being strong.In 'justifying the trampling of others by that strength.
So you oppose evolution. Are you a creationist then?
I think that morality is as morality does. My morality is clearly as valid as anyone else's. Why would you consider it ok - to let everyone else have their morality - but would oppose mine?
Surely, if you think we could all exist together, even in disagreement, then there must be a place for mine ? Or do you think my position should be burnt? Put to death. Not because it is strong or because it is weak or even because it is valid - but because it opposes the substance of what you are desiring.
And if hypothetically, my views could exist together with yours, how would that look? Would it simply be paraded as a relic of hypothetical thinking - which I would consider worse than burning it - or would it be allowed to breathe in short bursts at different times in various places with appropriate boundaries? The boundaries that ultimately are created by those who disagree with it but don't have the strength to destroy it completely.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
God is the one we find worthy above all others. Hence we worship it. It might be a superstitious person or thing. It might be a power or principle - but in most cases it is simply us.
We are our own god - because we think we are more worthy than anyone else - we worship ourselves.
I am the captain of my own soul - the master of my own destiny. The most important in this world is me.
I am the center of my own universe. Everything I do - is about me and for me and to make me succeed and go forth.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
I believe that might influences reality,But I do not believe that might is right,Even a slave or a victim has their own beliefs of what is right, regardless of if they are enslaved or overpowered by others.
Having a belief of what someone thinks is right does not automatically determine they will succeed or that they are correct.
Slavery is only considered wrong in our world today because the stronger won the battle in relation to that argument. Previously the stronger side was those in favor of slavery.
If I witness someone bullying another weaker than the bully,Even if the bully is stronger than I,Shall I do nothing?It is not that I 'must do something,But I 'would think better of myself if I did something.
If you witness someone bullying another person - it is a matter for you what you will do about it. If you nothing that is ok - and if you do something and lose - that was your choice - and if you do something and are successful, then that too was a matter for you.
If it makes you feel better or not is an emotional response. IT does not determine whether it is right or wrong, just that you have emotions.
That I am stronger than some others, does not make it my right to abuse them, should it take my fancy.The physical ability perhaps, but I would think less of myself 'for such an action, I hope.
It is true that it does not make it your right to abuse someone else- but nor does it mean you are wrong to do that. If however someone believes that they are stronger and have a sense of purpose that ought to change the way the world works and set their mind to do it - that is also ok. Admittedly some people won't like this - but so what?
That person no more has to subscribe to their morality than they to his. In the end - it will be the one who is strong that will survive. Strength is not always only brute power - sometimes it is strength of mind - or perhaps character. Or the ability to win over the most people. However it looks - the strong will survive.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Who is to say who was stronger?
I think that at the end of the day - the one who is still standing is the strongest.
The question really comes down to - why not?
Why shouldn't the strongest fight and pursue their own ends - just like everyone else?
I think it is a bit like Hitler but also like Stalin. Both were dictators - both used their power and their strength to subvert their enemies.
I don't see why this is intrinsically a bad thing.
Created:
Created:
-->
@Lemming
there are some books that ought to be wiped out. - Timid8967Mainly out of personal taste, but also out of logical argument. I'm not for any book being wiped out. Well. . . No, no, even some books I hate, I don't think I'll go the direction of wiping them out.Personally I just hate to see things die, even books that I hate, I'd rather lock them deep behind red tape, but allow people to access them if they're determined enough.Logical argument is it sets precedent for 'other people to burn 'your books, as well as allowing history to be repeated if people are not aware of it.Though I suppose one could record 'of Mein Kampf, without needing the actual text, or the argument that evil should be stomped out.I'm still not one for book burning myself, I think.
Once upon a time I would have made the same argument. Yet, now I am ok with people burning my books. We live in a world where the survival of the fittest or the strongest survive. And in my opinion, only the best arguments should prevail. This means by virtue of natural succession, that the weak should be eliminated. Of course what the weak is and who the strong are - will be determined how? By history. In other words, those who survive - those who eliminate their competition.
Hitler and Stalin hated each and their ideologies not because they were so different. Fascism and Communism are very alike. Nevertheless, they were both competitors. They both started together - because they needed each other - but very soon - they started to fight against each other.
I despise Hitler and I don't have a lot of time for Stalin although communism is attractive. Yet, it is a matter of logic. The strong will survive - this means the weak will be eliminated. I take the view that atheism or non-theism is strong - and for it to survive - means the elimination of all religion. As John Lennon wrote "imagine ... no religion too."
Only be destroying it - will it be removed from our psyche.
Public Schools are already doing it now by stealth. Religion has been removed from public schools. It is removing the deadwood. And the world is becoming less religious and more secular. Science has become the new god. As it should.
Yet, I am now being distracted. Sorry. Back to the topic.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I don't give a rat's arse about blasphemy. I cannot blaspheme against something that does not exist. And if religious people get upset - well good for them. It is not my job to make people feel happy about nonsense.
Ok, my bad. Perhaps more than christians care about the bible. IDK. It certainly sounds like you worship it. Jesus said he came to divide family. To set man against son and mother against daughter. How is that peace? He told one of his disciples to go and get swords. Swords which then they used in a violent manner. Jesus was often talking about hellfire - gnashing teeth and all of that. To say Jesus did not advocate violence is simply a lie.
And you appear to be awfully eager to promote a belief system that you say is a danger to our children and existence and a book and the you want committed to the flames.
Do you just read what I say - and think "he is saying the opposite of these things". Stephen, I am not promoting the bible and I am not promoting christianity or indeed any religious position. Stop being a jerk.
And as I said - keep to the topic. It is about Jewish god and it is about Muslims god. It is not about what your side speculation about Jesus is or christianity.
Since you continue to distract us with your own agendas, please don't expect me to respond in this topic unless it is directly on point of the thread topic.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Of course you are a fraud. everyone can see that. using ad hominin is acceptable. You call me princess and dimtim. So get over it.
You bully by continuing your tirade against me despite me answering your questions. You deny you are a bully - but that is too be expected. Oh and this is far from me playing the poor old victim. I am no victim and I don't pretend to be.
I am sorry - why should I care what you believe - you are a self proclaimed atheist - and the burden of proof is one the theist's side. Your job is to respond - not to invent your own stories - no one cares about your made up stories.
Please stop being such a hypocrite. And stick to the topic.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
What "front foot" ? The bible and Christians make all the claims. I did't write the bible stating Jesus is god, did YOU? I didn't make the claim the Jesus walked on water did YOU?I don' t claim to have seen Jesus bring a dead man back to life, do YOU? No you don't and neither have I? But here you are, still sticking to your belief that the atheist and the "non theist" should shoulder the burden of proof. Let me tell you, your "new self" is already falling apart.It is a universally accepted fact that the burden of proof lies with he that brings the claim.
whatever Stephen. Keep your fingers in your ears. Shut your eyes. Don't think outside of the box - and continue your endless tirade of cyclical discussions with religious folks.
I never said the b.o.p was not on the theists side. I said - I think the entire idea of b.o.p in this particular discussion is a waste of time because it is backwards. And so - you go ahead and do what you do. Eat shit and die. I don't care. But you WILL never convince anyone of anything. Except you don't want the truth.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I mean, burning the holy word of god is right up there isn't it? It is one of the highest blasphemies in the eyes of his god as is not believing in Jesus AND the resurrection!
Don't get me wrong. I think getting rid of the bible is a good thing. Yet, I don't think it is true to say that it is one of the highest blasphemies in the church. If it were the Koran - that would be true. But the bible at least for the christians I know is just a book. Even those who say it is the words of god. again don't misunderstand me. they would be pissed off if it was done - but would they consider it blasphemy? I doubt it or at least it would surprise me. i think you are making too much of it. For me - I think that like Hitler's mein kamph there are some books that ought to be wiped out.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
(A)Not really. Are you now saying that the atheist has nothing to " take back" from the theists? And you haven't explained the "truth" that you say the atheist has have you?
Yes, really I have explained it. The atheist needs to take back the "front foot". The atheist is only able to respond - or react - never preempt. When the atheist stops being lazy - when the atheist realizes that the current status quo only ever enables them to react or to respond - not to pre-empt and decide the path that we want to go on - he or she will continue to be on the backfoot.
I understand the burden of proof - yet - it seems to me that the entire notion of the burden of proof has been so wired - that the argument can never be decided properly.
As for the truth - the truth is - there is no god. This is the truth that non-atheists hold to and have in their arsenal. Why you would even need to ask this - is simply a nonsense.
To me - it looks as though you are simply a paranoid white old man who MUST get his way and who when he does not resorts to what he knows best and this is to bully and act like a pompous arse. Oh the privilege that exists in your tiny little half assed brain. I suspect you like the Brother are actually just a fraud - which explains why you ask such dumb questions.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Do what you have to do Stephen, it does not change the fact that you are boring.
And just as you have the right to question - I have the right to decline to answer. Although on my part - I have already answered - you just seem to not be able to comprehend.
And given that I am not your teacher (you keep telling me) then I don't have any desire to explain that further. Go and find yourself a mentor or guru who can assist you with your questions.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Boring. nothing to respond to.This is why I know you to be fraud. You have much that needs addressing and responding to , but can't without exposing yourself further.
Stephen, you are boring. You repeat yourself. I don't have anything that needs addressing. I have answered all of your questions and more.
I am trying to learn something new.You are not interested in learning about the points raised here by others concerning the Abrahamic god which also happens to be the god of Christians. You have got caught out on that point, so again, having been backed into a corner you have moved the goal posts and have now decided that this thread , your thread, wasn't at all about the religion or " the god of the Jews or Muslims per se" but was created to understand the "conflict in Palestine" and this is also why you have clambered for this bullshite;
Now you are telling lies. I am interested in learning and have learnt much since being on this site. I admit that I was foolish for suggesting that talking about religion was giving it airtime whilst myself was talking about it. I admitted that. I have learned I was wrong. The only person who keeps repeating this is you. I never moved the goalposts. For me the current conflict was my reason for asking the question. I did not express that originally because I did not see it as relevant. It is only relevant now because people kept insisting my question about Jews and Muslims must also include Christians - which it did not.
Dimtim wrote: "I am not interested in Abrahamic religions per se, just the current conflict - which we see on tv between the Jews and the Muslims. Or Israel and Hamas / Palestine. It is not a conflict between JEws and Christians and Muslims. It is the Muslims who want to see the end of Israel and the Israelies who want to see the end of Palestine." #69 Timid8967If this was truly the case then you have posted in the wrong sub-forum. The Political forum is where a thread has been started on that very subject of the "Arab Israeli conflict".
Nonsense. It is clearly a religious topic not a political one. I was not asking for answers in relation to the political climate - but considering how two different tribes had so much hatred for each other - and yet for all intents and purposes worshiped the same god.
But again, I notice that, in all of the five pages and all ONE HUNDRED AND SIX POSTS of that thread you haven't asked a single question or made a single comment on the "current Arab Israeli conflict" ?
Why should I? I did not even know it was there. until you pointed it out.
If Jesus is the son of man, does that make him man? If Jesus is the son of God, does that make him God? Is it really confusing that Jesus might be both the son of God and God personification? Only if one thinks that him, being the son of man, makes him not human.But according to you "Jesus is a myth". So why are you evening giving more oxygen and air time to this myth? Or have you changed your mind?
Wow! None of my paragraph is antithetical to my position that Jesus is a myth. I responded to another poster - and now you going to resurrect - again - what I have indicated I had changed. But hey don't let the facts get in the road of your paranoia.
I conceded I was wrong -About what exactly?
GO and read my previous posts here and elsewhere. I am not going to repeat myself for you.
Are you now saying we atheists and "non theists" should not have to "take the bull by the horns" and bare the burden of proving god does or doesn't exist?
I never said that was wrong. In fact on numerous occasions I have explained myself. You find it - you obviously don't have anything else to do except troll my posts.
Do you still believe "Jesus is a myth"?
Yes.
Do you still consider Christianity "a danger to our children and our existence"?Yes.Do you still believe that Christianity is a "cancer that should be cut out" ?
Yes.
Do you still believe the Christians holy book the bible " should be committed to the flames"?
Yes.
And if you ask me any of these questions again - now that you have an answer I will take it as your admission to trolling me. And I will act accordingly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Doesn't the bible say that God is one? OR there is only one god.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Boring. nothing to respond to.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Jesus is either the son of a GOD, or the personification of a GOD, or both.....Such is the confusion of the Christian Club version.Nonetheless the spread of Arabian theism all stems from the same notion of GOD.So depending on which club one subscribes to, (or not, in my case) GOD can be both the same and/or different. (Other specialist clubs are available)The Christian one is often envisaged as a fair skinned guy with a flowing mane of blond hair.......I would imagine that the Muslim one is generally regarded as being swarthier with curly black hair......And the Jewish one perhaps wears a black hat.And as for Catholics and all that Virgin Mary stuff!
If Jesus is the son of man, does that make him man? If Jesus is the son of God, does that make him God? Is it really confusing that Jesus might be both the son of God and God personification? Only if one thinks that him, being the son of man, makes him not human.
I get that often christians are accused of envisaging Jesus as a fair skinned guy with blonde hair, but is that a fair criticism, or merely just mocking Westerners in their religion?
Chinese Christians draw Jesus as chinese. And african christians draw him as african. Is this a way for people use to identify with jesus or are they actually denying Jesus was a jew?
I have never met a christian who says Jesus is not a jew. Have you?
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Hi Brother,
You have failed to be consistent in your reasoning. You forget you gave me a waiver from filling out the bio because I am not religious. I am a non-theist. And since this means I am on my way to Hell, there is no need to provide any specifics of my background. Like Stephen who also has an empty bio, we are exempted. Have a nice day.
Oh yes, and I am not interested in Abrahamic religions per se, just the current conflict - which we see on tv between the Jews and the Muslims. Or Israel and Hamas / Palestine. It is not a conflict between JEws and Christians and Muslims. It is the Muslims who want to see the end of Israel and the Israelies who want to see the end of Palestine.
My entire topic is premised (at least in my mind - even though I have not previously mentioned it) due to the onset of this conflict. Why can the Jew not see their god is the same as the Muslim? Jesus has nothing to do with this. And therefore Christianity has nothing to do with this topic.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
YOUR BIBLE IGNORANT QUOTE IN POST #26: "So please stick to the specific topic. Muslim and Jewish god or gods. christianity is irrelevant in this thread. "Christianity is NOT irrelevant to your thread because of the simple FACT that Jesus is Yahweh God incarnate, understood? Therefore Jesus is in the mix of your titled thread as well if the serial killer God Yahweh is concerned, get it? :(. To save time, actually LEARN about the religions that you talk about, okay? Thank you.
Yes it is irrelevant to this thread. Whatever the christians think about jesus is entirely irrelevent to what the jews think of their god and the muslims think of their god. I could call myself Jesus - this would not mean I become relevant to christian's understanding of god. It is nonsense.
Please start your own thread if you want to discuss jesus or christianity.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Hence why this is about jews and muslims only.Whose Jew god you have identified by his Christian/ Anglican title of Jehovah.Dimtim8967 wrote: Is Allah the same as Jehovah? Or are they two different gods? #1
Fair point stephen, let's go with yhwh then or whatever the jewish people want to name their god.
But never the less, you have made it clear on many threads that you are a "non theists", which, with the creation of this thread about god and or gods completely flies in the face of everything you say about yourself and gods, here:non-theists don't debate theology - it is impossible because theology means - the study of god and non-theists don't believe in god.non-theists debate or discuss or rather dogmatically affirm discussions about some kind of god we think might exist but cant prove or disprove. Really we are fools.How can we debate about something we don't actually know how to define - and by that I mean - there is no consensus on what god is? #20
Not sure what you point was. I conceded I was wrong - or at least I suspended my position about the above. Isn't that what you wanted me to do? I was wrong so now I am trying to learn something new.
So if that be the case, then shouldn't you first be asking or searching for the definition of what a god is or establishing the existence of god or gods before asking if two gods are the same or different?
Well actually you were the one who made a point about me only referring to the christian god and not the muslim god. So here I am trying to do so - and you still are needling away. ????? Besides everyone learns differently. I am trying to find out what these two religions understanding is - and what others say so that I have more information to make a decision. Obviouly -- you just dive in - without understanding to tell your bit.
There is a thread addressing just this here>> https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6119-how-do-you-define-god that I notice you haven't contributed to at all.
It is pretty hard to contribute when I don't have a definition for myself.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Not all Christians consider Jesus 'God though, my family certainly didn't.Most Christians believe that Jesus was both human and the Son of God.[13] While there has been theological debate over his nature,[t] Trinitarian Christians generally believe that Jesus is the Logos, God's incarnation and God the Son, both fully divine and fully human. However, the doctrine of the Trinity is not universally accepted among ChristiansAdditionally, regarding Muslims, I 'think, Jesus is
Hi Lemming,
thanks for that. I certainly accept that christianity can be understood more broadly than just trinitarian. in fact some people think if you are born in the west then you are a christian. i went to the world council of churches for a definition. What is the World Council of Churches? — World Council of Churches (oikoumene.org)
The World Council of Churches is a fellowship of churches which confess the Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour according to the scriptures, and therefore seek to fulfil together their common calling to the glory of the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
If we use a broad definition - then essentially the term loses it meaning - it would be better to use a definition that is used by the overwhelming majority of churches, at least in my opinion.
And certainly since I am trying to understand the position of muslims and jews - what the definition of christianity is somewhat irrelevant.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Fair point.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Muslim Jew Christian (and all other minor derivatives).....You can't separate them Timmy....So no point in going there.It's the bloke in the sky that they all nod to.
Hello Zed,
I am not separating them. I am just not including the christian god here. The christian god is clearly not the same as the Jewish or the Muslim god. Theirs is different because the include Jesus. The muslims and the jews however have only one god - and he is not Jesus.
Hence why this is about jews and muslims only.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Even if you have not comprehended what my topic was about - others have managed to do so - from the getgo and done so very well.
It is not fault that you cannot see this because of your prejudice. As I said - stick to the topic.
There is nothing in the opening post that requires me to answer your questions.
Please stick to this thread and this topic.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Is Allah the same as Jehovah? Or are they two different gods?Some suggest that even in the OT - there are two gods - jehovah and lucifer. Thor and Loki. Two brothers forever in competition.Can this be extended to allah and jehovah?Not brothers so much as two incarnations of the same God of Thunder.
Interesting.
WIKI: YHWH was the national god of Ancient Israel. His origins reach at least to the early Iron Age and likely to the Late Bronze Age. In the oldest biblical literature he is a storm-and-warrior deity who leads the heavenly army against Israel's enemies; at that time the Israelites worshipped him alongside a variety of Canaanite gods and goddesses, including El, Asherah and Baal, but in later centuries El and Yahweh became conflated and El-linked epithets such as El Shaddai came to be applied to Yahweh alone, and other gods and goddesses such as Baal and Asherah were absorbed into the Yahwistic religion.Towards the end of the Babylonian captivity (6th century BCE), the very existence of foreign gods was denied, and Yahweh was proclaimed as the creator of the cosmos and the one true God of all the world.When Greek culture spread across the Mediterranean, Romans found that their God of Thunder, Jupiter was a reasonable facsimile for the Greek Zeus and Etruscan Tinia (and later even Ba'al and YHWH) and so sought to synthesize beliefs and practices and consolidate various religions into a single harmonious tradition. Similarly, YHWH was first an Israelite thunder god in a Pantheon of other Israelite gods who synthesized with the creation god El and other Canaanite traditions in Egypt to emerge as a henotheistic Hebrew god (That is, NOT "there are no other gods" but rather "thou shalt have no other gods before me." After Babylonian captivity, the Jews emerged as a monotheistic tradition that suppressed other traditions by disallowing the mere mention of the many names of God.Allah is the Arabic word for El, the Canaanite creation god, and the Kaaba at the heart of Mecca was dedicated to that old Hebrew tradition (before other gods but not because there are no other gods) for a long time before synthesizing with the local Meccan pantheon around 600 CE, then turning to monotheistic reaction after Muhammad. When speaking Arabic or Aramaic, Christians, Jews, and Muslims all use the name Allah to invoke God. In Arabic, Muslims call the god of their prophets Moses and Jesus Allah and recognize a new synthesis between those traditions and the El of Meccan monotheism.
So are you suggesting that Jeohovah was firslty a tribal god and then morphed into something else?
Created:
-->
@rosends
Don't worry -- I'm here to fix your ignorance. I care...I truly and deeply care and want you to become better so that you can leave the house wearing your big boy pants and without being ashamed of who you are and everything you don't know.You wrote:" now you insidiously propose that the Gods in question are not the same?"I'll type slowly and use small words because I want you to be able to follow along and you might not have access to an aide who can help you with the tough parts. There are two components -- the God idea and the God character. If there are two accounts of the behavior, but both accounts are attributed to a character which has a singular set of characteristics, then there must be two separate parallel characters -- no one singular character can do two mutually exclusive actions. Islam claims that God, as a particular character, did certain things and Judaism claims that God did others things which are exclusive of what Islam claims God did (I provided an example of this, but I guess you had to go back to your room before you got to read it in the common area). But theologically (that's a big word, I know, but I'll wait while you look it up) the ideas behind the nature of God are the same in the 2 religions. Therefore, they must be pointing to 2 distinct characters but one idea of that character, unless you say that one entire account and the religion that follows it is wrong.If two constructs disagree on the nature and characteristics of the divine figure, but attribute all the same actions to that figure, then they don't share an idea but have an actual figure in common. This is pretty basic stuff. I'm sure your cardboard "I can read, level 2" books can help you understand.Your next bit of froth was an attempt to prove that three characters are the same because three texts all use the same language to describe that figure. Had you been paying attention, you would understand how irrelevant that is. I can attribute a characteristic to three different characters, or even an action and that doesn't make them all identical if I ALSO attribute something to only one of them. You quoted an idea in common. My cat and my dog can both be said to have 4 legs, but that's not where descriptions end, only where they start. I'm trying to reference animals because I sense that that is the limit of your daily interactions.Keep on being adorable and don't forget to take your meds!
Hi rosenends,
thanks for your input, I appreciate it. Yet I will also respectfully request that you lay of the abuse towards Brother - even if it is done by humor. Thanks,.
Created:
-->
@rosends
@BrotherDThomas
Rosends, ungodly rewriter of the Hebrew Bible and other Jewish writings, and runaway from Jewish biblical axioms, and calls His Yahweh God a LIAR,YOUR DECEIVING AND LYING QUOTE: "the two religions share a God concept but have different actual Gods in that each claims that the God did something that the other did not do, so they cannot be the same."As if your outright ungodly misinformation wasn't enough in the Flat Earth thread, now you insidiously propose that the Gods in question are not the same? WTF! Rosends, when does your Bible and religious history stupidity ever end?!!!ENOUGH of your Satanic Devil Speak within this forum where I will prove that your brutal serial killer God Yahweh, Jesus, and Allah are the same god through the decent of Abraham, you Bible ignorant fool! Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are the Abrahamic Religions, and their particular Gods named below are the same god, period!HEBREW YAHWEH God is through Abraham:And he said, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God.” (Exodus 3:6)CHRISTIAN JESUS God is through Abraham:Jesus said: “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’[a]? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.” (Matthew 22:32)MUSLIM ALLAH God is through Abraham:Say you: 'We believe in God, and in that which has been sent down on us and sent down on Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac and Jacob, and the Tribes, and that which was given to Moses and Jesus and the Prophets, of their Lord; we make no division between any of them, and to Him we surrender.’ (Quran, chapter 2, verse 136)Rosends, isn’t it about time that you go to where you will be more comfortable with your complete Hebrew Bible ignorance? Here is an appropriate “Children’s Hebrew Forum” for you to reside in, okay? You can thank me later: https://www.jewishedproject.orgNEXT?
Hi Brother,
firstly, this topic has nothing to do with christianity. Leave it to your own topic - if you wish to start one. Thanks. Secondly, please don't abuse people on this thread. This is your first warning. rosends is entitled to her opinions. as you are. yet, opinions do not extend to abuse.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Ask Abraham. He's the father of the two sides. But recall whose is the birthright.
Hmmm and how do you propose I might ask Abraham? He is dead.
Remember I am not a theist - and I don't pray to god, let alone to a dead man.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Yes, Zeki Saritoprak, a professor of Islamic studies at John Carroll University in Cleveland, points out that in the Quran there's the Biblical story of Jacob asking his sons whom they'll worship after his death."Jacob's sons replied, 'We will worship the God of your fathers' — Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac. He is the God," Saritoprak says. "So this God that Jacob worshipped, this God that Abraham, Isaac worshipped, is the same God that Muslims worship today."
I like that. It is very helpful. Thanks.
Would the Jews agree with this position? Or at least even one Jewish (Liberal) scholar?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Is Allah the same as Jehovah? Or are they two different gods?According to one group,(Christians), their god (Jesus) is three in one. According another group, (Muslims) this is blasphemy of sorts as it is a "unbelief" to Muslims; to believe such tripe or ' Shirk'. So it appears that these groups themselves are answering your question.According to one group, " the group you refer to as the "weird group of Christians" Jesus IS god, while according to the other group you mention Jesus was nothing than a prophet. And who are you or I to argue what they choose to believe? Are you asking either of these groups to prove anything?The Jews don't even believe Jesus was a Messiah or even a prophet much less or god and to believe he was I should imagine that would be a blasphemy of sorts to Jews as well as Muslims .Muslims also believe Jesus didn't die on the cross and that there was no resurrection. Unlike Christians that believe their god incarnated as a human and died as a human and was resurrected by(himself)as god."the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" said Rabbi David Kimhi - " therefore, with reference to this god whom you call Father, Son and Holy Spirit, - that part which you call the Father must be prior to that which you call Son, for if they were always coexistent would have to be called twin brothers.More over, if the Son is the Father what of Mary getting pregnant? Is this not an incestuous congregation? The Father has sex with the mother to conceive the Son who is also the Father.....so technically the Son, who is also the father, had sex with his mother"...It's all very - Oedipus, isn't it ?Do you not agree with what they believe about their own gods and religions, Dimtim8967?
This is not a topic about christians. As I said to Poly, if you want to discuss that interesting topic, start your own thread. This one is about muslims and jews.
So please stick to the specific topic. Muslim and Jewish god or gods. christianity is irrelevant in this thread.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Thor and Loki are not bothers. Please refer to actual Norse myth not Marvel for discussion in a religion forum.
That is probably a fair rebuke. I did get it from the Marvel - but I seem to recall it in other discussions. But thanks for that.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
The Muslims are truer to the God of Abraham then Christians.
You may well be correct - but that is not the question at hand. If you want to pursue that line of thinking, then please start your own thread. Thanks.
Created:
-->
@rosends
If Judaism teaches that the binding was of Isaac and the accepted idea in Islam is that God asked for Ishmael to be sacrificed, and only one of those claims is true of a particular God, as evidenced by the divine text then (if each religion says that its divine tradition is perfect) the two actors must be exclusive of each other. The other understanding is that one religion is just completely wrong which undercuts the entire idea of God's giving over a truth.
There is a third option. neither of the two religions are perfect and both have faulty recollections of what occurred. It does not need to be an either/ or. This does need to mean that both of these religions do not have some truth about what happened.
Yet if both gods are saying, their god made the world and everything happened down to Isaac and Ismael. Then surely - both gods are identical until then - when the deviation takes place.
After all, if Jews say "my god made the world". And Muslims say "my god made the world". And if both are correct - then surely there must a connection?
Created:
-->
@rosends
the two religions share a God concept but have different actual Gods in that each claims that the God did something that the other did not do, so they cannot be the same.If I say "God did this" and you say "God did that, NOT this" and we share the idea that God is perfect and transmitted what he did to us, then there must be two Gods with identical characteristics who did different things.Judaism and Christianity share a God character but not a God concept because the attributes are different but the character is ostensibly the same.
I hear what you say. But is it not true that children often say that about their parents - mum said this - but mum said that. Both have a different understanding of what mother said - but are the same mother. Is this is not a plausible situation with god. The Jews say one thing and the muslims say another - but just have different recollection of what their god said and did. Or what their gods are like?
I remember my mum as being very talkative - my brother - remembers her being quiet. Is she the same mother or not?
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
How do you know?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
So are they two brothers sharing common cultural family traits or are they the same?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Please proceed to prove me wrong. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6079/post-links/263887
This is what my thread started with. It was not me proving anything - I asked others to prove me wrong.
You on the other hand don't want to me wrong. Otherwise you would have accepted my acknowledgment of the same and desire to learn.
No, you wanted to prove that I am a fraud. That is quite different.
So prove me wrong? Please keep to the thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I agree. I am trying to get past the bickering. Please continue to hold me to account.
Created: