Problems with Belief when it comes to a Christian and Islamic God...

[paarsurrey]

Now that's sound terribly disturbing.

I don't get you exactly. Please elaborate.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I know of no Christians who would describe their god in the way you have. It is difficult to have a conversation about the topic when you have presented such a specific and odd depiction.

I endorse your viewpoint.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I learned that God-beliefs come from us. It's internal beliefs externalized. "God judging" is our feeling negative feelings because maybe we were not worthy enough? Maybe we can't completely understand our own selves? Maybe we don' feel love or maybe we feel imperfect? It's a psychological thing.
Likewise, the other way around with prayers. I pray just like the God-believer beside me prays. Our prayers benefit us because we find internal (and for others external-as in God) connection with the unknown. It helps us be comfortable with the unknown.Which that is what God is, personification of the unknown interacting with humans. To pray is to be in touch with ourselves, with others, and with what we cannot know so we can live in faith and be confirmed by our experiences to claim that we know what we don't know, is true.. It's tricky.
If God was actually judging and listening to prayers, we would all know this just as we know two things put together doubles regardless the language and culture we are in. It would not be based on personal experiences. It would not be subjective. We use language to express the best we can about the unknown and our interaction with life. The verbs "judging; listening; comforting" are just that, verbs/words.
I don't understand why there is such a huge issue of what other believers believe in and how they interpret their beliefs? Christians aren't reliving the inquisition, thank gosh, but then again evangalization can go a bit too far.
Regardless, beliefs come from us. That's why they are called beliefs. Facts don't need our experiences (aka our faith) to exist.

It is simply wrong. Please
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

This thread was started by an individual who doesn't accept a particular idea (the Abrahamic god) as something he believes in. As well you know, dear q konn, there are people who disagree and will sometimes, challenge him in his disbelief.

He is free to present his arguments. He has no good argument against the truthful religion. Does he? Please
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

They didn't write Abrahamic deity, they wrote Christian and Islamic god. Is that even the same god? I don't think so. Islam considers the bible to be corrupted

Sure OT (and NT as well ) have been corrupted by the narrators/scribes/clergy, prophets have witnessed it.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

That you are trying to give an infinite being, only finite abilities. Not logical.

I endorse you here.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

It really isn't that way. Muslims mainly believe that way I think, but many Christians don't. For example in Christianity you can believe, as I do, that death is final in terms of life, heaven is figurative etc. It could be argued that this is what many Christians once believed based upon existing sources (though no one can say definitely). That is within the possibility of interpretation of the existing cannon. That is absolutely impossible with the Koran. With the Koran there is absolutely no figurative heaven, and there is absolutely a physical afterlife. There is no way that Islam will ever, ever veer from that as far as I know. In Christianity, 'Salvation' is a drifting term that has drifted far over the centuries as much or more than many other terms such as 'Hell'. Therefore Christianity is a system but not a system of belief. The system of belief is brittle and fragile and a sort of trailer that Christianity has been pulling, but its not the car.

Quran presents concept of heaven that is more real than the present life. Heaven has got nothing to do with the physical, with death, the physical finishes but soul does not die, it lives in another dimension.
Kindly study Quran/Islam/Muhammad intently. Please
Regards

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It is simply wrong. Please
Regards

Thats what I know. Nothing wrong wwith that you less uou can show god exterally? Can you?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I never said that

Well, given that you've tried to ascribe to me the view that I think there is more evidence for Jesus than Caesar, or that archaeology is meaningless, rather than that I demonstrated clearly how utterly wrong your position here was:

Irrelevant figures are moot. I was not talking about other gods but historical figures.

Your "material evidence" exists for mythical figures. However, your double standard (assuming which figures are mythical or historical first) makes your standards moot. The same type of evidence ("material" or "archaeological") is by your own admission "irrelevant" if one makes assumptions about the historicity of the persons in questions.

Which makes your historical method blatantly inept, inadequate, illogical, and laughable. If we have it your way, "material evidence" only matters if we assume which material evidence of the same type is evidence. Pathetic.

Archaeology draws upon a number of fields.

Nothing I quoted said numismatics is archaeology or makes your knowledge any less laughably wrong, uninformed, and clearly illogical ("we have coins and statues for Alexander!" "Well, we have those for Herakles...", "That's not evidence because I discount it a priori!")

No material evidence is analyzed and interpreted just as textual evidence is.

1) Textual evidence IS MATERIAL EVIDENCE. Ever heard of textual criticism? Do you know what textual critics do? They analyze material evidence (and here's a hint: it's "material" and "textual"!)
2) What the hell do you think epigraphic evidence or even numismatic evidence is? Do you really imagine that inscriptions aren't both "textual" and "material"?
3) Try studying history. ALL MATERIAL EVIDENCE is analyzed JUST AS TEXTUAL EVIDENCE IS insofar as EXTANT EVIDENCE is concerned. This is why your naive view so utterly fails: the attestation of Caesar and Alexander? It doesn't exist. Copies of copies of copies of copies do in a handful of MATERIAL evidence. Look up how pathetic our collection of extant manuscripts for the most attested figures of ancient history are outside of Jesus, and when you realize they are laughably minuscule compared merely to the copies of the original Greek NT manuscripts, then come up with more BS about my education whilst failing to citing a single source for your view nor the slightest evidence that you have any familiarity with the relevant scholarship outside of contradicting ACTUAL scholars without anything but your biased, unsubstantiated claims.

Textual analysis is the first step which can draw upon either an internal (archaeologist(s) in question) or external view (historians).

HAHAHAHAHA! Ever read critical apparati? Do you know who actually analyzes manuscripts? Clearly not.

You are displaying your own ignorance of my field.

This is great. You have a field? Please, claim you do. What field makes you incapable of even identifying the difference between numismatics and archaeology, or of recognizing how pathetically weak archaeological evidence is without the necessary context (that, as demonstrated above, you prefer to ASSUME so as to make relevant).

You produce a strawman, nothing more.

You've cited nothing. You've produced nothing but claims. You've contradicted experts based on your uninformed word. You've claimed that the same evidence should be treated differently because you should be able to assume when it's relevant. You've demonstrated no knowledge of ancient texts, their manuscripts, or the ability to even READ them. But sure...I've produced the strawman by citing sources primary and secondary compared to your powerful argument of unsubstantiated nonsense.

Again I questioned one sources

No, you challenged one without basis, and attributed to me positions I do not hold and claims I never made. Then you proceeded to defend my use of sources by mistaking my use of them and making logically incoherent claims.

 

[gnostic]

Quran presents concept of heaven that is more real than the present life.

Having read the Qur'an recently (a couple of years back), I would have to say the opposite is true.

The Qur'an concept of heaven sounds just as unrealistic as the Judaeo-Christian versions.

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Quran presents concept of heaven that is more real than the present life. Heaven has got nothing to do with the physical, with death, the physical finishes but soul does not die, it lives in another dimension.
Kindly study Quran/Islam/Muhammad intently. Please
Regards

Do you explain to us paradise in Islam ??
What is the meaning Alhoarriet ??
How you have nymph in paradise ??
Paradise in Islam is a paradise where the material having sex with boys of everlasting youth and AlhoriatHe wants to know the nature of this paradise by the Islamic refer to the book Mohammed and Christ Edited by Simon of Cyrene

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Having read the Qur'an recently (a couple of years back), I would have to say the opposite is true.

The Qur'an concept of heaven sounds just as unrealistic as the Judaeo-Christian versions.

I do not know the sources of your information and what you mean by Judeo-Christian
The concepts of heaven and paradise in Islam differs from Christianity and Judaism radically
The concepts of heaven and paradise in Islam is sex
While the concept of heaven and paradise in Christianity and Judaism is holiness

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Having read the Qur'an recently (a couple of years back), I would have to say the opposite is true.

The Qur'an concept of heaven sounds just as unrealistic as the Judaeo-Christian versions.

Paradise in the Islamic concept completely and totally different from paradise or rather "the kingdom of heaven" in the Christian concept. In the Christian faith, the kingdom of heaven is the place where God has prepared for those who love him since the founding of the world in which we will all be angels of God live with Him forever and enjoy the thrill of Bashrth and his praise. This means that there will be no or desires of the pleasures of this material in the kingdom because materialism and exterminated all of the body would have otherwise existed. More clearly, this will not be the house of the kingdom "prostitution" in which we crave for sexual intercourse and marriage with women or "tavern" to drink the liquor !!

 

[Shad]

Well, given that you've tried to ascribe to me the view that I think there is more evidence for Jesus than Caesar, or that archaeology is meaningless, rather than that I demonstrated clearly how utterly wrong your position here was:

Your "material evidence" exists for mythical figures. However, your double standard (assuming which figures are mythical or historical first) makes your standards moot. The same type of evidence ("material" or "archaeological") is by your own admission "irrelevant" if one makes assumptions about the historicity of the persons in questions.

No one is making an assumption of the historicity of a person since archival research is based your own field's methodology and the work of experts in your field. This work is either done by with dual qualifications or by a historian. Like I said archaeology is a cross-discipline field The only way your view stands is if you are saying your own field and it's methods are unreliable.

Which makes your historical method blatantly inept, inadequate, illogical, and laughable. If we have it your way, "material evidence" only matters if we assume which material evidence of the same type is evidence. Pathetic.

Nope since I clear stated almost every project starts with archival research of relevant texts and the work of historian covering the subject if there is textual evidence available. For subjects that have no written records for then material evidence is the only type available

[qupte]Nothing I quoted said numismatics is archaeology or makes your knowledge any less laughably wrong, uninformed, and clearly illogical ("we have coins and statues for Alexander!" "Well, we have those for Herakles...", "That's not evidence because I discount it a priori!") [/quote]

Never said it was. I said archaeology is a cross-discipline field. The only priori is that the work of historians, among many fields, is reliable thus you have just called your own field's work and experts are unreliable.

1) Textual evidence IS MATERIAL EVIDENCE. Ever heard of textual criticism? Do you know what textual critics do? They analyze material evidence (and here's a hint: it's "material" and "textual"!)

I made a clear distinction between textual as in written records and material evidence as in artifacts.

2) What the hell do you think epigraphic evidence or even numismatic evidence is? Do you really imagine that inscriptions aren't both "textual" and "material"?

See above.

3) Try studying history. ALL MATERIAL EVIDENCE is analyzed JUST AS TEXTUAL EVIDENCE IS insofar as EXTANT EVIDENCE is concerned. This is why your naive view so utterly fails: the attestation of Caesar and Alexander? It doesn't exist. Copies of copies of copies of copies do in a handful of MATERIAL evidence. Look up how pathetic our collection of extant manuscripts for the most attested figures of ancient history are outside of Jesus, and when you realize they are laughably minuscule compared merely to the copies of the original Greek NT manuscripts, then come up with more BS about my education whilst failing to citing a single source for your view nor the slightest evidence that you have any familiarity with the relevant scholarship outside of contradicting ACTUAL scholars without anything but your biased, unsubstantiated claims.

Yes but studied using different methods depending on the subject or item. There can be no textual analysis on evidence which contains not text. Yes many sources are very weak, never said otherwise. Every single one of your sources still maintains Alexander was a real person, your sources vary between views. Why do I need to cite anyone when your own sources, when read, still support my view.

HAHAHAHAHA! Ever read critical apparati? Do you know who actually analyzes manuscripts? Clearly not.

Irrelevant. The research is based upon work from your field, from experts in your field.

This is great. You have a field? Please, claim you do. What field makes you incapable of even identifying the difference between numismatics and archaeology, or of recognizing how pathetically weak archaeological evidence is without the necessary context (that, as demonstrated above, you prefer to ASSUME so as to make relevant).

Considering I said archaeology is a cross-discipline field maybe you should figure out what this means before charging me with your own failure to understand. Never said texts were ignored. I have clearly said many times research starts with any and all texts available, if available, for a project

You've cited nothing. You've produced nothing but claims. You've contradicted experts based on your uninformed word. You've claimed that the same evidence should be treated differently because you should be able to assume when it's relevant. You've demonstrated no knowledge of ancient texts, their manuscripts, or the ability to even READ them. But sure...I've produced the strawman by citing sources primary and secondary compared to your powerful argument of unsubstantiated nonsense.

No need to cite anything. Your own sources provided evidence. The citation of Holt's book which contains a conclusion which agrees with my view you seem oblivious to. Read your own citations completely. You just never read the book beyond your quote. The busts articles supported my view as well in the first few subjects if you had bothered reading it completely.

No, you challenged one without basis, and attributed to me positions I do not hold and claims I never made. Then you proceeded to defend my use of sources by mistaking my use of them and making logically incoherent claims.

I question the Talmud source only. I made charges against you due to your rant about material evidence since you created a strawman of the methodology within archaeology based on your ignorance of the field in question.

 

[Muffled]

So God and his intelligence weren't created but just exists naturally but our intelligence had to be created because intelligence doesn't exist naturally?

I believe there is no such thing as things existing naturally. Intelligence did not have to be created but God did replicate (on a smaller scale) His intelligence in His creation.

 

[Muffled]

They are poles
God in Islam is different from God in Christianity
Survey in God is a God of love
While God is the God of Islam in fight
Christ says God so loved the world
As I have loved
While Islam says fought
And terrorized
So there is a big difference between God and the God of Islam, Christianity

I believe Jesus is the same God as Allah. I believe people who think differently just wish to exalt their own religion above others. That isn't necessary since Christianity in its essence is superior to Islam.

 

[Muffled]

I am sorry to state, there is no truthful concept of "triune deity". Please
Regards

I believe that is pure speculation. The facts support the trinity.I don't believe that means a triune essence and certainly the Nicene creed states that the essence is a unity.

 

[ArtieE]

I believe there is no such thing as things existing naturally. Intelligence did not have to be created but God did replicate (on a smaller scale) His intelligence in His creation.

If your god wasn't created and doesn't exist naturally what other options do you have?

 

[Demonslayer]

I believe there is no such thing as things existing naturally. Intelligence did not have to be created

Wouldn't this mean intelligence had to exist naturally?

 

[First Baseman]

Wouldn't this mean intelligence had to exist naturally?

Who says intelligence has to exist at all? Maybe it doesn't.