Trailblazer
Veteran Member
The purpose of religion is not to solve climate change. That is under the purview of science.True, and we have had Islam around for a lot longer than decades, so clearly Islam hasn't solved the problem in my view.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The purpose of religion is not to solve climate change. That is under the purview of science.True, and we have had Islam around for a lot longer than decades, so clearly Islam hasn't solved the problem in my view.
Agreed.Islam hasn't solved the problem in my view.
Then the purpose of religion is to live in accordance with right motivations for right reasons? To understand the virtues? To eschew vices? And put our faith in the right places? Not out of force and fear, but according to willingness fully persuaded in mind and spirit.The purpose of religion is not to solve climate change. That is under the purview of science.
So are our cities really messed up? If so in what way? If not then is materialism in the first sense as widespread as implied?I said: I don't know what you mean by society being destroyed. Destroyed how?
What you mean by destructive is not necessarily the same as what I mean by destructive. Destructive how?
I mean materialism really messes things up. Maybe you are thinking of something else.
If something causes a lot of damage, you can talk about its destructive force or power. Something is destructive when it really messes things up. The word destructive comes from the Latin destruere which means literally to unbuild.
Destructive - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms - Vocabulary.com
So one could just as easily say the golden age of secular humanism will occur but not before calamity causes man to realise their mistake in not heeding the warning of climate change scientists.Agreed.
The golden age of Islam has come and gone..
..but fortunately, it WILL be back, one day.
..but not before calamity and disaster strikes.
It often takes calamity before mankind realise their mistakes.
Then if that is the case it is demonstrably false to market religion as an alternative to secular humanism's proposed solution of listening to climate change scientists, which is what I believe @muhammad_isa was effectively doing in proposing allegedly divinely revealed religion as an alternative to secular humanism.The purpose of religion is not to solve climate change. That is under the purview of science.
I've already said .. it's too vague.So one could just as easily say the golden age of secular humanism will occur but not before calamity causes man to realise their mistake in not heeding the warning of climate change scientists..
The religious believers who are stuck in the past are not open to new knowledge and information. Many are spending all their time in rites and rituals, and since they believe that only their religion is true, they have blind spots so people are not seeing anything new that's true.Sounds simple this way. But is religion effectively doing its job? Or are believers waiting for doom? Or are they spending all their time in rites and rituals? Are there blind spots where people are not seeing what's true? Can religion take corrective measures, and be open to new knowledge and information? Or is religion sufficiently true without change?
I did not mean destroyed physically. I meant that the souls of man are destroyed by materialism, because worldly people lose their souls.So are our cities really messed up? If so in what way? If not then is materialism in the first sense as widespread as implied?
In my opinion.
I am not marketing religion as an alternative to secular humanism's proposed solution of listening to climate change scientists....Then if that is the case it is demonstrably false to market religion as an alternative to secular humanism's proposed solution of listening to climate change scientists, which is what I believe @muhammad_isa was effectively doing in proposing allegedly divinely revealed religion as an alternative to secular humanism.
In my opinion.
They can't go free with or without payment, its a non-issue unless she was owned. Legal procedure according to my understanding would simply involve oversee-ing that the child was going into the care of a responsible parent/guardian.
I think you are simply asserting something you want to be true here.
Perhaps, but software licensing is an entirely different concept and context to designating someone for marriage in my view.
Genesis 24 in my view shows an instance of the family being reluctant to let their daughter go, not a law. You will note that in Genesis 24:55 it says;
'Her brother and her mother said, “Let the maiden remain with us a while, at least ten days; after that she may go.”' (RSV)
That is before they change their minds in Genesis 24:57 and decide to ask the girl if she will go with them.
Which means even if this where a law as opposed to an instance of something (which its not according to my understanding) they were only permitted to keep her 10 days without her consent.
Do you think Abdul-Baha was referring to a non-demonstrable spiritual destruction which has no demonstrable effect on the material progress of man? And that all he was saying is man needs religion and science to soar spiritually?I did not mean destroyed physically. I meant that the souls of man are destroyed by materialism, because worldly people lose their souls.
Matthew 16:24-26 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
Except that as I see it the whole point of saying she does not have to purchase her freedom is to distinguish her from other slaves which do have to purchase their freedom, so she is merely an exception to the rule.So, a child is not free, correct? That should be enough to show that treating them as property in a legal context does not indicate they are actually owned.
Empty assertion based in wishful thinking is in no need of refutation.So, you cannot refute what I'm saying about "dealing falsely with her"?
So that would mean her father is licensing another man to designate her either to himself or his son for marriage if you want to apply a completely irrelevant context, it still says nothing about her consent.It's an example of a "purchase" that does not render ownership to the "purchaser".
It doesn't say she needed to, Genesis 24 in essence says that it is an incident in which the parents of the girl insisted upon it, and in its context i think it is clear enough that it is just a pretext to delay Abraham's servant.Regardless of the 10 days, she needed to consent to become betrothed.
That is not demonstrable even though it is an issue.I think that if that is the case he has not demonstrated any need for man to soar spiritually, thereby making it a non-issue.
What is vague about the warning of climate change scientists? Seems clear enough to meI've already said .. it's too vague.
Well nature tends to be self correcting, so it will likely cut down the human population size by a significant amount, but there are likely to be areas where humans survive and learn if I understand correctly.We will not achieve a solution until it's too late.
Some say it is already too late.
I dont know because I'm not a humanist, however according to my understanding Islam only insists on a mandatory tithe of 2.5%;How does humanism change the financial system, pray do tell?
You think... That's my point.You asked for Bible verses that are inconsistent and I gave you verses that I think are inconsistent.
So the Bible does not demonstration itself to be inconsistent. Thanks.Everything we read has to be interpreted.
I don't know about you, but I am not playing games.Now, are we done playing games?
I said that from the beginning.If you disagree with me and don't think those verses are inconsistent tell me why you disagree.
..not the warning, the solution.What is vague about the warning of climate change scientists? Seems clear enough to me
OKI dont know because I'm not a humanist..
That is not the main thing that I refer to.however according to my understanding Islam only insists on a mandatory tithe of 2.5%;
No. Tax systems vary from nation to nation.By comparison man-made progressive tax systems do a much better job of the necessary redistribution of wealth in my opinion.
From scientific American;..not the warning, the solution.
Condemnation of usury is an idea invented by humans according to my understanding;No. Tax systems vary from nation to nation.
I refer to the global financial system. It is usurious, and forbidden in Islam.
Nowadays, it is global, and no nation can avoid it.
Similarly, we cannot avoid its consequences .. imbalance, huge migration, and enmity.
What you really mean to ask is how can reasonable citizens of the planet convince unreasonable citizens that their greed and poorly informed opinions are dangerous to the future of a stable environment.I've already said .. it's too vague.
We will not achieve a solution until it's too late.
Some say it is already too late.
How does humanism change the financial system, pray do tell?
That is exactly what you are doing, playing games. You do that by twisting what I said and changing the meaning so you can try to prove your point.You think... That's my point.
So the Bible does not demonstration itself to be inconsistent. Thanks.
I don't know about you, but I am not playing games.
The scripture is inconsistent. What I think has nothing to do with that.I said that from the beginning.
What you think, is inconsistent with scripture, rather than the scripture being inconsistent with itself.
So you bring out some 'other verses' to try to prove that the verses that I cited are not inconsistent, wonderful. But it won't work.Why those verses are not inconsistent, is simple.
Of course there are some verses in the Bible that are consistent, but that does not change the fact that there are other verses that are inconsistent.Ephesians 2:8-10
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God -
9 not by works, so that no one can boast.
10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
Romans 3:20-22
20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.
22 This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. . . .
These verses agree, and they harmonize with James 2, which describes works of Faith. Not works of Law.
James 2:20-25
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
25 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.