Spiritual Evidence and Proofs of God’s Existence

[Trailblazer]

True, and we have had Islam around for a lot longer than decades, so clearly Islam hasn't solved the problem in my view.

The purpose of religion is not to solve climate change. That is under the purview of science.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Islam hasn't solved the problem in my view.

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.

 

[osgart]

The purpose of religion is not to solve climate change. That is under the purview of science.

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.

That would mean bad religion would lead a person astray in their duties to life and well being. And good religion would serve humanity well.

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?

 

[danieldemol]

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 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.

 

[danieldemol]

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.

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.

Where does that leave us?
In my opinion.

 

[danieldemol]

The purpose of religion is not to solve climate change. That is under the purview of science.

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.

 

[muhammad_isa]

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..

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?

 

[Trailblazer]

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?

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.

Baha'is believe that religion changes when a new religion is revealed. The Baha'i Faith has already taken corrective measures by revealing new knowledge and information through Baha'u'llah. However, you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink.

 

[Trailblazer]

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 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?

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

I am not marketing religion as an alternative to secular humanism's proposed solution of listening to climate change scientists....
However, Baha'is also listen to climate change scientists, and they also have their own approach to climate change.

The Revolutionary Baha’i Approach to Climate Change

Scientific concepts of ecology, environmental responsibility and evolutionary social change have deep roots in the Baha'i teachings...

bahaiteachings.org

 

[dybmh]

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.

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.

I think you are simply asserting something you want to be true here.

So, you cannot refute what I'm saying about "dealing falsely with her"?

Perhaps, but software licensing is an entirely different concept and context to designating someone for marriage in my view.

It's an example of a "purchase" that does not render ownership to the "purchaser".

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.

Regardless of the 10 days, she needed to consent to become betrothed.

 

[danieldemol]

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?

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 think that if that is the case he has not demonstrated any need for man to soar spiritually, thereby making it a non-issue.

In my opinion.

 

[danieldemol]

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.

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, you cannot refute what I'm saying about "dealing falsely with her"?

Empty assertion based in wishful thinking is in no need of refutation.

It's an example of a "purchase" that does not render ownership to the "purchaser".

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.

Regardless of the 10 days, she needed to consent to become betrothed.

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.

'56 But he said to them, “Do not delay me, since the Lord has prospered my way; let me go that I may go to my master.”'

In my opinion.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

That is not demonstrable even though it is an issue.

 

[danieldemol]

I've already said .. it's too vague.

What is vague about the warning of climate change scientists? Seems clear enough to me

We will not achieve a solution until it's too late.
Some say it is already too late.

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.

How does humanism change the financial system, pray do tell?

I dont know because I'm not a humanist, however according to my understanding Islam only insists on a mandatory tithe of 2.5%;

'For every sane, adult Muslim who owns wealth over a certain amount – known as the Nisab – he or she must pay 2.5% of that wealth as Zakat.'

Source: You are being redirected....

By comparison man-made progressive tax systems do a much better job of the necessary redistribution of wealth in my opinion.

 

[nPeace]

You asked for Bible verses that are inconsistent and I gave you verses that I think are inconsistent.

You think... That's my point.

Everything we read has to be interpreted.

So the Bible does not demonstration itself to be inconsistent. Thanks.

Now, are we done playing games?

I don't know about you, but I am not playing games.

If you disagree with me and don't think those verses are inconsistent tell me why you disagree.

I said that from the beginning.
What you think, is inconsistent with scripture, rather than the scripture being inconsistent with itself.

Why those verses are not inconsistent, is simple.

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.

Reading the Bible, and ignoring the context is a common pattern of atheists. What they normally do is - pull a scripture -> put a spin on it (that is, their own thinking or ideas - interpretation) -> attack that scripture.

I'm glad you did that though, because we don't only see why you attack the Bible, but we also see how much you know about it.

 

[muhammad_isa]

What is vague about the warning of climate change scientists? Seems clear enough to me

..not the warning, the solution.

I dont know because I'm not a humanist..

OK

however according to my understanding Islam only insists on a mandatory tithe of 2.5%;

That is not the main thing that I refer to.

By comparison man-made progressive tax systems do a much better job of the necessary redistribution of wealth in my opinion.

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.

 

[danieldemol]

..not the warning, the solution.

From scientific American;

10 Solutions for Climate Change

Ten possibilities for staving off catastrophic climate change

www.scientificamerican.com

Can you explain which of the proposed solutions are "vague".

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.

Condemnation of usury is an idea invented by humans according to my understanding;

'Among the oldest known references to usury are to be found in ancient Indian religious manuscripts and Jain (1929) provides an excellent summary of these in his work on Indigenous Banking in India. The earliest such record derives from the Vedic texts of Ancient India (2,000-1,400 BC) in which the “usurer” (kusidin) is mentioned several times and interpreted as any lender at interest. More frequent and detailed references to interest payment are to be found in the later Sutra texts (700-100 BC), as well as the Buddhist Jatakas (600-400 BC). It is during this latter period that the first sentiments of contempt for usury are exressed. For example, Vasishtha, a well known Hindu law-maker of that time, made a special law which forbade the higher castes of Brahmanas (priests) and Kshatriyas (warriors) from being usurers or lenders at interest. Also, in the Jatakas, usury is referred to in a demeaning manner: “hypocritical ascetics are accused of practising it”.'

Source: History of Usury Prohibition

You will note that all of these precede Muhammad.

In my opinion

 

[F1fan]

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?

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.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

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.

The Bible is inconsistent but it does not demonstrate that itself since it is just a book.
People read it and interpret it and they can easily see that it is inconsistent.

I said that from the beginning.
What you think, is inconsistent with scripture, rather than the scripture being inconsistent with itself.

The scripture is inconsistent. What I think has nothing to do with that.

Why those verses are not inconsistent, is simple.

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.

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.

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.

The following verses are inconsistent with each other.

Paul says we are saved by faith alone, not by works.

Ephesians 2
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.

Jesus says we need works in order to be saved.

Matthew 25
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”