Which Religious Scripture Is Truly The Word Of God?

[Shad]

It is not favoritism, i would advise you yourself to get a dictionary.

Treating followers, Muslims, different is favoritism since non-followers are not granted the same treatment. Get a dictionary

Allah is Merciful. Not only is he Merciful but he is also never unjust in the least degree. Besides being Merciful he is very Just.

If Allah acts once with mercy than he is not just 100% of the time. Mercy is different from justice. Get a dictionary

In order to be Merciful and Just, especially in a society today, that must equate to a punishment.

Yes but both are mutually exclusive. One can not be 100% of both since this is a contradiction.

For example, someone rapes your sister, if you have one. He says ''Oh God is so Merciful, he has forgiven the rape''

Thus this is not just for the victim.

See Allah is Merciful, at the same time Just. So, if that guy raped your sister, he must be punished. Whether this world or after.

Being forgiven but facing no punishment is unjust to the victim thus Allah can not be the most of both at once. Anyone will a greater ratio of just/mercy of 50% is more than God. One can not be 100% of both.

Which is why Allah has given us a gift of REPENTANCE. People do not repent even after given a long time, they deny and just refuse to.

Which is only shows that mercy is attached to favoritism and Allah can not be 100% just. After all showing 1% of mercy is not to be 100% just. Also you have made just equate to damnation in your haste and blunders. Get a dictionary

You have done far more to damage your case than support it. Great job. Get a dictionary

 

[Jabar]

Treating followers, Muslims, different is favoritism since non-followers are not granted the same treatment. Get a dictionary



If Allah acts once with mercy than he is not just 100% of the time. Mercy is different from justice. Get a dictionary



Yes but both are mutually exclusive. One can not be 100% of both since this is a contradiction.











Thus this is not just for the victim.



Being forgiven but facing no punishment is unjust to the victim thus Allah can not be the most of both at once. Anyone will a greater ratio of just/mercy of 50% is more than God. One can not be 100% of both.



Which is only shows that mercy is attached to favoritism and Allah can not be 100% just. After all showing 1% of mercy is not to be 100% just. Also you have made just equate to damnation in your haste and blunders. Get a dictionary

You have done far more to damage your case than support it. Great job. Get a dictionary

You know what i am done, i have been explaining to you over and over however you just reject my claims, and say basically no to them.

Everyone will know on the Day Of Judgement. Allah explains the way you are acting as you are right now.

And those who disbelieve in the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allah and the Meeting with Him, it is they who have no hope of My Mercy, and it is they who will (have) a painful torment.

No Favoritism:

We do not impose on any self any more than it can bear. With Us is a Book that speaks the truth. They will not be wronged. (Surat al-Muminun, 62)

As for those who believe and do right actions – We impose on no self any more than it can bear – they are the Companions of the Garden, remaining in it timelessly, forever. (Surat al-A'raf, 42)

Allah does not impose on any self any more than it can bear. For it is what it has earned; against it, what it has brought upon itself. (Surat al-Baqara, 286)

But as for one who is stingy, self-satisfied, and denies the Good, We will pave his [or her] way to difficulty. One's wealth will be of no use when he [or she] plummets to the depths. Assuredly, guidance is up to Us. (Surat al-Layl, 8-12)

Any good thing that happens to you comes from Allah. Any bad thing that happens to you comes from yourself. (Surat an-Nisa, 79)
People lead their ownself to Hell fire through there bad deeds, as you can see in one of those verses, Allah does not have favoritism but rewards according to deeds only.

 

[Shad]

You know what i am done, i have been explaining to you over and over however you just reject my claims, and say basically no to them.

This is due to you not understanding how both words are related nor what each means

Everyone will know on the Day Of Judgement. Allah explains the way you are acting as you are right now.

Useless religious rhetoric that dodges the issues

And those who disbelieve in the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allah and the Meeting with Him, it is they who have no hope of My Mercy, and it is they who will (have) a painful torment.

Useless religious rhetoric that dodges the issues

No Favoritism:

We do not impose on any self any more than it can bear. With Us is a Book that speaks the truth. They will not be wronged. (Surat al-Muminun, 62)

As for those who believe and do right actions – We impose on no self any more than it can bear – they are the Companions of the Garden, remaining in it timelessly, forever. (Surat al-A'raf, 42)

Allah does not impose on any self any more than it can bear. For it is what it has earned; against it, what it has brought upon itself. (Surat al-Baqara, 286)

But as for one who is stingy, self-satisfied, and denies the Good, We will pave his [or her] way to difficulty. One's wealth will be of no use when he [or she] plummets to the depths. Assuredly, guidance is up to Us. (Surat al-Layl, 8-12)

Any good thing that happens to you comes from Allah. Any bad thing that happens to you comes from yourself. (Surat an-Nisa, 79)
People lead their ownself to Hell fire through there bad deeds, as you can see in one of those verses, Allah does not have favoritism but rewards according to deeds only.

Useless religious rhetoric that dodges the issues.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Isn't almost everything science says is an estimate???

No. Many things of science tend to be exact, such as electricity. Without the proper power levels going through your phone, it wouldn't work or the circuitry could fry. Some things are an estimation, but it's far from "almost everything."

You are just denying the evidence.

What evidence? There is no "essence of clay" about us, and you haven't provided any evidence that we are.

You did not refute the other claims.

What other claims? You're the one who brushed off most of the contradictions of the Quran I pointed out.

 

[Jabar]

No. Many things of science tend to be exact, such as electricity. Without the proper power levels going through your phone, it wouldn't work or the circuitry could fry. Some things are an estimation, but it's far from "almost everything."

What evidence? There is no "essence of clay" about us, and you haven't provided any evidence that we are.

What other claims? You're the one who brushed off most of the contradictions of the Quran I pointed out.

I brushed none, but you missed the other attempts. Because you knew they were evidences of divinity.

 

[Jabar]

This is due to you not understanding how both words are related nor what each means



Useless religious rhetoric that dodges the issues



Useless religious rhetoric that dodges the issues.

It is not rhetoric, you said Allah uses favoritism. First learn properly to investigate information before you judge.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Because you knew they were evidences of divinity.

How on Earth would you know what I'm actually thinking? How do you "know" that I saw that as evidence and am just dismissing that?
I don't see the Quran, anything about it, as "evidence of divinity." If a human came up with it, I don't see it as evidence of divinity.

 

[Jabar]

How on Earth would you know what I'm actually thinking? How do you "know" that I saw that as evidence and am just dismissing that?
I don't see the Quran, anything about it, as "evidence of divinity." If a human came up with it, I don't see it as evidence of divinity.

Because of the fact that you ignored them.

 

[Aquitaine]

When put into comparison, all religious scriptures, which prevails over the other?
They must contain the following

1) Complex literature
2) Prophecies and Scientific evidences
3) Logic
4) No Errors






Peace.

What does the koran say about rocket propulsion?
What does the koran say about nuclear fission/fusion?
What does the koran say about supercomputers?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'd love to talk with you more about this. I can't ask for support or exchange differences because it would look like a debate. I don't want to put it in religious debates because I don't want it to be a debate. Did you want to talk more? If so, where would be best?

Since we are continuing *italics for a reason outside this conversation, do I have your permission to quote you from this thread to the one you just posted?

Sure thing.

Okay. Here we go.

Today, we live in a society where science is regarded highly.

The first characteristics of the Qur'an someone could pick up who knows nothing at all is the science evidences. Muhammad was illiterate, and back then science was weaker and technology as well which degraded science.

I actually never really took science into any consideration in discerning whether a religious text is inspired in and of itself. I read from the Lotus Sutra and a lot of The Buddha's writings. I haven't heard a Buddhist call his writings "inspired" as one would say from the Creator. However, I am sure he was only fluent and literate in his native language and translations are not completely one hundred percent.

I'd assume the exact same thing about the Qur'an. While I understand the spiritual nature of the Qur'an, scientific findings doesn't point to god any more than that of Socrates and Aristotle contribution to science and medicine.

I read part of the Qur'an about ten years go; so, it's been awhile. If Muhammad said "god wrote this scripture and inspired me to write it to you" how does that claim tell the reader god actually did this? Is he taking Muhammad's word for it?

That's like in now; it's no different. If someone said "I am a messenger of god and I wrote this for you" and everything about him or her adds up scientifically, what reason do I have to doubt him or her?

The complexity of the Qur'an and literature in reading it also explains a lot to someone who wanted to try and learn about divinity in scriptures especially at the time period.

Many have experienced this.

True. It's a personal experience. There are over 2,000 scriptures of The Buddha's discourses; and, I find the "divinity" or I'd say more accurate, sacredness, of the scripture more profound than the Qur'an (that's just me). Yet, I know it is not from a divine source. It is from The Buddha's Words.

Wouldn't Muhammad be just as worth the value of his words and his inspiration and not something more extended as "god wrote this"? If Muhammad was inspired by god to write the Quran but God did not write it himself (if that is Islam teaching or am I mixing that with Christianity?), how would that be less valued than saying an less logical claim that an entity wrote a book through a person?

Yes, there were times when something inside me just clicked and i just felt it was correct, especially after reading the Bible and how it is described in the Qur'an and disbelievers and etc.

The way a person's heart will be automatically incline to belief of divinity from a creator is through understanding.

I agree. I remember reading The Buddha says "Test the teacher" to see if he is correct before following him. Even The Buddha himself. Would you test god to see if the Qur'an is actually from him or do you go by your heart (which, I understand it more as inner peace and gut feeling rather than supernatural)?

The way I know it is from the creator is because of how accurate it is to what a creator would say, and knowledge in their beyond human capacity when taking the factor of time period.

How do you know the creator to where you can verify what the Qur'an says? Wouldn't you have to be the creator to know this or is this on faith or trust that it is true? If you know that sounds like being the creator.

I will not get really specific into it but the key is understanding. There are other things that factor into belief but understanding and you will find it.

Everything comes from understanding (the mind) at least that is what The Buddha taught and I agree one hundred percent. When you understand the mind and how it processes religion etc, then you notice the supernatural "entities and so forth" dissolve and you become one with life itself (which I would call god, to compare). Personifying life and making it a creator is going away from our understanding of the mind and ourselves and placing it or depending on someone else to define who we are. It's like looking outside of ourselves to find ourselves.

I found out that doesn't work out for me. Others, sure. With the Qur'an, though. When I read it and the Bible etc I don't get the "creator" vibe. I'm just reading claims. I think many get so attached or obsessed with these books that are not Muslim or Christian because we are influenced by it. However, really, it my opinion, it's a book.

It's like reading Neverending Story and saying because Sabastrian saw that the story he read came to life, it must be true for me since I am like him-human. While it's one of my favorite novels and movies, I still know the difference between how I relate to a novel and book and how I relate to life (or what some call god). I take out the middle man (Bible, Quran, Jesus, Prophets, etc) and just be One with god/life.

Does that make sense?

 

[Jabar]

Okay. Here we go.



I actually never really took science into any consideration in discerning whether a religious text is inspired in and of itself. I read from the Lotus Sutra and a lot of The Buddha's writings. I haven't heard a Buddhist call his writings "inspired" as one would say from the Creator. However, I am sure he was only fluent and literate in his native language and translations are not completely one hundred percent.

I'd assume the exact same thing about the Qur'an. While I understand the spiritual nature of the Qur'an, scientific findings doesn't point to god any more than that of Socrates and Aristotle contribution to science and medicine.

I read part of the Qur'an about ten years go; so, it's been awhile. If Muhammad said "god wrote this scripture and inspired me to write it to you" how does that claim tell the reader god actually did this? Is he taking Muhammad's word for it?

That's like in now; it's no different. If someone said "I am a messenger of god and I wrote this for you" and everything about him or her adds up scientifically, what reason do I have to doubt him or her?



True. It's a personal experience. There are over 2,000 scriptures of The Buddha's discourses; and, I find the "divinity" or I'd say more accurate, sacredness, of the scripture more profound than the Qur'an (that's just me). Yet, I know it is not from a divine source. It is from The Buddha's Words.

Wouldn't Muhammad be just as worth the value of his words and his inspiration and not something more extended as "god wrote this"? If Muhammad was inspired by god to write the Quran but God did not write it himself (if that is Islam teaching or am I mixing that with Christianity?), how would that be less valued than saying an less logical claim that an entity wrote a book through a person?



I agree. I remember reading The Buddha says "Test the teacher" to see if he is correct before following him. Even The Buddha himself. Would you test god to see if the Qur'an is actually from him or do you go by your heart (which, I understand it more as inner peace and gut feeling rather than supernatural)?



How do you know the creator to where you can verify what the Qur'an says? Wouldn't you have to be the creator to know this or is this on faith or trust that it is true? If you know that sounds like being the creator.



Everything comes from understanding (the mind) at least that is what The Buddha taught and I agree one hundred percent. When you understand the mind and how it processes religion etc, then you notice the supernatural "entities and so forth" dissolve and you become one with life itself (which I would call god, to compare). Personifying life and making it a creator is going away from our understanding of the mind and ourselves and placing it or depending on someone else to define who we are. It's like looking outside of ourselves to find ourselves.

I found out that doesn't work out for me. Others, sure. With the Qur'an, though. When I read it and the Bible etc I don't get the "creator" vibe. I'm just reading claims. I think many get so attached or obsessed with these books that are not Muslim or Christian because we are influenced by it. However, really, it my opinion, it's a book.

It's like reading Neverending Story and saying because Sabastrian saw that the story he read came to life, it must be true for me since I am like him-human. While it's one of my favorite novels and movies, I still know the difference between how I relate to a novel and book and how I relate to life (or what some call god). I take out the middle man (Bible, Quran, Jesus, Prophets, etc) and just be One with god/life.

Does that make sense?

I think your interpretation must not have a deep understanding behind it.

Buddhism beliefs, scripturally, are all man made due to the errors and mistakes, and many many other things.

If you say there are other scriptures more profound then the Qur'an that is blasphemy.

That is the equivalent to saying that man's word is more accurate than God's.

Qur'an is the last revelation for mankind. It is the criteria to Judge right from Wrong. It is pure.

We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will certainly guard it (from corruption).”Qur’an 15:09

Not only has the Qur’an been preserved in written form, but also in the hearts of men, children and women. Today, millions of people have memorised the Qur’an from cover to cover.

“And this Qur’an is not such as could ever be produced by other than Allah.”Qur’an 10:37

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I don't mean to offend you. Those are just my morals.

I think your interpretation must not have a deep understanding behind it.

It isn't that (based on the below quotes). It is that we disagree on what we consider scripture. We also disagree on our understanding of it.

That, and, for example, I have read the full Bible. I practiced Christianity when I was about twelve because I wanted to. I gave my life to Christ five years ago because I was called to. I had a deep understanding of Christianity through the Eucharists and that deep understanding is not supposed to be on faith (as Christians teach). I agree with The Buddha that we should "test the teacher". We should know our own minds and not just follow our hearts (another word for saying spiritual emotions). I did that and talked with many priests and Jesus himself and said this is not for me. It is one thing to believe and have a deep understanding (which I do on a lot of subjects), it's a whole 'nothing thing to let it define your life. Christianity is not a religion I want to define my life with.

Deep understanding can lead someone away from the Qur'an (or Bible or whatever). It doesn't always pull people towards it.

Buddhism beliefs, scriptural, are all man made due to the errors and mistakes, and many many other things.

There are no errors in The Buddha's words. He questions us and tells us to question ourselves and know ourselves and minds. If there are errors in The Buddha's teachings, that's like saying there are errors in me (and all the other Buddhist and people who follow Buddhist teachings without claiming to be a Buddhist).

That, and I don't believe in "original sin" or man is inherited bad or made of errors. I never liked the term "this is man-made" because I am a wo-man; and, there are a lot of things that I do that are not in error. If I can be an example to others in my teaching and what I've gone through, that is a blessing. To say this is "man-made" is really an insult to humanity and its contribution to our society both in a spiritual sense (prophets for example) to material (philosophers and theologians) for example.

That, and you can't compare The Buddha's teachings with the Qur'an because The Buddha's teachings aren't inspired by an entity or deity. The context of the source of the teachings are severely different. Not wrong. Just different.

If you say there are other scriptures more profound then the Qur'an that is blasphemy.

If I were Muslim, this would be true. Since I am not, in my view I am just saying what I believe. It does sound like you took offense to it. That wasn't my intention.

That is the equivalent to saying that man's word is more accurate than God's.

Same as above. There is no "Creator" in Buddhism. All the deities etc are all on the same level as humans all hearing The Buddha's teachings. That, and I put a lot of value in man since I am a human myself. If I tossed man's words aside, I'm literally spiting and insulting myself.

I do not see anything as supernatural. So, whatever the Qur'an says is man's teachings just the same as what I write. That doesn't devalue the Qur'an to the person who believes it is more. It's just saying no entity sat down at his desk, took a pencil, and started writing a book. It came through man one way or another.

Qur'an is the last revelation for mankind. It is the criteria to Judge right from Wrong. It is pure.

We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will certainly guard it (from corruption).”Qur’an 15:09

That's not my faith. I can't debate that.

Not only has the Qur’an been preserved in written form, but also in the hearts of men, children and women. Today, millions of people have memorised the Qur’an from cover to cover.

Likewise the Torah of the Jews. Many indigenous faiths memorize oral teachings from one generation to the next in the hearts of families to present. How is the Qur'an and Islam different in those regards?

“And this Qur’an is not such as could ever be produced by other than Allah.”Qur’an 10:37

I view it is man made (meaning, written by a person) inspired by his god (meaning like you...inspired by Allah). I don't see it from a creator. We are inspired in and of itself. Blessings and inspiration comes through us and in us without us needing to associate it with someone outside of us. Or even something. I mean, the ancestors are a part of me and I them; and, I never say I am not "me" a human and depend only on my ancestors just because they are the core of my faith. If anything, we are a part of each other.

That is how I feel the creator should be. Not above. With. Within.

 

[Jabar]

I don't mean to offend you. Those are just my morals.


It isn't that (based on the below quotes). It is that we disagree on what we consider scripture. We also disagree on our understanding of it.

That, and, for example, I have read the full Bible. I practiced Christianity when I was about twelve because I wanted to. I gave my life to Christ five years ago because I was called to. I had a deep understanding of Christianity through the Eucharists and that deep understanding is not supposed to be on faith (as Christians teach). I agree with The Buddha that we should "test the teacher". We should know our own minds and not just follow our hearts (another word for saying spiritual emotions). I did that and talked with many priests and Jesus himself and said this is not for me. It is one thing to believe and have a deep understanding (which I do on a lot of subjects), it's a whole 'nothing thing to let it define your life. Christianity is not a religion I want to define my life with.

Deep understanding can lead someone away from the Qur'an (or Bible or whatever). It doesn't always pull people towards it.



There are no errors in The Buddha's words. He questions us and tells us to question ourselves and know ourselves and minds. If there are errors in The Buddha's teachings, that's like saying there are errors in me (and all the other Buddhist and people who follow Buddhist teachings without claiming to be a Buddhist).

That, and I don't believe in "original sin" or man is inherited bad or made of errors. I never liked the term "this is man-made" because I am a wo-man; and, there are a lot of things that I do that are not in error. If I can be an example to others in my teaching and what I've gone through, that is a blessing. To say this is "man-made" is really an insult to humanity and its contribution to our society both in a spiritual sense (prophets for example) to material (philosophers and theologians) for example.

That, and you can't compare The Buddha's teachings with the Qur'an because The Buddha's teachings aren't inspired by an entity or deity. The context of the source of the teachings are severely different. Not wrong. Just different.



If I were Muslim, this would be true. Since I am not, in my view I am just saying what I believe. It does sound like you took offense to it. That wasn't my intention.



Same as above. There is no "Creator" in Buddhism. All the deities etc are all on the same level as humans all hearing The Buddha's teachings. That, and I put a lot of value in man since I am a human myself. If I tossed man's words aside, I'm literally spiting and insulting myself.

I do not see anything as supernatural. So, whatever the Qur'an says is man's teachings just the same as what I write. That doesn't devalue the Qur'an to the person who believes it is more. It's just saying no entity sat down at his desk, took a pencil, and started writing a book. It came through man one way or another.





That's not my faith. I can't debate that.



Likewise the Torah of the Jews. Many indigenous faiths memorize oral teachings from one generation to the next in the hearts of families to present. How is the Qur'an and Islam different in those regards?



I view it is man made (meaning, written by a person) inspired by his god (meaning like you...inspired by Allah). I don't see it from a creator. We are inspired in and of itself. Blessings and inspiration comes through us and in us without us needing to associate it with someone outside of us. Or even something. I mean, the ancestors are a part of me and I them; and, I never say I am not "me" a human and depend only on my ancestors just because they are the core of my faith. If anything, we are a part of each other.

That is how I feel the creator should be. Not above. With. Within.

Then that is not what a deity is if you are degrading it on a level with creation.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Then that is not what a deity is if you are degrading it on a level with creation.

Short answer for a long post. I can't imagine a deity at all. I wouldn't know where to start. The Qur'an, Bible, and Torah just tell me the same thing its followers today tell me. No time gap in the testimonies, just different cultures and ways of expression.

God is life. Think about it. God created you. If life did not exist, would we not be created? Would not the trees grow and the babies be born if life didn't exist. So, god is life.

God is love. Think about it. If you love your life and devotion to everyone around you and yourself and in tuned with your being, you are "being loved." You are basically wrapping yourself in the full gift of life and within it you have many emotions and one of the most valued emotions we experience via life is love.

God talks through people from all times, all ages, no matter the religion (of those of god). Think about it. When have you heard a Muslim say, "Oh.. god isn't with me. I don't feel or sense the existence of god. I just know he's there cause the Qur'an says so." Isn't there more of a personal and internal feeling and thoughts you get when you say your prayers each day? That's keeping you in touch with life. With your being. With everything and everyone. It's keeping you in touch with god.

God is spirit. Think about it. How can we live without life? We need energy and whatever (or to some whomever) makes us go. That spirit is the life of all living beings: plants, animals, and humans. All that is moving.

God is part of our souls. Think about it. We are all interconnected; one humanity; one being. All of us have life. I don't have a different type of life than you. I'm not an alien. We are not disconnected from ourselves and others. That connection is the connection between our souls. The spirit is life. Our souls is the heart where life begins.

God is part of our body. Think about it. Who made you? Life did. spirit, soul, and body. When your parents mated, you were created. That spirit that fluffed up your soul until life is god. It's not man-made theology. Body is just as sacred as our souls.

God is part of our minds. That's where and how we interpret who or what god is. Think about it. If you didn't have a mind or wasn't able to process thoughts, you'd have no conception of how you define god. A lot of our conceptions of god are preconceived and some indoctrination it becomes part of our being because our minds adopt to what we are told should be true. If it is true, since god is part of our minds, how we define god is essentially what (or who) god is. When you observe the everything and everyone around you--you are observing life. You are seeing god.

Now, to understanding the nature of life, some of us need the Qur'an to understand obedience, the Bible, to understand the heart, The Buddha's teachings to understand the mind, and maybe the Tao (guessing) to understand the soul.

Regardless of what resource we use, we still have to observe four our selves/souls/spirits/body/mind--us what (or who) god is. Without material and man made things (like written scripture) we can find god because we are a part of god and god is a part of us.

God is life.

How can we live without life? Can anyone prove or give evidence that god is not life? Creator is another way of saying god is life. Except for, I am saying God IS life. People who believe in a creator says god GIVES life.

In other words, if you have two parents mating to have a child, you can say the source (or creator) of that child is the parents. That's fine.

Then you have others that say, yeah the parents where involved but life sprung up on its own. Who was to tell if sperm and egg was to make a child. It was the combination of the two (the spirit/energy that drives however the term be) to create the child. The Spirit of life. That is what created the child. Life itself. Not the parents (they had a role like Mary and Joseph). Not the prophets (which tell about how the child was born). But the actual growth of the child. That source is god.

I know it's not Islam teaching. How is it wrong (other than it's against the Quran)?

Can you logically create a rebuttal on this? I mean, I didn't quote The Buddha's scriptures or anything. This is just observation and experience.

That is scripture. Observation and experience. Who we love. Who we interact with. What we value. Etc. That is scripture. These things culture, family, etc are a part of us. How does the Qur'an top all of that?

(Please read)

 

[Jabar]

Short answer for a long post. I can't imagine a deity at all. I wouldn't know where to start. The Qur'an, Bible, and Torah just tell me the same thing its followers today tell me. No time gap in the testimonies, just different cultures and ways of expression.

God is life. Think about it. God created you. If life did not exist, would we not be created? Would not the trees grow and the babies be born if life didn't exist. So, god is life.

God is love. Think about it. If you love your life and devotion to everyone around you and yourself and in tuned with your being, you are "being loved." You are basically wrapping yourself in the full gift of life and within it you have many emotions and one of the most valued emotions we experience via life is love.

God talks through people from all times, all ages, no matter the religion (of those of god). Think about it. When have you heard a Muslim say, "Oh.. god isn't with me. I don't feel or sense the existence of god. I just know he's there cause the Qur'an says so." Isn't there more of a personal and internal feeling and thoughts you get when you say your prayers each day? That's keeping you in touch with life. With your being. With everything and everyone. It's keeping you in touch with god.

God is spirit. Think about it. How can we live without life? We need energy and whatever (or to some whomever) makes us go. That spirit is the life of all living beings: plants, animals, and humans. All that is moving.

God is part of our souls. Think about it. We are all interconnected; one humanity; one being. All of us have life. I don't have a different type of life than you. I'm not an alien. We are not disconnected from ourselves and others. That connection is the connection between our souls. The spirit is life. Our souls is the heart where life begins.

God is part of our body. Think about it. Who made you? Life did. spirit, soul, and body. When your parents mated, you were created. That spirit that fluffed up your soul until life is god. It's not man-made theology. Body is just as sacred as our souls.

God is part of our minds. That's where and how we interpret who or what god is. Think about it. If you didn't have a mind or wasn't able to process thoughts, you'd have no conception of how you define god. A lot of our conceptions of god are preconceived and some indoctrination it becomes part of our being because our minds adopt to what we are told should be true. If it is true, since god is part of our minds, how we define god is essentially what (or who) god is. When you observe the everything and everyone around you--you are observing life. You are seeing god.

Now, to understanding the nature of life, some of us need the Qur'an to understand obedience, the Bible, to understand the heart, The Buddha's teachings to understand the mind, and maybe the Tao (guessing) to understand the soul.

Regardless of what resource we use, we still have to observe four our selves/souls/spirits/body/mind--us what (or who) god is. Without material and man made things (like written scripture) we can find god because we are a part of god and god is a part of us.

God is life.

How can we live without life? Can anyone prove or give evidence that god is not life? Creator is another way of saying god is life. Except for, I am saying God IS life. People who believe in a creator says god GIVES life.

In other words, if you have two parents mating to have a child, you can say the source (or creator) of that child is the parents. That's fine.

Then you have others that say, yeah the parents where involved but life sprung up on its own. Who was to tell if sperm and egg was to make a child. It was the combination of the two (the spirit/energy that drived however the term be) to create the child. The Spirit of life. That is what created the child. Life itself. Not the parents (they had a role like Mary and Joseph). Not the prophets (which tell about how the child was born). But the actual growth of the child. That source is god.

I know it's not Islam teaching. How is it wrong (other than it's against the Quran)?
Can you logically create a rebuttal on this? I mean, I didn't quote The Buddha's scriptures or anything. This is just observation and experience.

That is scripture. Observation and experience. Who we love. Who we interact with. What we value. Etc. That is scripture. These things culture, family, etc are a part of us. How does the Qur'an top all of that?

(Please read)

Very long. . .

I respect your logical standpoint as it might seem rational but when actually understanding it turns irrational.

Who created what spurt the whole of Humanity though, if you go deeper and beyond creation, God is there apart from creation.

God and creation being one is absurdity. If that were the case, there would be many evidential information. Just because you believe that and it seems logical to you does not mean it is truth.

Think about it? Would God really be us? Does that really define a God? Or is God apart from creation and witnessing over all Creation.

If God is a part of our mind would we not possess extraordinary amount of intellect, we would be omniscient but we still are lacking. We need food to survive, we need to sleep, we use this life as a blessing and preserve it as a blessing from a deity separate from creation itself. Think of it this way. If there was no creation, what would the concept of God be in your perspective then? It is illogical and irrational in understanding divine being(s) like that.

I feel like you have contradictory concept of God, you do not believe in a deity but then at the same time believe he is living within us? That is irrational and illogical just as Trinitarian doctrines that have been tampered with by churches.

People can easily prove that life is not God, but Life is a gift from God, and life for us.

The Torah, and all the other scriptures approved by God in the Qur'an were revelations for a particular time period and particular group of people.

They were guides, and eventually the Qur'an the last and final revelation for mankind came to existence and have remained its purity for the past thousands of years.



Peace.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

This will be short. We have different definitions of god. I use god for convenience. I don't have a term for life. Life in and of itself is a blessing and to live within it I experience the same as I hear of those who experience their gods. We are all human; so, I see myself no different than another. Since god is life, there is no hierarchy.

Think about it? Would God really be us? Does that really define a God? Or is God apart from creation and witnessing over all Creation.

God IS creation. He is everything. He's life itself. He can't be outside himself, can he? (That is, if life has a gender )

People can easily prove that life is not God, but Life is a gift from God, and life for us.

If they come from outside their faith and rebut it from an objective perspective, then that would be different. If they are just going by their faith, all they can do is say "I am right because my scripture says so." If they want to prove me wrong (which I have yet to hear people do given the nature of RF) they need to debate. When you debate you take your claims and use both subjective and objective support that both parties agree on. If I don't believe the Qur'an, how does your quoting it do anything to verify your point? If I quoted The Buddha's sutras, how does that help me in verifying my point?

I feel it is stronger to say God IS life rather than god Gives life.

Has more punch.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

When put into comparison, all religious scriptures, which prevails over the other?
They must contain the following

1) Complex literature
2) Prophecies and Scientific evidences
3) Logic
4) No Errors






Peace.

Peace to you, too, my friend and relative (if, as the Bible states, we all are descended from Noah, then you are my cousin....somewhere along the line.)

I submit that the Bible fits all four of these parameters. Not every translation today, of course, but the original ancient manuscripts that were written; and many of the translations we have today are textually very close to the numerous copies we have of those original manuscripts.

Here is a website listing articles that discuss many different aspects of the Bible's authenticity. The subheadings are in blue, and many of the article-abbreviations, which are all links discussing the subtopics. (The ones in gray are not links, but if interested, I could access them and send by e-mail.)

http://m.wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200270805

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Because of the fact that you ignored them.

I didn't ignore them though. And that is rather strong claim considering I was quoting from the sources that you provided.

 

[Jabar]

Peace to you, too, my friend and relative (if, as the Bible states, we all are descended from Noah, then you are my cousin....somewhere along the line.)

I submit that the Bible fits all four of these parameters. Not every translation today, of course, but the original ancient manuscripts that were written; and many of the translations we have today are textually very close to the numerous copies we have of those original manuscripts.

Here is a website listing articles that discuss many different aspects of the Bible's authenticity. The subheadings are in blue, and many of the article-abbreviations, which are all links discussing the subtopics. (The ones in gray are not links, but if interested, I could access them and send by e-mail.)

http://m.wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200270805

I would agree they do to an extent.

But the Qur'anic scripture is the final revelation and the best one after those revelations by Allah.

Not corrupted.

 

[Jabar]

I didn't ignore them though. And that is rather strong claim considering I was quoting from the sources that you provided.

You are an atheist, am i correct?

Now show me the evidence that Atheism is actually truth.

The answer is none, i am giving you the information and you flat out deny it. . .

Atheists and Agnostics are doubters and skeptics, no offense.

The believers in God have to provide all the evidence whilst the Atheists/Agnostics sit back and flat out say there is no proof it is just false.

Come on. . .

Peace.