• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why does God want Christians to give food to hungry people?

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
Yes Im a muslim, hence my username :)

Let me explain it this way, Allah says in Quran:

"21:35. Everyone is going to taste death, and We shall make a trial of you with evil and with good, and to Us you will be returned."

"21:23. He cannot be questioned as to what He does, while they will be questioned."

"17: 21. See how We prefer one above another (in this world) and verily, the Hereafter will be greater in degrees and greater in preference."

What evidence do you have that Allah inspired Muhammed to write the Koran?
 

fatima_bintu_islam

Active Member
If you knew arabic, you would have immediatly know that it is the word of God, since its beauty was a challenge for all the poets , best arabic speakers at the time of the prophet peace be upon him , and it still is a challenge for them.

Since Im pretty sure you dont know arabic, then I know because: no single verse is in contradiction with another, if you adhere to the laws prescribed in it then you'll understand that its 100% coherent with human nature , the bad and good nature, it amazingly correct the flaws in human beliefs and behavior. Plus, it has answers on the very basic fundamental questions about life, and when you read it you feel that its writer knows what is in the deepest of your heart and mind.

:)
 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
Agnostic75 said:
What evidence do you have that Allah inspired Muhammed to write the Koran?

fatima_bintu_islam said:
If you knew arabic, you would have immediatly know that it is the word of God, since its beauty was a challenge for all the poets , best arabic speakers at the time of the prophet peace be upon him , and it still is a challenge for them.

Since I'm pretty sure you dont know Arabic, then I know because: no single verse is in contradiction with another, if you adhere to the laws prescribed in it then you'll understand that its 100% coherent with human nature , the bad and good nature, it amazingly correct the flaws in human beliefs and behavior. Plus, it has answers on the very basic fundamental questions about life, and when you read it you feel that its writer knows what is in the deepest of your heart and mind.

I do not speak Arabic, but lots of people who do are not Muslims.

I have heard that the Koran has plenty of contradictions, but I am too busy to study the Koran at this time.
 

fatima_bintu_islam

Active Member
I do not speak Arabic, but lots of people who do are not Muslims.

Of course there are, not everyone adhere to the truth when he/she feel it is , why satan is on this earth then? :)

I have heard that the Koran has plenty of contradictions, but I am too busy to study the Koran at this time.

I heard that islamonline.net is in crisis for now, but Im sure that when you find time to study Quran then you can go there and go to the "ask the scholar" section, and Im pretty sure that you'll be able to see by yourself that theres no contradiction in it.

Best regards :)
 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
Agnostic75 said:
I do not speak Arabic, but lots of people who do are not Muslims.

fatima bintu islam said:
Of course there are, not everyone adheres to the truth.......

But people who speak Arabic and are not Muslims claim that you do not adhere to the truth.

If Allah exists, surely he has ways to communicate with people in their own language.

What did people know about Allah for thousands of years before the Koran was written?

In your opinion, what justifies what Allah does, his power?
 

fatima_bintu_islam

Active Member
But people who speak Arabic and are not Muslims claim that you do not adhere to the truth.
It does not bother me at all, since I have my evidences :)

If Allah exists, surely he has ways to communicate with people in their own language.

Of course, the beauty of the language of Quran is only one amongts other ways to prove that Quran is the word of God ( which I mentioned earlier )

What did people know about Allah for thousands of years before the Koran was written?
There has always been prophets before the prophet sallalahu 'alayhi wassalam (the last prophet) came, ex: Jesus, Ibrahim, Noah etc , so there has always been messages and prophets from Allah azza wajjal in order to bring people to worship him alone, some followed him others corrupted their religions.

In your opinion, what justifies what Allah does, his power?

His wisdom :)
 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
My main purpose in starting this thread was to ask Christians why God wants Christians to give food to hungry people. So far, no Christian has given a reasonable explanation.

Regarding the Koran, I do not have time to study it at this time.
 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
fatima_bintu_islam said:
But the God of Christians and Muslim is One, however Christians adore a partner along with Allah; that's all the difference.

Does Allah want Muslims to give food to hungry people? If so, why?
 

fatima_bintu_islam

Active Member
Yes, He does ; because as you read in the verses, this life is a trial, being poor is a trial for the person itself and is a trial for the rich, wether he'll share his money or not.

In Islam, we have this concept regarding money that it is not yours , its Allah who bestowed his mercy on you. Therefore, in your money theres an obligatory portion for the poor, he can come to you and tell you to give it to himm by force , thats what we call zakat.

If you do not give zakat, then you'll be eating the portion of another human being and that would lead to hell. In the times after the prophet death peace be upon him, when everyone used to give zakat, there was a time when you would give 100 dinar to a poor and he'll say that its not enough , why? Because everyone had money, at that time ; in the tresorery , they started by giving money to all the poor, and there was still, so they payed for young people to get married, and there was still there, then they started opening librairies and science houses (if I remember properly) and there was still money there.

And the prophet sallalahu 'alayhi wassalam has predicted it before he died, so to sum up ; zakat is an obligatory portion of the poor that lies in your money, zakat equals 2,5% of your budget if you kept it for a year. If everyone gave zakat, then there will be nothing called a hungry person on earth.

Best regards :)
 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
Mr Cheese said:
Here begins the story about the snakes “Heavy-to-carry” and “Light- to-carry”

‘Furthermore it was heard that there were once two snakes, and the first snake was called “Heavy-to-carry.” Their bodies were equally large, and their tails were very long. Being of one mind, they loved each other so much that one could not bear to be separated from the other. And lo, they went along a path together. After they had traversed much land, one snake glided into a depression. And the other snake proceeded along the way. On one side of the path there was a very high mountain, and on the other side a very deep body of water. And on the path, a trapper had set up a snare and a pitfall. Inside it was full of burning coals, and all kinds of fiery apparitions rose from it into the air. The trapper was hiding nearby. And when the snake came to that place, it was pleased and amazed at the fiery apparitions in the air. But it was not possible for it to avoid the pitfall, for, alas, it had to go ahead along this path and there was no way back. And lo, it paused , and then darted ahead, thinking, “I want to jump over the pitfall with my whole body.” But, because the pitfall was very wide and the snake’s body was long and very thin in the middle, and its tail was very long, it could not cross the pitfall. Its head came across, but the tail remained behind, and the middle of the body remained lying across the pit, and the snake could not pull it over to its neck. So it burned there and died. And the trapper came quickly, stretched out his hand toward the pit, cut open the head neatly, took the stone, and went away very happy.

The second snake came along and found its companion dead, its head mutilated. It cried out from the depths of its soul, “Alas! You were very dear to me.” And it wept and lamented bitterly, wailed pitifully and said, “0 wonderful brother, how have you died without your brother and shame?” When it had stopped lamenting, it thought to itself, “My brother died because he had not thought of a remedy for the body. I will also have to die.” And] it considered the matter carefully. And the snake said, “Because he was a male, he could not bear the separation from his dear tail; he could not endure corruption and suffering in his body. But there is really no other way out.

If I endure separation from my dear tail and endure a little pain in my body for the sake of my soul, then I will be able to jump over the pitfall.” Then it returned to the depression and found the abandoned fire of a shepherd. And it burned off as much of its tail as could be harmful [to its body. And, when it had become smaller, the tailless body jumped very lightly and crossed the pitfall safely.

Of these two snakes, one is the person who loves the body, for whom bearing. ..is troublesome, but who is unconcerned about the soul. And his.. .is long. The second snake is the person for whom the soul is dearer than the body. There is very little poison in him and his attachment to the world is very weak, and the fetters binding his soul are very thin. And the pitfall, the high mountain and the deep body of water are the three trenches. The trapper is Ahriman, and the stone is the soul. Ultimately the Old Man, being without good works, is the one who cannot jump over the three ditches with the tail of the body. But the chosen New Man has purged the three poisons from the body and has borne in his body the agony caused by observing the Law, and he can endure separation from his dear wife and children and from riches, and on the Final Day his soul will arise from the body and will attain the peace of Paradise.

Iranian Manichaean Parable (from the Sogdian book of parables)

Agnostic said:
None of that explains why God inspired James to write that if a man refuses to give food to hungry people, he is vain, and his faith is dead. Why would God want Christians to give food to hungry people?

Mr Cheese said:
Well you are asking simplistic questions.

Agnostic75 said:
Yes, simplistic questions which you tried to answer until you got into trouble.

Mr Cheese said:
Nope, until I looked at this thread and all your others and discovered that you're essentially a troll.

Consider the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

Wikipedia said:
Troll

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

What have I said in any thread that was inflammatory, extraneous (not pertinent to the matter under discussion), or off-topic, with the primary intent of proving other users into an emotional response?

Consider the following posts that preceded your snakes parable:

Agnostic75 said:
There might be enough food in the world for everyone, but it is not possible to distribute it to everyone. For example, there are not enough financial resources and logistical support in the world to distribute food to everyone who is in the area of natural disasters, and still have enough money and logistical support left over to take care of many other important needs.


Mr Cheese said:
Well actually that's false. If we stopped shooting bullets world wide, for as small a period as a week. World hunger could be solved by shiftign resources. But where's the profit in that?

Mr Cheesse said:
Please note that in my previous post, I said that "there are not enough financial resources and logistical support in the world to distribute food to everyone who is in the area of natural disasters, AND still have enough money and logistical support left over to take care of many other important needs." If extra resources and logistics are used to feed hungry people, other people will suffer as a result. Yes, we are agreed.

Killing people is far more important than feeding them.

Agnostic75 said:
Are you proposing that human effort is able to allocate all of the world's resources in ways that would effectively take care of all human needs, including enough organs for everyone who needs an organ transplant, and enough money for everyone to have adequate health care, and enough money to protect us from global warming? Regarding global warming, most experts on both sides agree that it is occuring, but disagree about why it is occuring. Regardless of the causes of global warming, it is occuring, and if it continues to occur, it will take trillions of dollars to even begin to try to protect ourselves from it.

Are you implying that God does not kill people, and that he does not refuse to give food to hungry people? Why is it negligent if people refuse to give food to hungry people, but acceptable if God refuses to give food to hungry people? Do you believe that might makes right?

None of that indicates that I am a troll. My arguments were definitely on-topic since they addressed God's motives. You refused to reply to many of my arguments because you knew that they are difficult to refute, and posted your snakes parable as a convenient diversion from replying to my posts. Your snakes parable does not adequately explain why God wants Christians to give food to hungry people.

Yes, my question "Why does God want Christians to give food to hungry people?" is simplistic, but I did not ask for simplistic answers. As this thread progressed, my arguments became more developed based upon replies from Christians. There was nothing wrong with that.

I said:

Agnostic75 said:
There are not enough financial resources and logistical support in the world to distribute food to everyone who is in the area of natural disasters, and still have enough money and logistical support left over to take care of many other important needs. Are you proposing that human effort is able to allocate all of the world's resources in ways that would effectively take care of all human needs, including enough organs for everyone who needs an organ transplant, and enough money for everyone to have adequate health care, and enough money to protect us from global warming? Regarding global warming, most experts on both sides agree that it is occuring, but disagree about why it is occuring. Regardless of the causes of global warming, it is occuring, and if it continues to occur, it will take trillions of dollars to even begin to try to protect ourselves from it.

Any rational person knows that there is not nearly enough money and logistics (including personnel) in the world to take care of all of mankind's problems.

Are you suggesting that humans can do things that will cause God to stop injuring and killing people and innocent animals with hurricanes?

In your opinion, what justifies what God does, his power? The author of Romans chapter 9 says so.



































 

Mr Cheese

Well-Known Member
Any rational person knows that there is not nearly enough money and logistics (including personnel) in the world to take care of all of mankind's problems.

Are you suggesting that humans can do things that will cause God to stop injuring and killing people and innocent animals with hurricanes?

In your opinion, what justifies what God does, his power? The author of Romans chapter 9 says so.

okay so maybe you arent a "troll" but I think maybe is the word....

I guess I just find these puerile questions tiresome.....

You've stated you are an EX fundametalist christian, as such it sounds awfully like you are poking at the very beliefs you once had....

You arent really wanting debate, or discussion... you are really saying how on earth can you "believe this garbage"

my apologies.... I wont bother you again.
 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
Mr Cheese said:
You aren't really wanting debate, or discussion. You are really saying how on earth can you "believe this garbage"

My posts in many threads prove that I do want debate and discussion. Part of the proof is my many specific, on-topic replies to your arguments. I certainly never said or implied that Christianity is garbage. Many intellingent, honest, decent people are seduced by various religious books. That is quite natural due to the human desires to have reasons for living, and to one day enjoy a comfortable eternal life. I believe that you are honestly trying to find the truth, but I assume that you do not believe that I am honestly trying to find the truth. If that is the case, you could not possibly have any way of knowing that even if it was the case. Who are you to judge other peoples' motives. If you had been born centuries ago, it is reasonably possible if not probable that you would have endorsed slavery, colonization, and the subjugation of women.
 

Mr Cheese

Well-Known Member
My posts in many threads prove that I do want debate and discussion. Part of the proof is my many specific, on-topic replies to your arguments. I certainly never said or implied that Christianity is garbage. Many intellingent, honest, decent people are seduced by various religious books. That is quite natural due to the human desires to have reasons for living, and to one day enjoy a comfortable eternal life. I believe that you are honestly trying to find the truth, but I assume that you do not believe that I am honestly trying to find the truth. If that is the case, you could not possibly have any way of knowing that even if it was the case. Who are you to judge other peoples' motives. If you had been born centuries ago, it is reasonably possible if not probable that you would have endorsed slavery, colonization, and the subjugation of women.

I gueses I find your searching to be grossly simplistic for one who has been doing so for DECADES. You are still stuck in the "well the bible says this...now lets justify this. If the bible says grapes are evil, then lets see why could grapes be evil?" You are still stuck taking scripture at face value and literally. Essentially you have no left your fundamentalist mindset at all yet. Where is metaphor, symbolism, allegory or anythign similar?

Funny you mention the oppression of women, when you have a thread about the oppression of men in religion...

Perhaps I was wrong about your motives...Its seems like bait and switch to me though
 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member

Agnostic75 said:
My posts in many threads prove that I do want debate and discussion. Part of the proof is my many specific, on-topic replies to your arguments. I certainly never said or implied that Christianity is garbage. Many intellingent, honest, decent people are seduced by various religious books. That is quite natural due to the human desires to have reasons for living, and to one day enjoy a comfortable eternal life. I believe that you are honestly trying to find the truth, but I assume that you do not believe that I am honestly trying to find the truth. If that is the case, you could not possibly have any way of knowing that even if it was the case. Who are you to judge other peoples' motives. If you had been born centuries ago, it is reasonably possible if not probable that you would have endorsed slavery, colonization, and the subjugation of women.
Agnostic75 said:
Mr Cheese said:
I gueses I find your searching to be grossly simplistic for one who has been doing so for DECADES.

But I do not intend to start threads as short novels. There is not anything wrong with a thread starting out simply and progressively getting more complex. You are perfectly free to get more complex, which you have done, and I have replied to many of your more complex arguments.

Mr Cheese said:
You are still stuck in the "well the bible says this, now let's justify this. If the Bible says grapes are evil, then let's see why could grapes be evil?" You are still stuck taking scripture at face value and literally. Essentially you have not left your fundamentalist mindset at all yet. Where is metaphor, symbolism, allegory or anything similar?

But you are perfectly free to start a new, complex, detailed thread and present your defense of Christianity.

Regarding "metaphor, symbolism, allegory or anything similar," I am certainly well aware of those issues, but God injuring and killing people and innocent animals with hurricances, withholding evidence that would cause more people to accept him, and refusing to give food to starving people, does not pertain to those issues.

Mr Cheese said:
Funny you mention the oppression of women, when you have a thread about the oppression of men in religion.

There is nothing wrong with mentioning that God oppresses men and women, and innocent animals too for that matter.

Mr Cheese said:
Perhaps I was wrong about your motives. It seems like bait and switch to me though.

But practically anyone who reads my threads knows that my posts are typically
on-topic, and that it is you who frequently get off-topic by making personal comments that are off-topic. Please practice what you preach and stick to the issues. If you keep making personal comments, I will ignore them.
 

AxisMundi

E Pluribus Unum!!!
James chapter 2 essentially says that if a man refuses to give food to hungry people, he is vain, and his faith is dead. Since God has allowed and caused millions of people to die of starvation, I find it to be quite odd that he would inspire James to write that.

A pure theopolitical device, IMHO.

When an agenda is attached to charity, it ceases to be charity and becomes the agenda.

Giving to a charity because it is an expected duty of one's religion is not charity, it is religious duty.

Giving as a means of proselytizationand conversion is not charity, but proselytization and attempts to convert.
 

Mr Cheese

Well-Known Member
Agnostic75 said:
My posts in many threads prove that I do want debate and discussion. Part of the proof is my many specific, on-topic replies to your arguments. I certainly never said or implied that Christianity is garbage. Many intellingent, honest, decent people are seduced by various religious books. That is quite natural due to the human desires to have reasons for living, and to one day enjoy a comfortable eternal life. I believe that you are honestly trying to find the truth, but I assume that you do not believe that I am honestly trying to find the truth. If that is the case, you could not possibly have any way of knowing that even if it was the case. Who are you to judge other peoples' motives. If you had been born centuries ago, it is reasonably possible if not probable that you would have endorsed slavery, colonization, and the subjugation of women.
Agnostic75 said:
But I do not intend to start threads as short novels. There is not anything wrong with a thread starting out simply and progressively getting more complex. You are perfectly free to get more complex, which you have done, and I have replied to many of your more complex arguments.



But you are perfectly free to start a new, complex, detailed thread and present your defense of Christianity.

Regarding "metaphor, symbolism, allegory or anything similar," I am certainly well aware of those issues, but God injuring and killing people and innocent animals with hurricances, withholding evidence that would cause more people to accept him, and refusing to give food to starving people, does not pertain to those issues.



There is nothing wrong with mentioning that God oppresses men and women, and innocent animals too for that matter.



But practically anyone who reads my threads knows that my posts are typically
on-topic, and that it is you who frequently get off-topic by making personal comments that are off-topic. Please practice what you preach and stick to the issues. If you keep making personal comments, I will ignore them.

my point is....
you're essentially using the bible literally
essentially like saying;

noah had a flood...how did he save all the animals, how could they stand the elephant excrement on the boat?

You see? thats how grossly simplistic your points are.
If that is all you want to discuss then fair play.
 

Mr Cheese

Well-Known Member
A pure theopolitical device, IMHO.

When an agenda is attached to charity, it ceases to be charity and becomes the agenda.

Giving to a charity because it is an expected duty of one's religion is not charity, it is religious duty.

Giving as a means of proselytizationand conversion is not charity, but proselytization and attempts to convert.

:facepalm: or maybe its about sharing...but ok
 
Top