Why One God

[firedragon]

There is no justification for discussing YHWH as if it were a general-purpose deity. It is not.

So, how is that relevant?

 

[stvdv]

. It's not that I have any research to show it's bad or good on society

You do have, indirectly, plenty of research to prove how bad it is.

Just look at the tactics they use, then check the research on the psyche of young children when such tactics are used.

Even common sense and reasoning power will prove you the devastating effect of it (for some things we don't need scientists to confirm what our gut has been telling us already a long time ago)

The reason you give, that it's highly annoying how they bring it, and I agree with this, has, compared to why I "hate" it, much less impact and is far less destructive than my 3 reasons (top of my brain) I mention below

E.g. brainwashing always is a very negative technique, unless you use it in the literal sense "wash the brain, don't color it". The phrase "keep an open mind" clearly "proves" this in this context

In our vicious society we need to protect ourselves, hence "keep an open mind" will harm you, but not just that, this also implies you are less open to God, hence the importance to avoid people with whom you can't open your heart, they kind of kill your connection with God (well if you allow them near).

My Master always says "Tell me your company, and I tell you who you are"

I have 2 more worked out examples if you are interested

So, only when evangelizing is done using very strict limitations and utmost care which words to use it might be useful. But definitely, how Christians do it in Holland is far from that, sadly

 

[firedragon]

You do have, indirectly, plenty of research to prove how bad it is.

Just look at the tactics they use, then check the research on the psyche of young children when such tactics are used.

Even common sense and reasoning power will prove you the devastating effect of it (for some things we don't need scientists to confirm what our gut has been telling us already a long time ago)

The reason you give, that it's highly annoying how they bring it, and I agree with this, has, compared to why I "hate" it, much less impact and is far less destructive than my 3 reasons (top of my brain) I mention below

E.g. brainwashing always is a very negative technique, unless you use it in the literal sense "wash the brain, don't color it". The phrase "keep an open mind" clearly "proves" this in this context

In our vicious society we need to protect ourselves, hence "keep an open mind" too will harm you, but not just that, this also implies you are less open too God, hence the importance to avoid people with whom you can't open your heart, they kind of kill your connection with God (well if you allow them near).

My Master always says "Tell me your company, and I tell you who you are"

I have 2 more worked out examples if you are interested

So, only when evangelizing is done using very strict limitations and utmost care which words to use it might be useful. But definitely, how Christians do it in Holland is far from that, sadly

In traditional Islamic societies or rather "groups", majority or minority, evangelism has predominantly been for themselves. This is fact. That means, a Muslim group of people will meet at a mosque, discuss where they are going, and they will go to that location and knock on known Muslim doors and preach to the Muslims themselves. This was called Dhaawa. And people call it the same today. In an English rendition this means invitation.

There was a group called the Jamaathul Islam in India. These guys were preaching to Muslims. The concept of this movement spread to other countries as well. It's the same movement or "club" that broke into Pakistan, and moved to practically the whole world. I don't like this group, and I will never like them. The reason is they have some teachings that was born in India through the book called the Thaalim which is just dogmatic nonsense. I don't mean to be nasty but to me, it's just nonsense. And they preach based on this. BUT, they preach to Muslims, not to non-muslims. Because the foundation of this preaching style cannot be applied to non-muslims. It will never work. Their evangelism or "invitation" is for Muslims. And I can tell you that they have no clue how to preach to a non-muslim because it does not exist in their curriculum.

I know that the Hindu's don't give damn about evangelising and their faith very strong. That's why the Hindu population is absolutely stable statistically IMO.

Christians on the other hand have a culture of evangelism. Or am I wording it wrong? See, in seminary, a lot of aspirants are taught strategies of how to preach to non-christians. How to address Buddhists, Hindu's, and the so called "pagans" was the old tradition and recently the teachings of how to evangelise to Muslims. This is, walking to the non-muslim person's home, knocking on the door, and evangelising to them. Yet, honestly I have not come across that level of hostile evangelists like you seem to have encountered. Never in my life. Christian evangelists have always been nice, good people. Of course on the internet, in England and the United States there are truly nasty evangelists I have come across from both Muslim and Christian schools. Even Atheists. My God. These people are truly nasty. Of course not all, a few but they make a big noise.

This is the reason I personally don't adhere to generalisation. As in calling it "evangelism". I would prefer to take then individually and break them apart as in to understand them and speak specifically. I would prefer to understand "evangelists" and condemn where appropriate, but not the concept as a whole unless I have very solid reasons and a wider number driven study.

Cheers.

 

[Truthseeker]

Thank you, that is a nice confirmation of what I was quite sure of, and hoped to true.
I hope others can't prove me wrong on this, because for me this is core material in Spiritual Life
And if Jesus, Muhanmmad or Bahaullah would have told us to Evangelize, I would be highly suprised

My definition of evangelizing is how Christians practise it (in Holland, which I assume is worldwide the same):
"Evangelizing = Belittling the Faith of others while trying to impose ones Faith on them in order to get them to convert to your Faith"

IF Christians would practise it as follows I would be okay with it:
""Evangelizing = Share your Faith with others + not belittle others (non) Faith, not magnify own Faith, not try to convert others away from their Faith"

I will try to come up with a dictionary defintion.
Evangelize: to preach the gospel to

What does, in turn preach mean. (Notice how this is limited to Christians. In my view this too culture specific.)

Preach: to urge acceptance or abandonment of an idea or course of action
specifically : to exhort in an officious or tiresome manner

A little different, but we're not supposed to that either.

 

[RestlessSoul]

For the record;

 

[stvdv]

In traditional Islamic societies or rather "groups", majority or minority, evangelism has predominantly been for themselves. This is fact. That means, a Muslim group of people will meet at a mosque, discuss where they are going, and they will go to that location and knock on known Muslim doors and preach to the Muslims themselves. This was called Dhaawa. And people call it the same today. In an English rendition this means invitation

Thanks, that's useful. I never heard of this, but it feels much less hostile then the usual Christian "convert" type of evangelism. It feels even positive to me

Sai Baba told us "it's good to share your experiences with other Sai devotees...let each share his experience, others listen and take what they feel is good for them

Indeed there are different ways to evangelize, and as you said in the last quote, it's good to differentiate

And I can tell you that they have no clue how to preach to a non-muslim because it does not exist in their curriculum

Nice to know...I never came across a Muslim trying to convert me... even not in the Mosque I have been visiting. Indeed, they don't have this "try to convert him to Islam" mindset

Christians on the other hand have a culture of evangelism. Or am I wording it wrong?

No you word it nicely and correctly, they kind of prove it themselves by your info given in your next quote below

See, in seminary, a lot of aspirants are taught strategies of how to preach to non-christians. How to address Buddhists, Hindu's, and the so called "pagans" was the old tradition and recently the teachings of how to evangelise to Muslims

Christian evangelists have always been nice, good people

I agree that they start off always very friendly and nice. But easily they violate RF Rule #8 quite soon, and when I give them that as feedback a lot of the friendliness goes quickly

Of course on the internet, in England and the United States there are truly nasty evangelists I have come across from both Muslim and Christian schools. Even Atheists. My God. These people are truly nasty. Of course not all, a few but they make a big noise.

With this I have no experience. If you could give me one link of the "nastiest" you have seen, I would appreciate that

This is the reason I personally don't adhere to generalisation. As in calling it "evangelism". I would prefer to take then individually and break them apart as in to understand them and speak specifically. I would prefer to understand "evangelists" and condemn where appropriate, but not the concept as a whole unless I have very solid reasons and a wider number driven study

Very good, and thanks a lot for pointing that out

 

[firedragon]

Thanks, that's useful. I never heard of this, but it feels much less hostile then the usual Christian "convert" type of evangelism. It feels even positive to me

Sai Baba told us "it's good to share your experiences with other Sai devotees...let each share his experience, others listen and take what they feel is good for them

Indeed there are different ways to evangelize, and as you said in the last quote, it's good to differentiate

Yes brother. I don't care about Islamic evangelism. I am only stating the history and traditions of the traditional. In modern days how ever Muslims have learned to evangelise to non-muslims. Ironically this too started in India, but originally it was in the form of debates between Indian Christians and Indian Muslims. There are records of debates spanning almost 1400 years between Muslims and Atheists. Even way back in Iraq. But none of them were part of the "being". Or there were no schools teaching how to evangelise to non-muslims. Etc.

Nice to know...I never came across a Muslim trying to convert me... even not in the Mosque I have been visiting. Indeed, they don't have this "try to convert him to Islam" mindset

This is not traditional. But there is a new movement of preachers who do this. I don't know if they come up as Imposing. Maybe they do.

I agree that they start off always very friendly and nice. But easily they violate RF Rule #8 quite soon, and when I give them that as feedback a lot of the friendliness goes quickly

I don't judge any group or worldview by RF standards. I mean, people who go to watch a football match are football fans of some nature otherwise they won't go there. That doesn't mean the people outside in the wide world are football fans if I judge by those at the match.

With this I have no experience. If you could give me one link of the "nastiest" you have seen, I would appreciate that

Aaah. I hate giving links. Maybe you can take some Christian anti-islamic polemicists like this so called "Christian Prince" who asked a Muslim girl if he gives her b....bs to a grown man to s..ck. My GOd. Im so sorry to write that but I must depict how nasty he was. The guy is an arab. By his arabic he is egyptian. His scholarship does not exist. He lies through his teeth, and is very tactful. Then you get someone like Robert Spencer, pamela gellar who are very famous. You should take a visit to the Hyde Park in England to see what nasty means. But sorry brother. I will not give links to some rant online.

Very good, and thanks a lot for pointing that out

The honour is mine.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Nice to know...I never came across a Muslim trying to convert me... even not in the Mosque I have been visiting. Indeed, they don't have this "try to convert him to Islam" mindset

Well, in that case, you have not heard of 'Dawat-e-Islami' headed by Maulana Ilyas Qadri with head quarters in Karachi, Paksitan, which combines social work, evangelism and terrorism. It is linked to Tehreek-e-Labbaik, Pakistan.
They have associate organizations in India.
PFI (Popular Front of India) has links with the Pakistani organizations and been found involved with all disruptive and terrorist activities in India.
Udaipur beheading shows rising influence of Pak-based radical sects
Popular Front of India - Wikipedia
Dawat-e-Islami - Wikipedia, Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan - Wikipedia

Names of institutions are not important. They keep on changing as the situation demands. Sometimes it is this, other times it is that. When the US Sate Department designated Lashkar-e-Taiyyaba as a terrorist organization along with Pakistan, India, UK. EU and UNSC (for 2008 Mumbai attacks in India which killed 172 people of various nationalities, mostly Hindu and Muslim Indians, including six American citizens), they came up as Jama'at-ud-Dawa.
"A similar assurance was given by Pakistan in 2002 when it clamped down on the LeT; however, the LeT was covertly allowed to function under the guise of the JuD. While arrests have been made, the Pakistani government has categorically refused to allow any foreign investigators access to Hafiz Muhammad Saeed."
Lashkar-e-Taiba - Wikipedia
"The State Department also maintained LeT's designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation and added the following aliases to its listing of LeT: Jama’at-ud-Dawa, Al-Anfal Trust, Tehrik-i-Hurmat-i-Rasool, and Tehrik-i-Tahafuz Qibla Awwal."
Hafiz Saeed - Wikipedia

The last we heard of Pakistan terror chiefs is this:
Pak Army shifts Hafiz Saeed, Syed Salahuddin fearing India's covert op - Oneindia
So, they are not in jail but under the protection of the Pakistan Army in some cozy place, just like Osama bin Laden in his times.

 

[stvdv]

The problem with having one all-powerful, controlling creator God is the problem of evil and suffering. Per Hume’s argument "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then from whence comes evil?

However, I see 1 huge flaw in this reasoning, which makes it totally invalid

 

[stvdv]

Aaah. I hate giving links.

I expected that, hence I asked just 1

I don't judge any group or worldview by RF standards

This is about common human decency more or less (I called it RF Rule #8 to not need to write it all out in words)

Maybe you can take some Christian anti-islamic polemicists like this so called "Christian Prince" who asked a Muslim girl if he gives her b....bs to a grown man to s..ck. My GOd. Im so sorry to write that but I must depict how nasty he was

Okay thank you, a link might indeed have been too much of a sudden shock in the early morning if it's this type of stuff

Then you get someone like Robert Spencer, pamela gellar who are very famous. You should take a visit to the Hyde Park in England to see what nasty means.

Thank you, that's clear and easy to find

But sorry brother. I will not give links to some rant online.

Another good practise.

I usually avoid that category anyway, but as you mentioned it, I thought "let me check it to see what he means". But reading your description, even with the dots, I got already a pretty good idea, that it's not my kind of video.

But now I will check it, because only by personal experience I know for sure

 

[stvdv]

I will try to come up with a dictionary defintion.
Evangelize: to preach the gospel to

What does, in turn preach mean. (Notice how this is limited to Christians. In my view this too culture specific.)

Preach: to urge acceptance or abandonment of an idea or course of action
specifically : to exhort in an officious or tiresome manner

A little different, but we're not supposed to that either.

Thank you so much. This indeed is quite to the point. And nice to have it with official dictionary definitions

So, there is no doubt about what evangelizing actually is, and in what way it is done. And that by definition it crosses the line of common decency and respect, just what I have felt since age 10 (and indeed, it does specify evangelism as Christian practice)

 

[firedragon]

I expected that, hence I asked just 1


This is about common human decency more or less (I called it RF Rule #8 to not need to write it all out in words)


Okay thank you, a link might indeed have been too much of a sudden shock in the early morning if it's this type of stuff


Thank you, that's clear and easy to find


Another good practise.

I usually avoid that category anyway, but as you mentioned it, I thought "let me check it to see what he means". But reading your description, even with the dots, I got already a pretty good idea, that it's not my kind of video.

But now I will check it, because only by personal experience I know for sure

Respect.

 

[LuisDantas]

So, how is that relevant?

It is self-evident. Presenting the anomaly as if it were a representative sample will only lead to mistakes.

 

[firedragon]

It is self-evident. Presenting the anomaly as if it were a representative sample will only lead to mistakes.

It's not relevant to me, or the question I asked the OP.

 

[stvdv]

I've certainly had several deities appear for me. Not least of all Odin/Wodan. I've also seen the Morrigan. Freya, Thor, Freyr and Loki have all had their appearances as well.

That's the advantage if you believe in many Gods...you do not need television anymore...I ditched mine decades ago...this is much more fun to watch

 

[LuisDantas]

It's not relevant to me, or the question I asked the OP.

It is so very revealing that you say such a thing!

 

[firedragon]

It is so very revealing that you say such a thing!

Thanks for some random comment, but none of this is relevant to me.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

You are trying to steer away this claim of someone else to someone elses burden. What's the gain in doing that? If you are a polytheist that's fine with me. If you are trying to answer a question asked from someone else, answer the question asked in relevance to his claim. Don't ask questions in order to create a strawman and respond to that.

Leaving that aside, you addresses YHWH twice. I don't care about it. It's irrelevant to my question to your friend you tried to answer for, and it's irrelevant to me. Now you say "God of Abraham"? And you ask "You dont worship"?

Rather than trying to create a new argument on a strawman, why don't you just make a new case you wish to make? This is dishonesty.

Yes. I do "believe in" the God of Abraham.

How is it a straw man? I was just saying that Yahweh or El, depending on which God you think is the God of Abraham, was part of a pantheon and monotheism proved to be just about consolidating political power. See Ankhenaten and Josiah.

 

[firedragon]

How is it a straw man? I was just saying that Yahweh or El, depending on which God you think is the God of Abraham, was part of a pantheon and monotheism proved to be just about consolidating political power. See Ankhenaten and Josiah.

Irrelevant.

 

[firedragon]

Well, in that case, you have not heard of 'Dawat-e-Islami' headed by Maulana Ilyas Qadri with head quarters in Karachi, Paksitan, which combines social work, evangelism and terrorism. It is linked to Tehreek-e-Labbaik, Pakistan.
They have associate organizations in India.
PFI (Popular Front of India) has links with the Pakistani organizations and been found involved with all disruptive and terrorist activities in India.
Udaipur beheading shows rising influence of Pak-based radical sects
Popular Front of India - Wikipedia
Dawat-e-Islami - Wikipedia, Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan - Wikipedia

Names of institutions are not important. They keep on changing as the situation demands. Sometimes it is this, other times it is that. When the US Sate Department designated Lashkar-e-Taiyyaba as a terrorist organization along with Pakistan, India, UK. EU and UNSC (for 2008 Mumbai attacks in India which killed 172 people of various nationalities, mostly Hindu and Muslim Indians, including six American citizens), they came up as Jama'at-ud-Dawa.
"A similar assurance was given by Pakistan in 2002 when it clamped down on the LeT; however, the LeT was covertly allowed to function under the guise of the JuD. While arrests have been made, the Pakistani government has categorically refused to allow any foreign investigators access to Hafiz Muhammad Saeed."
Lashkar-e-Taiba - Wikipedia
"The State Department also maintained LeT's designation as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation and added the following aliases to its listing of LeT: Jama’at-ud-Dawa, Al-Anfal Trust, Tehrik-i-Hurmat-i-Rasool, and Tehrik-i-Tahafuz Qibla Awwal."
Hafiz Saeed - Wikipedia

The last we heard of Pakistan terror chiefs is this:
Pak Army shifts Hafiz Saeed, Syed Salahuddin fearing India's covert op - Oneindia
So, they are not in jail but under the protection of the Pakistan Army in some cozy place, just like Osama bin Laden in his times.

I know that you have some kind of need to speak about terrorism and associate it with Islam to survive in this world. This is your sustenance. But its mostly irrelevant to what we were talking about. What you have done is a quick googling because you have not read up properly but you need some tools, correct or not, irrelevant or not, to attack and demonise muslims. It's some disease.

I think you are a hate preacher. So if I say all hindu's are hate preachers, or just bring that up in some irrelevant thread where people are discussing something "Aup is a hate preacher" which is absolutely irrelevant, is absolutely irrelevant.