True Religion

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

For, the wages of religion is judgement.

Hey, you got voted down.....I thought these zealots were nuts about judging others. However you forgot to mention "smite, the wages of sin, patent leather shoes, impure thoughts (leads to blindness), peeling a banana in public, road to hell" all the things good god fearing people should mention if they expect to get righteous cred for being more pure than thou.

You were off to a good start, you just underestimated how anal some of the pissy pants 'my faith is more pure than yours, you losers' scolds see things in their pursuit of displaying their glorious superiority.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
'Honesty' is a true orientation.
"True Orientation" is a problematic phrase. It leaves you going 'what exactly does a true orientation mean'?

It is basically the same thing as honesty. True aim is when you aim to hit the target. False aim is when you don't aim to hit the target. You can have true aim and still miss; just as you can have false aim and accidentally hit the target; but having a true orientation means that you have the intent to do right, not wrong.

Quote:

Honesty can be applied in two directions - inwards (self honesty) and outwards (honesty to others). So, taking the two directions into account, honesty is an genuine intention to:
- Understand the truth, so that you do not deceive yourself
- Tell the truth, in a way that doesn't deceive/mislead the other

Honesty means more than telling the truth. It also means being an honest person in terms of not stealing, behaving maliciously, etc.

Honesty doesn't always mean telling the truth to others. Think about people hiding Jews from the Nazis during the holocaust. They were caught between a rock and a hard place as far as telling the truth was concerned. If you give true information to people who are going to use it for dishonest purposes, you are supporting dishonesty by giving them true information.

If you think about it, this is exactly the reason protestants fought against Catholicism on the issue of confession. Confession and repentance to God redeems sinners, but if you are confessing sins to a dishonest person taking your confessions, then they could use that information to exploit you. Fortunately, God takes confessions/repentance directly in prayer.

Quote:

Avoidance then, is dishonest (to yourself, and if put in public, to others). So is misrepresentation (to others). So is purposefully taking things out of context (to yourself, and if put in public, to others). So is exaggeration (to both). Etc.

You should avoid things when you deem it best to do so. Cooperating socially is not something that should be done in submission to the world but in submission to God through your own conscience. In other words, if you can't cooperate wholeheartedly, e.g. because you don't trust some person or authority, then you have to avoid doing so. Otherwise you could be cooperating with evil, crime, and/or other malice.

Quote:

Of course, none of that means an honest person can't unwittingly get their facts wrong.

Humans aren't perfect. Honesty means you do your best.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

Honesty means more than telling the truth. It also means being an honest person in terms of not stealing, behaving maliciously, etc.

Not Stealing? We both agree....and a physical behaviour. And given we have almost exclusively been discussing intellectual honesty, why then do we need to discuss all physical aspects of honesty?

Quote:

Honesty doesn't always mean telling the truth to others.

Honesty always means telling the truth to others. You can tell them you won't answer, which is also honest.

Quote:

Think about people hiding Jews from the Nazis during the holocaust. They were caught between a rock and a hard place as far as telling the truth was concerned. If you give true information to people who are going to use it for dishonest purposes, you are supporting dishonesty by giving them true information.

Your example is to try and say there is 'an honest lie'? Seriously? Your example is really a question of 'did they have to be honest?', but is not an example of honesty'. Telling the nazis "I am not a Jew" when you are, is a lie/is not honest, but it also necessary, for preservation of life (an extreme). This is what honesty is about - also admitting (even if just to yourself in the case of the nazis) when you are not being honest, but believe it necessary.

Quote:

You should avoid things when you deem it best to do so

Same as above - your example isn't an example of honesty, it is an example of, arguably (in your view), necessary dishonesty.

If these are the things you are telling yourself in relation to honesty, then it is no wonder you are so unfamiliar with honesty.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

Let me put it another way: when there is absolutely no deceit (of yourself, or others), what is left, is (cognitive) honesty.

The lack of deceit then, is the test for honesty. And it is in the lack of deceit (of either yourself or others), that you start identifying intellectual behaviours associated with honesty. So:

- when you avoid ideas, the question is, can you arrive at a not fully informed conclusion because of your avoidance (and of course you can)...then claiming you must be correct is deceiving yourself

- When you exaggerate, the question is, can you claim accuracy (which is a component of truth)...and of course you can't. Claiming accuracy would be deceiving yourself at that point. Exaggerated comparison lends itself to arriving inaccurate conclusions (based on associating an exaggeration with the issue), and claiming 'certain truth' in such cases, is deceiving yourself. And just as pertinent is why one felt the need to exaggerate in the first place

- etc.

There are of course, degrees of deceit. But it is better to identify the problem behaviours, then not engage in them at all.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
Honesty means more than telling the truth. It also means being an honest person in terms of not stealing, behaving maliciously, etc.
Not Stealing? We both agree....and a physical behaviour. And given we have almost exclusively been discussing intellectual honesty, why then do we need to discuss all physical aspects of honesty?

You have to understand honesty at a general level to apply it to the task of ascertaining what is intellectually honest and what is intellectually dishonest.

You talk like a lawyer who uses technicalities and loopholes to manipulate definitions and rules to his advantage. That in itself is a form of dishonesty. The truth is that rules and definitions can be manipulated and when you assert that your manipulation of them must be true, that in itself is dishonest. You've effectively lied by manipulating the truth.

Quote:

Honesty doesn't always mean telling the truth to others.

Honesty always means telling the truth to others. You can tell them you won't answer, which is also honest.[/quote]
You ignored what I said about telling Nazis where the Jews are hiding as an example of when you'd be supporting dishonesty by telling the truth to the wrong people. It is also the case with confession to the wrong person, who will use the information against you for dishonest purposes. There is a reason protestantism emerged with confession directly to God and it's not because of dishonest intent.

Quote:

Think about people hiding Jews from the Nazis during the holocaust. They were caught between a rock and a hard place as far as telling the truth was concerned. If you give true information to people who are going to use it for dishonest purposes, you are supporting dishonesty by giving them true information.

Your example is to try and say there is 'an honest lie'?[/quote]
Not that there's an honest lie, but sometimes that telling the truth is still a form of dishonesty, i.e. depending on what happens with the information once you give it to the wrong people. It's a sin we are all guilty of, because we never really know what will happen to information once we share it.

Quote:

Seriously? Your example is really a question of 'did they have to be honest?', but is not an example of honesty'. Telling the nazis "I am not a Jew" when you are, is a lie/is not honest, but it also necessary, for preservation of life (an extreme). This is what honesty is about - also admitting (even if just to yourself in the case of the nazis) when you are not being honest, but believe it necessary.

That's true. We sometimes sin despite our better judgment and we can only repent and pray for God's mercy/forgiveness.

Quote:

You should avoid things when you deem it best to do so

Same as above - your example isn't an example of honesty, it is an example of, arguably (in your view), necessary dishonesty.[/quote]
Again, the point is that you wouldn't be any more honest by giving true information to someone who would use it against you and/or others. You are an example of such a person. You demand honesty as a means of gaining power over others, so it would be wrong/dishonest to cooperate with your interrogation/rape like questioning.

Quote:

If these are the things you are telling yourself in relation to honesty, then it is no wonder you are so unfamiliar with honesty.

I'm familiar enough to recognize dishonesty in you.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

You have to understand honesty at a general level to apply it to the task of ascertaining what is intellectually honest and what is intellectually dishonest.

Ah, what I see you saying is 'I can't find anything wrong with what you said regarding intellectual dishonesty, so I'll once again disagree, but as I can't find anything wrong, I'll attempt to divert, and engage in avoidance, yet again."

So you do this with the below continuation (of your above quote) which disagrees while using the vaguest possible allegations - ie. saying nothing concrete against my points at all.

Please, explain without vagueness was wrong with the foundational statements I made regarding what is intellectual honesty.

Quote:

You talk like a lawyer who uses technicalities and loopholes to manipulate definitions and rules to his advantage. That in itself is a form of dishonesty. The truth is that rules and definitions can be manipulated and when you assert that your manipulation of them must be true, that in itself is dishonest. You've effectively lied by manipulating the truth.

What I said was very, very plain. The foundational statements can be used as a test in any circumstance. There's a reason they can be applied to any circumstance. Because they are a solid foundation for what constitutes honesty.

Quote:

You ignored what I said about telling Nazis where the Jews are hiding as an example of when you'd be supporting dishonesty by telling the truth to the wrong people.

No, I pointed out your example didn't relate to 'what is honest' - it related to whether or not honesty was appropriate in the circumstance. Though perhaps you wanted something further. If so, what you were seeking is unclear. If you clear that up, I am happy to reply.

Quote:

Not that there's an honest lie, but sometimes that telling the truth is still a form of dishonesty

You're not getting that there is a difference between truth and honesty are you? You can deceive while telling the truth, but you can't deceive while being honest (As you are so unfamiliar with honesty -to be clear - this is as opposed to unintentionally misleading someone)

It is quite clear by now why we have loggerhead conversations. Each time you argue your view, you strengthen the evidence showing just how unfamiliar you are with what honesty entails.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
You have to understand honesty at a general level to apply it to the task of ascertaining what is intellectually honest and what is intellectually dishonest.
Ah, what I see you saying is 'I can't find anything wrong with what you said regarding intellectual dishonesty, so I'll once again disagree, but as I can't find anything wrong, I'll attempt to divert, and engage in avoidance, yet again."

I've told you many times you don't correctly apply intellectual concepts, such as 'consistency' and 'hypocricy.' Consistency is dishonest if you are using the concept to compare things that don't equate, like homosexuality and heterosexuality. Creating false parallels is intellectually dishonest, is it not?

Quote:

You talk like a lawyer who uses technicalities and loopholes to manipulate definitions and rules to his advantage. That in itself is a form of dishonesty. The truth is that rules and definitions can be manipulated and when you assert that your manipulation of them must be true, that in itself is dishonest. You've effectively lied by manipulating the truth.

What I said was very, very plain. The foundational statements can be used as a test in any circumstance. There's a reason they can be applied to any circumstance. Because they are a solid foundation for what constitutes honesty.[/quote]
You are implying there are things that are beyond misapplication, and that's not true.

The main thing that's wrong with your 'intellectual dishonesty' accusations is that they are focused on the liar instead of the lies. Truth happens at the level of information, not the level of the person telling the truth. You are putting the cart before the horse when you talk in terms of 'honesty' instead of 'truth.'

Quote:

You're not getting that there is a difference between truth and honesty are you? You can deceive while telling the truth, but you can't deceive while being honest (As you are so unfamiliar with honesty -to be clear - this is as opposed to unintentionally misleading someone)

It is the opposite. An honest person can make mistakes, because humans are inherently imperfect. The truth, however, is the truth; whether it's told by an honest person or a liar. The intent of a person can't alter the truth, though a person can have intent that is untrue.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

You have to understand honesty at a general level to apply it to the task of ascertaining what is intellectually honest and what is intellectually dishonest.

vikorr wrote:

Ah, what I see you saying is 'I can't find anything wrong with what you said regarding intellectual dishonesty, so I'll once again disagree, but as I can't find anything wrong, I'll attempt to divert, and engage in avoidance, yet again."

So you do this with the below continuation (of your above quote) which disagrees while using the vaguest possible allegations - ie. saying nothing concrete against my points at all.

Please, explain without vagueness was wrong with the foundational statements I made regarding what is intellectual honesty.

livinglava wrote:

I've told you many times you don't correctly apply intellectual concepts, such as 'consistency' and 'hypocricy.' Consistency is dishonest if you are using the concept to compare things that don't equate, like homosexuality and heterosexuality. Creating false parallels is intellectually dishonest, is it not?

So once again, you avoid answering the question. For I made no comparison in those standalone statements as to what honesty is.

Answer the question - you complain that my interpretation of honesty is wrong, but only provided vague answers that avoid actually pointing anything out.

What do you find wrong with:

Honesty can be applied in two directions - inwards (self honesty) and outwards (honesty to others). So, taking the two directions into account, honesty is an genuine intention to:
- Understand the truth, so that you do not deceive yourself
- Tell the truth, in a way that doesn't deceive/mislead the other

Let me put it another way: when there is absolutely no deceit (of yourself, or others), what is left, is (cognitive) honesty.

Quote:

Creating false parallels is intellectually dishonest, is it not?

I've made that point myself, like you comparing me pointing out your avoidance's etc to being raped. So you agree with me about false parallels but hypocritically engage in them.

As for you follow on claim - as I've corrected you on this many times. I stated that as both sexual drives were created by God, but God said 'one of them is okay to follow in certain circumstances, the other is not under any circumstance', and that this is inconsistent.

Quote:

The main thing that's wrong with your 'intellectual dishonesty' accusations is that they are focused on the liar instead of the lies. Truth happens at the level of information, not the level of the person telling the truth. You are putting the cart before the horse when you talk in terms of 'honesty' instead of 'truth.'

Each one explains the behaviour and why the behaviour is dishonest. Given that, your perspective is self serving.

0 Replies

Quote:

Truth happens at the level of information, not the level of the person telling the truth.

By the way, there are two types of truth. Factual truth, and believed truth. Factual truth is unarguable. Believed truth is what a person believes to be true. In the second example, truth happens at the level of the person.

Quote:

You are putting the cart before the horse when you talk in terms of 'honesty' instead of 'truth.'

They are two different, but related things. A person saying something they believe to be true isn't lying. But they could be deceiving you, through what they leave out. A person being honest with you won't deceive you. This appears to be a concept you don't seem to want to comprehend. You complain that I accuse you of dishonesty when you engage in it, but you barely seem to comprehend what honesty entails.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
Truth happens at the level of information, not the level of the person telling the truth.
By the way, there are two types of truth. Factual truth, and believed truth. Factual truth is unarguable. Believed truth is what a person believes to be true. In the second example, truth happens at the level of the person.

That's not related to the quote you're responding to. My point was that you are focused on honesty, a quality of a person not information, in order to witch-hunt me or anyone else whose POV you dislike.

Truth happens at the level of information. I.e. a dishonest person can tell the truth and a truly honest person can make mistakes despite their honesty.

What you are doing is attacking me with the suggestion that things I say could be true or not depending on how honest or dishonest I am as a person, but in reality I could be the most dishonest person alive and still tell the truth if what I say is true.

True information is true independent of how honest or dishonest the person speaking it may or may not be.

Quote:

Quote:
You are putting the cart before the horse when you talk in terms of 'honesty' instead of 'truth.'
They are two different, but related things. A person saying something they believe to be true isn't lying. But they could be deceiving you, through what they leave out. A person being honest with you won't deceive you. This appears to be a concept you don't seem to want to comprehend. You complain that I accuse you of dishonesty when you engage in it, but you barely seem to comprehend what honesty entails.

It's a distraction to focus on a person's honesty or dishonesty as a person instead of discussing whether information is true or not and why.

2 Replies

@livinglava,

I note, once again, that despite your complaints, you refuse to attempt to point out anything wrong with my definition of honesty.

Quote:

That's not related to the quote you're responding to. My point was that you are focused on honesty, a quality of a person not information, in order to witch-hunt me or anyone else whose POV you dislike.

"Witch-hunt you" is another self-serving perspective of yours.

Apparently there is something wrong with asking for honesty...

...and yes, honesty relates to behaviour. It also relates to truth, in that to arrive at the most accurate truth possible, you must engage in behaviours of intellectual honesty. If you don't engage in behaviours of intellectual honesty, you reduce your chances of arriving at the most accurate truth possible. And if you don't engage in intellectual honesty, you certainly can't honestly claim to know the truth.

As for the difference between honesty and truth - even the original sin was based on the truth being told, but a deception being made: 4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

They didn't die...immediately (and there was also an infinitesimally small chance that God would have enacted a plan of salvation then and there). What the serpent said was true, but was also dishonest. He told Eve only half of the available truth, and so deceived her.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

It's a distraction to focus on a person's honesty or dishonesty as a person instead of discussing whether information is true or not and why.

Whether or not what is discussed is true or not, and why, is how our discussions have started out. Unfortunately, you kept sticking to your 'truth' while:
- avoiding discussing any information to the contrary
- refusing to answer questions
- accusing others of not answering questions, then when asked 'which one', refusing to state which one
- making faulty comparisons
- misrepresenting others views
- exaggerating
- frequently taking arguments out of context
- providing vague denials that don't say anything specific, then refusing to clarify/articulate what you find wrong, despite repeated requests
- being unable to reconcile inconsistencies while claiming deeper understanding, but refusing to articulate that deeper understanding
- etc

I am able to provide multiple quotes for each of those. In some categories, tens of quotes.

Given the frequency and breath of such intellectually dishonest behaviour, any discussion about whether or not the subject matter is true or not became impossible to rationally discuss...and it became necessary to then talk about the behaviours...which you continued to avoid...which lead to the necessity to talk about honesty.

However, given the extremes you've gone to in this thread, which reinforces your behaviour in previous threads, I don't hold any illusions that this conversation will have any effect on you. To me, it is incredible in the extreme - the views you hold in relation to honesty.There are groups of people in this world who do find change incredibly difficult, and perhaps you are one of those.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

I note, once again, that despite your complaints, you refuse to attempt to point out anything wrong with my definition of honesty.

Quote:
That's not related to the quote you're responding to. My point was that you are focused on honesty, a quality of a person not information, in order to witch-hunt me or anyone else whose POV you dislike.
"Witch-hunt you" is another self-serving perspective of yours.

Apparently there is something wrong with asking for honesty...

...and yes, honesty relates to behaviour. It also relates to truth, in that to arrive at the most accurate truth possible, you must engage in behaviours of intellectual honesty. If you don't engage in behaviours of intellectual honesty, you reduce your chances of arriving at the most accurate truth possible. And if you don't engage in intellectual honesty, you certainly can't honestly claim to know the truth.

The truth is true, regardless of whether you know it and/or claim to know it. What I keep trying to point out to you is that truth is beyond human control. You can be totally honest and still make mistakes and a liar can still know the truth. Honesty is a different thing. It's good to be honest, but honesty is a personal quality, not a quality of information/knowledge the way truth is.

Quote:

As for the difference between honesty and truth - even the original sin was based on the truth being told, but a deception being made: 4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

They didn't die...immediately (and there was also an infinitesimally small chance that God would have enacted a plan of salvation then and there). What the serpent said was true, but was also dishonest. He told Eve only half of the available truth, and so deceived her.

You're a satanist. The story of A&E is a lesson that requires you accept the serpent deceived A&E into eating the fruit, which was indeed poisonous, as per God's warning. If you reverse the story to make the warning a lie and the serpent's lie the truth, then the message of the story would be that God is satan and satan is God.

Quote:

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who turn darkness to light and light to darkness, who replace bitter with sweet and sweet with bitter.
Isaiah 5:20

You are sounding like Anakin in Revenge of the Sith:

Quote:

From my point of view, the Jedi are evil!

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

The story of A&E is a lesson that requires you accept the serpent deceived A&E into eating the fruit, which was indeed poisonous, as per God's warning. If you reverse the story to make the warning a lie and the serpent's lie the truth, then the message of the story would be that God is satan and satan is God.

You have previously made the point that in both truth and honesty, the end goal must be known in order to evaluate whether a 'truth' or an 'honesty' is true or not.

I think I’ve asked you before, but have you ever considered the possibility that God knew the necessity of man knowing both good and evil for his end goal to have a chance of success? And maybe he wanted even that to be our choice?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
The story of A&E is a lesson that requires you accept the serpent deceived A&E into eating the fruit, which was indeed poisonous, as per God's warning. If you reverse the story to make the warning a lie and the serpent's lie the truth, then the message of the story would be that God is satan and satan is God.

You have previously made the point that in both truth and honesty, the end goal must be known in order to evaluate whether a 'truth' or an 'honesty' is true or not.

I think you're misinterpreting something I said.

What I think you are referring to is a simple point I made, which is that a liar can know the truth (hence the possibility of intentional lying) and/or an honest person can make an honest mistake about what they think is true, which turns out not to be true.

I never said anything about evaluating whether a 'truth' or 'honesty' is true or not because what we ultimately think or believe to be true can turn out to be wrong.

We can and should do our best to try to discern what is true from what isn't, but who can claim to be infallible and have perfect access to truth? No one, so if we are honest we do our best and accept that ultimate truth is something beyond our control.

Quote:

I think I’ve asked you before, but have you ever considered the possibility that God knew the necessity of man knowing both good and evil for his end goal to have a chance of success? And maybe he wanted even that to be our choice?

I think you are over-personifying God here. God is simply higher/ultimate power and authority in the universe. We can personify Him in various ways for various reasons, but ultimately He is beyond personification, "knowledge of necessity," etc.

We have choice but not all choices are equal in terms of outcomes/consequences. So it doesn't make sense to say that God "wanted us to have choice." We have choice because it is built into creation, just as consequence for choice is built into the law of cause and effect. You can't make a choice without causing effects, and because this is a world of sin, there is always detriment going on in causes and effects, as well as benevolence/love/mercy/redemption/etc.

As for the necessity of 'knowing good and evil,' we are made in His image, yet we are imperfect; so it's inevitable that we know evil as well as good, because if all we knew was good, we would be perfect and thus not human.

We're not supposed to choose evil, but we can't always avoid it. That's why we require forgiveness and salvation/redemption/sanctification. That's why Christians preach the good news of Jesus.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

an honest person can make an honest mistake about what they think is true, which turns out not to be true.

And so it came to pass that the whole shebang about imaginary beings was put to rest (along with sundry other ludicrous contentions).

1 Reply

@knaivete,

knaivete wrote:

Quote:
an honest person can make an honest mistake about what they think is true, which turns out not to be true.

And so it came to pass that the whole shebang about imaginary beings was put to rest (along with sundry other ludicrous contentions).

If it were put to rest for you, you wouldn't be here posting this.

0 Replies

@HabibUrrehman,

This is Islamic propaganda.

Btw, Islam is patently unnatural. Humans naturally do things that Islam insists they cannot do.
1. Actually fall in love with a single person of the opposite sex. Muslim men view women as property, and the concept of love is alien to them.
2. Talk with and view the opposite sex as an equal partner. Muslim culture has extreme sexual separation, to the point where men and women don't even really occupy the same world.
3. Laugh, dance, and listen to music. In many Muslim countries music is seen as somehow immoral (despite it being part of the human experience)
4. There is no spiritual element to Islam. It is entirely materialistic, as evidenced by the rage over women not wearing hijab (it's a piece of cloth), the view of women as sex idols to be lusted after, and the beheading people for drawing a caricature of Muhammad or burning a Quran. Like this.

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-wE1oaDL3xC4/UTIInrJBHqI/AAAAAAAAW9o/kZEBtIH9ufw/s724/Terry+Jones+Burning+the+Quran.jpg

Islam correctly identifies most of the People of the Book, the actual religions of the world. But it doesn't put itself on the list. Muslims think that it's because the are the correct ones, and the others are just similar. But that's not the truth. Islam is not among the People of the Book because it is not a true religion.

It does not assert unity consciousness, it does not religere (reconnect or bind together) people, it has no spiritual values aside from extreme zealotry, and its closest approximation of a deity is one that is so aloof from humanity that he cannot be worshiped and so capricious that he is not worthy of our worship. And it does not recognize the real truth that this world is not reality, that the spiritual world is distinct. When a Bible is worn out, we simply burn it. It's just a book. It's the spiritual truth of the Bible that matters. Allah is not God. Because God explicitly never gives out his name.

Bible - Exodus 3:14

Quote:

God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'"

Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu - chapter 1

Quote:

The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal Name.

Anyone who calls himself anything, by definition, is a pretender. And the Quran even says as much. It calls Allah a deceiver, multiple times. You know who else is a deceiver? He goes by many names. Ahriman. Baal. Molech. But Christians know his name. Satan.

Qur’an 1:1 states that Allah is the god (lord) of this world. 2 Corinthians 4:4 that the god of this world is Satan. Qur’an 3:54 and 8:30 state that Allah is the best deceiver. Qur’an 35:8 says that Allah leads astray whom he wills and guides whom he wills. God does not confuse or lead people astray. People who worship God know who they are, and what they are about. Qur’an 38:85 and 11:119 both state that Allah desires to fill hell with people. Only Satan would want such a thing. God "desires all to be saved." (John 3:16 )

The People of the Book worship God. Islam has identified the People of the Book as targets to corrupt and tax, and to oppress. Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Hinduism, all of these are religion, all are designed to bring people together. Islam (and Bahai) are cults of Babylon, cults of the physical world. These are NOT true religion.

I would not call you out on this, but you had the gall to preach to us about how your religion was "true" and "natural". It's neither.

2 Replies

@bulmabriefs144,

The Quran tells of someone who was deeply versed in the Scriptures.
It was Asaph the son of Berechiah. He was a righteous man. He knew God's greatest name, and whenever he called on it, he was answered. But who is this Asaph the son of Berechiah who knew the greatest name of God? The Quran very often advises turning back to God's ancient books in order to obtain the answers. (See Yūnus [10]:94; Al-Naḥl [16]:43; Al-Anbiyā [21]:7.) These tell us that Asaph the son of Berechiah was the one who by inspiration wrote Psalm 83. Verse 18 of this psalm says: That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth. We thereby see that Jehovah is the greatest name.

1 Reply

@papag,

That people may know that you, whose name is "WHO I AM", you alone are the Most High over all the earth. We thereby see that "WHO I AM' is the greatest name.

'WHO I AM,' the only name by which we can be saved.

I am 'who I am' may I never lose sight
Of the fact that I am 'Who I Am' day and night
I'm not 'Who I Was' nor 'Who I will Be'
For "WHO I AM" is the name that my God gave to me.

So get behind me you charlatans, you priests and you shams
For I am true to my God, to my God, "WHO I AM."

If you are going to use the name JHWH while conversing in English, then please use the English translation of the name JHWH.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know