11
   

True Religion

 
 
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Sun 16 Jan, 2022 06:22 am
@Leadfoot,
I need to amend that somewhat.

We are all ‘selling' our POV every time we speak or write.
You were honest about your POV and I respect that more than you know.

My POV isn’t exactly selling like hot cakes. That is not a complaint.
The truth has always been a hard sell.
Albuquerque
 
  2  
Sun 16 Jan, 2022 08:54 am
@Leadfoot,
Pragmatists sell well, as they represent at the very least hope of grasping an inch of Reality somewhere in a distant future of the species..."what works" is good enough for now...meanwhile based on what works they sell an hypothetical Heaven coming far away...salvation of misery through Science.

On the other side of the fence Idealists sell hope in bulk altogether in an alternative Reality that springs from instinct love and devotion to phenomenalism in direct relation...

Philosophers which are neither, respond to hope with questions, and then they question their own questions and the very methodology of those questions...in sum nobody ever liked them! Still they persist by cheer need of them in small numbers...
Child of Monica
 
  -2  
Sun 16 Jan, 2022 09:53 am
@HabibUrrehman,
As Long as Islam kills people for trying to follow God, you are wrong

“My observation is yes, Christianity is different from Islam…The worst thing that a Christian has ever said to me, the rudest thing that a Christian has ever said to me, the thing that made me most uncomfortable that a Christian said to me was ‘I’m going to pray for you. I hope you will be safe. I hope you will be redeemed.’ But within my own family and my own community, when I say I’m in doubt about the Koran and Muhammad and life after death and all that, it is ‘well, you are to die.’ So I just want to point out the differences between the religions…What makes me angry is the moral equivalence.”
jespah
 
  1  
Sun 16 Jan, 2022 09:57 am
@Child of Monica,
So, this gal is your mom?
https://media1.giphy.com/media/kEKXtLMApfVXsqG1RV/200.webp?cid=ecf05e47sewshp5y0gob6lwhfdakr474z3tro0wjvkyjnckz&rid=200.webp&ct=g
0 Replies
 
bulmabriefs144
 
  -3  
Sun 16 Jan, 2022 06:18 pm
@Child of Monica,
I think my biggest issue with this thread, is that it has the gall to call it "True Religion."

Judaism is true. Christianity is true. Buddhism is true. Why?

Because they speak of reality in real terms. Buddhism was a man's struggle to free people from the cycle of human suffering. Judaism and Christianity is the story of generations of people and their personal relationship with God.

Islam, however, is not true.

If we accept Muhammad as a historical figure, it is no more true than Mormonism and his mountaintop experience with the angel Moroni. In fact, if you're gonna start a religion, it seems like the patented approach is to tell people that you saw a deity, and he told you to do this or that. It's also the surest sign of a fraud. "Yesterday, I saw the Goblin King Mu'sha'staroth and he told me to tell you that you need to give me a deed to all your land and all your money. Then you must kill yourself."

Secondly, that's even if the assumption that this was the angel Gabriel. Muhammad tried to kill himself because he decided that this angel was a demon. But don't take my word for it. Take his word for it.
https://kjvbiblebeliever.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/muhammads-demon-he-originally-thought-he-was-possessed/
But it gets more interesting. Some historians don't believe Muhammad was real. This isn't like the historical denial of Jesus where "no serious historian doubts the existence of Jesus" where yes, they may indeed disbelieve that Jesus did miracles, but there is a Jesus-shaped piece in history, including two unsympathetic records of him, and quite few others.
This is virtually 300 years of no mention of the guy. He first shows up mentioned on coins, once the Muslims got their folk hero right. Btw, Mecca?

It didn't exist until 741 AD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mecca
Quote:
The early history of Mecca is still largely disputed, as there are no unambiguous references to it in ancient literature prior to the rise of Islam. The first unambiguous reference to Mecca in external literature occurs in 741 CE, in the Byzantine-Arab Chronicle, though here the author places the region in Mesopotamia rather than the Hejaz.

Although there is general consensus in modern scholarship that Macoraba mentioned by Ptolemy in the 2nd century CE is indeed Mecca, some scholars have questioned this conclusion.

The Greek historian Diodorus Siculus writes about Arabia in the 1st century BCE in his work Bibliotheca historica, describing a holy shrine: "And a temple has been set up there, which is very holy and exceedingly revered by all Arabians". Claims have been made this could be a reference to the Ka'bah in Mecca. However, the geographic location Diodorus describes is located in northwest Arabia, around the area of Leuke Kome, within the former Nabataean Kingdom and the Roman province of Arabia Petraea.

The temple at Petra, not Mecca. And it's pre-Muslim. 741 AD is the first real reference to Mecca.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LY04Me417bY

As for Muhammad, even a Muslim scholar ultimately concluded the guy never existed.
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2021/07/islamic-theologian-concludes-muhammad-probably-never-existed
There's Christian fundies saying this too, but we expect bias from them, right? So let's move on.
Richard Carrier, who claims Jesus wasn't real despite historical evidence, and has to answer for every atheistic yahoo that decides to present a half-baked case that there is no evidence for Jesus (even though that is the one claim you cannot make, in favor of instead disputing whether or not he was the Messiah and the Son of God)... as anti-Christian as he is, even he cannot side with Muslims on the historicity of Muhammad. Why not? Well, let's read.
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/8574
Quote:
Experts (at least non-fundamentalists) do agree that:
The Quran can’t be used non-circularly to challenge such a hypothesis. (Nor, conversely, can a recent manuscript find prove such a hypothesis, since even that was written on parchment dated to precisely when the Quran claims to have been written, not before, and its stylistic features strongly suggest the current ink was not even placed on that parchment until many decades later.)
The Hadith contains much that is fabricated (so in fact Muslims were inventing Muhammad tradition, in abundance). Discussion and bibliography on that point can be found in Robert M. Price, “The Abhorrent Void: The Rapid Attribution of Fictive Sayings and Stories to a Mythic Jesus,” Sources of the Jesus Tradition (ed. R. Joseph Hoffmann).
No literature about Muhammad, that adds information not in the Quran, appears to have been written (or if written, none survives) until a century or more after his purported death, a situation in fact worse than for Jesus.
Mentions of Muhammad, and minor details about him, do exist within decades of his death, even from non-Muslim sources, but they all appear to be repeating what is said or implied in the Quran, or by Muslims using the Quran as a source. There are no eyewitness sources, nor any contemporary sources.
There is no archaeological corroboration (coins, inscriptions, or attesting manuscripts, of documents or literature, dating to within his life or very near it, other than the Quran). The earliest coins mentioning Muhammad start in 685 A.D., and the earliest inscriptions mentioning Mohammad start in 691 A.D. (dates that are fifty to sixty years after his purported death), but both reference him only in a creedal declaration (known as the Shahada), the existence of which is already entailed by any minimal non-historicity thesis. Similarly all subsequent inscriptions (e.g. on the Dome of the Rock, inscribed a year later; in fact, that just quotes the Shahada and the Quran).

Read that one part again. They were claiming Muhammad exists... because the Quran says he does.
He then discusses Robert Spencer, one of the biggest proponents of this theory, along with others (including Muhammad Sven Kalisch). Ultimately, he decides to not assert an opinion (like I say, he hates Christianity a bit more) claiming the issue needs qualified experts to make a case one way or another, but he does assert that it could be a thing and shows why.

I don't even like Richard Carrier. I think he is more or less among the more intellectually dishonest writers. But just is having opponents of Christianity speak of Jesus's existence, having people who should be into Islam (or at least against Christianity enough to support its rivals) speak in favor of this theory lends some credence to its plausibility.

Islam is NOT a true religion. Islam is a false religion. In fact, the Bible directly prophesizes it. Gal 1:8
Quote:
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Sun 16 Jan, 2022 09:08 pm
@Leadfoot,
No, you didn't. You engaged in ad hominem against me.

For shame.
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Sun 16 Jan, 2022 09:09 pm
@izzythepush,
I just read about these two somewhere. Aren't they having/had a nasty parting of the ways.
bulmabriefs144
 
  -2  
Mon 17 Jan, 2022 01:06 am
@bobsal u1553115,
Like that totally never happens in reverse.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Mon 17 Jan, 2022 03:39 am
@bobsal u1553115,
I don't know.
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Mon 17 Jan, 2022 08:29 am
@bulmabriefs144,
Not so true as you think. I believe you mzy have missed out on the 'turn the other cheek" lesson Sunday.

Even if it is true, where was the provocation that time?
izzythepush
 
  2  
Mon 17 Jan, 2022 08:33 am
@bobsal u1553115,
I don't pay any attention to them, if they want to wipe their arse on the Bible and talk **** they can do it without my input.

They take up so much space with their tedious verbosity as well.
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Mon 17 Jan, 2022 08:38 am
@izzythepush,
Bulma seems about as much an argumentative hypocrite as anything else. Linkat at least has moments.
izzythepush
 
  3  
Mon 17 Jan, 2022 08:44 am
@bobsal u1553115,
I think you mean Leadfoot, I don't think Linkat has posted on this thread.
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Mon 17 Jan, 2022 09:07 am
@izzythepush,
age related memory issues are no fun except in third person observation.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  3  
Mon 17 Jan, 2022 10:23 am
True Religion.

Sorta like Military Intelligence or Civil War.

Oxymorons.
0 Replies
 
bulmabriefs144
 
  -2  
Mon 17 Jan, 2022 10:37 am
@bobsal u1553115,
Not at all.

But if you'd bother to ask me, I identify as Christian only when it is convenient for me. Like other humans, I have hypocrisy. This is not a reflection on Christianity, but on me.

If we claim that a religion is based on the actions of a few, then jihadists ruin the entire religion of Islam. However, if we claim #NotAllMuslims or #NoTrueScotsman, then we must extend the same standard for Christians who burn abortion clinics. If not, if you say that one standard is the condemnation of all Christianity, yet give Muslims a free pass, then you are clearly guilty of far worse hypocrisy than I am.

There is only one other way to examine merits of a religion. What does its book say?
1. The Bible says "turn the other cheek." Some Christians fail to do that. They are worse than their Bible.
2. The Quran says this, so any Muslims that don't do it are better than their Quran.
Quote:
When you meet the disbelievers in battle, strike them in the neck, and once they are defeated, bind any captives firmly--later you can release them by grace or by ransom--until the toils of war have ended (Quran 47:4)

That must be a mistake, let's check other passages!
Quote:
Strike them upon their necks and strike all their fingers. (Quran 8:12)


Apparently not?

When will you stop making excuses for this "religion"?
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  -1  
Mon 17 Jan, 2022 10:38 am
@bobsal u1553115,
Quote:
No, you didn't. You engaged in ad hominem against me.

For shame.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Enlighten me.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Mon 17 Jan, 2022 11:07 am
@Albuquerque,
Quote:
Philosophers which are neither, respond to hope with questions, and then they question their own questions and the very methodology of those questions...in sum nobody ever liked them! Still they persist by cheer need of them in small numbers...

All true, man can not escape the obvious by embracing the idea that ‘Science' has filled that unspoken, ignored and censored emptiness. So lip service is given to philosophy even if limited to the unread books on the shelf or coffee table.

0 Replies
 
bulmabriefs144
 
  -2  
Tue 18 Jan, 2022 07:41 am
@Leadfoot,
So your comment about falling in love, this is what the church says.

http://lastingministry.com/covenant-relationship-with-god-and-your-spouse/

Basically, we are called to have a relationship wirh God. And we can be married or single (neither one being better), but when we are married, we show closeness with God through closeness with our partner.

That is, our relationship with God is reflected by how we treat others, and particularly how we love others.

I do thonk Hollywood has screwed up the definition of love however, to mean sex. Sorta, I fell in love with Angela but now I love Becca and am willing to break up both my marriage and my mistress to pursue Caitlin, because she is my true true love. And I wouldn't decide tomorrow that Dana or Esther is really the one for me.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Tue 18 Jan, 2022 12:20 pm
@bulmabriefs144,
Quote:
Basically, we are called to have a relationship wirh God. And we can be married or single (neither one being better)

Basically, That’s what I’ve said in previous posts. (Except for your parenthetical aside)

The opening line from your link states:
“Closeness with God is closeness with your spouse..”

That is not literally true.

Paul's thinking was that if you wanted to follow Christ, it would be better if you remained as he (single).

I wish I had seen and understood what he said much earlier. In my mind, living alone was unthinkable, and 'religion' largely agreed with this (as your link agrees) so it was my assumption that every man was to have a wife in order to ‘show closeness with God through our closeness with our partner', as you said. I didn’t think there WAS another way.

THAT is wrong. There are people who are better off staying unmarried. I happen to be one of them but was a bit slow realizing that was an option.
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » True Religion
  3. » Page 19
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/05/2022 at 01:57:55