Notices
Results 1 to 41 of 41

Thread: what if

  1. #1 what if 
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,377
    bear with me guys, this is a hypothetical question and not meant to provoke or troll and may be a bit all over the place

    As you know im a happy athiest but this is something ive always wondered about in religious people

    What if there is a god and all the scriptures are man made?, what if gods desire was for us to drink, take drugs, sleep around and purely make the most of our lives and expand our minds and experiences?, what if his/her expectations are exactly the same as those of the animals and our lives(well the lives of theists) are being wasted in his/her eyes?

    So basically, would a god(if he existed) be annoyed at people following a text that wasn't his work?

    hopefully you know what im trying to say

    While on the subject can someone explain how islam says that alcohol is a no-no, where as the christian religion encourages the drinking of "christs blood", now the question is who's right on this subject and many other discrepancies and if theres some errors then surely the whole text is potentially in doubt, so if one text/rules is right then the other must be incorrect(or at least on certain aspects), so someones following the wrong instructions surely?

    I believe in NO god and believe that all scripture is man made, but i'd be interested to see what opinions people had on the hypothetical question of a fake scripture but a true god

    god i babble on


    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  

    Related Discussions:

     

  3. #2 Re: what if 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman
    ...What if there is a god and all the scriptures are man made...
    Most present day religions already believe this, or the same with the addition of the human writing be "divinely inspired".
    how much of their respective laities have realized that is another question.

    For instance, you might want to ask an average Catholic priest, or mainline Rabbi or minister these questions, to see their responses.

    The only variants that i am aware of of are 2 in the Abrahamic Group.

    In the fundamentalist variants of Islam, it is kind of like Mohammad was almost taking divine dictation.

    In Fundamentalist Christianity, it ranges from god wrote it or said it (Jesus), to divine dictation to the human writer or god said it (Jesus).


    entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: what if 
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,377
    Quote Originally Posted by moynihan
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman
    ...What if there is a god and all the scriptures are man made...
    Most present day religions already believe this, or the same with the addition of the human writing be "divinely inspired".
    how much of their respective laities have realized that is another question.

    For instance, you might want to ask an average Catholic priest, or mainline Rabbi or minister these questions, to see their responses.

    The only variants that i am aware of of are 2 in the Abrahamic Group.

    In the fundamentalist variants of Islam, it is kind of like Mohammad was almost taking divine dictation.

    In Fundamentalist Christianity, it ranges from god wrote it or said it (Jesus), to divine dictation to the human writer or god said it (Jesus).
    i meant in respect to all scriptures being totally ficticious purely on the grounds of teaching morals, as opposed to from divine inspiration
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    i'd say that you can have to types of god : the distant one or the interfering one

    the distant god would not be bothered whether scriptures written by human beings really matched his preferences
    the interfering god would make damn sure that the writers of his scriptures did their job properly

    hence the scenario you propose seems to be logically inconsistent
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,377
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    i'd say that you can have to types of god : the distant one or the interfering one

    the distant god would not be bothered whether scriptures written by human beings really matched his preferences
    the interfering god would make damn sure that the writers of his scriptures did their job properly

    hence the scenario you propose seems to be logically inconsistent
    but im talking about a god, who's "true message" may have been lost beneath the man made ficticous scriptures that many subscribe to( if that was the case)

    As in his/her desires were for us to enjoy life to the full, wether that be roman orgies, drugs, pornography or alcohol and this free will is being suppressed by the controlling side of organised religion
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman
    who's "true message" may have been lost
    i repeat : an interfering god wouldn't let that happen, a distant one wouldn't care
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,377
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman
    who's "true message" may have been lost
    i repeat : an interfering god wouldn't let that happen, a distant one wouldn't care

    ah ok, i see what your saying

    So how would that work practically, the distant one doesn't care so religion and the scriptures are pointless, or if its a interfering god, why does he/she allow some rules for one, and then condem them to the others? An interfering god with double standard??
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: what if 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman
    bear with me guys, this is a hypothetical question and not meant to provoke or troll and may be a bit all over the place

    As you know im a happy athiest but this is something ive always wondered about in religious people

    What if there is a god and all the scriptures are man made?, what if gods desire was for us to drink, take drugs, sleep around and purely make the most of our lives and expand our minds and experiences?, what if his/her expectations are exactly the same as those of the animals and our lives(well the lives of theists) are being wasted in his/her eyes?

    So basically, would a god(if he existed) be annoyed at people following a text that wasn't his work?

    hopefully you know what im trying to say

    While on the subject can someone explain how islam says that alcohol is a no-no, where as the christian religion encourages the drinking of "christs blood", now the question is who's right on this subject and many other discrepancies and if theres some errors then surely the whole text is potentially in doubt, so if one text/rules is right then the other must be incorrect(or at least on certain aspects), so someones following the wrong instructions surely?

    I believe in NO god and believe that all scripture is man made, but i'd be interested to see what opinions people had on the hypothetical question of a fake scripture but a true god

    god i babble on
    I believe this God would be laughing at us; not at all angry.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman
    An interfering god with double standard??
    a schizophrenic part-time control freak ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,377
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman
    An interfering god with double standard??
    a schizophrenic part-time control freak ?
    yeah, sounds spot on
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11 Re: what if 
    Forum Sophomore scientist-to-be's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cairo, Egypt
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman
    bear with me guys, this is a hypothetical question and not meant to provoke or troll and may be a bit all over the place

    As you know im a happy athiest but this is something ive always wondered about in religious people

    What if there is a god and all the scriptures are man made?, what if gods desire was for us to drink, take drugs, sleep around and purely make the most of our lives and expand our minds and experiences?, what if his/her expectations are exactly the same as those of the animals and our lives(well the lives of theists) are being wasted in his/her eyes?

    So basically, would a god(if he existed) be annoyed at people following a text that wasn't his work?

    hopefully you know what im trying to say

    While on the subject can someone explain how islam says that alcohol is a no-no, where as the christian religion encourages the drinking of "christs blood", now the question is who's right on this subject and many other discrepancies and if theres some errors then surely the whole text is potentially in doubt, so if one text/rules is right then the other must be incorrect(or at least on certain aspects), so someones following the wrong instructions surely?

    I believe in NO god and believe that all scripture is man made, but i'd be interested to see what opinions people had on the hypothetical question of a fake scripture but a true god

    god i babble on
    Let's say there's a God, and God wants us to do certain things. There is only one way of communication, that being the scriptures. If there were no scriptures we wouldn't know what God wants us to do.
    If the scriptures were man-made, which of course isn't true, then God hasn't told us what he wants us to do and consequently, he wouldn't be angry that we're not doing it, or that we are following some other book that we chose to follow because we want to.

    In a nutshell, what God wants us to do is whatever that is good for us and for our communities. God obviously doesn't need anything from us, but he wants us to do ourselves justice, so all what God asks us to do is for our own good, even if we are too unwise and short- sighted to realise that.

    So you can see then, that God, whose prime purpose for asking us to follow the scriptures is our own well-being, wouldn't want us to drink, take drugs and sleep around. And its also obvious why alcohol is a no-no in Islam, since alcohol can cause serious health problems. Even if I wasn't muslim, I would never drink alcohol. There is a huge risk of addiction and diseases like cirrhosis, heart disease, athoresclerosis...etc.

    The reason why new scriptures are sent and that these could be different from the old ones is that the older ones start becoming faulty, either because of losing some of their details in history, or because as time passes, people decide to make some amendments, or simply because they have become out of date. The new scripture is sent to rectify and reinforce the older ones, and so that the errors caused due to any of the aforementioned reasons can be reconciled, hence arise the differences between the scriptures.

    The final scripture that has been sent is the Qura'an, which is the only scripture that remains error-free and untampered with to this day, and it will remain so forever, since God himself said he is protecting it.
    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, however, there is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman
    An interfering god with double standard??
    a schizophrenic part-time control freak ?
    You mean God is a Republican?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,377
    The final scripture that has been sent is the Qura'an, which is the only scripture that remains error-free and untampered with to this day, and it will remain so forever, since God himself said he is protecting it.
    according to who, theres no verification on the authenticity of this or any other scripture, that is just your opinion on it, rather than historic fact
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14 Re: what if 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman

    So basically, would a god(if he existed) be annoyed at people following a text that wasn't his work?


    therefore

    BG 4.8: To deliver the pious and to annihilate the miscreants, as well as to reestablish the principles of religion, I Myself appear, millennium after millennium.

    If religiosity gets derailed, god re-establishes it - and as a further point if you examine inter-religious studies, you see that controlling or regulating the activities of sense enjoyment is strongly advocated - so it tends to indicate the general principle that self control (in regards to lust, anger, wrath, gluttony) is a correct foundational principle f religiousity
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15 Re: what if 
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by scientist-to-be
    If the scriptures were man-made, which of course isn't true, ...
    who wrote them then, if not fallible men - surely they didn't write themselves ?

    i think we should ask ourselves the following questions for any "holy" text : who wrote it, how long after the facts, and with what political agenda ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16 Re: what if 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by scientist-to-be
    If the scriptures were man-made, which of course isn't true, ...
    who wrote them then, if not fallible men - surely they didn't write themselves ?

    i think we should ask ourselves the following questions for any "holy" text : who wrote it, how long after the facts, and with what political agenda ?
    God did.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman
    ...but im talking about a god, who's "true message" may have been lost beneath the man made ficticous scriptures that many subscribe to( if that was the case)...
    Perhaps a good analogy for you question/idea, would be the classic Plato's Cave Analogy.
    entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18 Re: what if 
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    God did.
    unfortunately i don't find that a very satisfying nor enlightening answer
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,377
    Quote Originally Posted by moynihan
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman
    ...but im talking about a god, who's "true message" may have been lost beneath the man made ficticous scriptures that many subscribe to( if that was the case)...
    Perhaps a good analogy for you question/idea, would be the classic Plato's Cave Analogy.

    yes but that analogy could also work for religion too
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    The reason why new scriptures are sent and that these could be different from the old ones is that the older ones start becoming faulty, either because of losing some of their details in history, or because as time passes, people decide to make some amendments, or simply because they have become out of date. The new scripture is sent to rectify and reinforce the older ones, and so that the errors caused due to any of the aforementioned reasons can be reconciled, hence arise the differences between the scriptures.

    The final scripture that has been sent is the Qura'an, which is the only scripture that remains error-free and untampered with to this day, and it will remain so forever, since God himself said he is protecting it.
    Or maybe a reason they're changed is that new technologies and social orders make the old commandments obsolete.

    Ethics often have to change when technologies change. For example: you wouldn't want to use the same war ethics in a nuclear world that you would use in a world where the nuclear bomb didn't exist.

    It could be that the Koran was the final, error free word when it was sent, but the world has changed an awful lot since then, and not every behavior that was an ideal way for a community to thrive then is still an ideal way for a community to thrive now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    yes, i couldn't, even if i wanted to, covet my neighbour's ox, because he doesn't have one

    btw, where's the quran stand on copyright of music on the internet ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    The reason why new scriptures are sent and that these could be different from the old ones is that the older ones start becoming faulty, either because of losing some of their details in history, or because as time passes, people decide to make some amendments, or simply because they have become out of date. The new scripture is sent to rectify and reinforce the older ones, and so that the errors caused due to any of the aforementioned reasons can be reconciled, hence arise the differences between the scriptures.

    The final scripture that has been sent is the Qura'an, which is the only scripture that remains error-free and untampered with to this day, and it will remain so forever, since God himself said he is protecting it.
    Or maybe a reason they're changed is that new technologies and social orders make the old commandments obsolete.

    Ethics often have to change when technologies change. For example: you wouldn't want to use the same war ethics in a nuclear world that you would use in a world where the nuclear bomb didn't exist.

    It could be that the Koran was the final, error free word when it was sent, but the world has changed an awful lot since then, and not every behavior that was an ideal way for a community to thrive then is still an ideal way for a community to thrive now.
    Ummm....I didn't write that, stb did.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Oh. Sorry. My mistake.

    Quote Originally Posted by scientist-to-be

    The reason why new scriptures are sent and that these could be different from the old ones is that the older ones start becoming faulty, either because of losing some of their details in history, or because as time passes, people decide to make some amendments, or simply because they have become out of date. The new scripture is sent to rectify and reinforce the older ones, and so that the errors caused due to any of the aforementioned reasons can be reconciled, hence arise the differences between the scriptures.

    The final scripture that has been sent is the Qura'an, which is the only scripture that remains error-free and untampered with to this day, and it will remain so forever, since God himself said he is protecting it.


    Or maybe a reason they're changed is that new technologies and social orders make the old commandments obsolete.
    Ethics often have to change when technologies change. For example: you wouldn't want to use the same war ethics in a nuclear world that you would use in a world where the nuclear bomb didn't exist.

    It could be that the Koran was the final, error free word when it was sent, but the world has changed an awful lot since then, and not every behavior that was an ideal way for a community to thrive then is still an ideal way for a community to thrive now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Sophomore scientist-to-be's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cairo, Egypt
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Or maybe a reason they're changed is that new technologies and social orders make the old commandments obsolete.

    Ethics often have to change when technologies change. For example: you wouldn't want to use the same war ethics in a nuclear world that you would use in a world where the nuclear bomb didn't exist.

    It could be that the Koran was the final, error free word when it was sent, but the world has changed an awful lot since then, and not every behavior that was an ideal way for a community to thrive then is still an ideal way for a community to thrive now.
    The Qur'an teaches its followers the basic ethical concepts.
    For example, Don't murder the innocent, so whether you use a nuclear bomb to do so, or you use an axe, it doesn't really matter.
    Or Don't steal, again whether you're stealing your neighbour's ox, or your neighbour's garden chair, it doesn't really matter. These are examples of basic ethics that always endure no matter how technologies change, because these behaviours (i.e killing, stealing...etc) are a part of human nature even though humans' evolving intelligence have allowed them to create more sophisticated ways to commit these crimes.
    Nevertheless, these crimes still cause the same harm to communities. So the ends have not changed, although the means have.

    The Qur'an addresses the aspects of human nature that remain intact no matter how the world changes. No matter how technologically advanced the world becomes, we will never become robots. And that is the difference between the Qur'an and the preceeding scriptures; the Qur'an is immune from becoming obsolete.

    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    btw, where's the quran stand on copyright of music on the internet ?
    Illegally downloading music from the internet is like stealing, because you're taking something that's worth money, without paying for it, and the Qur'an says: Don't steal!
    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, however, there is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by scientist-to-be
    The Qur'an teaches its followers the basic ethical concepts.
    For example, Don't murder the innocent, so whether you use a nuclear bomb to do so, or you use an axe, it doesn't really matter.
    but doesn't the muslim suicide bomber redefine whats innocent, and doesn't the quran also say he that doesn't believe in allah, should be killed.
    "Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don't kill them.)" 2(the cow):191-2 so how do you define innocence.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,377
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientist-to-be
    The Qur'an teaches its followers the basic ethical concepts.
    For example, Don't murder the innocent, so whether you use a nuclear bomb to do so, or you use an axe, it doesn't really matter.
    but doesn't the muslim suicide bomber redefine whats innocent, and doesn't the quran also say he that doesn't believe in allah, should be killed.
    "Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don't kill them.)" 2(the cow):191-2 so how do you define innocence.

    i find it a bit like "the family" defending charles manson, you keep having people tell you he's a really nice polite guy, very misunderstood and charismatic, when the evidence shows a totally different charles


    you may have some peaceful muslims, but islam is anything but peaceful, thats a fact
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Sophomore scientist-to-be's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cairo, Egypt
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientist-to-be
    The Qur'an teaches its followers the basic ethical concepts.
    For example, Don't murder the innocent, so whether you use a nuclear bomb to do so, or you use an axe, it doesn't really matter.
    but doesn't the muslim suicide bomber redefine whats innocent, and doesn't the quran also say he that doesn't believe in allah, should be killed.
    "Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don't kill them.)" 2(the cow):191-2 so how do you define innocence.
    A person is guilty if they committed what is considered to be a crime under a certain set of laws. A person can only be killed if he was a member of the attacking enemy at war, or if he committed a crime worthy of a death sentence.
    Everyone else is innocent.
    Considering the fact that most of the people who were killed in the world trade center satisfied neither conditions, then i think the suicide bombers had no right to kill them. if they redefine innocence, then thats their own problem, and it doesn't have anything to do with the Qur'an.

    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman
    you may have some peaceful muslims, but islam is anything but peaceful, thats a fact
    I wonder where you get your facts from. " Dawkins' big book of muslim facts"
    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, however, there is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,377
    Quote Originally Posted by scientist-to-be
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientist-to-be
    The Qur'an teaches its followers the basic ethical concepts.
    For example, Don't murder the innocent, so whether you use a nuclear bomb to do so, or you use an axe, it doesn't really matter.
    but doesn't the muslim suicide bomber redefine whats innocent, and doesn't the quran also say he that doesn't believe in allah, should be killed.
    "Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don't kill them.)" 2(the cow):191-2 so how do you define innocence.
    A person is guilty if they committed what is considered to be a crime under a certain set of laws. A person can only be killed if he was a member of the attacking enemy at war, or if he committed a crime worthy of a death sentence.
    Everyone else is innocent.
    Considering the fact that most of the people who were killed in the world trade center satisfied neither conditions, then i think the suicide bombers had no right to kill them. if they redefine innocence, then thats their own problem, and it doesn't have anything to do with the Qur'an.

    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman
    you may have some peaceful muslims, but islam is anything but peaceful, thats a fact
    I wonder where you get your facts from. " Dawkins' big book of muslim facts"
    reuters would be a good start
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Sophomore BioHazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    St. Marks, Portland, Liberty City
    Posts
    109
    You know what amuses me about theists?
    That if there was an all mighty deity that created all of the universe, he/she/it would be interested in our daily activities, and if a person performs adultry 'god' will be there to tick under the bad column of that person.
    "When man contemplates his future death, it is as if, by thinking of it, he renders it immediate. His defence is to deny it. He cannot deny that his body will die and rot - the evidence is too strong for that; so he solves the problem by the invention of the immortal soul" Desmond Morris
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by scientist-to-be
    The Qur'an teaches its followers the basic ethical concepts.
    For example, Don't murder the innocent, so whether you use a nuclear bomb to do so, or you use an axe, it doesn't really matter.
    Then how did Islam ever go to war? Surely it cannot be argued that every soldier in the opposing army is guilty. Some of the people who get cut down must be innocent.

    Does Islam teach that there is a difference between nuclear war and ordinary war? It would be nice if it did, because there clearly is a difference, and the two situations clearly do have to be handled differently.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    i think we're making a mistake when we apply a present-day interpretation to texts that were written more than a thousand years ago

    we now see edicts such as "love thy neighbour" or "thou shalt not kill" as meaning to apply to all human beings - however, in the days those texts were written xenophobia was widespread, and what we now interpret as universal edicts only applied to the "in-group" of people sharing the same belief

    you simply did not have to worry about not killing the out-group of unbelievers since the holy book does not apply to them

    i should like to think that some of us have grown out of narrow-minded xenophobia, but looking at what happens in the world i sometimes wonder ...
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by scientist-to-be
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientist-to-be
    The Qur'an teaches its followers the basic ethical concepts.
    For example, Don't murder the innocent, so whether you use a nuclear bomb to do so, or you use an axe, it doesn't really matter.
    but doesn't the muslim suicide bomber redefine whats innocent, and doesn't the quran also say he that doesn't believe in allah, should be killed.
    "Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don't kill them.)" 2(the cow):191-2 so how do you define innocence.
    A person is guilty if they committed what is considered to be a crime under a certain set of laws. A person can only be killed if he was a member of the attacking enemy at war, or if he committed a crime worthy of a death sentence.
    Everyone else is innocent.
    Considering the fact that most of the people who were killed in the world trade center satisfied neither conditions, then i think the suicide bombers had no right to kill them. if they redefine innocence, then thats their own problem, and it doesn't have anything to do with the Qur'an.
    so you rewrite the qu'ran to suit, do you, give me a break it does not say Kill disbelievers only if there guilty of a certain crime", but it does say "Kill disbelievers wherever you find them" now come back and tell me, *I'm reading it out of context, or I dont understand the meaning, or some other inanely stupid thing.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Sophomore scientist-to-be's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cairo, Egypt
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    so you rewrite the qu'ran to suit, do you, give me a break it does not say Kill disbelievers only if there guilty of a certain crime", but it does say "Kill disbelievers wherever you find them" now come back and tell me, *I'm reading it out of context, or I dont understand the meaning, or some other inanely stupid thing.
    No, geezer, as a matter of fact it doesn't say "kill disbelievers wherever you find them".
    I went back to my translated copy of the Qur'an to check your quote, and as I expected it turned out to be completely wrong.
    This is what the true verses 190-191 of "The cow" say:

    190.Fight in the way of Allah against THOSE WHO FIGHT AGAINST YOU. But BEGIN NOT HOSTILITIES. LO! ALLAH LOVETH NOT AGGRESSORS. 191. And kill them [those who fight against you] wherever you find them...such is the reward of the disbelievers.

    again, this is solid proof that what the terrorists do have absolutely nothing to do with the Qur'an. Again in case you haven't seen it properly:

    BEGIN NOT HOSTILITIES. LO! ALLAH LOVETH NOT AGGRESSORS.


    P.S geezer, I don't know what you have against me, but I'd rather you keep it to yourself. Please stop the ad hominem attacks, its not the first time you call my posts stupid. And check your sources properly before you start arguing about things you obviously don't know very much about.
    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, however, there is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by scientist-to-be

    BEGIN NOT HOSTILITIES. LO! ALLAH LOVETH NOT AGGRESSORS.
    No problem there. The terrorists will just say we started it (by supporting Israel or whatever).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by scientist-to-be
    P.S geezer, I don't know what you have against me, but I'd rather you keep it to yourself. Please stop the ad hominem attacks, its not the first time you call my posts stupid. And check your sources properly before you start arguing about things you obviously don't know very much about.
    my sources are fine but I take issue of you accusing me of picking on you, I've have nothing against you.
    such is the nature of debate, I've not called your stupid, I've just question your interpretations.

    Quote Originally Posted by scientist-to-be
    No, geezer, as a matter of fact it doesn't say "kill disbelievers wherever you find them".
    I went back to my translated copy of the Qur'an to check your quote, and as I expected it turned out to be completely wrong.
    This is what the true verses 190-191 of "The cow" say:

    190.Fight in the way of Allah against THOSE WHO FIGHT AGAINST YOU. But BEGIN NOT HOSTILITIES. LO! ALLAH LOVETH NOT AGGRESSORS. 191. And kill them [those who fight against you] wherever you find them...such is the reward of the disbelievers.
    how is this "And kill them [those who fight against you] wherever you find them...such is the reward of the disbelievers." that much different to this "kill disbelievers wherever you find them" the former points out that it's the disbelievers need to be killed, just as mine does, but you added " those who fight against you"
    heres another version which verifies mine "2.191": And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers
    http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toc...&division=div1
    and another version there all basically the same
    " 2:191 And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers"
    http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/2/index.htm
    so your solid prove is pretty weak at the moment, one consolation is the bible is worse.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Sophomore scientist-to-be's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cairo, Egypt
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by scientist-to-be
    P.S geezer, I don't know what you have against me, but I'd rather you keep it to yourself. Please stop the ad hominem attacks, its not the first time you call my posts stupid. And check your sources properly before you start arguing about things you obviously don't know very much about.
    my sources are fine but I take issue of you accusing me of picking on you, I've have nothing against you.
    such is the nature of debate, I've not called your stupid, I've just question your interpretations.
    Ok, no problem.

    how is this "And kill them [those who fight against you] wherever you find them...such is the reward of the disbelievers." that much different to this "kill disbelievers wherever you find them" the former points out that it's the disbelievers need to be killed, just as mine does, but you added " those who fight against you"
    There is a huge difference between the two. Saying "kill the disbelievers wherever you find them", means that we have the right to go killing all christians, jews, athiests, buddhists..etc, so we just go around from country to country killing people in their homes. Whereas " Kill those who figh against you...." is a direction which is only applicable during war (i.e when there is an attacking enemy which are "those who fight against you"), and obviously we have the full right to defend ourselves and our lands, and not just stand there and die.

    The first version justifies what the terrorists do. Whereas the second version is completely against it.

    heres another version which verifies mine "2.191": And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers

    " 2:191 And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers"
    These are correct. You can see, though, that you're only looking at half a sentence. It's obvious since the verse starts with "and", that it is a continuaution of the verse before. That's why I added it. When you read "and kill them.." you must think, well who are "them"? and then you took the last word in the sentence, i.e disbelievers, and assumed that the entire verse is referring to it, which is obviously wrong, because if the whole verse was referring to it, it would be at the beginning of the sentence not at the end.
    " such is the reward of the disbelievers" refers to those who attack at the Invoiable place of worship. i.e death is the reward of those who begin bloodshed at the Invoiable place of worship, who are obviously going to be disbelievers since no muslim would ever do that.
    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, however, there is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman
    if its a interfering god, why does he/she allow some rules for one, and then condem them to the others? An interfering god with double standard??
    Care to explain where God is committing a double standard? Preferably a Biblical example would do fine cause the way you stated this question, isn't making much sense to me. From the Scripture, we can see that God interferes, but there are plenty of times in the Bible where he lets nature play the course or uses it for His advantage.

    As for the question, there are religions that have such gods already but I don't know the names off the top of my head. Many would actually like such a God and in reality, many Christians actually think the Bible teaches this. For example, my church has people that simply attend the service every week, pray, follow God etc but they don't believe that having the most out of life is bad...as long as they believe Jesus died for their sins. I would call these Christians as slackers and I am a bit leery to even label them as Christians.

    What if God actually did care? Would it not be far more dangerous than otherwise? Of course this may seem like Pascal's Wrager but this is not to convert the unconverted. A hard question though... All I could point to is evidence that the Scripture is true. But what you're arguing is more deist-like as someone mentioned here and is what many theologians actually think God is. It may not be self-evidence but many of them believe that God wouldn't interfere in a mechanical world as this would imply bad design because it wasn't created to fulfill that certain purpose...Problem of evil is another example of why many distance God so in a sense, that has already been believed as true. Charles Darwin believed this to be true as well...

    If Jesus did come, then I think it would refute such an argument. There's also the impossible faith which you should check out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra
    ok dejewolf let me see a monkey turn to a human then... Now we are even...








    notice structural similarity, minus the hipbone and skull.



    bones found of lucy(australopithecus afarensis):


    notice the humanlike hip. this is a KEY feature. NOT the skull.
    it means a monkeylike being stood upright about 4-3 million years ago.



    theres your monkey/human.
    and i still haven't been struck by lightning.
    but i'm sure EVIDENCE like this won't stop your irrational beliefs. NoooOOoo.
    FYI, theres approximately 160 000-120 000 steps between lucy, and the modern man, if you consider the average age humans give birth is at age 25.
    with earlier births, there would be more steps. if the average age is 18, the steps would be about 222 222-166 666 years.
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    it proves evolution takes a long time.

    FYI, theres approximately 160 000-120 000 steps between lucy, and the modern man, if you consider the average age humans give birth is at age 25.
    with earlier births, there would be more steps. if the average age is 18, the steps would be about 222 222-166 666 years.

    if every 18 or 25 year step took a second to show, you'd be sitting for 44 hours watching the evolution between lucy, and human.
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    detailed information about the dig of lucy,
    http://www.anthro4n6.net/lucy/
    READ IT.

    some other finds of australopithecus afarensis.

    AL 129-1
    knee joint discovered in November 1973

    Lucy
    The first A. afarensis skeleton was discovered on November 24, 1974

    Site 333
    1975: near Lucy,

    Selam
    On September 20, 2006

    AL 200-1
    AL 129-1
    AL 444
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra
    still doesn't prove anything....
    by what broken logic does it not prove anything.
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •