On 21 May, 22:31, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > Pat, we've been on this roller coaster too many times. Can you see > what you are saying? > > The "One" - "True" God told a man................ Well who is > verifying this information of a true god speaking to a man? It's > absurd, which is why you follow with........."Now, Imagine for a > moment.........."........Well hell Pat I could Imagine that a one true > god spoke to my dog and told him to chase a kill squirrels..........We > could imagine anything. >
The verification is IN the Qur'an. I made the statements the way I did because I knew that you wouldn't accept it any other way. The fact that I can't even couch my statements in an acceptable way is proof that the Qur'an is true...if you but read it and understood it. ;-) > Then you say.."If you accept the premise............." > > I don't accept the premise of any religion, I find all of it sometimes > amusing but mostly annoying. I don't care about the Quran, the Bible > or the deep sea scrolls, I've checked it all out and regardless of > what ancient man conjured up or whatever was discovered at Nag Hammadi > and elsewhere, I find the whole nuisance of it an infringement upon my > right to just live and have a happy existence; fact is I'm happy > without it. > Yup, well, best of luck! > The Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Muslims and the rest of the loonies > can go peddle their wares somewhere else. I don't see any need to be > concerned about any "One True God". > Unless, of course, He exists. In which case, you will. > I've been living for 60 years without one and anytime I've ever > entertained the idea it was more trouble than it's worth. Religious > people and Atheists are all living the same, and all dying the same, > and all suffering from old age and disease. If religion was worth the > paper it was written on then those that were worshiping the one true > god would be much better off than everyone else but because it is all > a figment of man's imagination there exists no "One True > Difference". > The difference isn't in THIS life, but the next. This is a testing ground and the rewards you reap HERE may actually stand against you later. Equal and opposite reaction, you know. If a wealthy man spends all his money on himself, he gains nothing here or in the next life, but, if he uses it to help those in need, he loses wealth in this life and gains paradise eternally. Which is better: a good temporary 70 years or a good eternity? Proof isn't available, except to those who can reckon it. > On May 21, 11:19 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 21 May, 16:22, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I had no doubt that we would differ, Pat. What you say still evokes > > > the question of a consciousness with intent. To say what IS just IS > > > can be viewed as a truth, like the big boulder outside my window. You > > > have created the box by imposing a set of inferences. When looking at > > > the whole there doesn't have to be a box, which essentially is a human > > > construct stemming from the need to address the unknown. > > > We deal with physical science, the proof of things, a sort of macro- > > > religion which defines everything in terms of what we see and > > > experience with our physical senses while the natural world leaves > > > open ended areas which we have no answers for. This is the point at > > > which the constructs begin to take form because there is no proof > > > otherwise, eg; the Gallileo experience. Without scientific proof > > > anyone can say anything, purport truth from dust and create "Myth". > > > Storms, lightning and thunder are no longer angry gods and sacrificial > > > human lambs are no longer necessary but for some reason we have yet to > > > let go of the main theme of religious belief. > > > Religion's foundation is completely based on explanation of the > > > unknown and the unseen, the perceptions of good and evil and the need > > > to explore afterlife. These perceptions/constructs lead to a oneness, > > > a central being, a deity and in some cultures a multiplicity, a > > > composite of deities assigned to elements of the universe such as the > > > ocean and the sun. Tack on the egocentric nature of humanity and what > > > you get is man's idea that he is an appendage of the oneness, an > > > extension of the almighty. Now we have gods with an uncanny > > > resemblance to humans; why am I not surprised. Religions are > > > worshiping "Humanity". Jesus = the only begotten son of god. Why? > > > We are the children of god. Really? Say's who? This tendency is > > > unrealistic for me and no one has ever throughout history shown in > > > anyway a proof concerning religious dogma. It all remains to this day > > > simple "Myths" from which to launch holy wars, commit unspeakable > > > atrocities, build huge organizations that collect tithing and instill > > > guilt and fear for living a natural and normal life. > > > Not exactly the Islamic viewpoint, there, Slip. Their view is that > > the One True God actually told a man (the Prophet Muhammed[pbuh]) what > > He did with respect to creation and many other issues regarding 'the > > unseen' ('al-ghraib' in Arabic). Now, imagine, for a moment, that > > THAT is exactly what happened; that God really did communicate to man > > what He did. If you accept the premiss, then what the message says > > (if you read the Qur'an) is very much what one would expect to hear > > from such an entity. BTW, in Islam, there is no such thing as a 'holy > > war'; rather, there are just wars and unjust wars; but NO war is ever > > 'holy'. The concept of 'Holy War' was a Christian invention from the > > Crusades and, of course, the Christians lost most of them. Also, The > > Qur'an does NOT agree that Jesus was any kind of offspring of God; in > > fact, that concept is strongly refuted BY God. I've no doubt that > > this universe was no accident and the odds of it accidently springing > > into existence are far more remote than it being a thing created by an > > intelligent creator with some purpose (for it) in mind. Science > > doesn't prove, in any way, shape or form that this universe DID form > > accidently; rather, it simply can't explain its origins. Well, if you > > accept (for the sake of argument) the premiss of the Qur'an, then the > > answer to that question is given in the book. With respect to humans, > > we were created for two main purposes: to know one another and to > > worship the creator without having 'scientific proof' that He exists. > > Of course, there is no anthropomorphism permitted in Islam, that is, > > God is NOT like a human. Nor does the Qur'an state that we were > > created in His likeness or image. However, it DOES mention His 'face' > > and 'hands', and that has caused much turmoil over the years as to how > > to interpret these usages. As far as God's 'face' goes, I can explain > > that by reminding you that a cube has 6 faces, none of which resemble > > a human face. ;-) > > Now, I outline a model of physics that is completely congruent with > > Islamic cosmology (and, for that matter, Jewish cosmology) and is as > > mathematically sound as is String Theory. It is not empirically > > provable BECAUSE of the size of the strings (an inheritance of using > > string theory and considered a 'weakness' by some) but, technically, > > it is mathematically possible. Because my twist TO the theory solves > > many of the problems that the existing theories do not (explaining > > "what energy did before the Big Bang", and the mechanism behind > > quantum entaglement), it becomes 'plausible' if not downright > > 'likely'. And, of course, it lends credence to the Qur'an as, > > finally, there is a mathematical model that backs it up. > > Unfortunately, I can't back up concepts like Jesus being the son of > > God, although I can explain how that misrepresentation came into > > being; howeverm one doesn't need a physical model for that, rather, > > just an understanding of Jewish cosmology, Kabbalah and ancient Hebrew > > usage of terms. The prophet Ezra was also called a 'son of God' (and > > that is mentioned in the Qur'an, as well, although the name is > > rendered "Uzair", i.e., in its Arabic form) but, as no one ever > > associated Ezra with being 'the Messiah', the moniker went, for the > > most part, un-noticed. If the truth be known, Ezra was called that > > because he was the one who brought the Jewish people their Torah in > > its modern form. Well, that is, he was the compiler of the books that > > are now called 'Torah'. Because the Jews had thought that he had > > 'preserved' the original (rather than, in truth, actually compiling it > > from other source documents[the Yahwist text, The Elohist text, The > > Priestly scrolls and his own work as 'the Deuteronomist']), they > > hailed him to be likened to a member of the "Beni Elohim", a certain > > order of angels that take care of the Jewish people in times of need. > > They were merely saying that "he was like an angel", although, over > > time, the usage got mixed up with a literal translation of "Beni > > Elohim" (literally it means "sons of God") by some translator who was > > either ignorant of the original intention of the usage or by someone > > with an agenda. The same was true for Jesus; he was likened to an > > angel and Paul, with his agenda, picked up on that and decided to > > misuse it. > > > > On May 21, 6:51 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 16 May, 15:26, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > The ball of elaboration is in your court, this is your thread. You > > > > > are making broad statements without saying much. > > > > > > You see agnostics as having a "problem" because you have anchored > > > > > yourself within your personal set of beliefs that you consider > > > > > truths. > > > > > > While issues can be linked to each other they can also be explored > > > > > individually. > > > > > > I don't see the thread going anywhere other than reaching levels of > > > > > redundancy without resolution. > > > > > > I'm with Albert Einstein below. > > > > > > Borrowed FROM: > > > > > Molly Brogan Thread May 26, 2008 > > > > > > According to Plato: When the mind's eye rests on objects illuminated > > > > > by truth and reality, it understands and comprehends them, and > > > > > functions intelligently; but when it turns to the twilight world of > > > > > change and decay, it can only form opinions, its vision is confused > > > > > and its beliefs shifting, and it seems to lack intelligence. (Plato, > > > > > Republic) > > > > > > To Spinoza, ultimate truth is the ultimate reality of a rationally > > > > > ordered system that is God. > > > > > > To Hegel, truth is a rationally integrated > > > > > system in which everything is contained. > > > > > > To Einstein, “the truth of > > > > > the Universe > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
