"the difference isn't in THIS life, but the next" - the next life, yes, but also in this - less anger and fear, more peace and compassion...
" Proof isn't available, except to those who can reckon it." - yes, yes - and I would go further to say, the proof is in the living of it! On May 24, 7:28 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > read more »
