On 24 May, 21:00, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > Again, just out of curiosity, have you ever tried to see your off- > spring as your next life, Patty? >
In the sense that they represent a certain aspect of 'immortality', of course. But they WILL die some day, and, as we are all still alive, they cannot be my 'next' life, rather, they are a vital part of this life. For all I know, in the next, we may never know one another. Then again, we may spend all of eternity together. The next life is not to be confused with any part of this life and progeny are a vital part of THIS life. > On 24 Mai, 18:22, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 24 May, 14:16, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > "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... > > > True. One need only fear God in this life FOR the next. There is no > > need to fear 'creatures' in this life, as they will only harm you if > > The Creator has already dictated that. And if He has, then there is > > no avoiding it, if He has not, then there is no way to bring on that > > harm. Therefore, only fear The Creator and never fear ANY creatures. > > > > " 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! > > > I.e., the proof is in "the putting" rather than "the pudding". For > > those who reckon it, their life is the putting forward of the proof, > > yes. > > > > 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
