Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)

by ROB Thu Feb 21, 2013 4:00 pm

First topic message reminder :

Shirina wrote:
Humans are easily fooled.

Perhaps that’s why atheism is growing in spite of its illogicalness.

To prove that an omniscient being does not exist, one must be an omniscient being. Only God can prove God’s existence, and only God can prove God’s nonexistence; thus, if God’s nonexistence is ever proven, God will have proven God’s own nonexistence.

by egginbonce Fri Mar 29, 2013 4:56 pm

You must admit, tho, snowy, thats its colourful................albeit in bad taste;if it was invented afresh, it would only be on TV after 10 pm!

actually, now I think of it, we've rather deviated from the topic title..arent we sposed to be looking for/giving, 'evidence for the existence of God?', or is this where I came in?

Rock.............back to the point......what IS God?..not 'what characteristics can be ascribed to god', but what IS god?(clue- this requires a zen answer!) Laughing

by egginbonce Fri Mar 29, 2013 4:57 pm

ahhhh same question, as I just asked..........we'er on the right track then....................

by Guest Fri Mar 29, 2013 4:58 pm

by egginbonce Fri Mar 29, 2013 4:58 pm

Dear snowy- he didnt really say those things..........thyere just typos......................................Rock Laughing

by egginbonce Fri Mar 29, 2013 4:59 pm

rock- the fact that one minute he says one thing and the next, another is scarier than if he were only a homicidal man iac;at least youd know where u stood!

by snowyflake Fri Mar 29, 2013 4:59 pm

I suppose these discussions get side-tracked, Eggy. Go on then, provide us with evidence of God's existance. Smile

by egginbonce Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:02 pm

right then.......................OK.......................errrrr...................ummmm...............errrrrr........ummmmmm

by egginbonce Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:03 pm

god exists cos I exist(or do I?)........'I think, therfore, I am' (does that hold water?)

by egginbonce Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:05 pm

I think we should ask the pope;after all, he's very impressive ,wears a big hat,and is important and has millions of followers, so he CANT be wrong, can he?

by Guest Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:05 pm

snowyflake wrote:
All things done in the name of Marxism are done in the name of Marxism’s components, including anti-religious atheism.
Nope. Murder done in the name of Marxism for political reasons. None of them killed in the name of atheism. They killed in the name of Marxism. Marxism is anti-religious.

Marxism is an all-encompassing economic, sociological, psychological, theological (anti-religious atheistic), historical, political ideology wherein one cannot separate its components from its whole because all components interconnect and intertwine to make up the whole; accordingly, anything done in the name of Marxism is done in the name of anti-religious atheism.

by snowyflake Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:07 pm

YHVH Elohim, all merciful, is he who says “hear Y’shua”, who teaches the following to me.

Okay, then I will take it that you agree that God is not merciful in the verses I posted since you refuse to address them. Instead you only post the verses that suit you and ignore the rest. The fact that you don't address the ones I posted suggests that you cannot answer my question. If that is true, can you just say so please?

by snowyflake Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:10 pm

Marxism is an all-encompassing economic, sociological, psychological, theological (anti-religious atheistic), historical, political ideology wherein one cannot separate its components from its whole because all components interconnect and intertwine to make up the whole; accordingly, anything done in the name of Marxism is done in the name of anti-religious atheism.

You mean like all parts of the bible intertwine with each other? So that the God of the OT, the vengeful, hateful, petty, spiteful God is the same God as the all-merciful, all-loving God? Because all the components of the bible interconnect and intertwine to make up the whole, so accordingly, anything done in the Old Testament is relevant to the New Testament? Is that what you mean?

by Guest Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:10 pm

by Shirina Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:16 pm

Then your quote, “of the people, by the people, for the people”, reproduced here with the aforementioned correction in progression of the propositions “of”, “by”, and “for”, is irrelevant, as can be seen below.

Wrong. The preamble of the US Constitution begins with "We the people ..." therefore, my quotation is not rendered irrelevant because, while I may have taken the quote from the Declaration of Independence, which is sickeningly filled with references to the supernatural, the CONCEPT of which I speak is reiterated in the Constitution's preamble minus any references to supernatural beings. Thus, your "under God" premise was removed by the Founders themselves, and done so deliberately.

The United States Constitution makes no mention of “granting us freedom… FROM religion.”

Explain to me then how we can have freedom to practice our religions without having the freedom from being ruled by them? Or, more specifically, one particular religion? You have a nice big forum on which to post your answer, so limiting yourself to soundbites isn't necessary. I've asked this question before and you've never addressed it. I even gave you cases from the Supreme Court to back up my assertions and yet you STILL claim we are not protected FROM religion.

Not only that, I JUST got done writing a post a few days ago illustrating how the 1st Amendment doesn't do a good enough job protecting us against the encroachment of religion into civil law ... and what did you do? You said IT DID! So how on earth can you claim the 1st Amendment protects us from religion while now saying that it doesn't? Which one is it, Rock? You can only pick one.

Oh, and the fact that you don't think we are protected FROM religion only proves that the 1st Amendment doesn't do a good enough job.

Y’shua instructs his followers otherwise in the Greek Bible.

I'm not Greek. I've never been to Greece. I haven't even sampled Greek food - well, except for yummy gyros. I can, however, recite the Greek alphabet from memory thanks to my college days. How many people in America, do you suppose, receive their Biblical instruction from the Greek Bible? While you may think that your interpretation of Christianity is the only correct version, the vast, vast, vast majority of people in this country see the Bible differently - and since THEY, not you, control the religious direction of this nation, THEIR interpretation and THEIR Bible is what is important to me right now.

This is how Y’shua instructs his followers in the Greek Bible.

So the Greek Bible has omitted the Old Testament? Remember that much of American Christianity is rooted in the Old Testament. I have said before, if anything, we are a de facto JEWISH nation, not a Christian nation, because Americans have all but discarded Jesus's teachings and are, instead, fixated on hellfire and brimstone, not "love thy neighbor." Maybe if we weren't so focused on judging everyone and running in fear of punishment for our sins, America would actually have nationalized health care - oh, and mark my words. I predict very soon now that many Americans are going to start bashing the disabled because we are, as already stated by some, "dead weight" in society and because "disabled people cost too much." It's already started; now that half the nation hates the other half for being poor, the disabled is the next logical target. It's coming, Rock, and we're going to see oh so much American Christian love in the near future. Y'shua taught to help the poor, to embrace them as the inheritors of the Kingdom of God. Where do you see that in Christianity today? Even if they all have it wrong because the Greek Bible says x or y, it doesn't matter, because that is not what decides the way our culture works.

I’ve made no error of any sort here.

Because confusing a defintion with a tenet certainly isn't an error. Of course not.

Red herring. I have not said that atheism is necessarily anti-religious.

*face-palm*

An atheist must believe not in God/god/gods.

That's a definition, Rock, not a tenet. You've completely ignored my lengthy attempt at explaining why this is so and disrespected the time and effort I put into my post by responding simply with a "nuh uh!" answer. Thanks for that. Aside from this post, I won't make that mistake again. I'm simply TIRED of doing all the work.

The atrocities of Adolf Hitler were on him, not the Roman Catholic Church he denigrated by claiming membership therein.

I never claimed that Hitler was a practicing Catholic or that Catholicism had anything to do with Hitler's atrocities.

The atrocities of al Qaida are on them, not the Islamic faith they denigrated by claiming membership therein.

The Koran talks about killing infidels, so Al Qaeda is following the instructions laid out in the Koran. The only part they got wrong was killing themselves in the process. That is something the Koran doesn't teach. Therefore, the tenets of Islam are at least partially to blame for what these men do.

Yes.

No.

They do.

They don't.

by Guest Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:20 pm

by Guest Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:24 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
Marxism is an all-encompassing economic, sociological, psychological, theological (anti-religious atheistic), historical, political ideology wherein one cannot separate its components from its whole because all components interconnect and intertwine to make up the whole; accordingly, anything done in the name of Marxism is done in the name of anti-religious atheism.

snowyflake wrote:
You mean like all parts of the bible intertwine with each other?

I mean like all components of Marxism intertwine with each other.

by Shirina Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:33 pm

having invested some time and emotion into it, sort of gets sucked in gradually,and in time, will spout the same rubbish themselves............

It's the frog in the boiling pot metaphor.

If you drop a frog into a pot of boiling water, it will hop out immediately. But if you put a frog in a luke warm pot and gradually turn up the heat, the frog will allow itself to be boiled alive.

so why get cross about it,they often ask?

I get asked this question quite often. In fact, I was asked this just yesterday. I have an over-arcing answer that is my default position on this topic.

The reason why I sometimes get cross is because of what underpins one of the core doctrines of Christian belief. Any time some self-righteous Christian tells me (or atheists in general) that I'm going to hell, what it REALLY means is that this person believes I deserve to be tortured. Yeah, think about it. That's what it means. So the same nice, sweet person who sips tea with friends, helps with Sunday School for the kids, helps old ladies cross the street, and donates time and money to charities harbors a pitch black darkness inside, a darkness so foul that he or she honestly believes that average men and women who have lived good lives deserve to be tortured. What's worse, people like me deserve to be tortured NOT because we're evil, NOT because we're Adolf Hitler, but because we simply don't worship the same tribal desert god that they do. How sick is that when you really think about it?

by Guest Fri Mar 29, 2013 6:16 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
Then your quote, “of the people, by the people, for the people”, reproduced here with the aforementioned correction in progression of the propositions “of”, “by”, and “for”, is irrelevant, as can be seen below.

Shirina wrote:
Wrong.

Only if you are cherry picking from Lincoln’s remarks at Gettysburg from which you quoted “of the people, by the people for the people.” If you wish to cherry pick, please state that you are cherry picking rather than saying “Wrong.”

Shirina wrote:
… The preamble of the US Constitution begins with "We the people ..."

You in fact did not quote from the preamble; you in fact did quote from Lincoln’s remarks at Gettysburg.

Shirina wrote:
… while I may have taken the quote from the Declaration of Independence…

You in fact did not quote from the Declaration of Independence; you in fact did quote from Lincoln’s remarks at Gettysburg.

Shirina wrote:
… the CONCEPT of which I speak is reiterated in the Constitution's preamble…

The concept of which you speak and the words which you quote are from Lincoln’s remarks at Gettysburg.

Shirina wrote:
Thus, your "under God" premise…

The words “under God” are from Lincoln’s remarks at Gettysburg, from the same sentence…

“It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

… from which you quoted “of the people, by the people, for the people”, the same sentence in which the phrase “this nation, under God” precedes the phrase from which you quoted by nine words.

Shirina wrote:
The United States Constitution makes no mention of “granting us freedom… FROM religion.”
Explain to me then how we can have freedom to practice our religions without having the freedom from being ruled by them?

I shall allow the United States Constitution to explain that to you.

United States Constitution, Amendment 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The United States Constitution makes no mention of “granting us freedom… FROM religion.”

Shirina wrote:
Y’shua instructs his followers otherwise in the Greek Bible.
I'm not Greek.

Neither am I.

Shirina wrote:
I've never been to Greece.

Neither have I.

Shirina wrote:
I haven't even sampled Greek food - well, except for yummy gyros.

Greek food is pretty good.

Shirina wrote:
How many people in America, do you suppose, receive their Biblical instruction from the Greek Bible?

I haven’t a clue.

Shirina wrote:
While you may think that your interpretation of Christianity…

I own no interpretation of Christianity; I do not interpret Christianity.

Shirina wrote:
This is how Y’shua instructs his followers in the Greek Bible.
So the Greek Bible has omitted the Old Testament?

I shall allow Y’shua’s teachings form the Greek Bible answer your question,

Greek Bible

“Therefore, in all things whatsoever, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.”

Matthew 7:12

Y’shua, not I, teaches for you to hear.

Shirina wrote:
An atheist must believe not in God/god/gods.
[i]That's a definition, Rock, not a tenet.

That’s the inviolate tenet of atheism.

Shirina wrote:
The atrocities of al Qaida are on them, not the Islamic faith they denigrated by claiming membership therein.
The Koran talks about killing infidels, so Al Qaeda is following the instructions laid out in the Koran.

The Qur’an teaches Muslims to treat Jews and Christians with dignity, honor, respect, and deference.

by snowyflake Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:09 pm

You first. Once you have done so, I will do so.

No, Rock. I asked you first. You have yet to answer. You cannot have it all your own way. If we are to discuss then you must also be honest in our discussions. If I ask the question about other verses in the bible, then please do me the courtesy of answering. By avoiding a direct question, you only give me the impression that you cannot or are unwilling to answer. Just say you can't answer if you can't answer. It is dishonesty at its peak to quote one part of the bible and claim God's all-mercifullness and ignore other parts of the bible that show God's all-wickedness. How do you square that with your conscience? The evidence is there right in front of you and you choose to ignore it. Why?

by egginbonce Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:11 pm

Hey Rock------------ you dont half dance well............its a while since Ive found someone so evasive and able to sideslip so well.................dont let snowy pin you down,boy............. dodge and weave as much as you need to ............... Very Happy

PS those biblical quotes which snowy found,that I hadnt the time to find;they are about your god, arent they, you bad boy? Very Happy

by snowyflake Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:11 pm

The qu'ran has several verses about not befriending the infidel and yet you choose to look at the verse that says treat the Jew and Christian with dignity and respect (because that's what's happening in the Middle East eh?). Why does the verse about killing the infidel get edited out of your version of the qu'ran?

Can you not see that what you think is right is down to interpretation only?

by egginbonce Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:13 pm

You KNOW he's not a very nice god,really, dont you? bounce

by egginbonce Fri Mar 29, 2013 9:39 pm

I guess im being sarcastic, Rock.......maybe thats unkind of me..........I'll stop................ clown

by Tosh Fri Mar 29, 2013 9:50 pm

All things done in the name of Marxism are done in the name of Marxism’s components, including anti-religious atheism.

All things done in the name of Theism are done in the name of theism’s components, including bigotry, immorality and inequality.

Marxism would be acceptable to Texas if the opening line was " love thy neighbour as oneself ", it disqualifies all other qualifications there after, its just a childish inability to recognise context and broader concepts.

by Guest Sat Mar 30, 2013 2:38 am

by Guest Sat Mar 30, 2013 4:56 am

by snowyflake Sat Mar 30, 2013 9:21 am

I mean like all components of Marxism intertwine with each other.

The bible does the same thing. All components intertwine with each other. The OT and the NT.

Tell me, please Rock, does the Greek bible include all components of the current translations of the bible that are in circulation, to the best of your knowledge?

My understanding of the Christian faith, your faith Rock, is that you choose to hear the sermon on the mount and follow those teachings of Jesus. What God has done in the OT or Revelations doesn't matter. Is that about right?

by snowyflake Sat Mar 30, 2013 9:31 am

Stalin was an atheist, Stalin’s beliefs were delusional, and Stalin’s interpretation of his delusional beliefs helped mass murders in the name of Marxism and antireligious atheism arise and devastate a generation of Soviet citizens.

Pol Pot was an atheist, Pol Pot’s beliefs were delusional, and Pol Pot’s interpretation of his delusional beliefs helped mass murders in the name of Marxism and antireligious atheism arise and virtually destroyed a generation of Cambodian citizens.

Rock, atheists don't believe that God exists. If you have evidence to the contrary please present it here. PolPot and Stalin were madmen, not because they were atheists. They murdered because they were madmen not because they were atheists. They were delusional because they believed in a political ideology and when it wasn't working they murdered those in opposition. At the end of the day, believers kill more in the name of God/YHVH Elohim/Allah/Buddah/Shiva than anyone else.

by egginbonce Sat Mar 30, 2013 9:37 am

Presumably,Rock is conversant with the Greek dialect which the early Hebrew scripture was suposedly translated into,in order to get its full meaning/s.
Why he should consider that this version is somehow better than other versions, I cant tell;it was however, the basis for some of the OT accounts, according to wiki(all of which i couldnt be bothered to read).............I do seem to remember that it is commonly held that the OT god in particular is not very nice;nor even just,or fair....but the sort of thing that the brothers Grimm invented for theie fairy tales to scare us kids with when we were small. The difference ios that nowadays,half-arsed attempts to scare me with demons and ghoulies and ghosties,are only scary because of the intent of the person/s who tiredly trot out this crap.
I say tiredly, witha bit of Kahlil Gibran in ind,who said that;'in your weariness, you echo what was said by the weary' ...and in that line , is all the contempt which we naturally feel for those it was describing.............

by egginbonce Sat Mar 30, 2013 9:43 am

maybe atheists dont accept

religion

,and leave the issue of 'god', to sort itself out.
For me, its a matter of definition(as so many say, who cant hold an argument!),and tho I have endless contempt for hardline religion,am open to the element of all of us which is....is.......is....magical(??)

I say hardline religion, as maybe theres a lot of people whomay be better off bumbling along with a zany idea(thats all of us,BTW)of things, than having no motivation at all,and Id rather they were in a church than 'out on the streets'';that way, I know where to go to avoid 'em!

by snowyflake Sat Mar 30, 2013 9:54 am

Why is delusion preferable to reason, Eggy? We all need to find our own way in this life and I believe that religious belief has been a hindrance to me. My father was an atheist and my mother was a devout believer. My father never encouraged atheism (probably on my mother's orders). The one time we had a discussion about it, I was maybe 10 or 12 and he said that to him, belief is false, not based on solid evidence and relies completely on faith in things unseen. To him, it was irrational. Everything we do in this life is based on evidence. Everything. Except when it comes to religious belief which is where we ditch all of our rational thought and start believing that fairies and superheroes are real.

by Guest Sat Mar 30, 2013 12:30 pm

by Guest Sat Mar 30, 2013 1:17 pm

snowyflake wrote:
Stalin was an atheist, Stalin’s beliefs were delusional, and Stalin’s interpretation of his delusional beliefs helped mass murders in the name of Marxism and antireligious atheism arise and devastate a generation of Soviet citizens.

Pol Pot was an atheist, Pol Pot’s beliefs were delusional, and Pol Pot’s interpretation of his delusional beliefs helped mass murders in the name of Marxism and antireligious atheism arise and virtually destroyed a generation of Cambodian citizens.
Rock, atheists don't believe that God exists.

I know.

snowyflake wrote:
If you have evidence to the contrary please present it here.

I have.

snowyflake wrote:
PolPot and Stalin were madmen, not because they were atheists.

Pol Pot and Stalin were atheists; Pol Pot and Stalin were madmen. I don’t know if they were (a) madmen because they were atheists, (b) atheists because they were madmen, or (c) madmen and atheists with each independent of the other.

snowyflake wrote:
They murdered because they were madmen not because they were atheists.

Mass murderers are heinous atrocities. All beasts who commit heinous atrocities do so because they are madmen, including beasts implicitly and explicitly accused hereon of committing heinous atrocities because they were “believers.”

What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Once you cease attributing beast-hood to beasts’ “believer-ism”, I’ll cease attributing beast-hood to beasts’ atheism, and we can join together in attributing beasts’ beast-hood to beasts’ madman-ism.

snowyflake wrote:
They were delusional because they believed in a political ideology and when it wasn't working they murdered those in opposition.

Slight addition, and then I’ll proceed.

“They were delusional because they believed in an all-encompassing economic, sociological, psychological, theological (anti-religious atheistic), historical, political ideology and when it wasn't working they murdered those in opposition.”

True.

snowyflake wrote:
At the end of the day, believers kill more in the name of God/YHVH Elohim/Allah/Buddah/Shiva than anyone else.

At the end of the day, Stalin, an anti-religious, anti-believer atheist, mass murdered millions in the name of an all-encompassing economic, sociological, psychological, theological (anti-religious atheistic), historical, political ideology that includes anti-religious atheism as a necessary core component.

At the end of the day, Pol Pot, an anti-religious, anti-believer atheist, mass murdered millions in the name of an all-encompassing economic, sociological, psychological, theological (anti-religious atheistic), historical, political ideology that includes anti-religious atheism as a necessary core component.

If you wish to compare beastliness, I will point out here that some historians suggest that Stalin mass murdered millions more than Adolf the beast, and that some historians conclude that Pol Pot mass murdered more than one-quarter of Cambodia’s pre-Khmer Rouge population.

If you wish to cease attributing beast-hood to believer-hood, I will join you in attributing beast-hood to madman-hood.

by Guest Sat Mar 30, 2013 1:25 pm

snowyflake wrote:
The qu'ran has several verses about not befriending the infidel and yet you choose to look at the verse that says treat the Jew and Christian with dignity and respect (because that's what's happening in the Middle East eh?).

I am neither a Muslim nor a Qur’anic scholar. I acknowledge these two truths whenever the opportunity to substantively interact with Muslins occurs.

Story #1.

In 1985, for maybe ten or eleven months, five men met every Wednesday night from about 8:15-10:00 PM. Four men were Muslims; two co-owned the restaurant in which we met, the other two, along with the first two, co-owned the hotel building in which the restaurant was located. The fifth man was me.

One Wednesday night, after a Bible study held at the business offices of one of the study group, I stepped out on the street shortly after 8:00 PM hungry. I looked across the street, noticed someone walking into the aforementioned restaurant, and “hooked ‘em.” Entering the restaurant and noticing the aroma, I asked if the menu included bar-b-que. The man behind the counter said, “We have beef ribs.” A light went on in my head and I asked, “Are you Jewish or Muslim?”

As it turned out, all four men were ex-members of the Nation of Islam (NOI), disbanded by Walis Muhammad shortly after Elijah Muhammad, Walis’ father, died. Left field, after it was disbanded by Walis Muhammad, NOI was re-established by Calypso Louie, aka Louis Farrakhan, a person that I despise with deep passion. Back on track, Walis understood that NOI’s tenet of hatred of all White People and NOI’s practice of labeling White people as “devils” were both contrary to the Qur’an and inherently immoral. Since he “inherited” NOI upon his father’s death, and thus possessed the authority and the ability to do so, he shut NOI down as his first and last series of actions as its head.

This background information is key because, to understand what happened at that restaurant, it is important to know that these men were Black, not Arabic, and that, as a consequence of Walis’ actions, they were free of any organizational constraints in their study of the Qur’an and their practice of Islam. I felt a kinship with them, partially because I was (and continue to be) also free of any organizational constraints in my study of the Bible (as I called it then) and my practice of Christianity.

Throughout the ten or eleven months that we five men met and studied together at that restaurant every Wednesday night, I asked the hard questions, including many questions about Qur’an verses like the “several verses about not befriending the infidel” that you’ve mentioned in your hard question to me.

One reason that the group quickly grew from the original three men, the two restaurant co-owners and me, two five men (the other two joined us the second week) was because word got out that there was a Christian brother who asked the hard questions “in the house”, and he wanted some hard answers.

I got hard answers. These men practiced brotherhood to all men, gender inclusive, regardless of “race”, ethnicity, religion (or non-religion), or anything else. All that they required was that the other persons be men gender inclusive of decency that were committed by word and deed to treating others with dignity, honor, respect, and decency. These men showed me and taught me verses from the Qur’an that supported their practice of brotherhood to all men, including the Christian in their midst with whom they weekly studied and disagreed.

I am neither Muslim nor Qur’anic scholar. These four Muslim brothers were Muslims and Qur’anic scholars. I pass on to you what they taught to me unadulterated by any “interpretation” added by me.

Story #2.

In 1988-1989, I taught twice weekly amnesty classes at an Anglican Church building located within a Hispanic neighborhood. All of my students were more or less Hispanic, including a significant number who were Mayan and for whom English was a third language after Mayan and Spanish. Assisting me every Tuesday and Thursday evening was a quiet, peaceful man who stood ten feet tall.

This man was a Muslim, a Pakistani native whose second language was Urdu. His was of an ethnic minority Pakistani tribe; his faith was a minority variant of Islam that was an anathema to the majority Pakistani faith because men of his faith taught from the Qur’an that all Muslims are called upon to treat “People of the Law”, Jews, and “People of the Book”, Christians, and by implication and inference all men of decency gender inclusive, with dignity, honor respect, and deference. Sounds familiar, and it should, because it echoes the four Muslim brothers’ words at the restaurant; men of two distinct ethnicities, two distinct cultures, from two distinct and separate continents and nations, saying and teaching by word and deed the exact same thing.

Once again, as I had done years earlier, I asked the hard questions, including many questions about Qur’an verses like the “several verses about not befriending the infidel” that you’ve mentioned in your hard question to me. This time, in addition to hard answers, I received as a gift my own copy of the Qur’an, in Arabic, with a side by side English translation included, from which this quiet, peaceful man peacefully and patiently showed me the specific pertinent verses. He didn’t shy away from those that you’ve mentioned; rather, he addressed them directly, as with sadness he said that these verses had been mis-taught and misunderstood for centuries and as with sadness he exposited each one from Arabic and showed me that these verses actually call upon Muslims to not befriend those who, within their religions, practice child sacrifices and other heinously immoral acts.

In May 1989, this man, now my beloved friend, told me that he was returning to Pakistan at risk of his life to complete paperwork to bring his wife and children out of Pakistan and to the US. My friend was in the US on a student visa, which allowed him to work only as a student assistant, his official title as he worked as my teacher assistant. Because of his education and training, he was eligible to transition to a permanent work visa as soon as he finished the ESL classes in which he was enrolled at the time (he was articulate in English, his fourth language of five, in order (1) his native language, (2) Urdu, (3) Arabic, (4) English, (5) French). He planned to do so and apply for US citizenship, and he wanted his wife and children to also become US citizens.

When we last met, my friend told me that if he were successful in his deep cover attempt to go into hostile territory, Pakistan, and extract his family therefrom, he would be back within a month and I would be invited to come to his home to meet his family over a meal prepared for me as an honored guest. On the other hand, if a month passed and there was now rod from him, that would mean that Pakistani authorities had detected his presence in Pakistan, arrested him, and after a “show trial”, executed him for daring to teach others that Muslims are called upon to treat non-Muslims with dignity, honor, respect, and deference.

That was the last time in my life I saw my friend. I mourn for him daily for twenty-three years, nine months and counting.

I am neither Muslim nor a Qur’anic scholar. I have been taught by my friend, a quiet, peaceful scholar who stood ten feet tall, that Muslims are to treat all men of decency gender inclusive, of all “races”, ethnicities, religions (non-religions), and cultures, with dignity, honor, respect, and deference. I pass what I have been taught unto you as pure as I received it, unadulterated by any addition by me, subtraction by me, or alteration by me, in honor of he who taught me, one of the finest humans I have ever known.

snowyflake wrote:
Why does the verse about killing the infidel get edited out of your version of the qu'ran?

Can you not see that what you think is right is down to interpretation only?

Please honor me by reading and understanding my writing above and by refraining from attributing to me any such disingenuous editing which your question above implies that I might have performed for any reason or purpose.

Once again, if you have not done so, please read the extensive, thoughtful, heart-wrenching essay at the following link:

https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t176p90-sharia-law-vs-christian-law#13629

by oftenwrong Sat Mar 30, 2013 5:04 pm

A Rose, by any other name, smells as sweet.
W Shakespeare

Racism, however disguised, stinks in the nostrils of honest men.

by snowyflake Sat Mar 30, 2013 6:05 pm

Racism, however disguised, stinks in the nostrils of honest men.

Yes, it does, OW, so please stop being a racist.

by snowyflake Sat Mar 30, 2013 6:12 pm

At the end of the day, Stalin, an anti-religious, anti-believer atheist, mass murdered millions in the name of an all-encompassing economic, sociological, psychological, theological (anti-religious atheistic), historical, political ideology that includes anti-religious atheism as a necessary core component.

God is a mass-murderer according to the bible. A genocidal, homicidal maniac. If he is not, please explain to me what the verses that I posted mean? Can God be all-loving, all-merciful yet murder millions?

by snowyflake Sat Mar 30, 2013 6:13 pm

Rock, thank you for posting your story of your friend. How do you know he is dead and not just living in Pakistan with his family?

by Guest Sat Mar 30, 2013 6:25 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
At the end of the day, Stalin, an anti-religious, anti-believer atheist, mass murdered millions in the name of an all-encompassing economic, sociological, psychological, theological (anti-religious atheistic), historical, political ideology that includes anti-religious atheism as a necessary core component.

Stalin and Pol Pot are mass murderers according to history. I’ve given you the short answer repeated below,

YHVH Elohim is all-merciful, verified throughout the Hebrew and Greek Bibles from Genesis to Revelation.

by snowyflake Sat Mar 30, 2013 6:36 pm

I await your answer to my question; upon receiving your answer, I can begin answering comprehensively, starting with Y’shua’s teaching, “Treat others as you wish others treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.”

Sorry, Rock, in all of the discussion I've forgotten your question. Can you repeat it please?

Is there a difference between YHVH and the God of the bible?

by Guest Sat Mar 30, 2013 6:42 pm

oftenwrong wrote:
A Rose, by any other name, smells as sweet.
W Shakespeare

Racism, however disguised, stinks in the nostrils of honest men.

Racism disguised as cultural deference stinks in my nostrils. I am a Black American, a Black Texan, a West African of the Diaspora, a Cherokee whose ancestor survived the Trail of Tears only to be enslaved until emancipation, a Scot whose ancestors persecuted by Englishmen, and an Irishman whose ancestors survived the potato famine by immigrating to the US while your ancestors’ larders were fattened by the same crops denied my ancestors because of their “race.”

Depending on who’s counting, that’s four to six cultures persecuted by Englishmen and their descendants because of their “race.” Lecturing me about racism from your privileged English perch is the height of audacity.

by Sponsored content