I am sure you have all been wondering "What's up with Intolerant? (Then again, maybe not!) I took a little breather to surf the web for some stimulating Canadian political debate. What I came across was unbelievable...and yet very believable.
For those of you who read my last post I called my own Prime Minister to task for his double take on income trust funds. I headed over to another site where there was some typical conservative bashing and how the Prime Minister is a big fat liar, ad nauseum. I decided to take part in this particular debate to remind them of the last 13 years of a Liberal government that was so bogged down in scandalous corruption that they are the first political party in this nation to be under federal investigation. At least that was going to be my intent.
Then I was challenged by one of the biggest "Left wing nut's" I have ever come across in my entire life. He goes by the moniker of SolarisZen. For some reason he wanted to take the debate into the "gay marriage" territory. I have actually been trying to avoid this topic, for the time being, as it is always going to be there and I just wanted to change direction simply for the sake of change. But Solaris wanted to engage and being the tolerant individual that I am I decided to oblige him and indulge.
I am already well aware of how some of my left wing blogging buddies feel regarding the topic of gay mariage. But what I am about to display is the actual dialogue between myself and this (ahem)....you know what? I just do not have a nice word for him. Anyway, focus not on the topic but the content of this deluded individual. This crackpot measures above and beyond the typical left wing stereotype. In fact he epitomizes it with his name calling, accusations, rhetoric, and insinuations while avoiding any and all support/responsibility for his rationale and claims. On one point I ask him a total of five times to demonstrate his "evidence" for a ludicrous claim he has made regarding our Prime Minister as a racist. In fact anyone who contributed to the discussion that did not agree with him (regardless of the topic) was cast as a "Hateful, racist" (LOL I am laughing as I type this :))))
I will say this. I do have a greater appreciation for my left wing friends who continue to visit this site. Because of the level of maturity and mutual respect many of you have shown I know that despite people like Solaris not all "Lefties" are like him. I am also quite sure there are many of the "Right" persuasion who are just like Solaris.
I still have no idea what exactly he was trying establish. He was either drunk, stoned, or just plain stupid. I will admit as you read the dialogue that I am guilty of getting just a little bit RAW with the lad. Some of it tongue in cheek, some of it to provoke (just a little ;) and some just to drive him a little stir crazy (like using his own words against him like "hate" and "phobia") but what can I say? He was asking for it.
The following was our entire dialogue. I have left in all his bad grammar and spelling mistakes for good measure. Without further adieu sit back, grab your popcorn, and (hopefully) have a little chuckle. This guy takes the cake!
It all begins with my response to someone else:
TIO said:
Yeah those liberals were such a wonderful honest bunch. They would never screw anyone over would they? Hmmmm smells like remnants of "And if elected I will abolish that stupid tax the GST!" I assume you were saying the same thing back then as well?
SolarisZen said:
here is some info for you... it was Brian Malruny who brought in the GST!!! And I would rather the liberals than a party that are fundamentaly racist!!!
TIO said:
Actually it is Mulroney and I am well aware he brought in the GST. What exactly is your point? As far as your "racist" comment regarding Harper would you care to back that up with some concrete evidence? Or is it just another "angry" word you throw around loosely just like other term's such as homophobe, bigot, or my personal fave INTOLERANT? :p
SolarisZen
No problem, he brings up the whole gay marrige, a topic that is NOT nessessary and does nothing for those people with that sexual orientation,
TIO said:
It was never necessary to re-define the term marriage in the first place. Gays always had the RIGHT to marry therefore they were never discriminated against. He brought it up because...
A) 67% of Canadians never did support it (they supported civil union) B) Liberals are incapable of understanding or comprehending the term "Free vote" (Not forced vote on Cabinet Ministers)...
C) Gay marriage has everything to do with other people in this country who are now losing their own fundamental freedoms (moral conscience, religious) guaranteed to them under the Charter. If they cannot be protected (even though the Charter says they are supposed to be) then throw the Charter in the garbage can!
SolarisZen said:
Religon has NOTHING to do with people getting married!!! Also where are YOUR facts on this 67% when the MAJORITY or canadians are tolerant and want answers to real questions such as health care and education not what people do in the bedroom! )
Yea it is because if one loves someone theno they can get MARRIED and be reconized as a MARRIED couple. Not just a "civil union between two men" bull. Thanks for the spin but no thanks, I rather stick to reality!
TIO said:
Religious rights and freedoms have nothing to do with it? Is your head that far up your rear? Explain that to the numerous marriage commissioners (who are NOT gov't. employee's BTW) who lost their licenses to marry couples because the Charter that supposedly protected their rights failed them to accommodate a sexual lifestyle...Re: 67% December/03 Compas polling asked the question of Canadians regarding their views on gay marriage. Results: 30% don't recognize them at all.37% recognize them as civil unions, not as marriages. Only 31% percent supported while the other 2% had no response. That was neat how you deflected the onus off yourself from providing any evidence regarding you delusions of Harpers racism. Back it up or shut up! If what people did in the bedroom did not actually affect other's rights and freedoms we would not be having this debate. However if your so keen on sticking to reality (as you say) then I am sure you would be the first to defend those whose Charter rights who are being discriminated against by having both their religious and moral conscience freedoms trampled upon for not violating their supposed right to freedom of religious expression by marrying gay couples? You do recognize their rights as well do you not? Or are the only rights gay rights?
SolarisZen said:
The right to religion is that one can practice it. The right to marrige is that one can get married when two people are in love and be reconized by sociaty as religion in and of itself is reconized (i.e. the religion of BOB.) It is that simple! Religion does not trounce indevidual rights!!! I'm not here to convince you, since you are VERY angry and rather that you deal with your personal issues you are forcing your hate on others and that is not right in any religion or sociaty. No, religious rights do not! How many religions advocate violence like your own. Christianity accepts and promotes love but yet here you are spouting hatred towards people with different sexual orientation. Even with the "war on terror" where its muslims vs christianity. There is no such thing. Both religions teach tollerance but then there are people like you who turn it around it hate. those that do DESERVE to loose their licence and even a lot more!!! (take note of his "Tolerance")
TIO said:
LOL your response is so utterly typical and asinine. Your redundant rhetoric was so predictable that I could have written your response for you. One does not agree with gay marriage therefore they must hate homosexuals. Oh do shut up already! So far thru out this diatribe you continue to deflect the reality (again, which you claim to live in) and address the Charter and human rights issues that have already affected INDIVIDUAL Canadians. ALL are equal under the code. Homosexuals rights cannot trump individual religious rights and freedoms. It goes both ways. You cannot substantiate anything you say so you resort to accusing myself and others of hatred and intolerance. That's it? You cannot debate logically or intellectually so you bombard the other side with unfounded claims and name calling? Just like your "racist Harper" comment, which BTW, I am STILL awaiting your source of foundation for such a stupid remark. You accuse myself of anger yet when I read thru your list of comments to others you call them idiots and morons while making false accusations against them and others. Just who is the angry one here? So let me see if I understand you here by your venomous "rage of red" verbal diarrhea. I advocate violence? Do show me anywhere in my comments where I have done so. I spout hatred? Why is that? Because I disagree with gay marriage? Demonstrate where there is hate in such a statement. Or is that your idea of "Tolerance"? As long as someone agrees with you they are considered tolerant? If that is the case you would not know tolerance if it slapped you upside the head. Tolerance does NOT mean one MUST accept something they hold a moral conviction about, unless of course they live in your totalitarian world, in which case "Forced Acceptance" is tolerance.
SolarisZen said:
Isn't that interesting. Your first statment here describes you to a tea! I say no one should trumph indevidual rights. You come along and start ranting how religion is indevidual when in fact it is not and since not all people belong to your religion or even agrea with yoour ideals then you call us facist. Now I see you have no idea what you are talking about! Again no accusations here. Who is the one that goes on about morality and values? If you have such issues I think you need professional help. Not be here banging on on why it is ok for you to hate then lable and accuse other people of hatred since they are against your value system. Its idiotic to see why you are wrong but then its ok for you to spin and accuse us of being wrong while labling us as stupid and accusatory. Again. You think relgion is an "indevidual right" I didn't kow I was automatically part of your religion thus I have to obay your "morals/values" and you call me a facist? lol no accusations here. You practice your name to a tea. Again. there is plenty of evedence. a PM should NOT call Canada a "welfair state" or even take the rights of indevidual canadians away over hateful religions that ostracize INDEVIDUALS simply because of their sexuality!!! It has not affected indevidual Canadians? Why? Because religion has nothing to do with the indevidual. I agree my response is "typical," asinie? Nope since only a hate monger would view such comment as so. If you weren't homophobic then what is wrong with two people that love each other getting married? And no religion has nothing to do with love! Not everyone has a religion that is so "hell"bent on hate!
(Are you starting to get the picture?)
TIO said:
You clearly type with an angry hand. Let's see if we can penetrate your narrow minded, intolerant, bigoted, Christianphobic mind with some yet more reality. Under the Charter INDIVIDUAL Canadian citizens are guaranteed their freedom of religion and moral conscience. It does not read as a group. BTW there is NO mention of "sexual orientation" in the Charter as it reads today. Try reading it some time. Twice you accuse me of calling you fascist. Again another statement displaying your lack of credibility by putting words into my mouth that I have not said. If I did then quote me otherwise stop making false claims. You only end up reinforcing the claim that you are indeed accusatory. You seem to suffer from paranoid "delusions of grandeur" that anyone who opposes gay marriage is A) religious B) Hates homosexuals. Here is some more reality for you hotshot. There are many gay people who do not favor it either. And those of us who do oppose it are not all religious. AND some of us "religious" folk still have loved ones , working relationships and friendships with gay people. Sorry, Tolerant gay people who respect our right to disagree. In the real world it is quite possible to co-exist in society while not always agreeing. To be able to express one's viewpoint without being accused of hate where there is none. That is the true meaning of tolerance. Something you fail to realize. In your world it is "agree with me or I will hurl insults at you and accuse you of hate". I am not intimidated by such irrational thinking. The word homophobe is not even applicable in many cases. Many, like your self, use it to try and instill guilt and to shame others into silence so they will not exercise their democratic right to freedom of expression. If you want to label someone a homophobe, by definition of the word, you must first prove hate. Simply disagreeing with gay marriage is not hate. Thru out this dialogue you have continued rant and rave and yet when challenged you have backed up squat! YOU said Harper is a racist? Prove it! YOU said I hate gay people because I disagree with gay marriage? Prove it? (Prove it to my gay sister too). YOU said Christianity is full of hate? Tell that to the homeless (gay and straight) who are fed and sheltered by their many agencies. You have avoided every challenge to support your inflammatory accusations with evidence. Back it up or shut up!
SolarisZen said:
great lets see those facts!!! If there is no hate you wouldn't be spouting such rehtoric. Any normal, logical human being knows when two people lobe each other they can get married. YOU bring religion into it when it has NOTHING to do with the rights of an indevidual. I love to see these people who you claim are agianst such freedoms by warping religion to such a hateful adgenda. Again, you love using the word "accuse" or accusatory. Here is a hint. To accuse someone is to lable without knowing facts. Telling me "in your totalrian world" stats that you have accused me of being a facist, where you site "christianphobia" and religion over and over again to promote your hatred. Thus you have proven with FACTS that you are racist/prejudgist. Again, calling me angery and spouting off viteral of "Christianphobic." I like the "narrow mind" comment. Since you refuse to accept that people are not born christians at birth! They join a GROUP much later in life. I understand you don't know much about the charter but sexual orientation IS there. For instance one CANNOT discriminate based on sexual orientation such as a job.
TIO said:
Let's try this one more time Mr. Grumpy pants. Do you actually read what I write or do you skim over it quickly while having a tantrum? First you ask for facts? Since when have you provided one single fact yourself? For the FIFTH time, what do you base your delusional opinion on Harper being a racist? You have continued to avoid your own comment without any factual support while constantly demanding facts from me which I provided re: majority of Canadians who do not support gay marriage. You want more facts? Then start providing your own. Secondly the Charter reads as "sex" referring to gender NOT orientation. Supreme court judges have read it into the Charter but orientation is not in there. You are thinking of the human rights code. It's no wonder you cannot provide facts. You cannot seem to get them straight. Regarding my "Christianphobia" comment, that was an intentional shot to show you how ridiculous you sound when you espouse "homophobia" every time someone does not agree with your perception. Re-read what I said. Just because someone disagrees with gay marriage that does NOT make them a homophobe!!! Re: "groups". I guess then it would be fair to "label" the gay community as a group as well? Re: fascist. Go back and read your own comments thru out this thread. You have accused everybody of being fascist. And calling me racist?!?! Now I know you are truly disturbed. Speaking as a Caucasian male my aboriginal wife just about fell over laughing when I showed her your dumbass statement. It is quite clear you are incapable of backing up anything you say but you are very good at avoiding responsibility or accountability for your own comments. Thereby invalidating your weak points. The rest were not points at all. For all the name calling and false accusations you have hurled my way you clearly display your close minded, Christianphobic, religiously intolerant, and bigoted attitudes towards all who do not agree with your way of thinking (or lack of). If the "politically correct" of society were to remove all penis's from statues because they deemed them "not gender friendly" you would be the first one in the crowd to ignore the facts and instead blame it on the Christians saying that we said it was too pornographic. It has been a blast watching you substantiate absolutely nothing you have said. I am off to hold an intelligent conversation with my 7 year old. Hope one day you can get over your "hateful" ways :)
There you have it folks. The entire onus is on me to prove everything well Solaris was able to rant and rave and do everything else he accused me of. That was the best laugh I had all week.
Now we have all heard the expression that "If you do not have nothing nice to say then do not say anything at all". Fine then, how about I just tell the truth? Solaris...when you talk you come across as a moron.
Until next time...
74 comments:
LOL - TIO, that's the perfect example of why I love you. Though I disagree with EVERY damn point you made (you know where I stand) I would back you up against this dude any day, because frankly, the guys a dumb ass, and as a 'lefty' I'd hate to be associated with him. I'll take your brand of 'hatemongering' and 'racism' and 'facism' (facism, really??) any day over his brand of 'tolerance' and 'love'....
EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!
I hope it's not to nit-picking of me to point out that "Canadian Conservative" = "Texas Liberal". We were jailing people for homosexual sex acts before the supreme court told us that we couldn't a couple of years ago.
Well done TIO.....Some people just don't know when to stop, and this "lefty" won't support him either!
Zoe xx
p.s I just re-read some bits and I think you were a tad less cordial than he is used to...lol
Love that sign! And what is up with the """"""??
Very entertaining!
Mandora,
Yeah I luv ya too my most treasured adversary ;)
You could agree with at least ONE point? C'mon, surley some of my common sense must have penetrated that purty l'il head of yours LOL
Nog,
If I understand you correctly here then you are suggesting that your American liberals are more conservative then they let on?
Zoe,
Thanks for the compliment. Much appreciated.
Yes I would agree I must have come across not very "cordial" but I am sure he is only used to people who agree with him and tuning everyone else out.
For the record, he spammed my final comment. So to push the envelope further I invited him over here to have his say. Why not keep the entertainment value running as long as I can by allowing more of his stupid talk? That way he can go on and on and on and....
You asked:
what is up with the """"""??
I am not sure what this means??? Please specify
I'm sorry. I mean't all the words in inverted commas in his sentances.
Rather annoying.
TIO,
Well... ok. So I MIGHT agree on a couple of points.... (quite a few actually) .... just can't let on that I agree... I can't, or who would keep you in line?
It's gonna havta be our little secret.
Shhhhh.......
Q,
Glad to see ya comin' around for a visit bro. I missed your input.
As far as our Canadian conservatives it is also quite possible they are just Democratic American draft dodgers ;)
Mandora,
You are a lady of mystery sometimes. I would just love to know exactly which points you DO agree with.
If that is the case you would not know tolerance if it slapped you upside the head.
BRILLIANT
imuslim,
I take it then you approve of my "verbal" spanking of this particular individual? :)
Aye caramba, talk about...something or other hitting the fan.
Mr. Grumpy Pants?!?!? ROFLMAO. 1 of your kids teach you that 1? Hehehehe.
Liberals are incapable of understanding or comprehending the term "Free vote" (Not forced vote on Cabinet Ministers)...
Ummm....ALL liberals, or a select group? Couldja explain that, please? (I'm not Canadian, I thought all votes were 'free')
C) Gay marriage has everything to do with other people in this country who are now losing their own fundamental freedoms (moral conscience, religious) guaranteed to them under the Charter
This 1 had me at a bit of a loss. Is this another Canadian thing?
I've had similar conversations w/Young Earth creationists. I have to admit, you're FAR more tolerant than I am.
Then again, I don't suffer fools gladly.
KA,
Long read hey? Like reading one of your post's (LOL)
"Ummm....ALL liberals, or a select group? Couldja explain that, please? (I'm not Canadian, I thought all votes were 'free')"
A select group. The last time the vote on gay marriage was called (June/05) The then reigning party at that time, The Liberal Party of Canada, calld for a "Free vote" in the House of commons.
The Prime Minister at the time, Paul Martin, in his compassionate way wanted everyone to be able to be free to excercise their right to freedom of moral conscience gauranteed to them under our Charter of Human rights. He further respected this freedom and "free vote" by telling his Cabinet Ministers that it was considered a "vote of confidence" and they will be expected to vote in favor of the gay marriage bill.
They were 72 Ministers essentially being told it was a free vote for everyone else...except them. Click here for more info o the latest The New Democrat Party of Canada (extreme left) did the same thing only it told ALL their members how to vote.
In other words the vote on gay marriage was never satisfied in the eyes of many Canandians because the process was not democratic.
The station I have directed you too is known for it's Liberal slant so watch and listen closely to how they pose questions.
BTW, Paul Martin in true Liberal fashion never supported abortion or gay marriage and yet voted to legalise both of them.
"This 1 had me at a bit of a loss. Is this another Canadian thing?"
Yes it is. It was understood that th e reason gays should be allowed to marry was that it violated their constitutional rights. The opposing argument regarding our Charter was that it would be a bungled mess trying to juggle both gay rights and religious rights/moral conscience (freedom of...) without having one override the other. Something that is a no-no under human rights laws since all are recognized as equal.
However as it stands so far today we are seeing those with convictions/moral conscience's/religious beliefs being targeted for refusing to perform gay weddings. Refusal is a "right" they previously had regarding hetrosexual couples.
Even if gay marriage remains the Conservatives may have to bring in the "Religious Freedoms Act". A bill that has been rumored to be floating around in the House in the event the gay marriage debate does not get re-opened.
"I have to admit, you're FAR more tolerant than I am.
Then again, I don't suffer fools gladly."
Believe me it was not easy. It is was tempting to get drawn into a pissing contest.
I take it then you approve of my "verbal" spanking of this particular individual?
I found the whole thing quite amusing, but i have to admit i wouldn't have resorted to calling the other party narrow-minded etc (even if they were!) because that tends to make them even more narrow-minded in defense of their pride.
I'm not one for confrontation to be honest!!!
But then again, you weren't arguing for the sake of arguing, but rather to educate, i imagine??
imuslim,
"that tends to make them even more narrow-minded in defense of their pride"
He was already well past that point so I pointed out the obvious. Which of course I knew would fuel the flame but I was also having fun with it at the same time. A little bizarre quirk I have. If I smell blood (in the debate arena) I kill them slowly with hard little nips at the jugular. :)
"But then again, you weren't arguing for the sake of arguing, but rather to educate, i imagine??"
Your right on in that assessment. I am not interested in arguing but in stimulating debate. However, as you can tell by reading the post, this guy wanted a fight and was not interested in opening his mind to consider (not necessarily agree) other perspectives. He wanted a fight from the get go and I was good to go!
I usually do not entertain that kind of rhetoric but I was just in a scrappy mood when he came along. I was hoping he would settle down and at least consider reason. My original intent was to "educate" him as you say but he was not having any part of it. He is exactly that which he accuses me of being. Intolerant, bigoted, hateful, spiteful, and phobic! (He obviously has a hateful fear of Christians)
He obviously has a hateful fear of Christians
I think it is more a fear of religion itself - any system where God dictates the rules, so one can't really argue.
Nor do we need to when one realises God is all-Knowing, Wise and Just.
imuslim,
Good point. I would agree with that as well. I think my comment was made because he made some fairly direct comments regarding Christianity and has obvious with it.
Sorry, I meant to say "has obvious issues with it".
I think it is more a fear of religion itself - any system where God dictates the rules, so one can't really argue.
I like to think that God's open to debate on some issues - if I can provide a solid argument, I don't see why He shouldn't entertain it.
I like to think that God's open to debate on some issues - if I can provide a solid argument, I don't see why He shouldn't entertain it.
Do you have God's phone number to put your point across?
Just being cheeksome.
imuslim -
I wish I did. Boy, do I have some questions to ask and some arguments to make.....
His thoughts are like the grains of sand. Our wisdom is but foolishness to Him. AND you want to debate Him?
Darlin', first go and read the book of Job in the Old Testament and then let me know if you are still interested.
Mandora,
We are all going to meet God one day, but darling, He'll be the one questioning us!
I just checked out your blog.
I was reading through the comments on the 21/11/06 entry. I didn't know Buddhists believed in God. Is this a common teaching or are you someone who believes in God, but follows Buddhist philosophy?
And TIO, i'll forgive the association with Islam and Satanism - the only cure for ignorance is knowledge.
Just because there isn't a Muslim in the "room" to hear the slurs, it doesn't mean you won't eventually get called on it - and i don't mean by me - i mean by HIM *points up*.
Of course i will take my own advice first and I seek refuge in God from hypocrisy.
BW all.
I just realised we both called Mandora "darling". How funny!
I must have been writing my entry while TIO was posting his.
haha
"And TIO, i'll forgive the association with Islam and Satanism "
??? Are you referring to my pictures on the side bar?
IF that is what you are referencing then you have misunderstood. Everything up there is a seperate picture. Everytime I come across something of signifcance I post it there.
The Satan sucks is, well, true! But I was not linking it with the bar regarding Islamic terrorists. They are in fact two seperate pieces.
TIO:
Long read hey? Like reading one of your post's (LOL)
Yeah, I am a bit long-winded, ey?
The Prime Minister at the time, Paul Martin, in his compassionate way wanted everyone to be able to be free to excercise their right to freedom of moral conscience gauranteed to them under our Charter of Human rights. He further respected this freedom and "free vote" by telling his Cabinet Ministers that it was considered a "vote of confidence" and they will be expected to vote in favor of the gay marriage bill.
Ummm…most political parties do this sorta thing, don’t they?
They were 72 Ministers essentially being told it was a free vote for everyone else...except them. The New Democrat Party of Canada (extreme left) did the same thing only it told ALL their members how to vote.
This gets a tad confusing. 72 ministers? Are they religious, or political? Is that what you get when you go to Canadian heaven? (hehehehe)
In other words the vote on gay marriage was never satisfied in the eyes of many Canandians because the process was not democratic.
Your country is a representative republic?
BTW, Paul Martin in true Liberal fashion never supported abortion or gay marriage and yet voted to legalise both of them.
Waitaminnit: I’d assume a vote would be a show of support, would it not?
Yes it is. It was understood that th e reason gays should be allowed to marry was that it violated their constitutional rights. The opposing argument regarding our Charter was that it would be a bungled mess trying to juggle both gay rights and religious rights/moral conscience (freedom of...) without having one override the other. Something that is a no-no under human rights laws since all are recognized as equal.
How would 1 override the other? Are you referring to priests & ministers being forced to perform a marriage against their beliefs?
However as it stands so far today we are seeing those with convictions/moral conscience's/religious beliefs being targeted for refusing to perform gay weddings. Refusal is a "right" they previously had regarding hetrosexual couples.
Just how are they being ‘targeted’? Criticized? Because that’s fine: no 1 is above criticism. If they’re being fined or imprisoned, that’s wrong.
Even if gay marriage remains the Conservatives may have to bring in the "Religious Freedoms Act". A bill that has been rumored to be floating around in the House in the event the gay marriage debate does not get re-opened.
I read up on that a little.
Tolerance is a 2 way street. You can’t force people to behave against their principles. Liberal or conservative.
Believe me it was not easy. It is was tempting to get drawn into a pissing contest.
Hey, I enjoy a spirited debate. Problem is, most bloggers couldn’t hit the target if they were w/in 2 feet & had a map (present company excluded).
Reminds me of a great joke:
This fellow goes into a bar, begins drinking a lot, and starts making ridiculous wagers. “I can throw this crumpled napkin into a shotglass from ten feet away!” “I can hit that bullseye on the dartboard blindfolded!” So the barkeep is just making money hand over fist, laughing all the while.
The fellow goes over to a table where ten men are seated. After a few minutes, he returns. “I’ll bet you a hundred dollars I can piss in a shot glass from 10 feet away!” The barkeep says, “You’re on!”, and puts the shotglass on the bar. Fellow whips it out, & tries. He manages to hit just about everything BUT the shotglass. Meanwhile, the barkeep is laughing his ass off.
Finally, the fellow zips up, & pays the barkeep. “Wow, I sure took you for a bundle!” he says.
“That’s nice,” said the fellow. “I just bet every guy at that table a 1000$ I could piss all over your bar, & you wouldn’t do a thing about it.”
(rim-shot)
KA,
"Ummm…most political parties do this sorta thing, don’t they?"
Agreed BUT in this case because the issue of gay marriage is a contentious one as well as one involving moral conscience (our reps are human after all) the then Prime Minister Paul Martin said that it would be a "Free vote" meaning that party discipline would not follow those who broke ranks with the Prime Minister's position. The hypocrisy was that he then did an about face and told his 72 Cabinet Ministers (not priests silly! Minister of Finance, Minister of...) they had to vote in favor of the bill or be removed from their position. Therefore it was not an entirely "Free vote". One cabinet Minster actually did resign his position. The NDP did the same with their entire party. Anyone who was going to vote against the bill was thrown out of the party. Only one lady (Bev Desjarlais) had the gonads to do that. She lost her seat and had to sit as an independent.
While the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a Charter that both the Liberals and the NDP parade around like the holy grail, allows every Canadian the right to freedom of conscience our representatives were denied that very right to be exercised in the House of Commons. EXCEPT the Conservatives. They allowed a true vote within their ranks and 5 conservatives actually voted for the bill. It is not even bias to point out in this instance that the conservatives were the only party to actually permit a true democratic free vote.
"Waitaminnit: I’d assume a vote would be a show of support, would it not?"
I thought that one was easy. He's a liberal. What they say and what they mean are two completely different things. Kind of like I did NOT have sexual relations with that woman" In 1999 Paul Martin said that he supported the traditional definition of marriage. Two years ago he said the same thing. Last year he said he still feels that way but as a government that "defends" charter issues he HAD to vote for it. It's called pandering to the special interest groups while desperately trying to cling to power. Regarding abortion, I did find this quote of his that I had kept on file:
""I am personally against abortion on demand, but I believe it is very clear that there must be legislation brought in that will deal with what is becoming simply a mish-mash of approaches" - Paul Martin (Halifax Daily News, July 20, 1989)
He is opposed to it so naturally he voted for it.
"How would 1 override the other? Are you referring to priests & ministers being forced to perform a marriage against their beliefs?"
Not YET! However, as I have shared in the past with you, marriage commissioners (Not Justices of the Peace) are having their Charter rights violated. They are being forced "out". by having their licenses revoked for not violating their own moral conscience/religious beliefs. Under the Charter and even under the Federal legislation they are protected. The wrench in it all is that marriage is a Provincial jurisdiction (you would call that a state jurisdiction) So while some Provinces have accommodated those with religious or moral conviction regarding gay marriage others, like my own that have an extreme Left wing party in power, are actually in a position to override the Charter. This is where it is all going to get ugly because now cases will be heading to the supreme courts to challenge the validity of the Charter. Does it protect each and every Canadian citizen as individuals or does it not?
"Just how are they being ‘targeted’? Criticized? Because that’s fine: no 1 is above criticism. If they’re being fined or imprisoned, that’s wrong."
I agree with the criticism angle. But having one's license to marry couples stripped from them for not violating their entitled and inherent right to freedom of moral and religious conscience is a distinct form of discrimination and persecution.
"Tolerance is a 2 way street. You can’t force people to behave against their principles. Liberal or conservative."
Agreed. This is a message I often try to get across to those who claim they are tolerant such as the fool I debated (if you even want to call it that) in the post.
Loved the joke BTW. That was hilarious!
TIO,
Are you referring to my pictures on the side bar?
No matey - i meant your comment on Mandora's blog, the entry on 21/11/06.
Wrt to the counter, i'm used to hearing the terrorism charge, and i don't take that crap personally. I just hate it when people call it "islamic" terrorism - it's an oxymoron.
People believe what they want - just gotta try and educate them one at a time. I think you understand that.
If they listen, great, if not, their loss. Although i still pray that each of us is guided to the truth.
BW
imuslim,
Ohhh that one! That was a tongue in cheek shot. As you may be aware often Christendom on my side of the planet has been accused of being the Great White Satan. My shot was directed at Radical Islamic Fundementalists (ie Terrorists)
I understand and sympathise with your perspective. It is no different then when a "supposed" Christian leader is caught up in a sexual scandal or promotes hatred (see article I wrote back in August) and we all get labelled because of it.
If I am honest with you I do not appreciate the inference that ALL Christians are like those who make the "claim" they are Christians but do not live out their faith according to the teachings the espouse. My response to Nog in that particular thread was meant in a light hearted way.
Regarding your other statement,
"We are all going to meet God one day, but darling, He'll be the one questioning us!"
I have a different take on this. I do not believe there will be anything for us to respond too. The Bible teaches that ALL will be laid out bare before us. For those who will not be enetering the gates of Heaven there will be silence as God reviews how they lived their lives in rebellion towards Him. Every word uttered, every evil thought concieved, and every act committed.
The "Righteous" who will be saved, not by good deeds, but by the grace of God who extended mercy to them by providing the ultimate sacrifice in His Son (and they recieved this gift from God) will still be judged on how they lived their lives for Christ in this life. Were they stagnant or active in sharing the "good news"? Did they use or abuse the good news? Some will enter in with reward and others by the skin of their teeth.
BUT back to my original point, I do believe before the throne of God ALL will be silent. No excuses will be heard.
The Bible teaches that ALL will be laid out bare before us. For those who will not be enetering the gates of Heaven there will be silence as God reviews how they lived their lives in rebellion towards Him. Every word uttered, every evil thought concieved, and every act committed.
And when all is laid bare, I'm still gonna have some disagreeable words for the Almighty. I don't care - unless good answers are provided, I'm arguing my points. I dont' accept ANYONE'S authority on anything... you need to prove it to me.
To steal a post from another blog:
"If you died and arrived at the gates of Heaven, what would you say to God to justify your lifelong atheism? I’d quote Bertrand Russell: “Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence.”"
imuslim -
Lots of buddhists believe in a supreme being/God. Not inconsistent with Buddhism by any means. Buddhism (IMO) is more of a philosophy than a religion. Does not ask for blind faith - only reflection and right living.
The only inconsistency of course would be reincarnation.... can't help reconcile the two opposing views on that one.... you either buy one or the other. I personally buy neither in it's entirity...that's why I don't consider myself a TRUE buddhist....
Mandora,
"And when all is laid bare, I'm still gonna have some disagreeable words for the Almighty."
Bold words for the Almighty, however, if He wants your silence...trust me girl there will not be anything coming out of your mouth. I believe the other reason for this is because once stand before Him all your questions concerning Him will be answered before have the chance to ask them. You will be in the presence of ALL knowledge at that point.
"I don't care - unless good answers are provided, I'm arguing my points."
Uhmmm no your not! And what exactly qualifies a "good answer"? Your version of what the answer should be according to your way of thinking?
"I dont' accept ANYONE'S authority on anything... you need to prove it to me."
There in lies your rebellion. Proof? Here is what the scriptures say taken out of Romans 1:18-23 (The Message translation)
"But God's angry displeasure erupts as acts of human mistrust and wrongdoing and lying accumulate, as people try to put a shroud over truth. But the basic reality of God is plain enough. Open your eyes and there it is! By taking a long and thoughtful look at what God has created, people have always been able to see what their eyes as such can't see: eternal power, for instance, and the mystery of his divine being. So nobody has a good excuse. What happened was this: People knew God perfectly well, but when they didn't treat him like God, refusing to worship him, they trivialized themselves into silliness and confusion so that there was neither sense nor direction left in their lives. They pretended to know it all, but were illiterate regarding life. They traded the glory of God who holds the whole world in his hands for cheap figurines you can buy at any roadside stand."
I do not know how much more proof you require. If He does not exist then where does morality come from?
I think God would encourage his creation to think and be critical. The best parts of human nature unfold when we question and think for ourselves. Why did he give us free will and the ability to think for ourselves if he didn't want us to use it (blah blah, temption, blah blah etc... I don't buy it. Scare tactics...)
I don't put much stock in scripture... it filtered through human minds and human hands (regardless of whether you believe it was divine knowledge to begin with). The only thing that I can depend on in terms of my connection with the divine, the Almighty, God, (whatever you want to call it), is myself and my own thoughts, inferences, and ideas...in other words, what I just 'feel' or 'know'... I suppose in Christian terms I'm what you would call a gnostic.
TIO
if He wants your silence...trust me girl there will not be anything coming out of your mouth.
So free will ends in heaven?
Mandora,
"Why did he give us free will and the ability to think for ourselves if he didn't want us to use it"
But He does. He wants you to willfully choose Him not forcefully. So far you have chosen to reject His word, His son, and His gift of salvation. You have been exercising the free will He has given to you already. Even God does not want your adoration because you are being forced to give it. That would not be sincere worship and love towards Him.
"...myself and my own thoughts, inferences, and ideas...in other words, what I just 'feel' or 'know'."
That of course is your choice just as long as you understand that God will not be put in a box and bound to your views, interpretations, and inferences of who He is. You may try and throw that one back at me but my views are based on what He reveals of Himself in the scriptures not by my own design. If God allowed us to make Him (and we do see traces of this today) out to be whomever we wanted Him to be then there would no longer be any solid foundational source. We would all make ourselves into god's and do ourselves in with the utter chaos that would ensue.
Q,
Hmmm the the "Deep sea scrolls of Darwinism"! Thanks for the tip. I will defenitley check it out. Maybe it will be fodder for a future posting?
Karen,
Ya know girl, you just couldn't jump in earlier and comment about the moron I went at with in the posting. But alas, I shall respond because we have deep bond with tattoo's :)
Well, and because I have not heard from you in awhile and I missed you (sniffles)
"So free will ends in heaven?"
I was referring to the judgement throne of God. The answer is yes. You will not be running around doing your own thing. Both Heaven and Earth will be removed from the scene and it will be just us and God. He will separate the sheep from the goats. In Heaven there will not be the temptations we deal with here. It will be far more natural to just follow God. Not only that but we will finally look upon His face. At the point denial becomes an act in futility.
Once you are in His presence the last thing on your mind is going to be wanting to leave and do your own thing. Freewill to explore the glory and majesty of God in Heaven (maybe even other worlds) is how I imagine it. Freewill to rebel? When in the presence of God that is a no-brainer. One will automatically desire to want to be with Him. Once one gets a taste of Him they will only hunger for more.
TIO
Ya know girl, you just couldn't jump in earlier and comment about the moron I went at with in the posting.
You know, I tried, but I just couldn't get into it for some reason. Then I was gone for a while, and when I came back, the thread had just exploded--it seemed anyways. Sorry.
I was referring to the judgement throne of God. Yeah. I realized i got that wrong a little while after I posted. Ooops.
He will separate the sheep from the goats.
Ahh, to be a goat!
we will finally look upon His face. At the point denial becomes an act in futility.
Denial would go out the window, but that doesn't mean Lucy wouldn't have some 'splainin' to do!
When in the presence of God that is a no-brainer. One will automatically desire to want to be with Him. Once one gets a taste of Him they will only hunger for more.
Oh. Like Adam and Eve. What was that apple thing?
TIO:
Thanks for the primer on Canadian politics. Sounds like the old aphorism, "Too many cooks in the kitchen."
I thought that one was easy. He's a liberal. What they say and what they mean are two completely different things. Kind of like I did NOT have sexual relations with that woman"
Or like, 'we're going after WMD's that are PROVEN to exist!' Hehehehe.
I agree with the criticism angle. But having one's license to marry couples stripped from them for not violating their entitled and inherent right to freedom of moral and religious conscience is a distinct form of discrimination and persecution.
Agree. I'm not a big fan of thought police. Or political correctness.
Maybe it will be fodder for a future posting?
Better make sure you have the book in hand, my friend. I'll be watching (ominous foreshadowing music).
Here is what the scriptures say taken out of Romans 1:18-23
That was...extremely verbose, considering. Cheap souvenirs at a roadside stand? That sounds...terribly modernistic.
Oh, & I've done a 'Year in Review' post as well, case you're interested.
Q:
Lisening to NPR yesterday (Sunday) blah-de-blah blah
Yeah, more talking heads using allegory to frankensplice their apologia. Do provide some substantial links, outside of 'I heard it on the radio 1 day.' Here's a good link:
http://darwin-online.org.uk/
EVERYBODY has the complete works of Darwin (except for those people who swear by the 'Dancing Wu Li masters'). I searched the link provided, & a lotta folks had something to say on atheism, except, apparently, Darwin (Charles, not Erasmus).
It bugs me to no end sometimes: theists say, "Oh, Darwin said this'n'that in his private letters", you ask for which letter, to whom, from which edition (because they hand you a page #, that's contingent on WHICH publication), and wait for the fum-fahing.
So do provide some sort of link/data, outside of 'I heard this 1 day'. Please.
Karen,
"Oh. Like Adam and Eve. What was that apple thing?"
Although I will know the whole story one day for now I have drawn the conclusion that Eve must have been the Hottest dish in the entire excistence of the human race for a man to throw away what He had with God!!!
I also happen to know there are many of us Christian males who plan to "go looking" for Adam once we get there. There will proably be a line up to give him a hard kick in the shin.
KA,
"Or like, 'we're going after WMD's that are PROVEN to exist!' Hehehehe."
OK, Touché.
"Better make sure you have the book in hand, my friend. I'll be watching (ominous foreshadowing music)."
I anticipate that. Your "strikes" are swift, fast, and expected! That is why I said "maybe". I need to investigate the claim first. Of course if they turn out to be true I will be expecting you to attempt to discredit them :)
"That was...extremely verbose, considering. Cheap souvenirs at a roadside stand? That sounds...terribly modernistic."
That is because it is. The verses quoted were taken out of the book "The Message" which is an adaptation of the scriptures. The book takes the New Testament and puts into a novel form of reading. I very rarely quote it and do not rely on it for any teachings/sermons I may give. But every once in awhile it helps put the scriptures into better perspective by expounding on the meaning by relating it to today for those who are not familiar with them (the scriptures) which was the intent of the book.
Q:
NPR provides links to their interviews and sources. Look it up yourself, I'm not your secretary.
I tried, couldn't find it. You didn't even provide the name of the PhD, fer cryin' out loud.
The statements were presented as direct quotes from his letters. I don't care enough about the topic to pursue more details or to verify the data. I shared it with TIO because it seems to interest him. I don't care if you listen to the interview or not. I don't care if you read the text or not.
Hey, I get tired of searching for hours based on something tossed out as hearsay. Darwin gets quoted as saying this or saying that, & nobody seems to be able to give the exact place said quote was lifted from.
If you ignore data that you disagree with just because it doesn't fit your views, then it is your loss and you are the fool.
Hey, I don't ignore any data just because it doesn't fit my POV. I've changed a number of my own views over the last year. I just happen to be excruciatingly anal when it comes to quotes being bandied about, whether it's the bible, Darwin, Dawkins, hell, I correct other atheists on occasion.
PS - Up yours.
This from the guy who gave me static about blogging being about ego contests? You bring up the 'Dancing Wu Li Masters' constantly - you must own some other books, dontcha?
I object to hearsay because that's how rumors get started. The old game of telephone. That's why I (usually) back up my statements w/some sorta link.
TIO:
But every once in awhile it helps put the scriptures into better perspective by expounding on the meaning by relating it to today for those who are not familiar with them (the scriptures) which was the intent of the book.
Wasn't there some sorta rule, that 'whosover changeth 1 word in the book' shall perish, or somesuch?
KA,
Yes there was and it is found in the Book of Revealation/chapter 22 where Christ said we shall not add nor take away from the words of His book.
The Message and the author do not claim to be the authentic scriptures. The authors intent behind the book was to go thru the entire New Testament and write about how they might read had the book been written as a novel.
I do not find it strays from the underlying message or teachings of the Bible but I also recognise that it is not the Bible itself. The author is quite careful to acknowledge his intentions in writing the scriptural message in to a novel form. He makes no claim to "divine" inspiration in that we should now accept these.
The book of Mormon has "added" to the word with their own Bible. The United and Anglican church's (some factions) have "taken away" from His word by removing scriptures that do not appeal to mainstream views.
The message on the other hand is just an adaption that can be left to scrutiny but does not stray from the correct teachings. In fact everything that is found in the scriptures is found there only it's been put into a far more modern language.
Here is an example of comparison of the verse you were referring too:
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
Rev. 22:18-19 (The New International version)
Second verse same as the first...
I give fair warning to all who hear the words of the prophecy of this book: If you add to the words of this prophecy, God will add to your life the disasters written in this book; if you subtract from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will subtract your part from the Tree of Life and the Holy City that are written in this book.
Rev. 22:18-19 (The Message)
There is not alot of difference and I think it is fair to say that the message does not stray from the original word. The "point" is kept in tact.
TIO,
Wrt the Day of Judgement. It is true none of us will be up to saying much that day due to the horrors it involves:
1 When the earth is shaken to her (utmost) convulsion,
2 And the earth throws up her burdens (from within),
3 And man cries (distressed): 'What is the matter with her?'-
4 On that Day will she declare her tidings:
5 For that thy Lord will have given her inspiration.
6 On that Day will men proceed in companies sorted out, to be shown the deeds that they (had done).
7 Then shall anyone who has done an atom's weight of good, see it!
8 And anyone who has done an atom's weight of evil, shall see it.
[The Qur'an: Surah 99]
The disbelievers will only be questioned on their disbelief. The believers will be questioned on their deeds. There will be witnesses, including your own limbs (no-where to hide - how scary is that?).
"Although I will know the whole story one day for now I have drawn the conclusion that Eve must have been the Hottest dish in the entire excistence of the human race for a man to throw away what He had with God!!!
I also happen to know there are many of us Christian males who plan to "go looking" for Adam once we get there. There will proably be a line up to give him a hard kick in the shin."
Umm.. i don't think so! Show a little respect. They are our father and mother after all. The story is referred to several times in the Qur'an due to the many lessons we can learn from it. Adam and Eve (peace be upon them both) were naive. When Satan whispered to them in the Garden he made them a bunch of false promises saying he was their sincere advisor. Neither had never encountered evil or temptation before and thus made the huge mistake of trusting him, for which they suffered the consequences. But they acknowledged their sin and sincerely repented, thus God forgave them.
So give the great (to the power of n) grandparents a break!
Back to today: how many warnings have we been given about Satan and his tricks, yet how many times have we fallen prey to them? Don't you think we are the ones who deserve a good hiding? WHAT'S OUR EXCUSE?
Do not seek to kicketh the shin of thine father Adam, when thine shin be more worthy of such a bruising.
hehe
Correction: Neither had ever encountered evil or temptation before..
Q:
Found it. Not at NPR.
"http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext00/1llcd10.txt
"What my own views may be is a question of no consequence to any one but myself. But, as you ask, I may state that my judgment often fluctuates...In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind." This was in a letter addressed to John Forydyce, an atheist. So you were close: my apologies.
Whether Darwin was an atheist, an agnostic, or whatnot, I fail to see how that has any bearing whatsoever on evolutionary theory. He DID have a degree in theology, & was an avid fan of Paley, prior to his 'epiphany'.
TIO:
Although I will know the whole story one day for now I have drawn the conclusion that Eve must have been the Hottest dish in the entire existence of the human race for a man to throw away what He had with God!!!
Ummm...even though I'm a 'kaffir' (at least to imuslim), and I don't believe in any of that, the story as I know it, was that Eve was the only woman around. Unless you want to count all those 'helpmeets' that gawd trotted out prior to alleged creation of said woman? Hehehehe.
Of course, genesis is simply a borrowing from a # of other sources from other cultures.
imuslim:
Adam and Eve (peace be upon them both) were naive.
Oh, great. What a terribly responsible parent. No warnings, no cautionary tales, de nada. Swim or drown.
If I had kids, I'd certainly child-proof the bleedin' house. Omniscient? Hardly. Not even a proper parent.
imuslim,
1 When the earth is shaken to her (utmost) convulsion,
2 And the earth throws up her burdens (from within),
3 And man cries (distressed): 'What is the matter with her?'-
4 On that Day will she declare her tidings:
5 For that thy Lord will have given her inspiration.
6 On that Day will men proceed in companies sorted out, to be shown the deeds that they (had done).
7 Then shall anyone who has done an atom's weight of good, see it!
8 And anyone who has done an atom's weight of evil, shall see it.
Sounds a lot like the Biblical version that was written 600 years prior.
Jesus said: (Book of Matthew 24:6-14 & 29-30)
"And you will hear of wars and threats of wars, but don’t panic. Yes, these things must take place, but the end won’t follow immediately. 7 Nation will go to war against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in many parts of the world. 8 But all this is only the first of the birth pains, with more to come.
9 “Then you will be arrested, persecuted, and killed. You will be hated all over the world because you are my followers. 10 And many will turn away from me and betray and hate each other. 11 And many false prophets will appear and will deceive many people. 12 Sin will be rampant everywhere, and the love of many will grow cold. 13 But the one who endures to the end will be saved. 14 And the Good News about the Kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world, so that all nations will hear it; and then the end will come.
“Immediately after the anguish of those days,
the sun will be darkened,
the moon will give no light,
the stars will fall from the sky,
and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.
30 And then at last, the sign that the Son of Man is coming will appear in the heavens, and there will be deep mourning among all the peoples of the earth. And they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
Prophecy of John the revelator (Revelations 20:11-15)
11 And I saw a great white throne and the one sitting on it. The earth and sky fled from his presence, but they found no place to hide. 12 I saw the dead, both great and small, standing before God’s throne. And the books were opened, including the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to what they had done, as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up its dead, and death and the grave gave up their dead. And all were judged according to their deeds. 14 Then death and the grave were thrown into the lake of fire. This lake of fire is the second death. 15 And anyone whose name was not found recorded in the Book of Life was thrown into the lake of fire.
According to the Bible (which I believe to be the truth) believers and non believers alike will not be questioned. It says they will be judged according to their deeds. They will be silent before God.
"Umm.. i don't think so! Show a little respect. They are our father and mother after all."
Respect? You say that like I should have some sort of reverence towards him. Reverence is for God alone. Where have I disrespected? By making a lighthearted statement about "kicking Adam's shin" because his fall led to our current situation? Here is where are differences come into play. Adam is not my father, God is. Adam is my brother. A "forefather" but not my Father. I have been adopted into the family of God and recognize only Him as my Father. Christ said in Matthew 23:9
"And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.
" When Satan whispered to them in the Garden he made them a bunch of false promises saying he was their sincere advisor. Neither had never encountered evil or temptation before and thus made the huge mistake of trusting him, for which they suffered the consequences. "
Here is where you and I will disagree again. I see the Qur' an's version distorting what happened. It is recorded in Genesis that it was Eve who was deceived. Adam, who knew better, chose to listen to his wife rather then obey God's command to not eat of the tree.
11 “Who told you that you were naked?” the Lord God asked. “Have you eaten from the tree whose fruit I commanded you not to eat?”
12 The man replied, “It was the woman you gave me who gave me the fruit, and I ate it.”
13 Then the Lord God asked the woman, “What have you done?”
“The serpent deceived me,” she replied. “That’s why I ate it.”
Genesis 3:11-13
How did God respond to Adam?
"“Since you listened to your wife and ate from the tree
whose fruit I commanded you not to eat,..."
Adam was not deceived by the serpent, Eve was. Adam knew better but listened to his wife. Why? That is something I will know in eternity, in the meantime that is why I simply speculated, humorously, that Eve must have been a Hot (i.e. Beautiful) woman. This would not be hard to imagine considering she was created in perfection prior to the fall of man.
" But they acknowledged their sin and sincerely repented, thus God forgave them."
There ya go. I found something we agreed on.
"So give the great (to the power of n) grandparents a break!"
Grandparents. Now there is an even better way to look at them. And of course I hold no animosity towards them. If it were me back then I may have made the same wrong choice.
"WHAT'S OUR EXCUSE?"
How about "The devil made me do it!" (LOL) I know, I know, that won't fly.
KA,
" the story as I know it, was that Eve was the only woman around."
Right, she was but I was just stating that she must have been "Kate Beckinsdale" dropdead gorgeous for Adam to snap up the fruit and bite into it. In other words (hypothetically speaking) he may have been overwhelmed with her beauty to the point of negating his responsibility to uphold God's command.
I am not saying that IS what happened just a suggestion of possibility.
Seems totally reasonable. I'm that hot - people abandon God for me all the time.
;)
(waiting for TIO's head to implode about that comment...) hee hee
Q:
According to the Old Testament God gave men the ability to choose. Theists beleive that God made humans dangerous, then gave humans the ability to choose to not be dangerous.
Kinda familiar w/the mythology, thanks.
Whether one is an atheist or theist it is still true that we often choose poorly whether because of poor data, lack of thought, emotional confusion, etc.
??? I see your grasp of the obvious is as keen as ever.
KA,
Oh, great. What a terribly responsible parent. No warnings, no cautionary tales, de nada. Swim or drown.
Sorry, i didn't explain the whole story. God did warn them before not to take Satan as a sincere advisor after he had been expelled from Paradise for openly rebelling against God:
30 Behold, thy Lord said to the angels: "I will create a vicegerent on earth." They said: "Wilt Thou place therein one who will make mischief therein and shed blood?- whilst we do celebrate Thy praises and glorify Thy holy (name)?" He said: "I know what ye know not."
31 And He taught Adam the names of all things; then He placed them before the angels, and said: "Tell me the names of these if ye are right."
32 They said: "Glory to Thee, of knowledge We have none, save what Thou Hast taught us: In truth it is Thou Who art perfect in knowledge and wisdom."
33 He said: "O Adam! Tell them their natures." When he had told them, Allah said: "Did I not tell you that I know the secrets of heaven and earth, and I know what ye reveal and what ye conceal?"
34 And behold, We said to the angels: "Bow down to Adam" and they bowed down. Not so Iblis [Lucifer]: he refused and was haughty: and He was of those who reject Faith.
35 We said: "O Adam! dwell thou and thy wife in the Garden; and eat of the bountiful things therein as (where and when) ye will; but approach not this tree, or ye run into harm and transgression."
36 Then did Satan make them slip from the (garden), and get them out of the state (of felicity) in which they had been. We said: "Get ye down, all (ye people), with enmity between yourselves. On earth will be your dwelling-place and your means of livelihood - for a time."
37 Then learnt Adam from his Lord words of inspiration, and his Lord Turned towards him [in Forgiveness]; for He is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful.
38 We said: "Get ye down all from here; and if, as is sure, there comes to you Guidance from me, whosoever follows My guidance, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
39 "But those who reject Faith and belie Our Signs, they shall be companions of the Fire; they shall abide therein." [Surah Baqarah]
That's the whole story in a nut-shell, but further details are given in different chapters of the Qur'an.
TIO,
Sounds a lot like the Biblical version that was written 600 years prior.
Well, as i said over at Lucy's, the Qur'an and Bible do share a common origin - GOD!
This Qur'an is not such as can be produced by other than Allah, on the contrary it is a confirmation of (revelations) that went before it, and a fuller explanation of the Book - wherein there is no doubt - from the Lord of the worlds. Or do they say, "He forged it"? say: "Bring then a Sura like unto it, and call (to your aid) anyone you can besides Allah, if it be ye speak the truth!" Nay, they charge with falsehood that whose knowledge they cannot compass, even before the elucidation thereof hath reached them: thus did those before them make charges of falsehood: but see what was the end of those who did wrong! [Surah Yunus, 37-39]
I really wish you would read the Qur'an asap so you could truly appreciate how much we have in common.
Respect? You say that like I should have some sort of reverence towards him... Adam is not my father, God is.
We respect Adam because like all of our elders (father, grandfather, great grandfather and beyond...) he deserves respect. Plus he was a righteous man, even if he made some mistakes.
Adam is ultimately the father of the entire human race as the line began with him.
God is our Creator.
Although i understand the paternal role implied, Muslims do not refer to God as "Our Father" as this suggests a human link, but God is far above His creation.
Anyway, this is a matter where we'll definitely disagree as you believe God manifested Himself on Earth as a human...
The man replied, “It was the woman you gave me who gave me the fruit, and I ate it.”
That sounds more like mankind putting all the blame on womankind to me, when in fact they both share the blame, as they both followed Satan and they both ate from the tree.
Anyway, we can also argue that point till the cows come home as long as you follow the Bible and I follow the Qur'an!
"But they acknowledged their sin and sincerely repented, thus God forgave them."
There ya go. I found something we agreed on.
*SCRREEECH*
Hang on... does this mean you don't believe in original sin?? Isn't the basis of the doctrine that Adam and Eve sinned and thus we all inherit this and are born in sin? But if you agree they were forgiven (before Jesus turned up) then what is left to inherit??
*Confused*
Truth Seeker,
Theists beleive that God made humans dangerous, then gave humans the ability to choose to not be dangerous.
I'm not sure what you mean by this... are you suggesting that our natural state is to be dangerous, but we overcome this to be "good"?
I'm not sure of the Islamic perspective on this issue. Personally, I think that our natural state is not to be good or bad, but rather we choose to be either at any given point. So a murderer can be kind to animals and a thief, a good son to his parents etc.
Otherwise Islam teaches we were all born on Islam, i.e., our nature is to worship one God. However our upbringing will then influence whether or not this continues onto adulthood.
imuslim:
Sorry, i didn't explain the whole story. God did warn them before not to take Satan as a sincere advisor after he had been expelled from Paradise for openly rebelling against God:
I wasn't aware that Islam had modified the myth.
In the Occidental viewpoint, that's called an interpolation.
We have more proof of a Mitochondrial Eve than we do of some fabled eden, by far.
Mandora,
"Seems totally reasonable. I'm that hot - people abandon God for me all the time.
(rolling eyes to the back of my head) While my head is imploding yours is about explode with your modesty :)
imuslim,
"Well, as i said over at Lucy's, the Qur'an and Bible do share a common origin - GOD!"
To an extent. Before I continue I want you to understand when I speak my perspective and beliefs regarding the Almighty I speak to you with respect and NOT "down" to you.
Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Phillippians 2:3
That being said I must say that although there are similarities, what I have read of the Qur'an (even when we compared notes) it is more like a copied version of the Bible with some of it's own twists. I will get around to reading it eventually but I cannot accept it. My experience's with God have solidified my faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Yes, God in the flesh. For what other "god" can ever lay claim to the fact that they loved their own creation so much that they would come down from the heavenly realms to dwell amongst us and then give up His own life so that we might have life eternal life? No other god can make such a wonderful claim of unconditional, unrequited love for it's own creation. that is the love of a parent for their child. A Father (my Father) for His children.
"God is our Creator."
Although all things were created thru Christ as He was with the father before He came to earth. John 1:1-3 & 14
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
"Anyway, this is a matter where we'll definitely disagree as you believe God manifested Himself on Earth as a human..."
Look, there we go agreeing again. LOL
"That sounds more like mankind putting all the blame on womankind to me,"
It is! Do you not see that trait carried over even today amongst men? It is more natural for a woman to be deceived and just as natural for men to blame the woman in a dispute. Many hardened men will not stop to do some serious self examination of themselves. It is easier for them to shift the blame and avoid head on conflict. Why do you think so many of them grow up to be politicians? :)
"Hang on... does this mean you don't believe in original sin?? Isn't the basis of the doctrine that Adam and Eve sinned and thus we all inherit this and are born in sin? But if you agree they were forgiven (before Jesus turned up) then what is left to inherit??"
They were/are forgiven but they had a taste of sin that has carried over since then. For example, I am a recovered drug and alcohol addict. Although I no longer partake (thanks be to God for my deliverance) I still inherit the physical draw to return to my addictions. Alcoholism has been in my family for generations and it was a trait (some claim genetic) that I inherited. Same with sin. I am now forgiven by receiving God's gift of salvation and redemption thru the shed blood of Christ. Does that mean I will never sin again? Of course not. That would be arrogance to think I could walk in the perfection of God. I do strive to be Christ like. As it is written, "Be Holy for I am Holy" but also having full knowledge that walking in the carnal flesh I will experience moments of weakness and sin. My perfection will be realized in Heaven. Until then, by His grace, I am forgiven. Does this help lend some clarity to where I was coming from?
BTW the Bible teaches that all before Christ, including Adam, went to a holding place known as Abraham's bosom. A place set apart from Heaven as the stain of sin remained with the dead. After Christ died on the cross He descended down into the bowels of the earth and preached the good news of redemption for them for three days He was "dead" to those on Earth. Those who received it were cleansed and entered the gates of Heaven purified. Here on Earth today we are offered that same option.
TIO,
Thanks for explaining your PoV in a humble way.
I wrote an entry just for your "kind" a few days ago but haven't posted it yet. I was going to wait till nearer Xmas but perhaps i will post it sooner... i'll let you know!
I still think Christians are making it way hard for themselves when God has made it so easy.
I would just like to point out that the accusation of the Qur'an being a modified version of the Bible was made waaay before we were born. However, Muhammad (peace be upon him) was illiterate and did not have access to the scriptures - so where did he get his information from? And how did he know what to keep and what to ignore?
Also, the concept of God becoming man incarnate is not one unique to Christianity. The Hindus, Romans, Greeks and no doubt many others had dibs on that idea a long time before 0AD.
I know it is hard and even scary to let your mind think "outside the box" because Christianity has taught you so many wonderful things about morality, charity and love - you don't want to let it go. These are found in Islam too - except no-one wants to know about that part - some people are happier to see us all as blood-thirsty murderers and rapists. As if such a religion could last 1400 years!!
But if you were to imagine Jesus as a man - not God in the flesh - just a man, the Gospels would make so much more sense.
For a start there would be no need for mental gymnastics to comprehend how 3 can really be 1!
One good example i can give is the Temptation of Christ.
I always wondered how on Earth Satan would dare to tempt Jesus in any way, knowing that He was God and that He would thus never submit to his calls!
But if Jesus was a man, a fallible human being, then there is possibility for temptation.
Of course Satan is an arrogant idiot anyway, but he knows God better than most of us because he spent quite a bit of time with Him! It seems quite pointless.
Also in the Garden of Gethsemene (sp?), where Jesus is praying to God to ask for help. God praying to himself? Would it not make complete sense for Jesus the Man to be praying to his Creator, God?
There are more examples where Jesus' dear humanity is far clearer than his alleged divinity.
God in the flesh is still God and thus should have all the powers and abilities of God. God cannot be less than God wherever He is.
So God does not need to pray to Himself because He can grant Himself whatever He wishes - He created everything in existance after all. He can neither be tempted because once again what would be the point, He owns everything!
And this is where the mental gymnastics comes in...
I'm sure the Church has come up with some lines to explain all this away - it just seems so unnecessary to me when the truth is so simple.
God is One - full stop (or period as you guys might say!).
He doesn't need to experience humanity to be merciful and kind to us. Just as He doesn't need to be a dog or a cow or a tree to be merciful and kind to those creatures.
So please read the Qur'an in its entirety asap as you have nothing to lose either way (well, not in this life anyway! hehe).
Best wishes
Me
imuslim,
Sorry for the delay. This is a busy time of year for the Christian. I have not even done a posting so far for the month of December.
"I wrote an entry just for your "kind"
My kind? Hahaha would that be the infidel? I am giggling as I type. You are going to have to get use to my sense of humor. Just know that I never (intentionally anyway) mean to offend.
"I still think Christians are making it way hard for themselves when God has made it so easy."
That statement is easy enough for me to put my own spin on it. I agree God has made it easy. For the non Christians to come to know Him thru Christ.
"I would just like to point out that the accusation of the Qur'an being a modified version of the Bible"
Not an accusation. A statement based on observation.
"Muhammad (peace be upon him) was illiterate and did not have access to the scriptures - so where did he get his information from? And how did he know what to keep and what to ignore?"
Sounds like Joseph Smith and the book of Mormon. That book has literally been re-written, not translated, over 1,500 times. Not that I am comparing it to the Qur'an I do have a more in-depth answer to your question but I am not sure you would appreciate it.
“Also, the concept of God becoming man incarnate is not one unique to Christianity. The Hindus, Romans, Greeks and no doubt many others had dibs on that idea a long time before”
Are you suggesting that “their” god sent his only begotten son as a sacrificial ransom for the human race? That “their” god in the flesh walked amongst them enduring all the trials and temptations they went thru only to walk sinless till the end and then lay down his own life?
As far as “them” having dibs on the idea long before I would most certainly scrutinize that as Christ’s coming was foretold in the Old Testament 1,500 years (in writing that is) before He showed up.
“I know it is hard and even scary to let your mind think "outside the box"
I find this a bizarre statement. A Christian MUST think outside the box in order to be one. As believers we are putting our faith in circumstances that far exceed our ability to comprehend. God works outside of the human box. The human mind is always trying to make “sense” of things. In other words, package it all in a neat little box for us to understand. Yet one forgets that our comprehension/understanding (wisdom) is but foolishness too Him. One needs to step out of the box of carnal thinking to accept what seems unrealistic.
“Christianity has taught you so many wonderful things about morality, charity and love - you don't want to let it go.”
I was an anti-Christ. I used to despise Christians and yet here I am today. If you are familiar with the Book of Acts and Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus that is my story (or very similar). I have met the Living God with the exception of looking upon His face. There is no way I am letting it go.
“But if you were to imagine Jesus as a man - not God in the flesh - just a man, the Gospels would make so much more sense.”
Actually no they don’t. How does “just a man” perform the miracles that Christ did? Unlike the prophets of old who would call upon the Lord, Christ simply spoke and the miracles took place. The scriptures also declare His Divinity. How can you ask me to look upon Him as “only” human when the Holy scriptures declare otherwise? I would not be much of a believer if I refuted the authority of the scriptures that I say I believe are God’s word. Would you do the same with the Qur’an? If I said to you not to take the words of Mohammed to heart as he was more of dreamer who fantasized a lot would you consider that?
“For a start there would be no need for mental gymnastics to comprehend how 3 can really be 1!”
Who is thinking inside the box now? You are trying to comprehend the mystery’s of God. And if you cannot understand or explain them then they must be rejected, am I right? Can you comprehend no beginning and no end? If God is all eternal, as I believe even the Muslim accepts, then how do you accept that without all the “mental gymnastics” that go along with that belief. It is far easier to comprehend God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy spirit functioning as one. As it is written “Nothing is impossible for God”. What seems impossible to our carnal, finite, and fallible minds really does not matter in the bigger spectrum of things.
“I always wondered how on Earth Satan would dare to tempt Jesus in any way, knowing that He was God and that He would thus never submit to his calls!”
That is an easy one. Because he is an arrogant idiot! You have to remember, speaking from the bible’s perspective, that Satan at one time thought he could overthrow the throne of God (his own Creator) and reign in Heaven. So prideful was this one time majestic angel of heaven that he could overthrow the Almighty that he convinced one third of the angels of Heaven to follow him.
That arrogance and foolish pride has swelled up inside him and followed him ever since. Even the Book of Revelation says that when Christ returns Satan will amass the armies of the earth for one final show down. Even when his doom is near he will still be convinced that he can defeat God. That is why he went after Christ. Even back then he still believed that he could “win” over the Son of God by tempting him with the kingdoms of the world. He is so full of anger and hatred towards God that he will stop at nothing to overthrow Him. Right up until l the day he is cast into the lake of fire. Just look at how Satan is already assaulting the church of Christ today. Many denominations are, instead of being the “light that exposes the darkness”, are now embracing darkness with their acceptance of sinful and shameful lifestyles.
“But if Jesus was a man, a fallible human being, then there is possibility for temptation.”
But Christ was not fallible. Yes He walked in the flesh but He was the only one in human form to walk a perfectly sinless life. Had He sinned just once then the cross was for nothing. As the Son of God He was able to relate to the Father on our behalf how difficult temptation was for the carnal flesh. (keeping in mind that temptation is not sin, giving into to temptation is where the line is crossed) Christ was tempted but never gave in. That is what made Him the perfect sacrifice for the sins of humanity. One does not have to be fallible in order for temptation to exist. As long as Satan roams the earth with his minions there will always be temptation even to our most holiest and devout followers. And they will give in at times.
“Also in the Garden of Gethsemene (sp?), where Jesus is praying to God to ask for help. God praying to himself? Would it not make complete sense for Jesus the Man to be praying to his Creator, God?”
He always acknowledged God as “Father”. There were united in spirit. He also continually set the example for the rest of us. But there you go again, trying to “make sense” of God. That is what the world does. But God intentionally turns things upside down ( at least to our way of thinking) so that no man can boast. God’s wisdom is demonstrated thru the death of Christ.
“There are more examples where Jesus' dear humanity is far clearer than his alleged divinity.”
Really? Would that be when He was healing the sick, opening the eyes of the blind, or making the lame walk again? Maybe His humanity was more observable on His days off when he was raising the dead.
“God in the flesh is still God and thus should have all the powers and abilities of God.”
See above response.
“He can neither be tempted because once again what would be the point”
So Christ can now advocate on our behalf when we are tempted. He has walked a mile in our shoes. In the flesh He could be tempted as the flesh is carnal, weak, and susceptible to sin. The difference as I stated earlier is, being tempted and actually sinning are two different things.
“ And this is where the mental gymnastics comes in.”
Get out of the box girl! Stop trying to comprehend God. You cannot do it. No one can. Only in Heaven will ALL understanding be revealed.
“He doesn't need to experience humanity to be merciful and kind to us.”
So how can a parent sympathize with a child without first experiencing what it is like to be one?
“So please read the Qur'an in its entirety asap”
I am a very busy man so it may take me quite some time but I am grateful for the link. I have met the Living god and have a personal relationship with Him I know where I already stand but I like to learn more about other’s if for no other reason then to be a better witness for Christ. Have you read the Bible?
Merry Christmas to you. I am glad we are becoming friends.
Well, this is interesting, an fun, to watch a Muslim and a Christian trying to sell their wares to one another.
Interesting too, that the Muslim interpretation of A&E is similar to my own, in that the two were too naive to make an informed decision about what they did.
Maybe Eve was "hot" maybe not. There wasn't any room for comparison, was there? Oh, wait, there had been Lilith. Maybe it was Eve's possible subservience that was so "hot".
karen:
Oh, wait, there had been Lilith. Maybe it was Eve's possible subservience that was so "hot".
D'oh! I was going to mention that (last nite). Though Lilith was actually mentioned in the Midrash, not the Tanakh (I think).
Story was, she refused to do the missionary position, which ticked off Adam, & ended up copulating w/demons, thereby producing the Lilim.
What a weird book the bible is, when viewed from the outside. Even the back stories are bizarre.
KA
Yeah, my son and I were just talking about Lilith and her offspring the other day. Can't for the life of me remember why, but we have the most bizarre discussions--it's wonderful!
Anyway, I'm thinking that Lilith ate the apple before gawd decided it was taboo, and the results were the reason for him making it such! ;-)
KA & Karen,
"Well, this is interesting, an fun, to watch a Muslim and a Christian trying to sell their wares to one another."
And of course you two are most certainly not guilty of that ;)
Why not give credit where credit is due? A Muslim and a Christian are partaking in civil discourse in a spirit of mutual respect as opposed to "Brandishing the sword".
And Lilith? Will you two stop picking on Frasier's ex wife! Has she not been thru enough already? :)
As far as the whole "Eve must have been hot" comment I am starting to think I should have left that one alone. I was makng pure speculation on a potential long shot in a rather lighthearted manner.
TIO
And of course you two are most certainly not guilty of that ;)
Naw. We don't have to sell rationality; it's free. You don't have to trade your soul or nuttin'. ;)
Why not give credit where credit is due? A Muslim and a Christian are partaking in civil discourse in a spirit of mutual respect as opposed to "Brandishing the sword".
OK. You've both been painstakingly polite with one another. That's part of what's making it so much fun.
It's like the Chip and Dale cartoon where they try to out-polite one another with:
"After you"
"Oh, no, after YOU."
"Oh, no, PLEASE, after YOU"
"No, no, I insist, AFTER YOU!"
etc.
As far as the whole "Eve must have been hot" comment ... I was makng pure speculation on a potential long shot in a rather lighthearted manner.
And I thought you did it just to lightheartedly dismiss the point out of hand...as you've now done with Lilith.
TIO:
And of course you two are most certainly not guilty of that ;)
Moi? Most certainly not.
I just like a good tussle, is all.
Why not give credit where credit is due? A Muslim and a Christian are partaking in civil discourse in a spirit of mutual respect as opposed to "Brandishing the sword".
Hey, you're both 'people of the book', besides which, historically speaking, Jews Muslims & xtians have lived together in peace.
And Lilith? Will you two stop picking on Frasier's ex wife! Has she not been thru enough already? :)
I was always did have a bit of a thing for Bebe Neubirth.
As far as the whole "Eve must have been hot" comment I am starting to think I should have left that one alone. I was makng pure speculation on a potential long shot in a rather lighthearted manner.
Hey, you opened the door w/all that...stuff about Adam 'n Eve, eating the fruit (wasn't an apple, BTW).
How odd most xtians don't really want to discuss Lilith.
Q:
With you one has to state the obvious because you submit so many comments that make it appear you do not see the obvious...
I beg your pardon? Perhaps you could illustrate that for me, o wise & beneficient 1?
Yeesh, get a thicker skin.
Hi again TIO,
Have you read the Bible?
Yes i have, several times! I went to a Convent school when i was lickle, then studied at a Rosmini secondary school up until the age of 18. So i had to study Christianity most days - i think it only fair you read the Qur'an after all i went through!! It might look long, but no longer than the average novel and a lot more informative...
Anyway, it's your call. I'm not going to respond to all your points because it falls down to a difference in doctrine which cannot be argued out. You either accept it or you don't.
I'd like to point out one important difference between Islamic and Christian teachings regarding Lucifer. Although we agree that the devil has taken it upon himself to become rebel numero uno, Muslims are not taught that he ever tried to overthrow God.
Again, i'm not expecting you to accept what i say - this is just for the sake of interest.
The Qur'an says that Lucifer (in Arabic, Iblis) was not an Angel as taught in the Bible. He was from another race of creation altogether called the Jinn (i think that's where the word "Genie" comes from). Jinn were created before humans from a "smokeless flame". Like us they have free choice and will be judged on the Day of Resurrection according to their deeds. I suppose what you call "demons" belong to this category of creation. These are the evil Jinn. There are also believing Jinn, who are Jewish, Christian, Muslim etc.
Aaaanyhoo... as i said Iblis was one of the Jinn. In fact, he was a very pious Jinn, so pious that God elevated him to the company of the Angels in Paradise.
When God eventually created Adam, he stated that this was his best creation. He thus commanded the Angels & Iblis to bow down to him out of respect. The Angels, being subservient to their Lord, did so without hesistation. However Iblis point blank refused. When God asked why, he said "Because you made me out of fire and you made him out of clay".
So here we see the first ever example of arrogance and racism.
This might not seem like such a big deal, but the sin was grave. It was not a simple act of disobedience. Unlike our disobedience to God here on Earth, Iblees disobeyed Him right to His Face and on top of that, made out that he knew more than the Creator of All things! He had been living in the direct presence of God Almighty for goodness knows how long, and knew full well of God's Ability and his own inability, yet had the audacity to make out he knew better. In his mind he was above Adam, and it didn't matter what God thought. It kind of reminds me of the attitude of some of your blog visitors TIO... hehe
The first thirty verses of Surah Al-A'raf explain the whole story:
1 Alif, Lam, Mim, Sad.
2 A Book revealed unto thee [Muhammad] - So let thy heart be oppressed no more by any difficulty on that account - that with it thou mightest warn (the erring) and teach the Believers.
3 Follow (O men!) the revelation given unto you from your Lord, and follow not, as friends or protectors, other than Him. Little it is ye remember of admonition.
4 How many towns have We destroyed (for their sins)? Our punishment took them on a sudden by night or while they slept for their afternoon rest.
5 When (thus) Our punishment took them, no cry did they utter but this: "Indeed we did wrong."
6 Then shall we question those to whom Our message was sent and those by whom We sent it.
7 And verily, We shall recount their whole story with knowledge, for We were never absent (at any time or place).
8 The balance that day will be true (to nicety): those whose scale (of good) will be heavy, will prosper:
9 Those whose scale will be light, will be their souls in perdition, for that they wrongfully treated Our signs.
10 It is We Who have placed you with authority on earth, and provided you therein with means for the fulfilment of your life: small are the thanks that ye give!
11 It is We Who created you and gave you shape; then We made the angels bow down to Adam, and they bowed down; not so Iblis; He refused to be of those who bow down.
12 (Allah) said: "What prevented thee from bowing down when I commanded thee?" He said: "I am better than he: Thou didst create me from fire, and him from clay."
13 (Allah) said: "Get thee down from this: it is not for thee to be arrogant here: get out, for thou art of the meanest (of creatures)."
14 He said: "Give me respite till the day they are raised up."
15 (Allah) said: "Be thou among those who have respite."
16 He said: "Because thou hast thrown me out of the way, lo! I will lie in wait for them on thy straight way:
17 "Then will I assault them from before them and behind them, from their right and their left: Nor wilt thou find, in most of them, gratitude (for thy mercies)."
18 (Allah) said: "Get out from this [Paradise], disgraced and expelled. If any of them follow thee - Hell will I fill with you all.
19 "O Adam! dwell thou and thy wife in the Garden, and enjoy (its good things) as ye wish: but approach not this tree, or ye run into harm and transgression."
20 Then began Satan to whisper suggestions to them, bringing openly before their minds all their shame that was hidden from them (before): he said: "Your Lord only forbade you this tree, lest ye should become angels or such beings as live for ever."
21 And he swore to them both, that he was their sincere adviser.
22 So by deceit he brought about their fall: when they tasted of the tree, their shame became manifest to them, and they began to sew together the leaves of the garden over their bodies. And their Lord called unto them: "Did I not forbid you that tree, and tell you that Satan was an avowed enemy unto you?"
23 They said: "Our Lord! We have wronged our own souls: If thou forgive us not and bestow not upon us Thy Mercy, we shall certainly be lost."
24 (Allah) said: "Get ye down. With enmity between yourselves. On earth will be your dwelling-place and your means of livelihood - for a time."
25 He said: "Therein shall ye live, and therein shall ye die; but from it shall ye be taken out (at last)."
26 O ye Children of Adam! We have bestowed raiment upon you to cover your shame, as well as to be an adornment to you. But the raiment of righteousness - that is the best. Such are among the Signs of Allah, that they may receive admonition!
27 O ye Children of Adam! Let not Satan seduce you, in the same manner as He got your parents out of the Garden, stripping them of their raiment, to expose their shame: for he and his tribe watch you from a position where ye cannot see them: We made the evil ones friends (only) to those without faith.
28 When they do aught that is shameful, they say: "We found our fathers doing so"; and "(Allah) commanded us thus": Say: "Nay, Allah never commands what is shameful: do ye say of Allah what ye know not?"
29 Say: "My Lord hath commanded justice; and that ye set your whole selves (to Him) at every time and place of prayer, and call upon Him, making your devotion sincere as in His sight: such as He created you in the beginning, so shall ye return."
30 Some He hath guided: Others have (by their choice) deserved the loss of their way; in that they took the evil ones, in preference to Allah, for their friends and protectors, and think that they receive guidance.
So really, Satan in an enemy to Man in that he is attacking us, not God. He has taken God as a enemy in the sense that he has disobeyed Him but not because he actually thinks he can overthrow Him. I would think even Satan has some brains (but not many). He figures he's hell toast because of Adam, so his revenge will be to take the children of Adam to Hell with him.
But in Hell he will renounce all who made the mistake of following him:
And Satan will say when the matter is decided: "It was Allah Who gave you a promise of Truth: I too promised, but I failed in my promise to you. I had no authority over you except to call you but ye listened to me: then reproach not me, but reproach your own souls. I cannot listen to your cries, nor can ye listen to mine. I reject your former act in associating me with Allah. For wrong-doers there must be a grievous penalty." [Surah Ibrahim : 2]
I remember hearing an interesting narration of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) but i can't seem to find the reference for it. From what i remember, one of his companions asked him whether God would ever forgive Iblis if he repented for his sins. Muhammad (peace be upon him) said that God would forgive Him on condition that Iblis prostrate to Adam as originally commanded. But Satan will not do this - he didn't bow down when Adam was alive, and for sure he would never bow down to Adam's grave. So basically, Iblis will remain stubborn till the very end all for the sake of his vanity.
I think you would agree TIO that many of the sins human-kind commits are acts of supreme vanity, where we mistakenly think we know better than God. I would say atheism is the ultimate form of vanity, a denial that God had anything to do with life and creation, thereby giving them the excuse to ignore His Wisdom and Guidance in the process.
This was a long comment!
Btw, i am not familiar with the Lilleth story - please explain. I don't remember everything i was taught during my school days! Plus i'm not sure how much attention i payed during RE class... hehe
imuslim:
He was from another race of creation altogether called the Jinn (i think that's where the word "Genie" comes from).
In occultic circles, rumor is that the djinn (alternately the jinn) were sealed in a glass lamp/ovalline structure by Solomon himself.
The actual word genie stems from jinni, "In Muslim legend, a spirit often capable of assuming human or animal form and exercising supernatural influence over people."
http://www.answers.com/topic/jinni
Yes, it is narrated in the Qur'an that Prophet Sulayman (peace be upon him) was given authority over the jinn and even the birds during his life time, so as to have a "super" army. With this help he completed the Temple that his father Prophet David (peace be upon him) established.
It was Our power that made) the violent (unruly) wind flow (tamely) for Solomon, to his order, to the land which We had blessed: for We do know all things. And of the evil ones, were some who dived for him, and did other work besides; and it was We Who guarded them. [Qur'an, Al-Anbiya 81-2]
We gave (in the past) knowledge to David and Solomon: And they both said: "Praise be to Allah, Who has favoured us above many of his servants who believe!". And Solomon was David's heir. He said: "O ye people! We have been taught the speech of birds, and on us has been bestowed (a little) of all things: this is indeed Grace manifest (from Allah.)". And before Solomon were marshalled his hosts,- of Jinns and men and birds, and they were all kept in order and ranks. [Qur'an, An-Naml, 15-7]
And to Solomon (We made) the Wind (obedient): Its early morning (stride) was a month's (journey), and its evening (stride) was a month's (journey); and We made a Font of molten brass to flow for him; and there were Jinns that worked in front of him, by the leave of his Lord, and if any of them turned aside from our command, We made him taste of the Penalty of the Blazing Fire. They worked for him as he desired, (making) arches, images, basons as large as reservoirs, and (cooking) cauldrons fixed (in their places): "Work ye, sons of David, with thanks! but few of My servants are grateful!". Then, when We decreed (Solomon's) death, nothing showed them his death except a little worm of the earth, which kept (slowly) gnawing away at his staff: so when he fell down, the Jinns saw plainly that if they had known the unseen, they would not have tarried in the humiliating Penalty (of their Task). [Qur'an, Saba: 12-14]
I saw a funny advert on the link you posted:
Find Islam Religion! Buy Islam Religion on eBay
Anyone interested? haha
imuslim:
Yes, it is narrated in the Qur'an that Prophet Sulayman (peace be upon him) was given authority over the jinn and even the birds during his life time, so as to have a "super" army. With this help he completed the Temple that his father Prophet David (peace be upon him) established.
'Super army'? That's sounds straight outta Cartoon Network.
I'm of the opinion that both NT & OT are pseudepigrapha. Also that jesus never existed.
KA:
Super army'? That's sounds straight outta Cartoon Network.
Well, that's my term so i'm not surprised it sounded dorky!
I'm of the opinion that both NT & OT are pseudepigrapha. Also that jesus never existed.
I suspect that your view is somewhat subjective. There are so many separate accounts written on the man Jesus (peace be upon him) - even though they do not all agree on his nature they do agree that he existed. If it had been any other figure in history, such as a king or an Egyptian Pharoah, there would be no question of their existance with so many written accounts available. However as it is a matter of religion, a system that commands self-sacrifice and faith, people suddenly become sceptical of the written record.
I will agree with you that we cannot be sure exactly who wrote the various books of the Bible. Muslims are taught to respect these books as they contain some truth, but also some falsehood, however we do not know which is what exactly.
In the end it doesn't matter greatly as the Qur'an was revealed to replace and restore the previous scriptures, and the source of that is clear.
imuslim:
I suspect that your view is somewhat subjective.
Everyone's view is subjective.
There are so many separate accounts written on the man Jesus (peace be upon him) - even though they do not all agree on his nature they do agree that he existed.
In actuality, there's a dearth of accounts. Vast pools of silence in any historical records, where there should be ripples a-plenty.
If it had been any other figure in history, such as a king or an Egyptian Pharoah, there would be no question of their existance with so many written accounts available.
Nor is there: sadly, again, very, very little from secular sources.
However as it is a matter of religion, a system that commands self-sacrifice and faith, people suddenly become sceptical of the written record.
'Extravagant claims require extravagant proof' - Sagan.
Muslims are taught to respect these books as they contain some truth, but also some falsehood, however we do not know which is what exactly.
That sounds deliberately vague...not a good sign, as it's supposed to be a dictation from deity to man.
In the end it doesn't matter greatly as the Qur'an was revealed to replace and restore the previous scriptures, and the source of that is clear.
As I understand it, Islam is built on the backbone of Judaism. So is xtianity.
Not 1 'prophecy' came true in the OT.
KA:
In actuality, there's a dearth of accounts. Vast pools of silence in any historical records, where there should be ripples a-plenty.
A dearth? Apart from the four canonical gospels, there are also all the apocryphal ones that didn't make the NT. Jesus wasn't a ruler or a king, his short mission was restricted to the region of Palestine, so why do you expect him to make such large ripples outside of this area in terms personal sightings or interactions with "secular" sources?
And what do you mean by "secular" sources, anyway? I thought secularism was a modern notion (i may be wrong). Back then, in that area at least, you had Jews, the early Christians, the Romans and some other pagan groups - none of whom were "secular" as far as i can tell. Do you mean that he was not commented on by Roman or Jewish sources?
And as far as extravagant claims go, all i've said is that Jesus existed - hardly an extravagant claim. The "extravagance" comes in when you start claiming he's the Son of God, or as Muslims say, a Prophet of God. Then yes, proof is certainly required. But just because one denies his divinity/prophet-status it doesn't mean to say he didn't exist at all.
That sounds deliberately vague...not a good sign, as it's supposed to be a dictation from deity to man.
Are you talking about the Bible or the Qur'an or both? The vagueness of my statement comes from the fact that the books of the Bible (Torah, Psalms and Gospels) are not in their original forms. Meaning they have been corrupted to some degree from the time they were revealed to their respective prophets. So they were divine in origin, but were altered via various means (intentional and non-intentional) over time. This accounts for the internal discrepancies and other Bible oddities, but also for the fact that there is still truth and wisdom to be found there-in. Though i do not rely on the Gospels for practising Islam, i do find many of the sayings of Jesus (peace be upon him) to be beautiful and inspiring.
As I understand it, Islam is built on the backbone of Judaism. So is xtianity.
What a coin-ki-dink. I was reading an article about this not one half hour ago... let me see if i can find it... ah, here it is. There are also links to relevant articles at the bottom of the page. Please take the time to read them, i'm sure you will agree that there is no valid evidence for saying Muhammad "borrowed" from the Bible/Judaism (if that is what you meant).
Otherwise it is true that all three faiths share a great deal, especially when it comes to our Abrahamic heritage, and of course our monotheism (though the Christians are certainly stretching the definition!).
Re: prophecies from the OT, i cannot comment on that as i know very little about that aspect of the OT. TIO would probably be the best one to do so - if he ever shows up!!
Btw, i would like to thank you for this stimulating discourse - but i do wonder how much use it is to either of us as i'm sure we can continue in this circular vein for a long time... Have you read the Qur'an? If you haven't, then i suggest you do, even if it just for the purposes of education. Know your enemy and all that... haha.
Anyway, thanks again and sorry if i have ever said anything offensive.
imuslim:
A dearth? Apart from the four canonical gospels, there are also all the apocryphal ones that didn't make the NT.
Those were considered to be frauds by people of that era. Acts of Nicodemus, Gnostic gospels, etc. Hence, the council of Jamnia.
Jesus wasn't a ruler or a king, his short mission was restricted to the region of Palestine, so why do you expect him to make such large ripples outside of this area in terms personal sightings or interactions with "secular" sources?
My point is, he didn’t make that many ripples inside that area, as well. For someone who had so many people following him that they trampled 1 another (Luke), there sure is a huge silence about the matter. Besides, he was supposed to have done miracles. Darkness was supposed to cover the land (Luke & Matthew), but no 1 says boo about this.
And what do you mean by "secular" sources, anyway? I thought secularism was a modern notion (i may be wrong). Back then, in that area at least, you had Jews, the early Christians, the Romans and some other pagan groups - none of whom were "secular" as far as i can tell. Do you mean that he was not commented on by Roman or Jewish sources?
What I mean by secular sources, are non-xtian ones. That’s actually an old term that’s been re-defined (by us evil liberals, ooooo-eeee-oooo, ominous foreshadowing music). 40 Roman historians, 1 Hellenistic Jew (Philo Judeus), not a word. All Roman references are indirect, & nebulous about the man. The only references found are ones that validate that there were xtians in that day. Josephus mentions JC, but about (20?) others of the same name.
And as far as extravagant claims go, all i've said is that Jesus existed - hardly an extravagant claim. The "extravagance" comes in when you start claiming he's the Son of God, or as Muslims say, a Prophet of God. Then yes, proof is certainly required. But just because one denies his divinity/prophet-status it doesn't mean to say he didn't exist at all.
Well, then, being a prophet of gawd is an extravagant claim, isn’t it? There are circles of thought growing, that say he didn’t exist at all. Some say he was a composite of myths in the area, which is what I ascribe to.
Are you talking about the Bible or the Qur'an or both? The vagueness of my statement comes from the fact that the books of the Bible (Torah, Psalms and Gospels) are not in their original forms. Meaning they have been corrupted to some degree from the time they were revealed to their respective prophets. So they were divine in origin, but were altered via various means (intentional and non-intentional) over time. This accounts for the internal discrepancies and other Bible oddities, but also for the fact that there is still truth and wisdom to be found there-in. Though i do not rely on the Gospels for practising Islam, i do find many of the sayings of Jesus (peace be upon him) to be beautiful and inspiring.
Well, I’m a big proponent of interpolations (the Johannine comma being 1 such). Yes, there are a few gems in the overall book, but they’re buried in contradictions, mistakes, & non-historicity. The Israelites borrowed extensively from other cosmologies.
What a coin-ki-dink. I was reading an article about this not one half hour ago... let me see if i can find it... ah, here it is. There are also links to relevant articles at the bottom of the page. Please take the time to read them, i'm sure you will agree that there is no valid evidence for saying Muhammad "borrowed" from the Bible/Judaism (if that is what you meant).
???? It’s an Abrahamic religion, no? Jesus figures very prominently in your cosmology. So does Yusuf. You also refer to Jews & xtians as ‘people of the book’.
Otherwise it is true that all three faiths share a great deal, especially when it comes to our Abrahamic heritage, and of course our monotheism (though the Christians are certainly stretching the definition!).
Ishmael & Isaac. What a foolish thing to still be fighting over.
Re: prophecies from the OT, i cannot comment on that as i know very little about that aspect of the OT. TIO would probably be the best one to do so - if he ever shows up!!
He’s certainly busy, I’m sure.
Btw, i would like to thank you for this stimulating discourse - but i do wonder how much use it is to either of us as i'm sure we can continue in this circular vein for a long time... Have you read the Qur'an? If you haven't, then i suggest you do, even if it just for the purposes of education. Know your enemy and all that... haha.
I’ve read select suras, & I am somewhat familiar w/varieties such as the Ba’hai, the Medinaists, etc. I also know you have your own version of the Rapture. I know you’re not ALL a bunch of nutters – like the majority of xtians, most of you just want to worship in peace. I do do my homework: I’ve even defended Muslims on occasion.
I just think all religion, all worship of some invisible being, is crap. That’s all. My ‘mission’, such as it is; is to educate as best I can. Make people think. Sometimes I’m offensive, sometimes not.
Anyway, thanks again and sorry if i have ever said anything offensive.
Oh hey, I don’t offend all that easy. As a ‘kaffir’, I usually get irate when I’m accused of something I’m not doing, or someone attacks my character. Actually, I’m behaving myself: I’ve been known to take a few swings at Islam as well.
& thank you, BTW. I find most Muslim posters on blogs are by far more polite than their xtian counterparts.
Wrt what you say about the lack of secular historical record, i will have to take your word for it as it's something i haven't taken the time to investigate for myself. You seem to be very well-versed in these matters, have you spent time studying them or is it a part-time pursuit?
I will readily admit that my conviction that Jesus Christ existed and was a Prophet of God is due to my belief in the Qur'an. Just as i have not looked into the history books over Moses and all the rest of the Prophets, but still believe they existed at some point in time. So i'll slap my wrists for being hypocritical. I accused you of subjectivity but surely i am guilty of the same thing! As you said, no-one is immune.
However, my belief in the Qur'an should not be an exercise in subjectivity, nor should anyone's belief in their "book" be such, no matter how hard it is to be objective.
???? It’s an Abrahamic religion, no? Jesus figures very prominently in your cosmology. So does Yusuf.
As does Adam and Noah and Job and Moses and David and Solomon etc. As do Hud and Salih which are not Biblical figures [peace be upon them all]. If you read the essays i linked to, they were arguing against the Missionary accusation that the Qur'an is a copy n paste version of the Bible with a few twists for effect. I suppose this argument is not applicable to you so much as you think it's all a bunch of cods-wallop. But how do you explain an illiterate man producing something like the Qur'an without him having any formal training in the Judeo-Christian traditions? When you break it down, it comes back to the fact that all these faiths have the same roots - God. The differences come from human-kind's inability to keep a good thing going.
Ishmael & Isaac. What a foolish thing to still be fighting over.
I'm not sure anyone is fighting because of this issue - if they are it is an intellectual fight. Actual warring is usually about power struggles and survival in the face of conflicting interests.
I also know you have your own version of the Rapture.
We do?? I had to look up the term. According to dictionary.com:
4. the Rapture, Theology. the experience, anticipated by some fundamentalist Christians, of meeting Christ midway in the air upon his return to earth.
Perhaps you mean the "second coming"? If so, yes, Muslims also believe that Jesus will return some day, and this will be one of the major signs of the Day of Judgment.
An interesting question put forward by a scholar was "Why Jesus?". Why is Jesus returning and not Muhammad or Moses or whomever? He concluded it was because Jesus is the most contentious figure amongst the three Abrahamic faiths.
Muslims believe he was a Prophet of God.
Christians believe he was the Son of God.
Jews believe he was a mad-man!
The Jews are also looking forward to the arrival of their Messiah. According to the narrations of Muhammad (peace be upon him), prior to Jesus' descent, the False Messiah (Ad-Dajjal) will be released. He will be the greatest trial the world has ever known due to his amazing miracles. First he will claim Prophethood, and then eventually he will claim to be God Himself. Many Jews will mistake him for their awaited Messiah due to the wonderful feats he will perform and thus they will make up the majority of his followers. The Muslims will rally behind the "Mehdi", a great leader, along with Christians and Jews who have reverted to Islam after the return of Jesus, and i suppose what the Christians know as "Armageddon" will ensue. The army of Ad-Dajjal will be defeated, Islam will spread across the globe and peace will envelop the Earth. I think the part about peace is a universal prophecy. It is no wonder that peace is only allowed to thrive only when the children of Abraham unite in their religion! Once Jesus dies, things will go down hill dramatically until there will be no-one left who remembers God and then the "trumpet" will be blown.
I just think all religion, all worship of some invisible being, is crap.
I would argue it is virtually impossible for a human not to worship some kind of higher power. It is engrained into our very nature. Islam, and perhaps other faiths, say that this is because we were created with this purpose in mind - we have been given the necessary tools to worship. The only difference lies in whether we worship God alone, or associate partners with Him.
In Islam, worshipping others as partners to God is not just a matter of saying prayers or performing rituals to another deity. It is simply a matter of assigning attributes that are unique to God to someone or something else.
So for example, i can argue that anyone who says evolution is responsible for the origins of man, and not God, is in fact a nature worshipper. The number of times i have heard atheist evolutionary biologists praising "Mother Nature"! It makes me laugh. They have taken Nature as their god, the Theory of Evolution as their creed and Darwin as their prophet, with the likes of Dawkins et al constituting their ministry of High Priests.
"Oh blessed lord Dawkins, please relate to us the story of the piscine exodus from the sea and how the angry lizards didst spread their wings so that they may soar way up in the Heavens!".
They are no better than any blinkered theist, though some like to think they are.
My ‘mission’, such as it is; is to educate as best I can. Make people think.
Funnily enough that is the mission of Islam - to make people think! If you read the Qur'an you will clearly find many passages where God encourages man to think and contemplate his surrounding universe to come to the very natural conclusion that there is only one God worthy of worship.
Are you an atheist or an agnostic? What i mean to say is, have you finished your search and definitely decided that God does not exist, or are you still searching but are finding religion is getting in your way of answering the God question?
I find most Muslim posters on blogs are by far more polite than their xtian counterparts.
Hmm, well i have encountered some less than tactful Muslim bloggers. I myself am often tempted to "let rip", especially when i have been provoked by malicious anonymous posters on my blog, but then the following verse always stops me in my tracks:
Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance. [Qur'an, An-Nahl: 125]
Two wrongs don't make a right, and i would hate to lower myself to the level of "cheap shots". If the debate becomes a matter of defending my sorry ego, then the whole thing should be scrapped.
Best wishes, KA.
imuslim:
Wrt what you say about the lack of secular historical record, i will have to take your word for it as it's something i haven't taken the time to investigate for myself. You seem to be very well-versed in these matters, have you spent time studying them or is it a part-time pursuit?
I spent time studying them as I considered converting to xtianity. Not as much anymore.
I will readily admit that my conviction that Jesus Christ existed and was a Prophet of God is due to my belief in the Qur'an. Just as i have not looked into the history books over Moses and all the rest of the Prophets, but still believe they existed at some point in time. So i'll slap my wrists for being hypocritical. I accused you of subjectivity but surely i am guilty of the same thing! As you said, no-one is immune.
I’ll readily admit that I’m no scholar on the matter: occasionally I check the latest updates on these things (as I still have an interest – I’ve studied comparative religions my entire adult life – fascinating stuff). Osman (a Palistinean Arab, who identified Yuya as Yusaf, & claims that Moses & Ankhenaton were the same fella) has some interesting views on the matter.
However, my belief in the Qur'an should not be an exercise in subjectivity, nor should anyone's belief in their "book" be such, no matter how hard it is to be objective.
Here now, you can’t simply declare ‘objectivity’ on a subjective subject, due to your personal likings, can you?
As does Adam and Noah and Job and Moses and David and Solomon etc. As do Hud and Salih which are not Biblical figures [peace be upon them all]. If you read the essays i linked to, they were arguing against the Missionary accusation that the Qur'an is a copy n paste version of the Bible with a few twists for effect. I suppose this argument is not applicable to you so much as you think it's all a bunch of cods-wallop. But how do you explain an illiterate man producing something like the Qur'an without him having any formal training in the Judeo-Christian traditions? When you break it down, it comes back to the fact that all these faiths have the same roots - God. The differences come from human-kind's inability to keep a good thing going.
Hey, he married into money. That sort of influence means you get all kinds of perks.
I'm not sure anyone is fighting because of this issue - if they are it is an intellectual fight. Actual warring is usually about power struggles and survival in the face of conflicting interests.
Based on a very, very old blood feud that dates back centuries.
We do?? I had to look up the term. According to dictionary.com:
4. the Rapture, Theology. the experience, anticipated by some fundamentalist Christians, of meeting Christ midway in the air upon his return to earth. Perhaps you mean the "second coming"? If so, yes, Muslims also believe that Jesus will return some day, and this will be one of the major signs of the Day of Judgment.
As I understand it, the term is Barzakh, & is about the 12th Imam coming back.
The Jews are also looking forward to the arrival of their Messiah. According to the narrations of Muhammad (peace be upon him), prior to Jesus' descent, the False Messiah (Ad-Dajjal) will be released. He will be the greatest trial the world has ever known due to his amazing miracles. First he will claim Prophethood, and then eventually he will claim to be God Himself. Many Jews will mistake him for their awaited Messiah due to the wonderful feats he will perform and thus they will make up the majority of his followers. The Muslims will rally behind the "Mehdi", a great leader, along with Christians and Jews who have reverted to Islam after the return of Jesus, and i suppose what the Christians know as "Armageddon" will ensue. The army of Ad-Dajjal will be defeated, Islam will spread across the globe and peace will envelop the Earth. I think the part about peace is a universal prophecy. It is no wonder that peace is only allowed to thrive only when the children of Abraham unite in their religion! Once Jesus dies, things will go down hill dramatically until there will be no-one left who remembers God and then the "trumpet" will be blown.
Well, that’s obviously a huge borrowing from the book of Revelation.
I would argue it is virtually impossible for a human not to worship some kind of higher power. It is engrained into our very nature. Islam, and perhaps other faiths, say that this is because we were created with this purpose in mind - we have been given the necessary tools to worship. The only difference lies in whether we worship God alone, or associate partners with Him.
I say that we look to a larger purpose/entity, etc. because it’s an evolutionary pathway.
In Islam, worshipping others as partners to God is not just a matter of saying prayers or performing rituals to another deity. It is simply a matter of assigning attributes that are unique to God to someone or something else.
Or likewise, the attribution/anthropomorphism of something unseen in accordance w/our own introversion.
So for example, i can argue that anyone who says evolution is responsible for the origins of man, and not God, is in fact a nature worshipper. The number of times i have heard atheist evolutionary biologists praising "Mother Nature"! It makes me laugh. They have taken Nature as their god, the Theory of Evolution as their creed and Darwin as their prophet, with the likes of Dawkins et al constituting their ministry of High Priests.
"Oh blessed lord Dawkins, please relate to us the story of the piscine exodus from the sea and how the angry lizards didst spread their wings so that they may soar way up in the Heavens!".
They are no better than any blinkered theist, though some like to think they are.
You could argue that, but you’d be wrong. 1st, ‘Mother Nature’ is not only a figure of speech, it’s also a reification, which (as far as I know), scientists don’t do). 2nd, it’s the ‘tu quoque’ fallacy: ‘I’m like that, ergo, others are as well’. We don’t ‘worship’ these people, we listen to them: there is no set of rules, & the hierarchy is minimal at best. The ToE is a blind, violent, messy system, not worthy of anything resembling worship. It’s just the way things are.
Funnily enough that is the mission of Islam - to make people think! If you read the Qur'an you will clearly find many passages where God encourages man to think and contemplate his surrounding universe to come to the very natural conclusion that there is only one God worthy of worship.
Well, color me unconvinced, & turn the page.
Are you an atheist or an agnostic? What i mean to say is, have you finished your search and definitely decided that God does not exist, or are you still searching but are finding religion is getting in your way of answering the God question?
I’m an apostate, pure & simple. I say there ain’t no such critter. Why would I continue searching for something I don’t believe in? I’m antagonistic towards religion because I see it as a divider of humanity, & it threatens to destroy the world. Otherwise, I’d keep my yap shut, & let people do what they please.
Hmm, well i have encountered some less than tactful Muslim bloggers. I myself am often tempted to "let rip", especially when i have been provoked by malicious anonymous posters on my blog, but then the following verse always stops me in my tracks:
I can actually respect that (which is why I like TIO): you make the effort to play by your rules. Sadly, most religious folks (I’ve met online) don’t do this at all.
Two wrongs don't make a right, and i would hate to lower myself to the level of "cheap shots". If the debate becomes a matter of defending my sorry ego, then the whole thing should be scrapped.
Well, I try to play by those sorta rules myself, but sometimes I love a good tussle. I’ll debate the merits of custard pie & balloons, if I feel like it. & sometimes you gotta bonk folks over the head ‘n make ‘em laugh, so they’ll think.
Peace Out.
Post a Comment