PDA

View Full Version : Role model in your community



truth finder
10-24-2010, 02:57 AM
Sometimes I fast to know God more closely and intimately. On one occasion I fasted a few weeks in which I skipped lunch, and ate early breakfast and late dinner. It is similar to Ramadan for Muslims. Because of my own experience I know fasting is a hard discipline. Do you know some Christians fast 40 days without eating anything except for water for survival? Our pastor in our church is one of them. Because it requires extreme discipline, people would fail or even die if they start fasting on their own will power. I was told that typically they hear God’s message for fasting in a dream or vision. We usually fast in order to know God more intimately and find God’s purpose in our life, not to become better Christians or to be accepted to God due to our hard disciple. Although there may be hundreds of those believers who have successfully performed 40 days of hard fasting, they are not considered real role models in our home country. We believe that our love for God is best demonstrated through our love for fellow human beings instead of performing hard religious disciplines. Mother Teresa was one of good examples who had spent her whole life living with lepers and caring for the social outcasts. Here is a man in our home country who is considered as a role model by many Christians.

There was a bloody civil war in our home country about 60 years ago. A believer in Christ lived in a remote area and was respected by people for his generosity and loving care for the social outcasts such as lepers. When the communist rebel captured the area, their number-one target was this believer because even the underprivileged respected him more than the communist ideology of equal share. Because they could not find any fault in him to accuse of, they found some in his two sons. They carried out public execution of his sons in front of the father and other people. Some time later the area was recaptured by the government troop and the rebel leader was arrested by the army. For his atrocities including the execution of the innocent two sons, he was about to be executed by the army. When the father learned about the execution, he went to the army captain to beg for the life of the rebel leader. He told the captain that the death of two lives would be enough and that he did not want more death of precious lives. Eventually the captain was persuaded by his honest and genuine request for the release of the rebel leader. Later the father adopted this man as his own son, because he did not have his sons anymore. More surprisingly this heartless man was moved and touched by the genuine love of his new father to become a follower of Jesus Christ. In his biography the father wrote that he learned this unconditional forgiveness and sacrificial love from Jesus Christ, his Savior and Lord. Here are two of his favourite verses in the Bible.
This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” (Matthew 26:28)
While we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8)

Due to the choice of forgiveness (instead of revenge) of a believer in Christ, one more precious live was spared from execution and furthermore became a messenger of forgiveness and love for other human beings. This man is the role model of many Christians including me in our home country. Please feel free to share with me a role model in your community.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Yanal
10-24-2010, 03:05 AM
Asalam alaykum,

Our role model is Prophet Muhammad(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).
Reply

جوري
10-24-2010, 03:13 AM
Indeed we model our lives after the prophet Mohammed (PBUH).
The Prophet said: 'Surely I was sent to perfect the qualities of righteous character (Musnad Ahmad, Muwatta Mâlik)

Nice that some christians try to fast a whopping forty days..
for some fast is a way of life...



and suffering is an every day existence:

Reply

truth finder
10-24-2010, 03:23 AM
Honestly I do not know much about your Prophet. Would you tell me in detail how he showed his "sacrificial love" for other fellow human beings? Thanks in advance for your time.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
جوري
10-24-2010, 03:36 AM
Here is a good start:

http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/B..._tsn/index.htm

all the best
Reply

Yanal
10-24-2010, 03:36 AM
Asalam alaykum,

He(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was a Mercy for us believers," A messanger has come to you from amount yourselves.Your suffering is distressing to him;he is deeply concerned for you;he is gentle and merciful to the believers.(Surat at-Tabwa,128)

He is the seal of all Prophets(peace and blessings be upon them all),he communicated the Qur'aan from Allaah to the believers,he did so much for Allaah and his religion, he assisted the believers with issues,didn't stop spreading the word of Islaam regardless of all the threats he had got,the wars he fought with the believers for Islaam and Allaah, the insults,the beatings he got from others for spreading the word of his religion for Allaah.

insha'Allaah I wil elaborate on this soon.
Reply

جوري
10-24-2010, 03:38 AM
after you are done reading, please go tell that dying little girl who is about to be eaten by a vulture all about 'sacrificial love' I know how Christians love to exchange food and medicine for a pagan conversion!

all the best
Reply

Yanal
10-24-2010, 04:07 AM
Originally Posted by truth finder
Honestly I do not know much about your Prophet. Would you tell me in detail how he showed his "sacrificial love" for other fellow human beings? Thanks in advance for your time.
Asalam alaykum,

Insha'Allaah take a look at this thread:http://www.islamicboard.com/seerah/1...mmad-saws.html
Reply

aadil77
10-24-2010, 10:13 AM
I am sensing missionary tactics here, trying to show how christians fast for months long periods - similar to muslims

its not gonna work, besides; apart from Jesus (peace be upon him) being god - him 'dying' for your sins has to be the most absurd christian concept muslims will come across - its complete injustice
Reply

جوري
10-24-2010, 01:05 PM
Originally Posted by aadil77
I am sensing missionary tactics here

:lol: what gave that away? sadly they don't understand that simply doing one act to echo a monotheistic religion doesn't render them one, nor make it anymore attractive.. aside from the sanctimony and patent creativity to shove down their 'love' and 'sacrifice' they seem to completely neglect the rest of their 'tenets' which will take a millennium to refine, provided people lose brain matter to accept it and so far that loss seems to happen only in bible belt states! ;D

:w:
Reply

Ramadhan
10-24-2010, 03:59 PM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
after you are done reading, please go tell that dying little girl who is about to be eaten by a vulture all about 'sacrificial love' I know how Christians love to exchange food and medicine for a pagan conversion

truth finder is too busy helping jesus love everyone to do any reading on seerah of prophet Muhammad SAW, let alone saving a litlle girl's life or protesting his own western government to stop murdering, torturing and raping muslims in foreign countries.
Reply

جوري
10-24-2010, 04:41 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
truth finder is too busy helping jesus love everyone to do any reading on seerah of prophet Muhammad SAW, let alone saving a litlle girl's life or protesting his own western government to stop murdering, torturing and raping muslims in foreign countries.

I had no expectation that he'd read.. christians do very little reading, and I'd honestly recommend they start with their own scriptures.. I don't think they have any clue what their religion is about, after they parrot the 'love love love' they can't engage you in anything worth while.. The only way they can do it successfully is in exchange for some life essential, as stated food or medicine.. if no conversion they withhold and then 'unleash' their love..

this style




la3nahoum Allah and 7asbya Allah wa'ni3ma alwakeel!

:w:
Reply

serena77
10-24-2010, 04:59 PM
i would ask that not all christians be lumped together . .... whether i revert or not.... wide sweeping generalizations are rarely if ever true. There are a lot of christians who read and understand quite a great deal. Being christian has nothing to do w/ being a better person at reading what they should be or comprehending what they should. I've talked to people of all religions at times who were very lost on what they themselves as that particular religion to know and comprehend and read... and many who are very scholarly at it.
Serena
Reply

جوري
10-24-2010, 06:03 PM
until we see christians verbally and physically condemning these acts and not supporting them or at least not so complacent to their occurring there is only one side that we Muslims have seen and will likely continue to see. It doesn't help matters any that these sanctimonious Tartuffes come here spreading their stupidity, hatred and propaganda.

I wish you the best indeed whether you choose to convert or not that is something between you and God.. not everyone is a Serena or Eric -- and if two people out of so many here on board are a sample at all of that is going on then I hazard think of what is out there.

all the best
Reply

HAWA*~
10-24-2010, 11:00 PM
To Yales lily what happened to that man that women is posing beside?:heated: That picture is too much it'll be in my head for a long time subhanallah.
Reply

جوري
10-24-2010, 11:12 PM
Originally Posted by HAWA*~
To Yales lily what happened to that man that women is posing beside?:heated: That picture is too much it'll be in my head for a long time subhanallah.
She's no woman or anything remotely human!--& he clearly didn't have a pleasant death..May Allah swt have mercy on the souls of Muslims & receive them as martyrs..

ameen
Reply

HAWA*~
10-25-2010, 02:25 AM
^ I was wondering what could cause a death like that? May Allah have mercy on the person. You're right I shouldnt even refer to her as a women to cause death like that and smile about it, she is lower than an animal and they have the nerve to ask why the people subjected to such tyranny hate. Ameen to your duas.
Reply

جوري
10-25-2010, 02:34 AM
it looks like a chemical burn or some sort of biological/chemical weapon used if you are asking for the cause of death, but I am not sure.. as we say in Arabic.. ta3ddat al'asbab wal'mawt wa7id.. ''many are the reasons but death is one'' bottom line is who is responsible for this unnecessary evil and mischief in the lands..I assure you it is the ones barking loud all the time and afraid of their own shadow yet with utmose insolence have the temerity to project their hatred and lowly selves unto others .. may Allah swt yizidhoum ro3ban wa khosara fi amwalihim wa'awladighim wa yoradoon youm alqyama ila ashadd il3athabb insha'Allah.. la3nahoum Allah a3da'a Allah, a3d'a al'islam illa jouhnamma wa b'es almaseer.. ameen ya rabb

:w:
Reply

truth finder
10-25-2010, 03:47 PM
I am more interested in recent figures of your community who touched the heart and souls of people by demonstrating their love for God through their love for their fellow human beings. In the case of the believer in our home country, his main ministry was to help and care for lepers just like Mother Teresa. As you may know, people with this disease have been rejected by other people in almost all societies, because it has been stigmatized as a curse from God. Thus lepers have suffered from both, namely, the pain of the disease itself and the rejection by the society. It is a chronic disease caused by special bacteria on or under the skin. According to the biography of the Christian, many lepers suffered pain when pus (a whitish-yellow liquid produced by inflammation) was developed under the skin. To ease their pain, he put his mouth on the affected area and sucked pus and spit it. This was the way he cared for social outcasts. People are touched and moved by this kind of sacrificial love for fellow human beings, rather than by religious performances such as memorizing the whole scripture and a long period of fast or prayer.
Reply

جوري
10-25-2010, 04:06 PM
Originally Posted by truth finder
I am more interested in recent figures of your community who touched the heart and souls of people by demonstrating their love for God through their love for their fellow human beings. In the case of the believer in our home country, his main ministry was to help and care for lepers just like Mother Teresa. As you may know, people with this disease have been rejected by other people in almost all societies, because it has been stigmatized as a curse from God. Thus lepers have suffered from both, namely, the pain of the disease itself and the rejection by the society. It is a chronic disease caused by special bacteria on or under the skin. According to the biography of the Christian, many lepers suffered pain when pus (a whitish-yellow liquid produced by inflammation) was developed under the skin. To ease their pain, he put his mouth on the affected area and sucked pus and spit it. This was the way he cared for social outcasts. People are touched and moved by this kind of sacrificial love for fellow human beings, rather than by religious performances such as memorizing the whole scripture and a long period of fast or prayer.
In Islam we don't like false praise and exalting people based on their good deeds--good deeds whether with lepers or kings alike is between one and the creator. Only Tartuffes love it when people point out their charitable deeds or so-called noble character.


يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تُبْطِلُوا صَدَقَاتِكُمْ بِالْمَنِّ وَالْأَذَىٰ كَالَّذِي يُنْفِقُ مَالَهُ رِئَاءَ النَّاسِ وَلَا يُؤْمِنُ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ ۖ فَمَثَلُهُ كَمَثَلِ صَفْوَانٍ عَلَيْهِ تُرَابٌ فَأَصَابَهُ وَابِلٌ فَتَرَكَهُ صَلْدًا ۖ لَا يَقْدِرُونَ عَلَىٰ شَيْءٍ مِمَّا كَسَبُوا ۗ وَاللَّهُ لَا يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الْكَافِرِينَ {264}
[Pickthal 2:264] O ye who believe! Render not vain your almsgiving by reproach and injury, like him who spendeth his wealth only to be seen of men and believeth not in Allah and the Last Day. His likeness is as the likeness of a rock whereon is dust of earth; a rainstorm smiteth it, leaving it smooth and bare. They have no control of aught of that which they have gained. Allah guideth not the disbelieving folk.


Why is everything about your religion for show? can't you do without expecting praise or a false conversion?

The Quran and Hadiths on the poor and needy: a topical index
by Sound VIsion Staff writer

1. The Quran
Attitude of the giver of charity
Those who spend their wealth in the way of Allah and do not follow up their spending by stressing their benevolence and causing hurt, will find their reward secure with their Lord. They have no cause for fear and grief.
To speak a kind word and to forgive people's faults is better than charity followed by hurt. Allah is All-Sufficient, All-Forbearing
Believers! Do not nullify your acts of charity by stressing your benevolence and causing hurt as does he who spends his wealth only to be seen by men and does not believe in Allah and the Last Day. The example of his spending is that of a rock with a thin coating of earth upon it: when a heavy rain smites it, the earth is washed away, leaving the rock bare; such people derive no gain from their acts of charity. Allah does not set the deniers of the Truth on the right way. (2:262 - 264)
The needy who do not do beg
Those needy ones who are wholly wrapped up in the cause of Allah, and who are hindered from moving about the earth in search of their livelihood especially deserve help. He who is unaware of their circumstances supposes them to be wealthy because of their dignified bearing, but you will know them by their countenance, although they do not go about begging of people with importunity. And whatever wealth you will spend on helping them, Allah will know of it. (2:273)
Economic exploitation
And do not become like the woman who, after having painstakingly spun her yarn, caused it to disintegrate into pieces. You resort to oaths as instruments of mutual deceit so that one people might take greater advantage than another although Allah puts you to the test through this. Surely on the Day of Resurrection He will make clear the truth concerning the matters over which you differed. (16:92)
Food and the needy
Have you seen him who belies the rewards and punishments of the Hereafter? He it is who drives away the orphan and does not urge giving away the food of the poor. (107:1 - 3)
Give to the near of kin his due, and also to the needy and the wayfarers. Do not squander your wealth wastefully; for those who squander wastefully are Satan's brothers, and Satan is ever ungrateful to his Lord. (17:26 - 27)
Greed
Look, you are being called upon to expend in Allah's Way, yet some of you are being niggardly, whereas the one who is niggardly is, in fact, being niggardly only to himself. Allah is Self-Sufficient: it is you who are the needy. If you turn away, Allah will replace you by another people, and they will not be like you. (47:38)
Moderation in giving
Do not keep your hand fastened to your neck nor outspread it, altogether widespread, for you will be left sitting rebuked, destitute. (17:29)
(In reference to the slaves of Allah) "who, when they spend, are neither extravagant nor miserly but keep the golden mean between the two (extremes) (25:67)
Righteousness
You shall not attain righteousness until you spend out of what you love (in the way of Allah). Allah knows whatever you spend. (3:92)
Sadaqa
(O Prophet!) Tell those of My servants who believe that they should establish Prayer and spend out of what We have provided them with, both secretly and openly, before there arrives the Day when there will be no bargaining, nor any mutual befriending. (14:31)
Stinginess
Allah does not love the arrogant and the boastful, who are niggardly and bid others to be niggardly and conceal the bounty which Allah has bestowed upon them. We have kept in readiness a humiliating chastisement for such deniers (of Allah's bounty) (part of 4:36 and all of 4:37)
Zakat-what you owe from your money
The people who where given the Book before this did not divide into sects until after the clear statement (of the Right Way) had come to them, and the only Command they were given was to worship Allah, making their religion sincerely His, turning all their attention towards Him, and to establish the Salat and to pay the Zakat: for this alone is the most true and right religion. (98:4 - 5)
Establish Prayer and dispense the Purifying Alms (Zakat) and bow in worship with those who bow (2:43)
The believers, both men and women, are allies of one another. They enjoin good, forbid evil, establish Prayer, pay Zakah, and obey Allah and His Messenger. Surely Allah will show mercy to them. Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise (9:71)
The alms (Zakat in this specific verseÕs case) are meant only for the poor and the needy and those who are in charge thereof, those whose hearts are to be reconciled; and to free those in bondage, and to help those burdened with debt, and for expenditure in the way of Allah and for the wayfarer. This is an obligation from Allah. Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise. (9:60)
2. The Hadiths
Begging
Narrated Hakim bin Hizam that the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) said: The upper hand is better than the lower hand (i.e. he who gives in charity is better than him who takes it). One should start giving first to his dependents. And the best object of charity is that which is given by a wealthy person (from the money which is left after his expenses). And whoever abstains from asking others for some financial help, Allah will give him and save him from asking others, Allah will make him self-sufficient. (Bukhari)
Abu Huraira related that the Prophet said: He who makes a habit of asking from others reaches out for a brand of Fire, so let him refrain or continue, as he desires. (Muslim)
Clothing
Ibn Abbas related that the Prophet said: Any Muslim who gives a Muslim a garment to wear will be in Allah's safekeeping as long as a shred of it remains on him. (Ahmad, Tirmidhi)
Debt: Relieving the person in debt
Abu Qatadah related that the Prophet said: If anyone would like Allah to save him from the hardships of the Day of Resurrection, he should give more time to his debtor who is short of money, or remit his debt altogether. (Muslim)
Food and the needy
Safwan ibn Salim related that the Prophet said: Anyone who looks after and works for a widow and a poor person is like a warrior fighting for AllahÕs cause, or like a person who fasts during the day and prays all night. (Bukhari)
Anas related that the Prophet said: If any Muslim plants something or sows seed from which a man, a bird or an animal eats, it counts as a charity for him. (Bukhari, Muslim)
Relatives who are needy
Abu Huraira narrated that the Prophet said: The best charity is that which is practiced by a wealthy person. And start giving first to your dependents. (Bukhari)
Salman ibn Amer reported that the Prophet said: To give something to a poor man brings one reward, while giving the same to a needy relation brings two: one for charity and the other for respecting the family ties. (Ahmad, Ibn Majah, Nasai, Tirmidhi)
Stinginess
Jabir reported that the Prophet said: Avoid doing injustice to others, for on the Day of Judgment, it will turn into manifold darkness, and safeguard yourself against miserliness, for it ruined those who were before you. It incited them to murder and treating the unlawful as lawful. (Muslim)
Zakat-what you owe from your money
Abbas related that a man asked the Prophet, Tell me what should I do to be admitted to Paradise and he (the Prophet) answered: Worship Allah associating nothing with Him, observe Salat, pay Zakat and strengthen the ties of kinship. (Bukhari, Muslim)
Abu Huraira related that the Prophet said: When someone is made rich but he does not pay Zakat for his wealth, then on the Day of Judgment his money will be turned into a poisonous snake with two black spots on its head. It will coil around his neck and bite his cheeks and say: 'I am your wealth, I am your treasure'. Then the Prophet recited verse 3:180 of the Quran. (Bukhari)


Again, our role model is the prophet (PBUH) we try to emulate him in every way, for surely he was of noble character!

all the best
Reply

truth finder
10-25-2010, 04:29 PM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
Why is everything about your religion for show? can't you do without expecting praise or a false conversion?
I disagree with you. The Christian believer in our home country or Mother Teresa did not do it for show. They devoted their whole life to caring for social outcasts in remote villages far from the big cities. As you say, people can pretend to do good deeds for show for a little while, but not certainly for their entire life. These two individuals did not devote their life expecting praise or a false conversion. When they experienced the overwhelming grace of God, namely, unconditional forgiveness of God for all human beings through the sacrificial death of Jesus, they got a calling from God to care for fellow human beings as their genuine expression of love for God.
Reply

جوري
10-25-2010, 04:36 PM
Originally Posted by truth finder
I disagree with you. The Christian believer in our home country or Mother Teresa did not do it for show. They devoted their whole life to caring for social outcasts in remote villages far from the big cities. As you say, people can pretend to do good deeds for show for a little while, but not certainly for their entire life. These two individuals did not devote their life expecting praise or a false conversion. When they experienced the overwhelming grace of God, namely, unconditional forgiveness of God for all human beings through the sacrificial death of Jesus, they got a calling from God to care for fellow human beings as their genuine expression of love for God.

Who knows why people do what they do? what lies in the breasts of men is between them and God!
It can appear as dedication to God, to others it appears as scoring poor impoverished children for the catholic church.. as stated before what one does is between one and the creator, not a communal effort for praise!

all the best
Reply

truth finder
10-25-2010, 05:06 PM
Do you know what God regards the most precious in the universe? It is human beings, at least, according to the Bible. Human beings are the purpose of His creation for the universe. Human beings are the focus of His love, at least, according to the Bible. That is why Jesus died on the cross to bring human beings to the Father, because we are that much precious and special to the eyes of God. Thus we cannot separately think our love for God and our love for human beings. Our love for God is best demonstrated through our love for other human beings, which is exemplified by those two individuals.

I am not saying that the Muslim community does not have such individuals. I just want to know the stories of those people in your society, because most people are touched and moved by those stories rather than devout religious performances.
Reply

جوري
10-25-2010, 05:51 PM
Originally Posted by truth finder
Do you know what God regards the most precious in the universe? It is human beings, at least, according to the Bible. Human beings are the purpose of His creation for the universe. Human beings are the focus of His love, at least, according to the Bible. That is why Jesus died on the cross to bring human beings to the Father, because we are that much precious and special to the eyes of God. Thus we cannot separately think our love for God and our love for human beings. Our love for God is best demonstrated through our love for other human beings, which is exemplified by those two individuals. I am not saying that the Muslim community does not have such individuals. I just want to know the stories of those people in your society, because most people are touched and moved by those stories rather than devout religious performances.


Thank you, come again.. Jesus loves ya
have a banana

Picture removed by Woodrow. The innuendo that seems to be there makes the picture inappropriate
Reply

truth finder
10-25-2010, 06:26 PM
You seem to make fun of God’s love for us. We can understand the love of God for us through the love of parents for children, because the latter is a shadow of the former. Parents do not bear their children to submit to themselves as servants, but to give their love to them. Although some people still do not understand the love of God for us through Jesus, God’s unconditional love for us is actually the driving force of our faith.

We agree the most precious virtue of humanity is love. The strongest love of all is the love between mother and her children. Have you not heard that a mother jumped into the water to save her drowning children by sacrificing her own life or jumped into the incoming car to save her children from collision by sacrificing her own life? Perhaps it is one of the most touching stories in the world. Human mother's love is the strongest among all loves and incomparable to all the others, because she delivered her children by shedding her own blood with great pain. This is a reflection or shadow of God's love for his creatures (human beings) through Jesus Christ who died on the cross by shedding his own blood with great pain to pay the penalty of our sins on our behalf. God’s love for us is unconditional in character. “While we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). Regardless of whether we will receive or reject his love of forgiveness, whether we will submit to him or not, he first gave us himself as a sacrifice for our sins. This unconditional love motivates our deepest love and submission for God.

I hope my understanding of your comment (you seem to make fun of God’s love for us) is wrong.
Reply

جوري
10-25-2010, 07:07 PM
Originally Posted by truth finder
You seem to make fun of God’s love for us. We can understand the love of God for us through the love of parents for children, because the latter is a shadow of the former. Parents do not bear their children to submit to themselves as servants, but to give their love to them. Although some people still do not understand the love of God for us through Jesus, God’s unconditional love for us is actually the driving force of our faith.

We agree the most precious virtue of humanity is love. The strongest love of all is the love between mother and her children. Have you not heard that a mother jumped into the water to save her drowning children by sacrificing her own life or jumped into the incoming car to save her children from collision by sacrificing her own life? Perhaps it is one of the most touching stories in the world. Human mother's love is the strongest among all loves and incomparable to all the others, because she delivered her children by shedding her own blood with great pain. This is a reflection or shadow of God's love for his creatures (human beings) through Jesus Christ who died on the cross by shedding his own blood with great pain to pay the penalty of our sins on our behalf. God’s love for us is unconditional in character. “While we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). Regardless of whether we will receive or reject his love of forgiveness, whether we will submit to him or not, he first gave us himself as a sacrifice for our sins. This unconditional love motivates our deepest love and submission for God.

I hope my understanding of your comment (you seem to make fun of God’s love for us) is wrong.
I make fun of you, and your desperate efforts to sell something that simply doesn't exist and certainly doesn't echo in any of your collective actions and the fulcrum upon which it stands is so faulty even a four year old can refute.
I think you should go back to evangelist' training camp and have them do better than god died for you crap if you are desirous of an actual intellectual dialogue.. The only place this fits in is impoverished areas where folks will do anything for a meal or medicine and it is a shame for you to 'spread the good word' with bribes as we often see you do....

now buzz off you are starting to be like a persistent verruca!
Reply

truth finder
10-26-2010, 06:15 PM
Although you try to make fun of me, I choose not to do the same to you. I started this thread to hear about touching stories in your community that showed their love for God demonstrated through their love for fellow human beings, not to debate theology of Islam or Christianity. People including me are touched and moved by this kind of story than by religious performances. In fact the Christian man in our home country refused to leave lepers when the area was retaken by communist rebels, and was executed later by communist soldiers. Certainly he did good deeds not for a show. Christians do not do good deeds for show, as much as Muslims do not do good deeds for show. I believe there are those Muslims like Mother Teresa or this Christian believer of our home country. Would you please share their stories with me? Thank you.
Reply

جوري
10-26-2010, 06:48 PM
Have you read the above? It isn't good religiously (Islamically) to do good and then advertise-- it detracts from their worth!

all the best
Reply

أحمد
10-26-2010, 06:50 PM
:sl:

Originally Posted by truth finder
Although you try to make fun of me, I choose not to do the same to you. I started this thread to hear about touching stories in your community that showed their love for God demonstrated through their love for fellow human beings, not to debate theology of Islam or Christianity. People including me are touched and moved by this kind of story than by religious performances. In fact the Christian man in our home country refused to leave lepers when the area was retaken by communist rebels, and was executed later by communist soldiers. Certainly he did good deeds not for a show. Christians do not do good deeds for show, as much as Muslims do not do good deeds for show. I believe there are those Muslims like Mother Teresa or this Christian believer of our home country. Would you please share their stories with me? Thank you.
As Muslims, we can't go around making every impressive human being our role model. Islam is a path which leads to complete purity and shows a perfect example for us to follow.

For those who are Christians; is it not better that their role model should be someone sent by God, rather than someone they themselves have become impressed by? Is the faith of people so weak that they must depend on public impressions of others?

What you may hear about people especially through the popular media, isn't always accurate information, and is never based on getting honest unadulterated information to the global community. Maybe a journalist can give some better insight on media.

Its not a duty of a Muslim to base his/her life on impressing others; Islam is a way of life, which is based on the commandments of Allah and the tradition of His Messenger :saws1: Rasoolullah :saws1: is our role model, just as previous Prophets and Messengers were role models for those they were sent to. A Muslim is someone who accepts all prophets and messengers, the final messenger :saws1: being the perfect example for mankind as stated by Allah.

:wa:
Reply

Ramadhan
10-27-2010, 01:57 AM
Originally Posted by truth finder
Although some people still do not understand the love of God for us through Jesus,
One moment you said jesus is god, now you said jesus is god's intermediary. make up your mind will you?

Originally Posted by truth finder
God’s unconditional love for us is actually the driving force of our faith.
according to you and all other christian, god's love for me is unconditional, but then he will sent me to hell for eternity?
This makes as much sense as 3 gods in 1 and 1 god for 3.

Here's God's mercy (which you christians have devalued as "love") according to prophet Muhammad SAW:


The Prophet Mohammad(PBUH) said, "When Allah created the creatures, He wrote in the Book, which is with Him over His Throne: "Verily, My Mercy prevailed over My Wrath."
(Al-Bukhari)


The Prophet Mohammad(PBUH) also said, "Allah has divided mercy into 100 parts, and He retained with Him 99 parts, and sent down to earth 1 part. Through this one part creatures deal with one another with compassion, so much so that an animal lifts its hoof over its young lest it should hurt it." (Al-Bukhari)
(the 99 parts is reserved in the heavens, and may be used to forgive human during judgement day, this is for you to ponder)

The two attributes of Allah, Ar-Rahman and Ar-Rahim, which mean "The Most Gracious" and "The Most Merciful" respectively are probably the most repeated ones, as they are mentioned again and again in different verses as well as at the beginning of 113 chapters of the Qur'an: "In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful."

Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) said, "Those who show mercy to their fellow beings will be shown mercy by the Merciful Lord. So, show mercy to those on the earth, and He Who is in the heaven will show mercy to you." (At-Tirmidhi)


The Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) also said:

Allah ordered the appointed angels over you that the good and the bad deeds be written, and He then showed how to write. If someone intends to do a good deed and he does not do it, then Allah will write for him a full good deed, and if he intends to do a good deed and actually did it, then Allah will write for him its reward equal from 10 to 700 times to many more times. And If someone intends to do a bad deed and he does not do it, then Allah will write for him a full good deed (in his account) with Him, and if he intends to do a bad deed and actually did it, then Allah will write for him one bad deed. (Al-Bukhari)

There is another famous hadith where the Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) is reported to have said,


Allah, the Almighty, says, 'Whosoever does a good deed, will have a reward 10 times like it and I add more, and whosoever does an evil, will have the punishment like it or I will forgive him, and whosoever approaches Me by one span, I will approach him by one cubit, and whosoever approaches Me by one cubit, I approach him by one fathom, and whosoever comes to Me walking, I go to him running, and whosoever meets Me with an earth-load of sins without associating anything with Me, I meet him with forgiveness like that.' (Muslim)


It is Allah's infinite compassion and mercy to His obedient servants that is expressed in the above two hadiths.


`Umar ibn Al-Khattab said: Some captives were brought to the Messenger of Allah and there was a woman among them whose breasts were full of milk. Suddenly, this woman saw an infant in the midst of the captives. She took hold of it, brought it into her bosom, and started nursing it. The Prophet then told the Companions, "Do you think that this woman would throw her child in the fire?" We said, "No, By Allah she would not, if she is able not to." He then said, "Allah the Exalted is more merciful with His slave than this woman with her child." (Al-Bukhari)


Here, the Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) clearly tells us that the mercy of Allah is far greater than the mercy of a loving and caring mother for her child. This comparison is made by the Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) to make the idea of Allah's boundless mercy as clear to ordinary humans as they can comprehend.
Reply

truth finder
10-27-2010, 09:17 PM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
Have you read the above? It isn't good religiously (Islamically) to do good and then advertise-- it detracts from their worth!

all the best
I do not think the Christian man that forgave the communist rebel who killed his two innocent sons and later adopted him as his own son did the good deed to advertise it. I do not think the believer who sucked the pus in the wound of lepers to relieve their pain did the good to get attention from people. Our love for fellow human beings, particularly, social outcasts, is a direct reflection of our love for God. This is why they are respected more than some other Christians who did remarkable religious performances such as memorizing the whole scripture and 40 day fasting without eating anything except water.

Of course there are other good role models in the scripture such as God’s prophets we can think of. But it would be more beneficial to find those people in the recent history so that the memory of their life is still fresh. Those individuals did not attract the attention of general public with their good deeds. Instead general public were attracted to them by their sacrificial love for fellow human beings.
Reply

جوري
10-27-2010, 09:38 PM
I see what you want, well the net is riddled with such stories, surely you can just google?

anyhow, here is a recent one, during the genocide in Rwanda Muslims were taking in Christians and hiding them and offering them food and shelter while the christians were out slaughtering one another.. Muslims have been honored by the national government for their roles in saving the lives regardless of their faith. Many people attribute the recent spread of Islam to these humanitarian acts.

Islam Attracting Many Survivors of Rwanda Genocide

Jihad Is Taught as 'Struggle to Heal'

By Emily Wax
Washington Foreign Post Service
Monday, September 23, 2002; Page A10

RUHENGERI, Rwanda -- The villagers with their forest green head wraps and forest green Korans arrived at the mosque on a rainy Sunday afternoon for a lecture for new converts. There was one main topic: jihad.
They found their seats and flipped to the right page. Hands flew in the air. People read passages aloud. And the word jihad -- holy struggle -- echoed again and again through the dark, leaky room.
Many Rwandans are converting to Islam after Muslims hide them during the genocide. (Emily Wax - The Washington Post)

Free E-mail Newsletters


  • Today's Headlines & Columnists
    See a Sample | Sign Up Now
  • Breaking News Alerts
    See a Sample | Sign Up Now




It wasn't the kind of jihad that has been in the news since Sept. 11, 2001. There were no references to Osama bin Laden, the World Trade Center or suicide bombers. Instead there was only talk of April 6, 1994, the first day of the state-sponsored genocide in which ethnic Hutu extremists killed 800,000 minority Tutsis and Hutu moderates.
"We have our own jihad, and that is our war against ignorance between Hutu and Tutsi. It is our struggle to heal," said Saleh Habimana, the head mufti of Rwanda. "Our jihad is to start respecting each other and living as Rwandans and as Muslims."
Since the genocide, Rwandans have converted to Islam in huge numbers. Muslims now make up 14 percent of the 8.2 million people here in Africa's most Catholic nation, twice as many as before the killings began.
Many converts say they chose Islam because of the role that some Catholic and Protestant leaders played in the genocide. Human rights groups have documented several incidents in which Christian clerics allowed Tutsis to seek refuge in churches, then surrendered them to Hutu death squads, as well as instances of Hutu priests and ministers encouraging their congregations to kill Tutsis. Today some churches serve as memorials to the many people slaughtered among their pews.
Four clergymen are facing genocide charges at the U.N.-created International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and last year in Belgium, the former colonial power, two Rwandan nuns were convicted of murder for their roles in the massacre of 7,000 Tutsis who sought protection at a Benedictine convent.
In contrast, many Muslim leaders and families are being honored for protecting and hiding those who were fleeing.
Some say Muslims did this because of the religion's strong dictates against murder, though Christian doctrine proscribes it as well. Others say Muslims, always considered an ostracized minority, were not swept up in the Hutus' campaign of bloodshed and were unafraid of supporting a cause they felt was honorable.
"I know people in America think Muslims are terrorists, but for Rwandans they were our freedom fighters during the genocide," said Jean Pierre Sagahutu, 37, a Tutsi who converted to Islam from Catholicism after his father and nine other members of his family were slaughtered. "I wanted to hide in a church, but that was the worst place to go. Instead, a Muslim family took me. They saved my life."
Sagahutu said his father had worked at a hospital where he was friendly with a Muslim family. They took Sagahutu in, even though they were Hutus. "I watched them pray five times a day. I ate with them and I saw how they lived," he said. "When they pray, Hutu and Tutsi are in the same mosque. There is no difference. I needed to see that."
Islam has long been a religion of the downtrodden. In the Middle East and South Asia, the religion has had a strong focus on outreach to the poor and tackling social ills by banning alcohol and encouraging sexual modesty. In the United States, Malcolm X used a form of Islam to encourage economic and racial empowerment among blacks.
Muslim leaders say they have a natural constituency in Rwanda, where AIDS and poverty have replaced genocide as the most daunting problems. "Islam fits into the fabric of our society. It helps those who are in poverty. It preaches against behaviors that create AIDS. It offers education in the Koran and Arabic when there is not a lot of education being offered," said Habimana, the chief mufti. "I think people can relate to Islam. They are converting as a sign of appreciation to the Muslim community who sheltered them during the genocide."
While Western governments worry that the growth of Islam carries with it the danger of militancy, there are few signs of militant Islam in Rwanda. Nevertheless, some government officials quietly express concern that some of the mosques receive funding from Saudi Arabia, whose dominant Wahhabi sect has been embraced by militant groups in other parts of the world. They also worry that high poverty rates and a traumatized population make Rwanda the perfect breeding ground for Islamic extremism.
But Nish Imiyimana, an imam here in Ruhengeri, about 45 miles northwest of Kigali, the capital, contends: "We have enough of our own problems. We don't want a bomb dropped on us by America. We want American NGOs [nongovernmental organizations] to come and build us hospitals instead."
Imams across the country held meetings after Sept. 11, 2001, to clarify what it means to be a Muslim. "I told everyone, 'Islam means peace,' " said Imiyimana, recalling that the mosque was packed that day. "Considering our track record, it wasn't hard to convince them."
That fact worries the Catholic church. Priests here said they have asked for advice from church leaders in Rome about how to react to the number of converts to Islam.
"The Catholic church has a problem after genocide," said the Rev. Jean Bosco Ntagugire, who works at Kigali churches. "The trust has been broken. We can't say, 'Christians come back.' We have to hope that happens when faith builds again."
To help make that happen, the Catholic church has started to offer youth sports programs and camping trips, Ntagugire said. But Muslims are also reaching out, even forming women's groups that provide classes on child care and being a mother.
At a recent class here, hundreds of women dressed in red, orange and purple head coverings gathered in a dark clay building. They talked about their personal struggle, or jihad, to raise their children well. And afterward, during a lunch of beans and chicken legs, they ate heartily and shared stories about how Muslims saved them during the genocide.
"If it weren't for the Muslims, my whole family would be dead," said Aisha Uwimbabazi, 27, a convert and mother of two children. "I was very, very thankful for Muslim people during the genocide. I thought about it and I really felt it was right to change."



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002Sep22.html


all the best
Reply

truth finder
10-28-2010, 01:09 AM
Thank you very much for the relevant story. This is what I wanted to hear about in your community. I am glad to find that there are some Muslims who seem to take care of fellow human beings more than their religion. I wish those people would be respected much more than other religious people doing religious performances such as memorizing the whole scripture and a long period of fast or prayer.
Reply

جوري
10-28-2010, 01:14 AM
Originally Posted by truth finder
I wish those people would be respected much more than other religious people doing religious performances such as memorizing the whole scripture and a long period of fast or prayer.

as stated just because folks don't advertise their good deeds doesn't mean they are not performing them~!

all the best
Reply

جوري
10-28-2010, 04:19 PM
JEWS' SUBWAY HERO A MUSLIM

SAVES 'HANUKKAH' RIDERS FROM THUGS

By JENNIFER FERMINO, ERIKA MARTINEZ and PETER COX
Last Updated: 5:00 AM, December 12, 2007
Posted: 5:00 AM, December 12, 2007

A Brooklyn man whose "Happy Hanukkah" greeting landed him in the hospital said he was saved from a gang of Jew-bashing goons aboard a packed Q train by a total stranger - a modest Muslim from Bangladesh.
Walter Adler was touched that Hassan Askari jumped to his aid while a group of thugs allegedly pummeled and taunted him and his three friends. So Adler has invited his new friend over to celebrate the Festival of Lights.
The two new pals - Adler, 23, with a broken nose and a fat lip, and Askari, 20, with two black eyes - broke bread together and laughed off the bruises the night after the fisticuffs.



"A random Muslim guy jumped in and helped a Jewish guy on Hanukkah - that's a miracle," said Adler, an honors student at Hunter College.
"He's basically a hero. Hassan jumped in to help us."
But Askari, who is studying to be an accountant, shrugged off the praise.
"I just did what I had to do," he recalled. "My parents raised me that way."
Ten people were arrested in the underground attack on Friday night - including two men who have been arrested for race crimes before.
None of the suspects had been charged with a hate crime in the Q train attack as of last night, but the Brooklyn DA's Civil Rights Bureau is handling the case.
It all began when Adler, his girlfriend, Maria Parsheva, and two other pals boarded the subway at Canal Street bound for Brooklyn and someone in another group wished them "Merry Christmas."
Adler and his pal Angelica Krischanovich responded: "Happy Hanukkah."
Apparently, those were fighting words.
"They just came at us so fast. The first thing that came into my mind was, 'Yeah, this is going to be violent,' " said Parsheva, 20.
One of the group immediately hiked up his sleeve to reveal a tattoo of Christ.
"He said, 'Happy Hanukkah, that's when the Jews killed Jesus,' " said Adler.
The group of about 14 men and women then allegedly began taunting Adler and his pals as "dirty Jews" and "Jew *****es."
Amid a huge scrum, Askari jumped in.
"I'm bleeding all over the place, there's lots of people, they're fighting with Hassan still, and I'm like, why isn't anyone else doing anything?" Adler said.
He pulled the emergency brake right before entering the DeKalb Avenue station.
Police came aboard and arrested 10 people, charging six with assault and four with unlawful assembly.
One of those collared straphangers yesterday denied making anti-Semitic taunts and said his mother is Jewish.
Joseph Jirovec, 19 - the son of a city firefighter who is currently serving in Iraq - has pleaded guilty to a 2005 bias crime against blacks.
"We are not racist against Jewish people. That whole hate-crime thing is ridiculous," the Brooklyn man said.
He claims Adler's group was drunk and taunted his group, and one yelled, "We killed Jesus."
Jirovec will soon begin serving six months for his role in the attack against four men in Gerritsen Beach.
"I'm trying to stay out of trouble," he said. "When I get out, I want to go into the military."



Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/regiona...#ixzz13ffQWInr
Reply

جوري
10-28-2010, 04:25 PM
Ex-thug repaid deli owner who helped him

By KIERAN CROWLEY
Last Updated: 11:18 AM, December 3, 2009
Posted: 3:04 AM, December 3, 2009
Comments: 113 More Print
A Long Island deli owner who held a robber at gunpoint, then let him go after giving him $40 and a loaf of bread, says he got an anonymous letter from the crook that included a $50 bill and a thank-you for saving him from a life of crime.
The mysterious writer apologized to his would-be victim, Mohammad Sohail, saying, "First of all I would like to say I am sorry at the time I had [no] money no food on the table no job and nothing for my family."
Similar to comments he made on his knees during the incident last May, he said he realized that trying to rob the store with a baseball bat "was wrong but I had [no] choice. I needed to feed my family."
Victor Alcorn
PAYBACK: Mohammad Sohail, alongside Post clippings that told his story in May, yesterday shows the letter (below) and $50 he got from the would-be robber he sent out of his deli with $40, bread and a blessing.

see more videos





The letter claimed, "When you had that gun to my head I was 100% that I was going to die," and said he begged to convert to Islam at that moment only because he feared death.
But the letter-writer said he actually did convert, "decided to become a true Muslim," and turned his life around after Sohail, 47, spared his life.
"Now I have a new child and good job make good money staying out of trouble and taking care of my family. You gave me forty dollars thank you for sparing my life Because of that you change my life."
The letter was signed in type: "Your Muslim Brother."
"That's the same guy I gave $40 to," said Sohail, 62, displaying the typewritten letter at his Shirley Express deli yesterday. There was no return address. It was mailed on Long Island the week before Thanksgiving.
"I'm really thrilled," said Sohail. "I'm very happy for that guy, because he is now doing good for the community.
"He has a job and he is a good person. I really feel great. Thank God he's doing good. He's got a new baby and he's not in jail," said Sohail.
"When you do good things for somebody, it comes back to you. I gave him $40 and he sent me back $50. It was a good investment," Sohail laughed.
During the robbery attempt, the failed thief brandished a baseball bat and demanded cash.
But Sohail pulled out a 9mm rifle and disarmed the man -- who pleaded for his life on his knees before the deli counter, crying, "I'm sorry! I'm sorry!" and tearfully claiming his family had fallen on hard times.
Suffolk County police declined to comment until they had a chance to look at the letter. Detectives, using video surveillance film of the would-be thief, investigated the robbery but were



Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/h...#ixzz13fgqFYAe
Reply

جوري
10-28-2010, 04:26 PM
so there you go, if you can refine your google search to get through all the orientalist/ evangelist B.S you'd see the folks with most to offer to the oppressed are Muslims and it is good to note that they desire nothing out of it in fact they end up in the hospital for doing what is right..

Allhouma unsar al'Islam walmoslmeen fi mashariq al'ard wa magharibha

ameen

all the best
Reply

truth finder
10-28-2010, 05:08 PM
Thank you very much again for posting more stories. I am glad to know that there are some Muslims who seem to take care of fellow human beings more than just increasing their religious zeal by performing religious rituals. I believe we need to love and help other fellow human beings, whether they have a different belief or even do not have any belief. Christians believe that we are human beings first before we are Christians. We see other people as fellow human beings instead of non-Christians. Actually there are some immature Christians who see the rest of human beings as non-Christians rather than fellow human beings. This is a dangerous mentality, polarizing the world by us-versus-they attitude.

Because readers do not know my identity except for my pen name, it would not be totally inappropriate to mention the following in the current context. As we all know, many Pakistani people have been suffering from severe flood for several months. When I first heard about the flood a few months ago, I felt sorry for those people who have lost loved ones and homes. While praying during that weekend, the Holy Spirit in my heart urged me to help Pakistani people as our fellow human beings. The next day I called a charity organization to donate several hundred dollars only for Pakistani people. To me they are my fellow human beings, no matter what belief they have or even without any belief.

Because some readers may not know who the Holy Spirit is, I just explain about him briefly. The Holy Spirit is one distinct way of God’s revelations to God’s people. In the Old Testament time the Holy Spirit was given to a few special people such as Moses, Elijah and Isaiah. In the new era of grace initiated by Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit can come to anybody whose sinful heart is washed away by the blood of Jesus. When the Holy Spirit comes to live in our heart, our heart would be the holiest place in the world because God lives right here in us.
Reply

جوري
10-28-2010, 05:21 PM
Originally Posted by truth finder
Thank you very much again for posting more stories. I am glad to know that there are some Muslims who seem to take care of fellow human beings more than just increasing their religious zeal by performing religious rituals. I believe we need to love and help other fellow human beings, whether they have a different belief or even do not have any belief. Christians believe that we are human beings first before we are Christians. We see other people as fellow human beings instead of non-Christians. Actually there are some immature Christians who see the rest of human beings as non-Christians rather than fellow human beings. This is a dangerous mentality, polarizing the world by us-versus-they attitude.
it is a duty upon all Muslims to and let me quote the Noble Quran:

3:110--You are the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in God . If only the People of the Scripture had believed, it would have been better for them ...

so in fact those who don't enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong aren't acting within the Islamic principles. Islam is a total way of life, prayer, fast and fulfilling justice is simply the Muslim way of life!
Because readers do not know my identity except for my pen name, it would not be totally inappropriate to mention the following in the current context. As we all know, many Pakistani people have been suffering from severe flood for several months. When I first heard about the flood a few months ago, I felt sorry for those people who have lost loved ones and homes. While praying during that weekend, the Holy Spirit in my heart urged me to help Pakistani people as our fellow human beings. The next day I called a charity organization to donate several hundred dollars only for Pakistani people. To me they are my fellow human beings, no matter what belief they have or even without any belief.
It is too bad that you feel so compelled to display your charitable deeds, I feel sorry for you indeed to want your validation from fellow human beings, almost as if your god won't recognize you for them.. Again I quote the noble Quran:

2:271 - If ye disclose (acts of) charity, even so it is well, but if ye conceal them, and make them reach those (really) in need, that is best for you: It will remove from you some of your (stains of) evil. And God is well acquainted with what ye do.

Because some readers may not know who the Holy Spirit is, I just explain about him briefly. The Holy Spirit is one distinct way of God’s revelations to God’s people. In the Old Testament time the Holy Spirit was given to a few special people such as Moses, Elijah and Isaiah. In the new era of grace initiated by Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit can come to anybody whose sinful heart is washed away by the blood of Jesus. When the Holy Spirit comes to live in our heart, our heart would be the holiest place in the world because God lives right here in us.
That is the christian definition of the holy spirit -- the christian understanding and definition of this middle eastern religion is quite farcical for the rest of us.. further I'd truly recommend if you hear voices telling you to behave a certain way that you seek medical attention!

all the best
Reply

truth finder
10-29-2010, 12:08 AM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
It is too bad that you feel so compelled to display your charitable deeds, I feel sorry for you indeed to want your validation from fellow human beings, almost as if your god won't recognize you for them..
I disagree with you. Even my wife does not know what I did. You have not met me before and do not know who I am, even my name. I mentioned it in order to show that many (if not all) Christians including myself care about Muslims as fellow human beings, not by word, but by action. That is all I meant.
Reply

جوري
10-29-2010, 01:36 AM
Originally Posted by truth finder
I disagree with you. Even my wife does not know what I did. You have not met me before and do not know who I am, even my name. I mentioned it in order to show that many (if not all) Christians including myself care about Muslims as fellow human beings, not by word, but by action. That is all I meant.

It isn't about sharing the name, it is about sharing what you perceive to be good for a particular purpose and let's face it, you are advertising for a reason!

all the best
Reply

truth finder
10-29-2010, 07:38 PM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ


It isn't about sharing the name, it is about sharing what you perceive to be good for a particular purpose and let's face it, you are advertising for a reason!

all the best

I meant what I meant. Nobody including even my wife knows what I did for Pakistani people. Nobody in this forum knows who I am. I mentioned it in order not to get praise from the readers, but to tell them that many Christians including myself regard Pakistani people as our fellow human beings, whom we need to love and take care of. If you do not believe me, it is your problem. I hope some readers take what I said as it is.
Reply

جوري
10-29-2010, 10:48 PM
Originally Posted by truth finder
I meant what I meant. Nobody including even my wife knows what I did for Pakistani people. Nobody in this forum knows who I am. I mentioned it in order not to get praise from the readers, but to tell them that many Christians including myself regard Pakistani people as our fellow human beings, whom we need to love and take care of. If you do not believe me, it is your problem. I hope some readers take what I said as it is.

what are you hoping for from 'some readers'? lol The more nonchalant you make it, the tighter that noose gets..

all the best
Reply

truth finder
11-01-2010, 02:44 PM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

That is the christian definition of the holy spirit -- the christian understanding and definition of this middle eastern religion is quite farcical for the rest of us.. further I'd truly recommend if you hear voices telling you to behave a certain way that you seek medical attention!
Are you also saying that Abraham and Moses needed to seek medical attention?
Reply

أحمد
11-01-2010, 05:29 PM
:sl:

Originally Posted by truth finder
Are you also saying that Abraham and Moses needed to seek medical attention?
They didn't hear voices inside themselves; they were given revelations. Sneaky whispering is the work of the shayateen.

23:97-98



And say, "My Lord, I seek refuge in You from the incitements of the devils,
And I seek refuge in You, my Lord , lest they be present with me."


114:1-6






Say, "I seek refuge in the Lord of mankind,
The Sovereign of mankind.
The God of mankind,
From the evil of the retreating whisperer -
Who whispers into the hearts of mankind -
From among the jinn and mankind."

:wa:
Reply

جوري
11-01-2010, 06:47 PM
Originally Posted by truth finder
Are you also saying that Abraham and Moses needed to seek medical attention?
you are not Abraham nor Moses, and frankly no modern day christian is.. the idea that you would fancy yourself one is more absurd than anything else you have written.. just when we thought you couldn't get any worse!

Do seek help.

all the best
Reply

truth finder
11-08-2010, 06:02 PM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

you are not Abraham nor Moses, and frankly no modern day christian is.. the idea that you would fancy yourself one is more absurd than anything else you have written.. just when we thought you couldn't get any worse!

Do seek help.

all the best
Of course I am not Abraham or Moses. But “unfortunately” from your perspective, we Christians enjoy the same quality of spiritual relation with God through Jesus as Abraham and Moses did in the past. Because the barrier between God and human beings was broken by the sacrificial death of Jesus on the cross, the broken relation with God was finally restored to the level of intimacy to Christians. The almighty God has become our Friend and Lover, not just our Master.

But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it. (Matthew 13:16-17) Here many prophets and righteous people include Abraham and Moses.
Reply

S.Belle
11-08-2010, 06:39 PM
Originally Posted by truth finder
Because the barrier between God and human beings was broken by the sacrificial death of Jesus on the cross, the broken relation with God was finally restored to the level of intimacy to Christians.
And how did the "sacrificial death" of Isa (pbuh) restore this "broken realtionship"?
And how can the barrier between God and mankind be broken when God is omniscient?

Originally Posted by truth finder
Of course I am not Abraham or Moses. But “unfortunately” from your perspective, we Christians enjoy the same quality of spiritual relation with God through Jesus as Abraham and Moses did in the past
Why must you go thru Isa (pbuh) who is man (he was a Prophet of God but still a man nonetheless which meant he probably made mistakes) and not go directly to God who is all knowing and does not make mistakes?

Would you not want to go to God directly like Isa, Moses, and Abraham did? Doesn't that make more sense?
Reply

جوري
11-08-2010, 07:36 PM
Originally Posted by truth finder
Of course I am not Abraham or Moses. But “unfortunately” from your perspective, we Christians enjoy the same quality of spiritual relation with God through Jesus as Abraham and Moses did in the past. Because the barrier between God and human beings was broken by the sacrificial death of Jesus on the cross, the broken relation with God was finally restored to the level of intimacy to Christians. The almighty God has become our Friend and Lover, not just our Master.

But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it. (Matthew 13:16-17) Here many prophets and righteous people include Abraham and Moses.

I think you enjoy a special relation with satan and his clan, surely those who feel no need to work on their relationship with god instead taking for granted his death and sin eating can only be allied with the devil. You see and hear nothing for you are both blinded by sin and the complacency of believing that your sins are forgiven for this mangod you worship has eaten your sins for you!

17:81 to top


And say, "Truth has come, and falsehood has departed. Indeed is falsehood, [by nature], ever bound to depart."



Say, "Shall we [believers] inform you of the greatest losers as to [their] deeds?


18:104 to top


[They are] those whose effort is lost in worldly life, while they think that they are doing well in work."

18:105 to top


Those are the ones who disbelieve in the verses of their Lord and in [their] meeting Him, so their deeds have become worthless; and We will not assign to them on the Day of Resurrection any importance.


unfortunately for you, your filthy tactics won't work against Muslims.. go find some poor starving people in some desolate part of the world to sell them your dreams and your mangod love!

all the best
Reply

Insaanah
11-08-2010, 10:25 PM
Originally Posted by truth finder
Because the barrier between God and human beings was broken by the sacrificial death of Jesus on the cross, the broken relation with God was finally restored to the level of intimacy to Christians.
There was never a barrier between God and human beings. God has always been accessible to all.

Mankind's relationship with God has never been broken. A human still has the relationship of the created in relation to the Creator, of the slave (even disobedient slave) in relation to the Master, even if he rejects God's existence.

Originally Posted by truth finder
we Christians enjoy the same quality of spiritual relation with God through Jesus as Abraham and Moses did in the past
Abraham and Moses (peace be upon them both) didn't go through Jesus (peace be upon him), or through anyone else, and neither do we. We approach and pray to God directly, like they did.

Peace.
Reply

جوري
11-08-2010, 10:45 PM
Originally Posted by Insaanah

There was never a barrier between God and human beings. God has always been accessible to all.

Mankind's relationship with God has never been broken. A human still has the relationship of the created in relation to the Creator, of the slave (even disobedient slave) in relation to the Master, even if he rejects God's existence.



Abraham and Moses (peace be upon them both) didn't go through Jesus (peace be upon him), or through anyone else, and neither do we. We approach and pray to God directly, like they did.

Peace.
I don't understand why Christians create such impossible obstacles where they end up venerating saints even for prostitutes or such convoluted dogmas and then conclude it with something as anticlimactic as a belief in an illogical impossibility thereby extricating themselves from their responsibilities toward God, toward man or even the world they find themselves in and to top it all off can't seem to reconcile what they parrot with what actually exists in their books so they'd rather not address it all together. And for some reason are so offended that no one in this world is lapping it up!

:w:
Reply

أحمد
11-08-2010, 11:07 PM
:sl:

Originally Posted by truth finder
Because the barrier between God and human beings was broken by the sacrificial death of Jesus on the cross, the broken relation with God was finally restored to the level of intimacy to Christians.
God isn't held back by any "barriers"; He is omnipotent. Beware of any satanic philosophy telling you that God is limited by barriers.

(57:13) On the Day when the hypocrites men and women will say to the believers: "Wait for us! Let us get something from your light!" It will be said: "Go back to your rear! Then seek a light!" So a wall will be put up between them, with a gate therein. Inside it will be mercy, and outside it will be torment."
(57:14) (The hypocrites) will call the believers: "Were we not with you?" The believers will reply: "Yes! But you led yourselves into temptations, you looked forward for our destruction; you doubted (in Faith); and you were deceived by false desires, till the Command of Allah came to pass. And the chief deceiver (Satan) deceived you concerning Allah."
(57:15) So today no ransom will be taken from you or from those who disbelieved. Your refuge is the Fire. It is most worthy of you, and wretched is the destination.

:wa:
Reply

truth finder
11-09-2010, 04:15 AM
Originally Posted by Mila

And how did the "sacrificial death" of Isa (pbuh) restore this "broken realtionship"?
And how can the barrier between God and mankind be broken when God is omniscient?



Why must you go thru Isa (pbuh) who is man (he was a Prophet of God but still a man nonetheless which meant he probably made mistakes) and not go directly to God who is all knowing and does not make mistakes?

Would you not want to go to God directly like Isa, Moses, and Abraham did? Doesn't that make more sense?
Have you read Torah and understood its spiritual implication? I hope you have done so. If not, I am afraid you really believe the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. God made the covenant with the people of Israel through Moses. A covenant is an agreement between two parties and is considered as broken if one of the parties breaks it. Because God’s covenant is perfect, it is broken even when only one of the laws is not carried out.“‘But if you will not listen to me and carry out all these commands, and if you reject my decrees and abhor my laws and fail to carry out all my commands and so violate my covenant (Leviticus 26:14-15) Of course it was broken by our rebellions and sins against God. As a result a barrier was built up between the perfect God and sinful human beings. It is impossible to mix up God and sin.


Some readers asked me this question, “Why do we need an intermediator between God and us? We can directly approach God” Part of the reason for asking this question comes from the fact that people often forget how perfect and holy God is and how sinful and immoral we are. Again have you read the book of Exodus, part of Torah? And the LORD said to Moses, "I will do the very thing you have asked, because I am pleased with you and I know you by name." Then Moses said, "Now show me your glory." And the LORD said, "I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the LORD, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live." Then the LORD said, "There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen." (Exodus 33:17-23)


This is a very interesting description where God revealed Himself to Moses. No matter how great man Moses was, he could not stand with God because he was still a sinful man. Before the almighty God it does not matter whether there are more good deeds than bad in our life. Any slightest blemish would destroy us before God as you read the above story. Unless the problem of sin is dealt with completely, we could never go before God, thus eternally separated from God. It does not matter how many good works you perform to compensate your past mistakes and sins. This infinite gap between the perfect God and the sinful human beings must be filled by Jesus Christ. If you still believe you do not need the intermediator between God and you, it comes from your ignorance about the infinitely perfect and holy nature of God, and about the sinful and immoral nature of human beings. If you dare to approach God directly, actually you are inviting disaster on yourself. You would be immediately consumed to nothing by the glory of God because there are some sins in you. Even Moses had to hide behind the rock in front of God. Do you think you are more righteous than Moses? This is why Jesus said,“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).



Reply

جوري
11-09-2010, 04:22 AM
Originally Posted by truth finder
it is broken even when only one of the laws is not carried out.“‘But if you will not listen to me and carry out all these commands, and if you reject my decrees and abhor my laws and fail to carry out all my commands and so violate my covenant (Leviticus 26:14-15) Of course it was broken by our rebellions and sins against God. As a result a barrier was built up between the perfect God and sinful human beings. It is impossible to mix up God and sin.
lol
1- why are you breaking God's covenant and not keeping up with his commandments, why are you rebellious and sinful?
and secondly why are things impossible for this God you worship? I mean you have reduced God to the level of an ineffectual man who couldn't pick apostles to shoulder the responsibility after his deah and couldn't save himself after a night of intense prayers, how do you honestly expect him to save you from anything?

and then you quote us mindless passages from a book that isn't even written in the same language as your god spoke. I mean surely you must know that your god was a middle eastern man! I expect him to address us in words that are transcendent and in his own words not the dreams of John or Thomas or jupiter..

have a wonderful day!
Reply

Ramadhan
11-09-2010, 04:46 AM
I am trying to go back to the title of this thread.

truthfinder in previous posts have endlessly espoused mother teresa as his role model in his community.

For me, my role model is of course prophet Muhammad SAW, but keeping with contemporary example which truth finder seems interested in, I offer my own mother as a role model.

There are similarities and differences between Mother Teresa and My mother.

Let's have a look at them:

1. Mother teresa was never married and stayed single all her life

1. My mother married, sacrificed her life ambition to work from home and raised her children (4), managed family finances and household affairs from nothing. When my father died when her children were all still in school, she worked extra hard to be able to send her children to school and all have graduated from the best universities in Indonesia, and a couple even went abroad.

2. Mother teresa helped the poor and the needy and the sick and the orphans and she had orphanages.

2. My mother, in addition to her responsibilities in the family and raising children by herself, has also always been involved and very active in many social organizations and undertakings. She always donated to the neighborhood poor, she served as the neighborhood community chief, she is active in helping quite a few orphanages and she always encourages all of us to help those orphanages.

3. Mother teresa prayed to jesus and mary

3. My mother performed daily shalah, five times a day EVERY DAY, without fail, worshipping the ONE GOD SWT. She also frequently wakes up in the middle of the night, take wudoo (ablution) and perform the night shalah and make supplications to GOD SWT. She also fast during the month of ramadan, and she often do optional monday/thursday fastings.

4. Mother teresa was extremely famous and was in the world news for decades. She also received nobel peace prize. Catholic church has beatified her and intend to make her a saint.

4. My mother is not famous at all, but she has many many friends. And she does not even know that I am typing all the good things the she has done. As the case with many pious and good muslims, she does not like to advertise her good deeds because she is afraid of riya' and she wants to keep her intention pure.

5. After her death, many people prayed to mother teresa, asking for intercessions and many other things because she is "beatified" and will be made a saint (or maybe she is a saint already? it is hard to keep up with thousands of saints)

5. My mother is still alive, but when she dies, many people, or at the very least her own children will keep asking God SWT to forgive her and raise her status in the hereafter InshaAllah.
Reply

جوري
11-09-2010, 04:54 AM
That is so beautiful br. Naidamar.. masha'Allah.. I have learned early on after posting several stories of sacrifices provided by Muslims toward others in one case the good Samaritan even ended up in the hospital that our new evangie has no interest in such stories.. he has one interest.. can you guess what it is? he's been shoving it down our throats with each subsequent post..


and if it sounds and looks awfully familiar, it is because they are all indoctrinated in the same cesspool.. you'd think they'd teach them some new responses as most assuredly folks will raise their objections to such nonsense!

:w:
Reply

truth finder
11-09-2010, 03:12 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
I am trying to go back to the title of this thread.

truthfinder in previous posts have endlessly espoused mother teresa as his role model in his community.

For me, my role model is of course prophet Muhammad SAW, but keeping with contemporary example which truth finder seems interested in, I offer my own mother as a role model.

There are similarities and differences between Mother Teresa and My mother.

Let's have a look at them:

1. Mother teresa was never married and stayed single all her life

1. My mother married, sacrificed her life ambition to work from home and raised her children (4), managed family finances and household affairs from nothing. When my father died when her children were all still in school, she worked extra hard to be able to send her children to school and all have graduated from the best universities in Indonesia, and a couple even went abroad.

2. Mother teresa helped the poor and the needy and the sick and the orphans and she had orphanages.

2. My mother, in addition to her responsibilities in the family and raising children by herself, has also always been involved and very active in many social organizations and undertakings. She always donated to the neighborhood poor, she served as the neighborhood community chief, she is active in helping quite a few orphanages and she always encourages all of us to help those orphanages.

3. Mother teresa prayed to jesus and mary

3. My mother performed daily shalah, five times a day EVERY DAY, without fail, worshipping the ONE GOD SWT. She also frequently wakes up in the middle of the night, take wudoo (ablution) and perform the night shalah and make supplications to GOD SWT. She also fast during the month of ramadan, and she often do optional monday/thursday fastings.

4. Mother teresa was extremely famous and was in the world news for decades. She also received nobel peace prize. Catholic church has beatified her and intend to make her a saint.

4. My mother is not famous at all, but she has many many friends. And she does not even know that I am typing all the good things the she has done. As the case with many pious and good muslims, she does not like to advertise her good deeds because she is afraid of riya' and she wants to keep her intention pure.

5. After her death, many people prayed to mother teresa, asking for intercessions and many other things because she is "beatified" and will be made a saint (or maybe she is a saint already? it is hard to keep up with thousands of saints)

5. My mother is still alive, but when she dies, many people, or at the very least her own children will keep asking God SWT to forgive her and raise her status in the hereafter InshaAllah.
Thanks for your time making the comparison. I am sure that your mother has devoted her life for her children including you and she deserves due respect for that. In fact all mothers deserve respect for their sacrifice for their children. There is no question about it. But here is the difference between your mother's sacrifice for her children and Teresa's sacrifice for lepers and orphans. Your mother sacrificed for her own children who share her own blood. I am not trying to belittle your mother's sacrifice for her children. But strictly speaking even animals love and sacrifice for their off-springs because it is the basic instinct of living beings.

Now let us look at Mother Teresa and focus on lepers. She spent her life living and eating with lepers. They did not share even a single drop of blood with her and were "others" to her in a sense. She did not just send money to them, but lived, ate and slept together with constant danger that she might get infected with leprosy. As you may know, people with this disease have been rejected by other people in almost all societies, because it has been stigmatized as a curse from God. Thus lepers have suffered from both the pain of the disease itself and the rejection by the society. The Christian man I talked about in the first post also spent his life taking care of lepers who did not share a single drop of blood with him.

These individuals later acknowledged that they had learned the sacrificial love from their Savior and Lord, Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ died on the cross by shedding his own blood with great pain to pay the penalty for those who did not share a single drop of blood with him! God’s love for us is unconditional in character. “While we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). Regardless of whether we will receive or reject his love of forgiveness, whether we will submit to him or not, he first gave us himself as a sacrifice for our sins. This unconditional love motivates our deepest love and submission for God.

Now do you see the difference between your mother’s sacrifice for her own children and Mother Teresa’s sacrifice for lepers?
Reply

Ramadhan
11-09-2010, 04:42 PM
Originally Posted by truth finder
Now do you see the difference between your mother’s sacrifice for her own children and Mother Teresa’s sacrifice for lepers?
The life of mother teresa is extremely well-published, on the other hand, my mum never appeared in any news or media, so I am surprised that you can make such judgement for my mother.

As I said earlier, my mother not only made sacrifice for her own children, throughout the years from the first time I can remember, she has made many many sacrifice to help other people who are not the same blood as hers.

Sister lily has given you some stories about muslims who made sacrifice and helped strangers while endangering their own life.

For one mother teresa who helped the lepers, I can give you many muslims in my country who made sacrifice throughout their life to help the extremely sick (contagious or not), extremely needy, extremely poor.

What are you on going about with mother teresa on and on and on?

Sure, she made sacrifices, but so have many countless people. I am in no way trying to disparage mother teresa, I think what she did was fantastic. But you are trying to espouse her sacrifice as being unique and christian just does not grounded in reality.

You know, I am now wondering what kind of society/community/parish you live in, that you think people doing good deeds and helping others is highly special. It must be an extremely selfish society/community/parish.
Reply

جوري
11-09-2010, 04:48 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
You know, I am now wondering what kind of society/community/parish you live in, that you think people doing good deeds and helping others is highly special. It must be an extremely selfish society/community/parish.

Christians seem to be motivated by both the need for recognition and constant praise for alleged favors. Sickening isn't it?

:w:
Reply

Pygoscelis
11-09-2010, 05:19 PM
Originally Posted by aadil77
I am sensing missionary tactics here, trying to show how christians fast for months long periods - similar to muslims

its not gonna work, besides; apart from Jesus (peace be upon him) being god - him 'dying' for your sins has to be the most absurd christian concept muslims will come across - its complete injustice
Vicarious redemption is my biggest sticking point with Christianity. It is complete injustice as you say. You would not let a man on death row walk if some innocent volunteer wanted to take his place.

I am glad that Islam is not also mired by this particular dogma.
Reply

Pygoscelis
11-09-2010, 05:25 PM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
until we see christians verbally and physically condemning these acts and not supporting them or at least not so complacent to their occurring there is only one side that we Muslims have seen and will likely continue to see. It doesn't help matters any that these sanctimonious Tartuffes come here spreading their stupidity, hatred and propaganda.
This is eerily similar, no, in fact it is verbatim identical to what I see islamophobes saying about muslims. So much so that it makes me wonder if you copied this from that dawkins board you read and switched the names.
Reply

Pygoscelis
11-09-2010, 05:26 PM
Originally Posted by HAWA*~
To Yales lily what happened to that man that women is posing beside?:heated: That picture is too much it'll be in my head for a long time subhanallah.
What I find the saddest is that everybody knows who the woman posing is (she got rather notorious and famous from that picture) but pretty much nobody knows the name of that man or his particular story. Did he have a family? What were his hopes and dreams? Etc. He is reduced to a photo prop.
Reply

جوري
11-09-2010, 05:28 PM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
This is eerily similar, no, in fact it is verbatim identical to what I see islamophobes saying about muslims. So much so that it makes me wonder if you copied this from that dawkins board you read and switched the names.
It has to hold true for at least one party. We don't see Muslims waging wars on the west and celebrating with all kinds of hateful diatribe and killing of civilians. we see westerners alleging that Muslims hate them so they wage wars while pushing out all kinds of tactics and warfare to cement and then pumping out bin laden tapes when opportunity presents itself!

all the best
Reply

Pygoscelis
11-09-2010, 05:30 PM
Originally Posted by truth finder
Although you try to make fun of me, I choose not to do the same to you. I started this thread to hear about touching stories in your community that showed their love for God demonstrated through their love for fellow human beings, not to debate theology of Islam or Christianity. People including me are touched and moved by this kind of story than by religious performances. In fact the Christian man in our home country refused to leave lepers when the area was retaken by communist rebels, and was executed later by communist soldiers. Certainly he did good deeds not for a show. Christians do not do good deeds for show, as much as Muslims do not do good deeds for show. I believe there are those Muslims like Mother Teresa or this Christian believer of our home country. Would you please share their stories with me? Thank you.
I totally disagree that Christains do not do good deeds for show. The entire basis of the religion is a reward/punishment dymanic towards an all seeing God. You are being watched by God and you *DO* do these things for show, for him to see and reward, or at least not punish you. If you were doing good for the sake of good, religion wouldn't be involved. This is why I never give to religious "Charities". Charity should be done for charity's sake, not to covert people or please some God. Tht latter takes away from the noble nature of the former.
Reply

Pygoscelis
11-09-2010, 05:33 PM
Originally Posted by truth finder
Of course I am not Abraham or Moses. But “unfortunately” from your perspective, we Christians enjoy the same quality of spiritual relation with God through Jesus as Abraham and Moses did in the past. Because the barrier between God and human beings was broken by the sacrificial death of Jesus on the cross, the broken relation with God was finally restored to the level of intimacy to Christians. The almighty God has become our Friend and Lover, not just our Master.

But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it. (Matthew 13:16-17) Here many prophets and righteous people include Abraham and Moses.
A friend would not demand that you kill your kid. That is a master. And a sick one. It is like joining the mob. You are told to point a gun at your brother and pull the trigger, as a test of loyalty. Unbeknownst to you the gun isn't loaded, but it is still a sick display of obedience trumping morality.
Reply

Zafran
11-09-2010, 05:56 PM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
A friend would not demand that you kill your kid. That is a master. And a sick one. It is like joining the mob. You are told to point a gun at your brother and pull the trigger, as a test of loyalty. Unbeknownst to you the gun isn't loaded, but it is still a sick display of obedience trumping morality.
what morality from an athiest??
Reply

Pygoscelis
11-09-2010, 06:17 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
what morality from an athiest??
Indeed.

Or did you think we atheists are all running around eating babies? ;D
Reply

Insaanah
11-09-2010, 08:31 PM
Christians always talk about how loving and forgiving God is, but current day Christian belief does not actually show that:

Originally Posted by truth finder
Unless the problem of sin is dealt with completely, we could never go before God, thus eternally separated from God. It does not matter how many good works you perform to compensate your past mistakes and sins.
It is like saying to a student, it doesn't matter how hard you study, even if you get excellent marks you will never pass. Glorified be the Majesty of God above such injustice!

We try to do good works, and hope for His Mercy, and we know our good works will not be in vain if done sincerely for God.

Here is what Allah says:

"Establish worship at the two ends of the day and in some watches of the night. Lo! good deeds annul bad deeds. This is reminder for the mindful. And be patient, for indeed, Allah does not allow to be lost the reward of those who do good." (11:114-115)

Originally Posted by truth finder
This infinite gap between the perfect God and the sinful human beings must be filled by Jesus Christ. If you still believe you do not need the intermediator between God and you, it comes from your ignorance about the infinitely perfect and holy nature of God, and about the sinful and immoral nature of human beings. If you dare to approach God directly, actually you are inviting disaster on yourself. You would be immediately consumed to nothing by the glory of God because there are some sins in you.
"When My servants ask thee concerning Me, I am indeed close (to them): I listen to the prayer of every suppliant when he calleth on Me: Let them also, with a will, Listen to My call, and believe in Me: That they may walk in the right way." (2:186)

"We verily created man and We know what his soul whispereth to him, and We are nearer to him than his jugular vein." (50:160)

"Say: Who delivereth you from the darkness of the land and the sea? Ye call upon Him humbly and in secret, (saying): If we are delivered from this (fear) we truly will be of the thankful. Say, "It is Allah who saves you from it and from every distress; then you [still] associate others with Him." (6:63)

He alone saves us, but some people are daring enough as to associate others in His Divinity!

"It is He who enables you to travel on land and sea until, when you are in ships and they sail with them by a good wind and they rejoice therein, there comes a storm wind and the waves come upon them from everywhere and they assume that they are surrounded, supplicating Allah , sincere to Him in religion, "If You should save us from this, we will surely be among the thankful. But when He saves them, at once they commit injustice upon the earth without right. O mankind, your injustice is only against yourselves, [being merely] the enjoyment of worldly life. Then to Us is your return, and We will inform you of what you used to do." (10:22-23)

God tells us that He is near, that we can all call on Him, anyone can turn to Him sincerely and ask of Him, even those experiencing desperate times who would not normally acknowledge His existence, yet find themselves asking of Him in their hour of need. He is the Lord of all, not of a few, the Creator of all, not of a few, the sustainer of all and everything, not just a few or a bit.

All praise be to Allah for He is the most approachable and the most Just!

And may peace be upon all the messengers of Allah, including Jesus (peace be upon him).

Peace.
Reply

Zafran
11-09-2010, 10:45 PM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Indeed.

Or did you think we atheists are all running around eating babies? ;D
God knows what atheists think - who cares anyway - whatever your subjective "Morality" maybe.
Reply

Zafran
11-09-2010, 10:45 PM
delete double post
Reply

Pygoscelis
11-10-2010, 03:57 AM
Originally Posted by Zafran
God knows what atheists think - who cares anyway - whatever your subjective "Morality" maybe.
It is the same sense of morality religious people have, once you cut passed the blind obedience to dogma and religious "authority". We all have it. Some hide it or dress it up under ideology/religion, but its still there and not so different.
Reply

Ramadhan
11-10-2010, 04:07 AM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
It is the same sense of morality religious people have, once you cut passed the blind obedience to dogma and religious "authority". We all have it. Some hide it or dress it up under ideology/religion, but its still there and not so different.
which religion do you identify your morality with, pygoscelis?

morality standards differ from religion to another.

what is considered "moral" by a buddhist may not be so "moral" by a tribe in Papua, and vice versa. What is considered moral by a jew may not be so moral by a christian and vice versa.

So where do you atheists get your morality standards from?
Reply

Lynx
11-10-2010, 05:52 AM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
I totally disagree that Christains do not do good deeds for show. The entire basis of the religion is a reward/punishment dymanic towards an all seeing God. You are being watched by God and you *DO* do these things for show, for him to see and reward, or at least not punish you. If you were doing good for the sake of good, religion wouldn't be involved. This is why I never give to religious "Charities". Charity should be done for charity's sake, not to covert people or please some God. Tht latter takes away from the noble nature of the former.
I don't think you can say all religious people only do good deeds to avoid punishment or gain a reward; it is entirely possible that a religious person does not rape because they feel it is wrong and it so happens to be against their religion as well. In other words, the fact that rape is wrong in Islam or Christianity does not necessarily imply that the followers of those respective religions only think rape is wrong b/c of the religion.

So where do you atheists get your morality standards from?
You should read up on some ethics. It's a pretty interesting topic. Did you know that there have been secular ethical systems for the past 200 years? Yep, it's a whole new world outside your dogma.
Reply

Ramadhan
11-10-2010, 07:32 AM
Originally Posted by Lynx
You should read up on some ethics. It's a pretty interesting topic. Did you know that there have been secular ethical systems for the past 200 years? Yep, it's a whole new world outside your dogma.
But what were the secular ethical systems based on?

surely they must have been based on some already existing ethical systems, no?
You are not suggesting that the secular ethical systems were drawn up from scratch, inventing totally, completely new moral standards, are you?
Reply

جوري
11-10-2010, 02:07 PM
Originally Posted by Lynx
You should read up on some ethics. It's a pretty interesting topic. Did you know that there have been secular ethical systems for the past 200 years? Yep, it's a whole new world outside your dogma.
Believe it or not that 'alleged' secular moral system borrows an awful lot from religion-- sort of like the book of the Mormon's looks alot like the king J version of the bible!
It would be silly to suggest you get your morality is from a 200 year old book.. saying that it is innate in you (which is a given) the sense of right or wrong would concede that there is a higher power that has instilled it in you.. and that will of course open a can of worms from which you can't extricate yourself and if someone really had the time could annihilate to pieces having sprang into higher reticular function by a mere chance!

all the best of course!
Reply

Zafran
11-10-2010, 03:43 PM
You should read up on some ethics. It's a pretty interesting topic. Did you know that there have been secular ethical systems for the past 200 years? Yep, it's a whole new world outside your dogma.
what like Kantian, Utilitarianism may have been around for 200 years or so but Aristotles Virtue theory has been around far longer then that. I agree with the other posters these secular systems do borrow a lot from religion. More then they like to think so.
Reply

Lynx
11-10-2010, 10:30 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
But what were the secular ethical systems based on?

surely they must have been based on some already existing ethical systems, no?
Kant said the basis of his ethical system is reason. You will be able to find tons of stuff on Kant's ethics all over the internet; google is your friend. The Utilitarians thought they could create a morality based on a cost/benefit analysis of acts.

You are not suggesting that the secular ethical systems were drawn up from scratch, inventing totally, completely new moral standards, are you?
I hope you are not under the impression that if some moral system believed x was wrong and if some prior existing religion also believed x was wrong that the moral system has a basis in that religion...

@Lily

Believe it or not that 'alleged' secular moral system borrows an awful lot from religion-- sort of like the book of the Mormon's looks alot like the king J version of the bible!
I don't think non religious systems of morality borrow much from religion...if they borrow at all. As I pointed out to naidamar, the mere existence of shared moral beliefs does not imply that one took it from the other.

It would be silly to suggest you get your morality is from a 200 year old book.. saying that it is innate in you (which is a given) the sense of right or wrong would concede that there is a higher power that has instilled it in you.. and that will of course open a can of worms from which you can't extricate yourself and if someone really had the time could annihilate to pieces having sprang into higher reticular function by a mere chance!
Well I don't get my morality from any 200 year old books. I am just saying it is possible for systems of morality to exist with a basis other than religion. Also, I don't think there is a sense of right and wrong instilled in anyone. There are some shared characteristics amongst humans such as empathy, the desire to be happy, certain emotional responses, etc. that I think can explain quite formidably the existence of morality.

@Zafran

what like Kantian, Utilitarianism may have been around for 200 years or so but Aristotles Virtue theory has been around far longer then that. I agree with the other posters these secular systems do borrow a lot from religion. More then they like to think so.
Well there are more than just Kantian and Utilitarian philosophies; I was just stating the big ones that have dominated the scene for the most part since recent times.
Anyway, I don't see how Utilitarianism, for example, could borrow from religion at all. In fact, there are many things that can be derived from certain branches of utilitarianism that are completely contrary to principles in Christianity and Islam...
Reply

جوري
11-10-2010, 10:57 PM
Originally Posted by Lynx
I don't think non religious systems of morality borrow much from religion...if they borrow at all. As I pointed out to naidamar, the mere existence of shared moral beliefs does not imply that one took it from the other.

I have studied ethics quite extensively and can pin on many occasions almost identical ethical foundation to that of Abrahamic religion. Namely Islam!
the implication was never that one borrowed from another except as pertains to atheism/secularism since the religion that has always been was monotheism before all sorts of people got colorful. There are always amendments to the secular ethical system and that is usually develops when a case involves the judicial system but again that always relies on a foundation that is older than sin!

Originally Posted by Lynx
Well I don't get my morality from any 200 year old books. I am just saying it is possible for systems of morality to exist with a basis other than religion. Also, I don't think there is a sense of right and wrong instilled in anyone. There are some shared characteristics amongst humans such as empathy, the desire to be happy, certain emotional responses, etc. that I think can explain quite formidably the existence of morality.
That is a very hollow explanation that didn't require you much thought.. and it is just as well since I have a migraine and not in the mood for a protracted discourse that leads to nowhere!

all the best
Reply

Lynx
11-10-2010, 11:23 PM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ


I have studied ethics quite extensively and can pin on many occasions almost identical ethical foundation to that of Abrahamic religion. Namely Islam!
You're repeating the same logical confusion that I thought I had remedied in my previous post; if two systems have the same view on some moral problem or dilemma or etc., it does not follow that one system is basing its view on the other system.

the implication was never that one borrowed from another except as pertains to atheism/secularism since the religion that has always been was monotheism before all sorts of people got colorful.
citation please.

There are always amendments to the secular ethical system and that is usually develops when a case involves the judicial system but again that always relies on a foundation that is older than sin!
You're confusing the law and morality. The purpose of the law is not to uphold the morals of the people; the purpose of the law is to enforce a set of rules that the state thinks is consistent with the political philosophy it has adopted.



That is a very hollow explanation that didn't require you much thought.. and it is just as well since I have a migraine and not in the mood for a protracted discourse that leads to nowhere!

all the best
No problem. I didn't want to spend the time in detailing my beliefs on ethics. That's what essays are for !
Reply

جوري
11-10-2010, 11:51 PM
Originally Posted by Lynx
You're repeating the same logical confusion that I thought I had remedied in my previous post; if two systems have the same view on some moral problem or dilemma or etc., it does not follow that one system is basing its view on the other system.
you are incapable of remedying anything unfortunately including your ability to comprehend what is written: since I have stated and in so many words :the implication was never that one borrowed from another....

which to the naked eye can be construed as just that not borrowing but the standard norm upon which all else evolved!
citation please.
You should request one from your person give your ''the mere existence of shared moral beliefs does not imply that one took it from the other.''



You're confusing the law and morality. The purpose of the law is not to uphold the morals of the people; the purpose of the law is to enforce a set of rules that the state thinks is consistent with the political philosophy it has adopted.
Law is based largely on what is moral and good-- further my comment on the law, stems as applicable to ethical legal issues that need upholding. For instance should a plug be pulled from someone who is in a vegetative state, can you perform an abortion after 4 months etc. should a person who murdered receive the death penalty etc. The law though a guideline for what to do when such issues arise has its basis largely in what is good and moral. Its basic principles can be found in the original commandments.


No problem. I didn't want to spend the time in detailing my beliefs on ethics. That's what essays are for !
excellent indeed!
Reply

Pygoscelis
11-11-2010, 02:36 AM
It would be odd to surmise that nobody thought murder and rape and torture and theft may be wrong before Moses came down from the mountain, or before whatever other "revelation" was made to whatever "prophet" you care to name. Of course there was brutality and violation of such moral feelings before religion, but there has been since religion too, and religion has even been used to justify it at times.

As noted above, empathy goes a long way in explaining a lot about our sense of morality. On top of empathy we have social contracts and traditions which further flesh out our individual views on what morality is. Much of it is cultural yes, and that culture has been embedded in various religions. So for a muslim it may be wrong to eat pork and for a hindu it may be wrong to eat beef, etc. Various other esoteric and seemingly arbitrary "moral" rules came about in the same way. At the core though is basic empathy, which all but sociopaths have and which we evolved as a species, as have some other species (we are not alone in this).

Religion is not the source of human empathy. But it is one of the sources (there are other ideological sources as well) of the other "moral" rules we build into our societies.

Religion also serves as an authority to pin our moral values to, perhaps keeping some sociopaths who would otherwise behave immorally in line. But this sword runs in both directions, as authoritarianism can just as easily lead to bad as to good. It *DOES* become a real problem when people start to confuse obedience with morality itself, and do good only to obey God rather than for the sake of doing good.

That is especially problematic given bible stories like Abraham and Isaac, where obedience and morality are put up against one another and obedience is said to be more important (God demands Abraham do a morally wrong action and the obedience to God wins). People of this mindset are vulnerable to be used as tools for any sort of attrocity (all you have to do is convince them God wants that attrocity)
Reply

جوري
11-11-2010, 03:00 AM
Moses wasn't the first prophet to bring those commandments thus rendering the rest of your argument null and void!

thank you!
Reply

Pygoscelis
11-11-2010, 03:06 AM
Somehow Moses being first matters? Perhaps if you read beyond the first half of the first sentence of the post you claim to be responding to....
Reply

جوري
11-11-2010, 03:26 AM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Somehow Moses being first matters? Perhaps if you read beyond the first half of the first sentence of the post you claim to be responding to....

it does indeed.. you can't establish an original completely atheistic society that instituted said standards and in fact lawless or immoral societies tend to be a cesspool for all that is wrong with humanity- as for the rest it has been peddled here before and answered here before that I find it a waste of my time personally as I know that if you have made the smallest investment you'd not be asserting the same nonsense with each subsequent post that hosts the same topic, mainly your concept of what drives people to behave a certain way and your ever favorite 'obedience' There is no visible jail term, or foreseeable punishment in the here and now to breaking God's commandments thus leading me to believe that obedience is rather a product of your psyche to describe your own human condition and those who opt for your lifestyle!

all the best
Reply

Lynx
11-11-2010, 03:46 AM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
you are incapable of remedying anything unfortunately including your ability to comprehend what is written: since I have stated and in so many words :the implication was never that one borrowed from another....

which to the naked eye can be construed as just that not borrowing but the standard norm upon which all else evolved!
Right...so my original claim is uncontested; religious morality is not a basis for secular morality.

You should request one from your person give your ''the mere existence of shared moral beliefs does not imply that one took it from the other.''
I am sorry you couldn't find a source for your claim that monotheism was the first kind of theism in history. Makes you wonder, no?
Reply

جوري
11-11-2010, 03:53 AM
Originally Posted by Lynx
Right...so my original claim is uncontested; religious morality is not a basis for secular morality.
that is not what I wrote at all go back and re-read!

I am sorry you couldn't find a source for your claim that monotheism was the first kind of theism in history. Makes you wonder, no?
Not at all. It does give you extra homework though since the earliest moral codes we have come from religious societies! How about you find us a source for any early atheistic society that precedes religion that had said moral code!
let's start with that!

all the best
Reply

Lynx
11-11-2010, 04:11 AM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
that is not what I wrote at all go back and re-read!
So what are you trying to say? You, naidamar, and Zafran all claimed that secular morality comes from religious morality and none of you have provided a single reason in support of this belief.

Not at all. It does give you extra homework though since the earliest moral codes we have come from religious societies! How about you find us a source for any early atheistic society that precedes religion that had said moral code!
let's start with that!

all the best
So are you dropping your previous statement that monotheistic religions came first?
Reply

جوري
11-11-2010, 04:14 AM
Originally Posted by Lynx
So what are you trying to say? You, naidamar, and Zafran all claimed that secular morality comes from religious morality and none of you have provided a single reason in support of this belief.
so what are you trying to say? you, yourself and perhaps other athys, all claim that it is possible for systems of morality to exist with a basis other than religion. and can't provide a single reason in support of this belief?

So are you dropping your previous statement that monotheistic religions came first?
Indeed!

all the best
Reply

Pygoscelis
11-11-2010, 05:02 AM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
it does indeed.. you can't establish an original completely atheistic society that instituted said standards
Which standards are you referring to? And why would not having a completely atheistic society instituting them invalidate anything in my post above? Empathy is beyond religion or non-religion. It exists both within the religious and the non religious. It can even be found in some nonhuman species. It is a basic trait that evolved in social animals. And if we take a look at human relations it can provide a lot of insight (if one cares to look instead of push out glib one liners).

and in fact lawless or immoral societies tend to be a cesspool for all that is wrong with humanity
Immoral societies are immoral you say? Well.... um, ya...

as for the rest it has been peddled here before and answered here before
Has it really been "answered" here before? All I've seen are adhoms and dodges.

that I find it a waste of my time personally
And yet here you are, with more adhoms and dodges.

mainly your concept of what drives people to behave a certain way and your ever favorite 'obedience'
Sure, and "my" other term you love so much "tribalism". Both of which seem to offend your sensibilities so much that you scoff at them without ever actually addressing or exploring the ideas.

Tribalism by the way is the downside of empathy, and also very basic to our evolved human nature. Empathy being seeing yourselves in others and therefore doing good by them, and tribalism being seeing your "group" as different from the outsider and therefore doing bad by them.

There is no visible jail term, or foreseeable punishment in the here and now to breaking God's commandments
But anybody who believes said commands are form this God of yours, believes in an afterlife in which they WILL be punished. And if they bury their moral compass and sense of empathy under obedience to dogma (by reading a holy book or listening to a prophet and accepting anything they say as good and right - even if its clearly wrong) then they are easy tools for nasty people.

Also...

If one believes that morality comes from God, then wouldn't you expect the religious to be far far more moral than the non religious? Yet our prisons are not overflowing with atheists and atheists are not more likely to murder, steal, or rape than theists.

all the best
Really?
Reply

Lynx
11-11-2010, 06:06 AM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

so what are you trying to say? you, yourself and perhaps other athys, all claim that it is possible for systems of morality to exist with a basis other than religion. and can't provide a single reason in support of this belief?


all the best
Maybe my post to naidamar might help.

Kant said the basis of his ethical system is reason. You will be able to find tons of stuff on Kant's ethics all over the internet; google is your friend. The Utilitarians thought they could create a morality based on a cost/benefit analysis of acts.
Research those two things: Kantian ethics and utilitarianism

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/

These are two systems of ethics that are designed to work without reference to a religious dogma or a God .
Reply

Ramadhan
11-11-2010, 09:21 AM
Originally Posted by Lynx
Kant said the basis of his ethical system is reason. You will be able to find tons of stuff on Kant's ethics all over the internet; google is your friend. The Utilitarians thought they could create a morality based on a cost/benefit analysis of acts.
did kant not have any influence from religion whatsoever? how could it have possibly happened?
was he born in a vacuum devoid from any previously existing religions?
was his family not christian? was his community not mostly christian?
did he not read any religious books?
Reply

جوري
11-11-2010, 02:11 PM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Which standards are you referring to? And why would not having a completely atheistic society instituting them invalidate anything in my post above? Empathy is beyond religion or non-religion. It exists both within the religious and the non religious. It can even be found in some nonhuman species. It is a basic trait that evolved in social animals. And if we take a look at human relations it can provide a lot of insight (if one cares to look instead of push out glib one liners).
and you call it an 'adhom' when I accuse you of not reading and wasting my time-- having an innate higher function such as this which I am not denying and said as much a few posts ago if you personally get past your own glibs you'd have seen that I asked your to account in an evolutionary fashion as to how such evolved traits came to be (if not from God).. you know on day 150000 BC gene Jah 2 got incorporated and enabled highly evolved reticular function, empathy type thing.. You understand science? then account for empathy scientifically or don't waste my time-- as you know in topics such as this where the other party is neither willing to accept God, nor willing to provide a demonstrable position for the ex nihilio I tend to lose interest fast.. everyone has an opinion!

Immoral societies are immoral you say? Well.... um, ya...
Indeed!


Has it really been "answered" here before? All I've seen are adhoms and dodges.
I find that to be an adequate assessment of what you are doing.. you can't even offer the courtesy of acknowledging something I have already written a few posts ago and come re-introduce it as if you have just had a ground breaking epiphany!




Sure, and "my" other term you love so much "tribalism". Both of which seem to offend your sensibilities so much that you scoff at them without ever actually addressing or exploring the ideas.
Neither of them are really worthy of being acknowledged as having any merits.. you really ought to explore your own psyche to see how such terms are ingrained in your own mind and like to escape often as a form of projection!

all the best




Reply

جوري
11-11-2010, 02:16 PM
Originally Posted by Lynx
Research those two things: Kantian ethics and utilitarianism

I said the earliest society that we have in history with recorded writing-- essentially a civilization functioning working where no deity plays any part!

which part of that was difficult to understand?

all the best
Reply

Pygoscelis
11-11-2010, 02:20 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
did kant not have any influence from religion whatsoever? how could it have possibly happened?
was he born in a vacuum devoid from any previously existing religions?
was his family not christian? was his community not mostly christian?
did he not read any religious books?
I don't really understand why it matters if/that religion influenced morality as we know it today. I think it did. I also think religion is just one form of culture and ideology and that many others have likewise shaped morality as we know it today. At the core of our moral sense is empathy, but built around it is all sorts of cultural influence, including, yes, that which was codified into religions (religions did not create these "morals", but rather they were enshrined into religions and once that happens they are made far more robust and a bit less subject to change).
Reply

جوري
11-11-2010, 02:28 PM
religion refined a very crude sense of justice and morality.. the same way a pathologist defines for a surgeon what a glob of mass he took out of a patients parotid gland..
essentially a mass which we know is bad or is it? can turn into Pleomorphic adenoma or papillary cystadenoma lymphomatosum, cystic papillary adenoma, adenolymphoma or Intraductal papilloma or oncocytoma etc etc well you get the pica crude sense of morality might be a fine way to live for some but when the hard questions come, those individuals can't define right from wrong and are left to their own devices yet sadly enough accuse others who have a very intricate system of 'tribalism' those who deny such an 'evolved' sense of morality and justice in my opinion don't deserve it all together.. they only deserve to spin upon themselves in confusion!
Reply

Pygoscelis
11-11-2010, 02:34 PM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
then account for empathy scientifically
There is no need to from my point above. It starts with empathy, and opines that empathy explains much of human nature. How empathy came to exist is moot.

As to how it did come to exist, we're not 100% certain, but instead of filling it with the god-of-the-gaps fallacy, some scientists have indeed looked into it. It is a fascinating line of study. I recommend (and you'll really hate this) Richard Dawkins' books "The Selfish Gene" and "The Extended Phenotype". This was his area of expertise before he started writing books about religion (and before you'd have come to hate him so). He (and others who write on this) explains what we call empathy by examining a gene's eye view of evolution. It is actually pretty amazing. We could examine it in another thread if you like. But as for my post to which you are responding it is moot.
Reply

جوري
11-11-2010, 02:51 PM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
There is no need to from my point above. It starts with empathy, and opines that empathy explains much of human nature. How empathy came to exist is moot.

It isn't a moot point at all, to take something so incredible and deny its creation and absolute purpose.. I am familiar with Dawkins work--philosophy and conjectures aren't a sound demonstrable science. I invite you if you found something in his book to answer such a question or questions of similar nature to share it with all of us.. and I'd be surprised for such an amazing book to have gone unnoticed by the entire scientific community-- I'd have been the first to personally applaud him as he heads down to Stockholm to claim his Nobel!
Reply

Lynx
11-11-2010, 11:42 PM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ


I said the earliest society that we have in history with recorded writing-- essentially a civilization functioning working where no deity plays any part!

which part of that was difficult to understand?

all the best
Um obviously all civilizations have had 'some' deity playing a part. Now what is your point? Does this somehow make utilitarianism disappear? No, whether you like it or not there are ethical systems that operate without any reference to a deity. To put simply, if no one had ever heard of God you could still use the utilitarian calculus and determine, on that basis, whether something is immoral or moral.

did kant not have any influence from religion whatsoever? how could it have possibly happened?
was he born in a vacuum devoid from any previously existing religions?
was his family not christian? was his community not mostly christian?
did he not read any religious books?
If Kant did not exist, his ethical system could still operate without religion so what you're asking is irrelevant. Don't look at the author of the system, look at the system itself; deontological kantian ethics works without a God telling people what's right and what's wrong. Similarly, consequentalism has a method of working out what is right and what is wrong that is independent from religion.
Reply

Zafran
11-12-2010, 12:41 AM
Um obviously all civilizations have had 'some' deity playing a part. Now what is your point? Does this somehow make utilitarianism disappear? No, whether you like it or not there are ethical systems that operate without any reference to a deity. To put simply, if no one had ever heard of God you could still use the utilitarian calculus and determine, on that basis, whether something is immoral or moral.
well sorry to break it to you but the socities that kant, Jeremy Benthem and John Stuart Mill were part of - did believe or had heard of a God - regardless of there ideas religion still plays the bigger role in morality. Even when people talk about empathy they like to bring the Quote of christ or the golden rule.
Reply

Zafran
11-12-2010, 12:45 AM
[Well there are more than just Kantian and Utilitarian philosophies; I was just stating the big ones that have dominated the scene for the most part since recent times.
Anyway, I don't see how Utilitarianism, for example, could borrow from religion at all. In fact, there are many things that can be derived from certain branches of utilitarianism that are completely contrary to principles in Christianity and Islam...
Ultimatley they came out of the christian west either we like it or not. I wouldnt say borrowed but Influenced negative or in positive way.
Reply

جوري
11-12-2010, 01:13 AM
Originally Posted by Lynx
Um obviously all civilizations have had 'some' deity playing a part. Now what is your point? Does this somehow make utilitarianism disappear? No, whether you like it or not there are ethical systems that operate without any reference to a deity. To put simply, if no one had ever heard of God you could still use the utilitarian calculus and determine, on that basis, whether something is immoral or moral.
'um' this topic wasn't about utilitarianism, it isn't even about the subject of ethics, however it evolved with the query of what your secular ethical systems is based on, and given that no atheist secular society has ever existed prior to a religious one we can safely conclude that ethics and morality has its basis in religion. Please I implore you not waste my time with whatever new philosophy you have conjured up to cement another non-point-- the distillate of this matter is so far off the original compound and I can't possibly entertain every byway you'd like me to get lost in!


have a great one!
Reply

Lynx
11-12-2010, 03:44 AM
This:

Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
and given that no atheist secular society has ever existed prior to a religious one

Does not entail this:

we can safely conclude that ethics and morality has its basis in religion.
Here's a better argument

Utilitarianism is an ethical system that only relies on the cost/benefit analysis of moral acts. The act that results in the greatest 'utility' is the morally prescribed act.
Therefore, there exists an ethical system that has no basis in religious morality.

Problem solved.
Reply

GreyKode
11-12-2010, 04:07 AM
Originally Posted by Lynx
This:




Does not entail this:



Here's a better argument

Utilitarianism is an ethical system that only relies on the cost/benefit analysis of moral acts. The act that results in the greatest 'utility' is the morally prescribed act.
Therefore, there exists an ethical system that has no basis in religious morality.

Problem solved.
Does helping a disabled or an old person fit in the utilitarian model?
Reply

Zafran
11-12-2010, 04:33 AM
Originally Posted by Lynx
This:




Does not entail this:



Here's a better argument

Utilitarianism is an ethical system that only relies on the cost/benefit analysis of moral acts. The act that results in the greatest 'utility' is the morally prescribed act.
Therefore, there exists an ethical system that has no basis in religious morality.

Problem solved.
It doesnt solve the problem as no society has actually taken Utilitarinism on unlike christainty for example. I dont think you yourself are actually saying that Utiltarianism is the way to go?
Reply

Lynx
11-12-2010, 06:27 AM
Originally Posted by GreyKode
Does helping a disabled or an old person fit in the utilitarian model?
I don't want to promote or defend the utilitarian philosohpy; the literature is vast and I have posted a link to a good source of info. I am only pointing out that a secular ethical system is possible without religious beliefs. This was in response to naidamar's initial post which seemed to indicate to think the morality of a non religious person is baseless.

It doesnt solve the problem as no society has actually taken Utilitarinism on unlike christainty for example. I dont think you yourself are actually saying that Utiltarianism is the way to go?
Well I'd argue that the western society has mostly taken a type of consequentalist philosophy as a basis but that's a whole new topic. You're right I am not saying utilitarianism is the way to go; I am not saying it's better or worse than religious morality; I am just saying smart people have been able to think up coherent moral systems without the use of a religious belief so it is not true that non religious people have no basis for morality .
Reply

Ramadhan
11-12-2010, 10:39 AM
Originally Posted by Lynx
If Kant did not exist, his ethical system could still operate without religion so what you're asking is irrelevant.
That is conjecture.
the fact is Kant did exist, and he did write his own ethical system.
or did you mean that Kant's ethical system could have been written by someone deep in Papua 200 years ago?
What I asked is very relevant.


Originally Posted by Lynx
Don't look at the author of the system, look at the system itself; deontological kantian ethics works without a God telling people what's right and what's wrong.
This is not what I asked.
Reply

Ramadhan
11-12-2010, 10:42 AM
Originally Posted by Lynx
Utilitarianism is an ethical system that only relies on the cost/benefit analysis of moral acts. The act that results in the greatest 'utility' is the morally prescribed act.
Therefore, there exists an ethical system that has no basis in religious morality.
How long has this utilitarianism been around?

has mankind existed only for the last 200 years?
Reply

جوري
11-12-2010, 12:01 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
has mankind existed only for the last 200 years?

He dodged or feigned not understanding the questions.. sometimes when you see evasion and threads hijacked to suit their personal agenda, it is better not to waste ones time. They come up with unrelated drivel out of a hat!

:w:
Reply

Pygoscelis
11-12-2010, 01:28 PM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
It isn't a moot point at all, to take something so incredible and deny its creation and absolute purpose..
Nobody (except maybe some religious?) denies empathy exists and came from somewhere. That doesn't mean we have to fall into the god of the gaps fallacy. Dawkins and his fellow scientists in this area have been looking into it within ours and across other species (it is not unique to humanity). From a gene's eye view their work and resulting theories make a lot of sense. Helping those who share a given gene will propagate that gene just as well as helping yourself, so from the gene's perscpective it makes sense to care for like beings. This has been examined in depth in those books I referenced. They may not have the complete answer yet, but at least they are looking instead of just saying "God did it".

I am familiar with Dawkins work
I very much doubt that.
Reply

Pygoscelis
11-12-2010, 01:31 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
well sorry to break it to you but the socities that kant, Jeremy Benthem and John Stuart Mill were part of - did believe or had heard of a God - regardless of there ideas religion still plays the bigger role in morality. Even when people talk about empathy they like to bring the Quote of christ or the golden rule.
Because it is a formulation of that moral that Christians will relate to, and Christians make up the bulk of our society. Makes sense. Jesus didn't invent the golden rule. He just adopted it, as many other humans had before him, and codified it into his religion. This is not abnormal. And it doesn't in any way mean that religion created the moral.
Reply

Pygoscelis
11-12-2010, 01:38 PM
Originally Posted by Lynx
I don't want to promote or defend the utilitarian philosohpy; the literature is vast and I have posted a link to a good source of info. I am only pointing out that a secular ethical system is possible without religious beliefs. This was in response to naidamar's initial post which seemed to indicate to think the morality of a non religious person is baseless.



Well I'd argue that the western society has mostly taken a type of consequentalist philosophy as a basis but that's a whole new topic. You're right I am not saying utilitarianism is the way to go; I am not saying it's better or worse than religious morality; I am just saying smart people have been able to think up coherent moral systems without the use of a religious belief so it is not true that non religious people have no basis for morality .
As I noted above (to which of course nobody responded), if religion was the sole basis of morality you would expect religious believers to be more moral than atheists. You would expect atheists to be more apt to murder, steal, rape, etc. You would expect the prisons to be overflowing with atheists. Yet this is not the case. There is no strong correlation. There isn't even a weak correlation (atheists are actually slightly under represented in prison). That should speak volumes. We all clearly have empathy, regardless of whether we choose to dress it up in religion or not. Well except for sociopaths, but they are just as likely to dress up their own views in religion as not (ie, claiming god told them to kill etc)
Reply

truth finder
11-12-2010, 02:20 PM
Recently this thread has been too much sidetracked from the original post and I want to have it got back.

The major point of the first post is unconditional forgiveness rather than helping lepers and the poor. As many readers may still remember from the first post, the Christian man in our home country lost two innocent sons by a communist rebel. But he not only forgave this heatless man for killing his two sons, but also adopted this man as his own son. Deeply touched and moved by this selfless love of forgiveness, the heart of this man was changed dramatically and he decided to live as a messenger of love and forgiveness for others. His cold heart full of hatred for those who do not share the same ideology (communism) was turned to the warm heart of unconditional love and forgiveness for other human beings.

Forgiveness is one of the best indicators of maturity in our relationship with God. People are touched and moved more by such loving acts shown to other human beings than the religious performances such as memorizing the whole scripture and a long period of prayer and fast. Again I am not saying that only Christians have such forgiveness. You are very welcome to share with other readers such unconditional forgiveness in the recent history of your community.
Reply

Pygoscelis
11-12-2010, 02:35 PM
truth finder, it would be interesting to see if there was a positive or negative correlation between religious belief and forgiveness. In the Christian context, though Jesus is said to help us find forgiveness for our sins, the only way to do that is to kneel before him and enslave ourselves to his father (God). And then once you go to hell in the Christian dogma, there is no possibility of foregivness. So an earnest atheist who does not believe and then goes to hell has no path to "redemption" (which implies he did something wrong, which he clearly did not if he was genuine). And then you have the doctrine of original sin wherein we are all ****ed for something we didn't even do and need "forgiveness" for it. That seems more extortion of souls than genuine forgiveness. Then you had the church selling indulgences. And you have confession and the idea of God forgiving you for something you did to a fellow human being.

If a Christian slashes my tires and then prays for forgiveness from God, that doesn't buy me new tires.

Perhaps it should also be explored whether or not forgiveness is always a good or rational thing. It may not be if the person is just going to re-offend.

It is good to see a person forgiving another and trying to help them out of their bad ways, but as you said that isn't uniquely christian, or uniquely religious for that matter. It is just basic human kindness. The good samaritan Jesus spoke of and all that.

And if all we're talking about is various nice people around the world.... I don't see how that belongs in a comparative religion forum.
Reply

Lynx
11-12-2010, 07:38 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
That is conjecture.
the fact is Kant did exist, and he did write his own ethical system.
or did you mean that Kant's ethical system could have been written by someone deep in Papua 200 years ago?
What I asked is very relevant.

This is not what I asked.

How long has this utilitarianism been around?
Okay, let me ask you this, in what way is Kant's ethical system based on religious beliefs? In what way is Utilitarianism based on religious belief? If your only response is that the creators of these systems lived in religious societies so therefore their beliefs are based on religious morals then you must be a pagan since all the prophets mentioned in the Quran came out of pagan societies.
Reply

جوري
11-12-2010, 08:57 PM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
They may not have the complete answer yet, but at least they are looking instead of just saying "God did it".
look into what exactly? those who knows science and how science works theoretical or otherwise can't accept a philosophical response to a specific scientific query simply because you don't like the default response. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other what you believe, worship or do with your life- you could donate yourself an anatomical gift to hopkins for all I care. Genuinely I mean that, but don't come with fatuous drivel and ask us to take it as a 'good enough' alternative because you deemed God to fill the gaps. Best you say you simply don't know than offer a half-baked response hoping those less schooled would be lost in awe and amazement of this drivel.

come back when you can weave a cohesive thought on life and form.. break down anything a fly wing even to its basic component re-anneal it by means available to you and breathe life and FORM into it and then come back to have this conversation with me again!
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
I very much doubt that.
what you doubt can fill compendiums-- it makes me wonder where you get your bravado from.. must be the ignorant guide to living
all the best
Reply

جوري
11-12-2010, 09:01 PM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
As I noted above (to which of course nobody responded), if religion was the sole basis of morality you would expect religious believers to be more moral than atheists. You would expect atheists to be more apt to murder, steal, rape, etc. You would expect the prisons to be overflowing with atheists. Yet this is not the case. There is no strong correlation. There isn't even a weak correlation (atheists are actually slightly under represented in prison). That should speak volumes. We all clearly have empathy, regardless of whether we choose to dress it up in religion or not. Well except for sociopaths, but they are just as likely to dress up their own views in religion as not (ie, claiming god told them to kill etc)

you took a head count of those incarcerated to learn of their beliefs at the very moment they raped, murdered. stole and tortured?
atheists don't bother themselves with petty crimes, when they can do it a la mode of Lenin, xedong, saloth sar, enver Hoxha and the gang!

where do you come up with this stuff? you are so funny!
Reply

Zafran
11-13-2010, 01:41 AM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Because it is a formulation of that moral that Christians will relate to, and Christians make up the bulk of our society. Makes sense. Jesus didn't invent the golden rule. He just adopted it, as many other humans had before him, and codified it into his religion. This is not abnormal. And it doesn't in any way mean that religion created the moral.
I dont Know a single religion that doesnt have the golden rule part of it. Ofcourse I disagree you with where the golden rule actually came from. Jesus pbuh didnt make up the Golden rule it was there before him - but any western secular society always quotes christ in explaining the golden rule.
Reply

Ramadhan
11-13-2010, 02:32 PM
Originally Posted by Lynx
Okay, let me ask you this, in what way is Kant's ethical system based on religious beliefs? In what way is Utilitarianism based on religious belief? If your only response is that the creators of these systems lived in religious societies so therefore their beliefs are based on religious morals then you must be a pagan since all the prophets mentioned in the Quran came out of pagan societies.
You forgot one crucial thing:
The prophets (pbut) received codes of morals and guidance directly from God.

Meanwhile, let me ask you again:
Would it have been possible that Kant's ethical system written up by a local somewhere in deep Papua 200 years ago?
Reply

Pygoscelis
11-13-2010, 02:36 PM
Actually the Golden Rule (Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you) is incomplete. What if I happened to be a massachist? Would that mean I should inflict pain on others? :) What if I really like pork chops? Should I cook some for you muslim folks? And maybe some beef burgers for our Hindu Friends? Doesn't quite work that Golden Rule thing. We need the platinum rule instead - do unto others as they'd like to be done, or something like that.
Reply

Zafran
11-13-2010, 03:34 PM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Actually the Golden Rule (Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you) is incomplete. What if I happened to be a massachist? Would that mean I should inflict pain on others? :) What if I really like pork chops? Should I cook some for you muslim folks? And maybe some beef burgers for our Hindu Friends? Doesn't quite work that Golden Rule thing. We need the platinum rule instead - do unto others as they'd like to be done, or something like that.
Its always been in a religous context - Jesus pbuh being Jew I dont think he'll be too happy with your subjective ideas - your right it is incomplete thats why religion has always been part of the golden rule - Something moral for you like eating Pork chops or beef burgers clearly is not moral for the majority of the world - you may enjoy rape, killing people as well - for atheist as you have shown it is preety much an open game.
Reply

Lynx
11-14-2010, 01:44 AM
Originally Posted by naidamar
You forgot one crucial thing:
The prophets (pbut) received codes of morals and guidance directly from God.

Meanwhile, let me ask you again:
Would it have been possible that Kant's ethical system written up by a local somewhere in deep Papua 200 years ago?
If the local was as smart as Kant, sure.

Now you can answer my question, which would end the whole discussion.

in what way is Kant's ethical system based on religious beliefs? In what way is Utilitarianism based on religious belief?
Reply

Ramadhan
11-14-2010, 01:18 PM
Originally Posted by Lynx
If the local was as smart as Kant, sure.
Are you even serious?

Some tribes in Papua were cannibals even 50 years ago, and they considered eating killed enemies as being "good will" and came from "duty", and hence according to Kant, killing and eating enemies are absolutely a good thing.



Originally Posted by Lynx
in what way is Kant's ethical system based on religious beliefs? In what way is Utilitarianism based on religious belief?
This is Kant:

Immanuel Kant was born in 1724 in Königsberg, the capital of Prussia at that time, today the city of Kaliningrad in the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad Oblast. He was the fourth of eleven children (four of them reached adulthood). Baptized 'Emanuel', he changed his name to 'Immanuel'[4] after learning Hebrew. In his entire life, he never traveled more than a hundred miles from Königsberg.[5] His father, Johann Georg Kant (1682–1746), was a German harnessmaker from Memel, at the time Prussia's most northeastern city (now Klaipėda, Lithuania). His mother, Regina Dorothea Reuter (1697–1737), was born in Nuremberg.[6] Kant's grandfather had emigrated from Scotland to East Prussia, and his father still spelled their family name "Cant."[7] In his youth, Kant was a solid, albeit unspectacular, student. He was reared in a Pietist household that stressed intense religious devotion, personal humility, and a literal interpretation of the Bible. Consequently, Kant received a stern education – strict, punitive, and disciplinary – that preferred Latin and religious instruction over mathematics and science.[8] Of the common myths concerning Kant's personal mannerisms are enumerated, explained, and refuted in Goldthwait's introduction to his translation of Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime.[9] It is often held that Kant lived a very strict and predictable life, leading to the oft-repeated story that neighbors would set their clocks by his daily walks. He never married, but didn't seem to lack a rewarding social life - he was a popular teacher and a modestly successful author even before starting on his major philosophical works.

So, you totally discount kant's religious background and claimed that Kant's work was NOT influenced by religion one way or another?
Are you indirectly suggesting that kant received ideas totally absoloutely disconnect from christianity, maybe from god?
and since you don't believe in god, maybe from aliens?

this is from wikipedia:

Along with this idea over reason and God, Kant places thought over religion and nature, i.e. the idea of religion being natural or naturalistic. Kant saw reason as natural, and as some part of Christianity is based on reason and morality, as Kant points out this is major in the scriptures, it is inevitable that Christianity is 'natural'. However, it is not 'naturalistic' in the sense that the religion does include supernatural or transcendent belief. Aside from this, a key point is that Kant saw that the Bible should be seen as a source of natural morality no matter whether there is/was any truth behind the supernatural factor. Meaning that it is not necessary to know whether the supernatural part of Christianity has any truth to abide by and use the core Christian moral code.

And you are still suggesrting Kant was never influenced by religion one way or another?
Reply

Pygoscelis
11-14-2010, 03:17 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
Its always been in a religous context - Jesus pbuh being Jew I dont think he'll be too happy with your subjective ideas - your right it is incomplete thats why religion has always been part of the golden rule - Something moral for you like eating Pork chops or beef burgers clearly is not moral for the majority of the world - you may enjoy rape, killing people as well - for atheist as you have shown it is preety much an open game.
Um no.... as I've posted above a few times now, if this were so then atheists would not behave morally like they do and the religious would be dramatically more moral, which they are not. I am weary of people who actually believe that without religion they would be killing and raping people. Those would be sociopaths. Doing good to please an authority figure (God) is not morality at all.
Reply

Zafran
11-15-2010, 01:16 AM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Um no.... as I've posted above a few times now, if this were so then atheists would not behave morally like they do and the religious would be dramatically more moral, which they are not. I am weary of people who actually believe that without religion they would be killing and raping people. Those would be sociopaths. Doing good to please an authority figure (God) is not morality at all.
People do it for autority all the time - thats why nations and societies have laws and governments enforce them eg not to steal, rape etc - ofcourse the reason given is for a better, safer and moral society to prevail you have to have someone enforcing the laws. Your last reply showed how subjective morality can be without an authority figure. DIY your own morality. Ofcourse in any serious or lasting moral system authority is always been behind it - giving it and enforcing it.
Reply

Lynx
11-15-2010, 02:00 AM
Originally Posted by naidamar
Are you even serious?

Some tribes in Papua were cannibals even 50 years ago, and they considered eating killed enemies as being "good will" and came from "duty", and hence according to Kant, killing and eating enemies are absolutely a good thing.





This is Kant:

Immanuel Kant was born in 1724 in Königsberg, the capital of Prussia at that time, today the city of Kaliningrad in the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad Oblast. He was the fourth of eleven children (four of them reached adulthood). Baptized 'Emanuel', he changed his name to 'Immanuel'[4] after learning Hebrew. In his entire life, he never traveled more than a hundred miles from Königsberg.[5] His father, Johann Georg Kant (1682–1746), was a German harnessmaker from Memel, at the time Prussia's most northeastern city (now Klaipėda, Lithuania). His mother, Regina Dorothea Reuter (1697–1737), was born in Nuremberg.[6] Kant's grandfather had emigrated from Scotland to East Prussia, and his father still spelled their family name "Cant."[7] In his youth, Kant was a solid, albeit unspectacular, student. He was reared in a Pietist household that stressed intense religious devotion, personal humility, and a literal interpretation of the Bible. Consequently, Kant received a stern education – strict, punitive, and disciplinary – that preferred Latin and religious instruction over mathematics and science.[8] Of the common myths concerning Kant's personal mannerisms are enumerated, explained, and refuted in Goldthwait's introduction to his translation of Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime.[9] It is often held that Kant lived a very strict and predictable life, leading to the oft-repeated story that neighbors would set their clocks by his daily walks. He never married, but didn't seem to lack a rewarding social life - he was a popular teacher and a modestly successful author even before starting on his major philosophical works.

So, you totally discount kant's religious background and claimed that Kant's work was NOT influenced by religion one way or another?
Are you indirectly suggesting that kant received ideas totally absoloutely disconnect from christianity, maybe from god?
and since you don't believe in god, maybe from aliens?

this is from wikipedia:

Along with this idea over reason and God, Kant places thought over religion and nature, i.e. the idea of religion being natural or naturalistic. Kant saw reason as natural, and as some part of Christianity is based on reason and morality, as Kant points out this is major in the scriptures, it is inevitable that Christianity is 'natural'. However, it is not 'naturalistic' in the sense that the religion does include supernatural or transcendent belief. Aside from this, a key point is that Kant saw that the Bible should be seen as a source of natural morality no matter whether there is/was any truth behind the supernatural factor. Meaning that it is not necessary to know whether the supernatural part of Christianity has any truth to abide by and use the core Christian moral code.

And you are still suggesrting Kant was never influenced by religion one way or another?
That's very informative. Who would've thought 17th century Europe was so religious! I don't know what's so hard to understand; you've made the claim that secular moral systems have a basis in religion and all you have to do to show this is point out which precepts of these ethical systems come from religion. It doesn't matter if Kant lived in a church all his life; the point is can a reasonable moral system be created without God? If the answer is yes, which is the position I am putting forward, then it is not true that nonreligious moral viewpoints are 'baseless'.
Reply

Ramadhan
11-15-2010, 02:28 AM
Originally Posted by Lynx
That's very informative. Who would've thought 17th century Europe was so religious! I don't know what's so hard to understand; you've made the claim that secular moral systems have a basis in religion and all you have to do to show this is point out which precepts of these ethical systems come from religion. It doesn't matter if Kant lived in a church all his life; the point is can a reasonable moral system be created without God? If the answer is yes, which is the position I am putting forward, then it is not true that nonreligious moral viewpoints are 'baseless'.

My evidence is that ethical systems have always been created in societies who believed in deity and existence of the creator of the universe and had some sort of religions, including kant.
Do you have proof that an ethical system can be created in a society which is 100% atheists?
Do you have an example of that?

It should be an easy question yes or no, right?
Reply

Lynx
11-15-2010, 05:52 AM
Originally Posted by naidamar
My evidence is that ethical systems have always been created in societies who believed in deity and existence of the creator of the universe and had some sort of religions, including kant.
And yet your reasoning here does not imply the religions are what *caused* the creation of such systems.

Do you have proof that an ethical system can be created in a society which is 100% atheists?
Do you have an example of that?

It should be an easy question yes or no, right?
You are bringing in irrelevant things again. What I've been saying repeatedly is that I think it is possible to have an ethical system that does not involve God or any specific religious beliefs. I gave you two distinct examples of such systems: Kantian ethics & Utilitarian Ethics. Now, you're claiming that these ethical systems have a basis in religious morality and I've been asking you over and over again for evidence of this claim. The easiest way to prove your claim, and the most convincing way, is to show that there are some important parts of these ethical systems that have been derived from religion; in other words, show me specific examples of principles found in these systems that have a basis in religion.
Reply

Ramadhan
11-15-2010, 06:59 AM
Originally Posted by Lynx
And yet your reasoning here does not imply the religions are what *caused* the creation of such systems
It is still supporting evidence.

Originally Posted by Lynx
You are bringing in irrelevant things again. What I've been saying repeatedly is that I think it is possible to have an ethical system that does not involve God or any specific religious beliefs. I gave you two distinct examples of such systems: Kantian ethics & Utilitarian Ethics. Now, you're claiming that these ethical systems have a basis in religious morality and I've been asking you over and over again for evidence of this claim. The easiest way to prove your claim, and the most convincing way, is to show that there are some important parts of these ethical systems that have been derived from religion; in other words, show me specific examples of principles found in these systems that have a basis in religion.

From Wikipedia:
Kant stated the practical necessity for a belief in God in his Critique of Practical Reason. As an idea of pure reason, "we do not have the slightest ground to assume in an absolute manner… the object of this idea…",[50] but adds that the idea of God cannot be separated from the relation of happiness with morality as the "ideal of the supreme good." The foundation of this connection is an intelligible moral world, and "is necessary from the practical point of view";[51] compare Voltaire: "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."[52] In the Jäsche Logic (1800) he wrote "One cannot provide objective reality for any theoretical idea, or prove it, except for the idea of freedom, because this is the condition of the moral law, whose reality is an axiom. The reality of the idea of God can only be proved by means of this idea, and hence only with a practical purpose, i.e., to act as though (als ob) there is a God, and hence only for this purpose" (9:93, trans. J. Michael Young, Lectures on Logic, p. 590-91).

Along with this idea over reason and God, Kant places thought over religion and nature, i.e. the idea of religion being natural or naturalistic. Kant saw reason as natural, and as some part of Christianity is based on reason and morality, as Kant points out this is major in the scriptures, it is inevitable that Christianity is 'natural'. However, it is not 'naturalistic' in the sense that the religion does include supernatural or transcendent belief. Aside from this, a key point is that Kant saw that the Bible should be seen as a source of natural morality no matter whether there is/was any truth behind the supernatural factor. Meaning that it is not necessary to know whether the supernatural part of Christianity has any truth to abide by and use the core Christian moral code.

Kant articulates in Book Four some of his strongest criticisms of the organization and practices of Christianity that encourage what he sees as a religion of counterfeit service to God. Among the major targets of his criticism are external ritual, superstition and a hierarchical church order. He sees all of these as efforts to make oneself pleasing to God in ways other than conscientious adherence to the principle of moral rightness in the choice of one's actions. The severity of Kant's criticisms on these matters, along with his rejection of the possibility of theoretical proofs for the existence of God and his philosophical re-interpretation of some basic Christian doctrines, have provided the basis for interpretations that see Kant as thoroughly hostile to religion in general and Christianity in particular (e.g., Walsh 1967).[53]

Kant had exposure to Islam as well and reflected about the role of reason therein [54] An interesting sidenote is that his dissertation began with the basmala, the Arabic invocation of God, the merciful and the compassionate



I have answered your question ( a couple of times, whether you want to accept it or not),
now can you answer my question:
Has there been any completely new moral/ethical standards invented within a 100% atheistic community/state?
Reply

جوري
11-15-2010, 10:42 AM
Originally Posted by naidamar
Kant stated the practical necessity for a belief in God in his Critique of Practical Reason


one thing you must realize about these atheists early on. Every time you refute them, they'll inject the dialogue with a completely arbitrary topic to steer the thread into comfortable grounds for them. and when on their own territory they're losing ground, they'll come up with even more impossible task for you to extricate themselves from any critical or abstract thought.. in fact as you have done above. bring them something that which word for word panders to their need, they'll still not be satisfied, since that is by their very nature why they are atheists.. and when all else fails they tend to travel in groups (but don't call it tribal) and come to respond to one another in a congratulatory fashion with the 'I get you, it is so obvious, must be religion that is making them so dense' -- pretty much how they spend their life until death seizes them.. it is rather pitiful!

:w:
Reply

Pygoscelis
11-15-2010, 08:44 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
People do it for autority all the time - thats why nations and societies have laws and governments enforce them eg not to steal, rape etc - ofcourse the reason given is for a better, safer and moral society to prevail you have to have someone enforcing the laws. Your last reply showed how subjective morality can be without an authority figure. DIY your own morality. Ofcourse in any serious or lasting moral system authority is always been behind it - giving it and enforcing it.
Those laws exist to prevent or minimize the damage of those who would not otherwise behave morally. You (I hope) do not need to be told there is a law against murder to stop you from killing people. And were you in international waters on some island where there is no law, you (I hope) would not suddenly take up murdering people. Even if you were to murder somebody or steal from somebody I expect that you would do so despite knowing and feeling it is wrong, and probably feel guilty about it. You don't need a law or a God for that. Morality and Obedience are not the same thing, and it is a distinction that I fear too often gets blurred by religion.
Reply

Lynx
11-15-2010, 09:16 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
It is still supporting evidence.

From Wikipedia:
Kant stated the practical necessity for a belief in God in his Critique of Practical Reason. As an idea of pure reason, "we do not have the slightest ground to assume in an absolute manner… the object of this idea…",[50] but adds that the idea of God cannot be separated from the relation of happiness with morality as the "ideal of the supreme good." The foundation of this connection is an intelligible moral world, and "is necessary from the practical point of view";[51] compare Voltaire: "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."[52] In the Jäsche Logic (1800) he wrote "One cannot provide objective reality for any theoretical idea, or prove it, except for the idea of freedom, because this is the condition of the moral law, whose reality is an axiom. The reality of the idea of God can only be proved by means of this idea, and hence only with a practical purpose, i.e., to act as though (als ob) there is a God, and hence only for this purpose" (9:93, trans. J. Michael Young, Lectures on Logic, p. 590-91).

Along with this idea over reason and God, Kant places thought over religion and nature, i.e. the idea of religion being natural or naturalistic. Kant saw reason as natural, and as some part of Christianity is based on reason and morality, as Kant points out this is major in the scriptures, it is inevitable that Christianity is 'natural'. However, it is not 'naturalistic' in the sense that the religion does include supernatural or transcendent belief. Aside from this, a key point is that Kant saw that the Bible should be seen as a source of natural morality no matter whether there is/was any truth behind the supernatural factor. Meaning that it is not necessary to know whether the supernatural part of Christianity has any truth to abide by and use the core Christian moral code.

Kant articulates in Book Four some of his strongest criticisms of the organization and practices of Christianity that encourage what he sees as a religion of counterfeit service to God. Among the major targets of his criticism are external ritual, superstition and a hierarchical church order. He sees all of these as efforts to make oneself pleasing to God in ways other than conscientious adherence to the principle of moral rightness in the choice of one's actions. The severity of Kant's criticisms on these matters, along with his rejection of the possibility of theoretical proofs for the existence of God and his philosophical re-interpretation of some basic Christian doctrines, have provided the basis for interpretations that see Kant as thoroughly hostile to religion in general and Christianity in particular (e.g., Walsh 1967).[53]

Kant had exposure to Islam as well and reflected about the role of reason therein [54] An interesting sidenote is that his dissertation began with the basmala, the Arabic invocation of God, the merciful and the compassionate



I have answered your question ( a couple of times, whether you want to accept it or not),


Jeez I don't know how else to say it. You keep doing the same thing over and over. You're focusing on Kant rather htan the system he came up with. Okay, Kant's ethical system is complicated so maybe you're put off from actually looking it up so you're focusing on the biographic details. Let's take a look at utilitarian ethics which is super simple. What are some details of utilitarian ethics that come out of religion? For the love of God don't look up biographies.

FYI stay away from wikipedia or at least see if there are citations in the things you're pasting. The 'sidenote' you mentioned that Kant wrote basmala before his dissertation clearly says 'citation needed'. What do you think that means?


Has there been any completely new moral/ethical standards invented within a 100% atheistic community/state?
No, why would there be completely new moral/ethical standards invented anywhere? The only place that this might happen is an alien planet with a completely different history and a race of beings with completely different psychologies.
Reply

جوري
11-15-2010, 09:34 PM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
And were you in international waters on some island where there is no law, you (I hope) would not suddenly take up murdering people.
We hope the same for you indeed it is the ones who give in to their lowly animal desires that we would worry about in such a case!

Originally Posted by Lynx
Jeez I don't know how else to say it
We have noticed, so why do you keep with the desire to invent new things and introduce them as if part of the dialogue.. It seems you are the only one with a serious difficulty reconciling what is written with what you desire as a direction for this topic.. You don't handle a miserable defeat very well do you?

and on this note I go break my fast on this day of 3rafat, I hope you too could find something fulfilling with which to spend your days!

all the best
Reply

Lynx
11-15-2010, 10:49 PM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

We hope the same for you indeed it is the ones who give in to their lowly animal desires that we would worry about in such a case!



We have noticed, so why do you keep with the desire to invent new things and introduce them as if part of the dialogue.. It seems you are the only one with a serious difficulty reconciling what is written with what you desire as a direction for this topic.. You don't handle a miserable defeat very well do you?

and on this note I go break my fast on this day of 3rafat, I hope you too could find something fulfilling with which to spend your days!

all the best
Thank you for your play-by-play commentary. You are about as irrelevant as naidamar's obsession with Kant's life story.
Reply

جوري
11-15-2010, 10:56 PM
Originally Posted by Lynx
Thank you for your play-by-play commentary. You are about as irrelevant as naidamar's obsession with Kant's life story.

You tell yourself whatever you need to, to get through this!

all the best
Reply

Ramadhan
11-15-2010, 11:25 PM
Originally Posted by Lynx
Jeez I don't know how else to say it. You keep doing the same thing over and over. You're focusing on Kant rather htan the system he came up with.
Didn't Kant write kantian ethical system?

Or did the system write himself up?

As an atheist, I know that it must be very difficult for you to understand that anything in this universe must have a creator to come into being, including kantian system.

I know it must be a habit for you to discount and pretend that the writer of kantian system did not exist, but let me tell you, it did exist!

Just like you pretend the universe does not have its creator, so let me tell you a little secret: it does.
Reply

Zafran
11-16-2010, 12:23 AM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Those laws exist to prevent or minimize the damage of those who would not otherwise behave morally. You (I hope) do not need to be told there is a law against murder to stop you from killing people. And were you in international waters on some island where there is no law, you (I hope) would not suddenly take up murdering people. Even if you were to murder somebody or steal from somebody I expect that you would do so despite knowing and feeling it is wrong, and probably feel guilty about it. You don't need a law or a God for that. Morality and Obedience are not the same thing, and it is a distinction that I fear too often gets blurred by religion.
Not just by religion but by the state and parents as well - Everybody has to be told - a child has to be told whats moral and not - the basic idea of parenting and possibly our biggest sense of morality is based on authority (what our parents tell us is a moral and not). You even have laws like dont use phone whilst driving or dont drink drive - what if you drink drive and dont get caught or answer your phone whilst driving and nobody sees you - do people realy feel "bad", guilty or wrong - I dont think many people do. Thats the messege i get from a lot of people. I disagree I think the source of morality ultimatley is authority be it parents, family members, the state, God, the clergy or a random philosopher and his or her philosophy.
Reply

Ramadhan
11-16-2010, 01:05 AM
Originally Posted by Lynx
No, why would there be completely new moral/ethical standards invented anywhere? The only place that this might happen is an alien planet with a completely different history and a race of beings with completely different psychologies.
Ah. So moral/ethical standards have always been borne in societies who believe in some sort of diety, correct?
Reply

Pygoscelis
11-16-2010, 03:44 AM
Originally Posted by Zafran
Not just by religion but by the state and parents as well - Everybody has to be told - a child has to be told whats moral and not
I fundamentally disagree. A child knows it is wrong to hurt other people. You do not have to tell a child that. They know. It takes some social programming to convince them otherwise (religion can help with that as can other ideology).

what if you drink drive and dont get caught or answer your phone whilst driving and nobody sees you - do people realy feel "bad", guilty or wrong
I do. You don't? Perhaps some people don't because they feel more in control than they actually are and don't imagine themselves hitting somebody etc. But do these same people feel no guilt when causing another person pain? Do these people not feel inclined to help those in need when they see suffering? Do you think authority is the sole impetus for charity and the sole inhibitor of cruelty? Really?

Again, morality and authority are not one and the same thing. Authority may enforce morality and keep people in line or remind them and give an added kick to get them to do what they inherently know is right, but they do inherently know its right. Sometimes authority actually creates arbitrary or even counter-moral rules. And it is then that morality leads people to strive to change the system.

It is extremely dangerous to confuse obedience for morality. Obedience to your master can actually lead you to do evil things.
Reply

Zafran
11-16-2010, 05:00 AM
I fundamentally disagree. A child knows it is wrong to hurt other people. You do not have to tell a child that. They know. It takes some social programming to convince them otherwise (religion can help with that as can other ideology
a child doesnt know its wrong to hurt people - until someone actually tells its wrong to hurt people - bullying is a great example of that. Similar to to putting the hand in the fire - it doesnt know until it sees the consquences of its actions - If a child hit another kid and everybody said he did a good thing I'm sure he'll think he did a great thing. Its all about the reaction.

I do. You don't? Perhaps some people don't because they feel more in control than they actually are and don't imagine themselves hitting somebody etc. But do these same people feel no guilt when causing another person pain? Do these people not feel inclined to help those in need when they see suffering? Do you think authority is the sole impetus for charity and the sole inhibitor of cruelty? Really?

Again, morality and authority are not one and the same thing. Authority may enforce morality and keep people in line or remind them and give an added kick to get them to do what they inherently know is right, but they do inherently know its right. Sometimes authority actually creates arbitrary or even counter-moral rules. And it is then that morality leads people to strive to change the system.

It is extremely dangerous to confuse obedience for morality. Obedience to your master can actually lead you to do evil things
You drink and drive??? in the UK thats seen as immoral and realy dangerous (any drinker knows that in the UK). Doesnt matter if you imagine running someone over or not - the main issue is thats highly dangerous and could have put many peoples life at risk, so is breaking the law of the answering the phone whilst driving. Some people dont know this inherently - thats why people break these laws or moral codes. We can also apply this to rapist and killers.

authority doesnt just enforce it also gives out morality. That can be reformed or changed but only by another authority.

why should people feel guilty or pain only? people can feel happy as well when they see someone they hate suffering or in pain - or if someone has killed people then he or she is killed as well out of revenge etc etc.

reducing moralty to feelings is dangerous in itself. Morality has I said before has an authority to actually come about - your feelings can be the authorty as well in deciding whats good and bad.

Charity is always given by the one who actually has the money -The one in power.
Reply

Lynx
11-16-2010, 06:07 AM
Originally Posted by naidamar
Ah. So moral/ethical standards have always been borne in societies who believe in some sort of diety, correct?
Consider: the flu has only existed in societies where religions or belief in some deity took place. Therefore, the belief of a deity has been the cause of this sickness. Sound wrong? Well according to you it's supporting evidence.

Didn't Kant write kantian ethical system?
Yes, I would the guy who basically started the enlightenment era did not plagiarize.

As an atheist, I know that it must be very difficult for you to understand that anything in this universe must have a creator to come into being, including kantian system.
I am not an atheist actually.

I know it must be a habit for you to discount and pretend that the writer of kantian system did not exist, but let me tell you, it did exist!
Of course he existed. Who said otherwise? His existence is just not relevant when you are saying his particular theory is based on another theory. In typical discussions, the person making that sort of claim should be able to look at Kant's work and point out which parts of his theory came from religion. You are unable to do this and that is obviously because you didn't know who Kant was when you made your initial generalization. You made a claim about a topic that you have no clue about. You know, there's something called the principle of charity when it comes to discussions; you are supposed to take your opponents viewpoints in their strongest form before you choose to rebuttal it. There are too many religious people, perhaps more than non religious people, that don't even try to understand where other people are coming from.

Just like you pretend the universe does not have its creator, so let me tell you a little secret: it does.
I am very happy for you
Reply

Pygoscelis
11-16-2010, 06:14 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
a child doesnt know its wrong to hurt people - until someone actually tells its wrong to hurt people
I did. My nephews did. My friend's kids did. You didn't? Empathy does not need to be taught. It is biologically ingrained. It is not even unique to humanity and can be found in many other social species.

If a child hit another kid and everybody said he did a good thing I'm sure he'll think he did a great thing. Its all about the reaction.
The reaction, and social programming, including religion and political ideology can do this but only with effort. It has to override the child's sense of empathy. And in doing so these ideologies will usually attempt to highlight differences between ingroup and outgroup, dehumanize the victim, and make them feel as different from the child as possible. This is all done to override empathy (seeing yourself in others and therefore feeling their pain - there is even a neurological basis for this - look up "mirror neurons")

You drink and drive???
No. I hardly drink at all actually. When I do I certainly would never get behind the wheel. I don't act this way because of any law. If I knew that there were no police checkpoints I still would not drink and drive. I have seen what it can lead to, how it can hurt people, and that is reason enough to stop me from doing it.

the main issue is thats highly dangerous and could have put many peoples life at risk
Yes. And that is the primary reason people don't do it. The law is secondary.

Some people dont know this inherently - thats why people break these laws or moral codes. We can also apply this to rapist and killers.
Those people are rare. They are called sociopaths. Laws can help keep them adhering to morality, yes.

authority doesnt just enforce it also gives out morality. That can be reformed or changed but only by another authority.
What you just wrote there sounds like pure authoritarianism and a good example of mistaking obedience for morality. If the law of Nazi Germany said to turn in Jews so they could be gassed to death, was it moral to do so? Or was the moral thing to disobey authority and hide/protect these Jews, or even fight against the authority in a resistance movement?

Anyway, having gone back and forth on this a few times I'm not sure we can come to any sort of agreement here.
Reply

جوري
11-16-2010, 06:25 PM
It is like going back to the drawing board-- pages of one sided conversation!

Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
I did. My nephews did. My friend's kids did. You didn't? Empathy does not need to be taught. It is biologically ingrained. It is not even unique to humanity and can be found in many other social species.
Indeed, ingrained -- yet given your ideology and beliefs you must account for that very visceral non-rational reasoning in a scientific manner for us to 'believe' that what you say has some consistency with logic! It isn't enough to throw terms like 'biology' around and not have a sense of how that 'biology' came together!


The reaction, and social programming, including religion and political ideology can do this but only with effort. It has to override the child's sense of empathy. And in doing so these ideologies will usually attempt to highlight differences between ingroup and outgroup, dehumanize the victim, and make them feel as different from the child as possible. This is all done to override empathy (seeying yourself in others and therefore feeling their pain)
That is entirely untrue.. no religious conditioning overrides the natural 'ingrained' 'biology' to believe in God is the nature we are born with:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle6823229.ece

atheism in fact goes against fitrah, against nature!


No. I hardly drink at all actually. When I do I certainly would never get behind the wheel. I don't act this way because of any law. If I knew that there were no police checkpoints I still would not drink and drive. I have seen what it can lead to, how it can hurt people, and that is reason enough to stop me from doing it.
That is what you say, but we have already established that atheism goes against what is naturally ingrained, and what you say of biology you can't account for scientifically-- how are we at all expected to believe anything you say


Yes. And that is the primary reason people don't do it. The law is secondary.
The law enforces it for those who have no moral compass!

Those people are rare. They are called sociopaths. Laws can help keep them adhering to morality, yes.
Not at all since secularism keeps taking that compass down the fine line of degeneracy, first homosexuality, then incest, before you know it rape and murder, after all can those people help their nature?



What you just wrote there sounds like pure authoritarianism and a good example of mistaking obedience for morality. If the law of Nazi Germany said to turn in Jews so they could be gassed to death, was it moral to do so? Or was the moral thing to disobey authority and hide/protect these Jews, or even fight against the authority in a resistance movement?

Anyway, having gone back and forth on this a few times I'm not sure we can come to any sort of agreement here.
Indeed, obedience seems to be more in concert with the atheist manifesto.. for the simple reason that their punishment would be in the here and now, a religious person doesn't have to take the law into consideration to do what is right and good!

all the best
Reply

Zafran
11-16-2010, 11:10 PM
I did. My nephews did. My friend's kids did. You didn't? Empathy does not need to be taught. It is biologically ingrained. It is not even unique to humanity and can be found in many other social species
You choose who you give empthy, sympathy, pity, helipng hand to - Do your friends and family members not lay any ground rules at all for there children - do they not discipline them at all? - what about when kids fight or bully other kids - if they are not told that its wrong they end up repeating the action? or do they just work it themselves - why do teachers have to tell kids off as well?

The reaction, and social programming, including religion and political ideology can do this but only with effort. It has to override the child's sense of empathy. And in doing so these ideologies will usually attempt to highlight differences between ingroup and outgroup, dehumanize the victim, and make them feel as different from the child as possible. This is all done to override empathy (seeing yourself in others and therefore feeling their pain - there is even a neurological basis for this - look up "mirror neurons
Thats with anybody - we both agree that rapist are a problem - we outgroup them all the time - including children that bully other kids - they get outgrouped - thats the way we are programmed - you dont need religion, a political system to do that - the autority of feelings is enough (specifically empathy) - which you accept a source of authority for morality.

Yes. And that is the primary reason people don't do it. The law is secondary.
But then people do it as well - Its only authority (feelings or the police which ever you like) that can stop them

Those people are rare. They are called sociopaths. Laws can help keep them adhering to morality, yes
They are not rare - we have murders, rapes and people breaking laws all the time in every society. From the less offensive to the extreme dangerous.

What you just wrote there sounds like pure authoritarianism and a good example of mistaking obedience for morality. If the law of Nazi Germany said to turn in Jews so they could be gassed to death, was it moral to do so? Or was the moral thing to disobey authority and hide/protect these Jews, or even fight against the authority in a resistance movement?

Anyway, having gone back and forth on this a few times I'm not sure we can come to any sort of agreement
This is the whole point we both have to call upon authority to show our morality - be it the Nazis, religion, science, feelings, parents or some random philosophies (empthay isnt the only thing humans have they have anger, hate and other things in them as well) - we have to choose which one we want to follow - but ultimatley we have to bow down to some sort of authority for our moral views.

I think we can come to agreement if we agree that empthy is one of the authorities people choose to make moral decisions Just like God, parents, society or a random philosopher.
Reply

Pygoscelis
11-17-2010, 03:44 PM
Originally Posted by Zafran
I think we can come to agreement if we agree that empthy is one of the authorities people choose to make moral decisions Just like God, parents, society or a random philosopher.
If you define "authority" so wide as to mean pretty much anything that motivates you then sure, we can agree.

But I think having that wide a definition renders this discussion meaningless.

By "authority" I mean others who demand your obedience, be it King, God, Parent, Master, or whoever.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!