The trouble with prophets

[Great I am not]

Do any of you ever think about how we should feel about prophets of other faiths? Obviously, I'm not Muslim, so I don't think Muhammed was a prophet. I'm not Mormon, so I don't think Joseph Smith was a prophet. I'm not a Scientologist, so I don't think L. Ron Hubbard was a prophet. I could do the same for a hundred other religions, but those are the ones that came off the top of my head. This leaves me with a puzzle. How do I formulate my view of other faiths prophets, when I don't believe their teachings? I think of 3 options. One is they lied, for whatever reason. Two is that they were just crazy. Three is that they had some experience and then convinced themselves that they heard instruction from God. What do you think? Is this a fair view?

We do not recognize the prophets of other faiths nor do we know how to identify the new prophets. The moment they come out they are labeled as fools.

Trust me. I know this as a fact.

We all follow a God, or a blend of Gods, if you consider God to mean a philosophy of life.

Religions offer Gods and Politics offer Gods as well as philosophies of life.

At end time elections, we are to evaluate all of these Gods and elect a new Man/God.

To recognize a prophet of a miracle working creator God then that would be easy because he could just show one and that would be that.

To recognize a prophet with a God that does not do miracles but was born of man, who evolved and evolves, to cosmic consciousness. Now that is a tough sell. Yet in the beginning, this is how it had to be.

The only trouble with prophets is that the religious communities will not allow one to be recognized by public debate. This would force unity and most religions are based on exclusion and not inclusion.

Strange when their Gods began as a totally inclusive alien entity and master of all things.

Your own tone indicates that a prophet has to convince himself of the experience or revelation. You condemn The prophet before he speaks by insinuating that God is not the one who did the convincing.

I forgive you though.

Regards
DL

 

[Great I am not]

No, not if the choices are restricted to 'liar', 'crazy' or 'delusional'. You may decide on one of those in the end, of course, but you dismiss 'four' (which should be 'one'!) far too easily - that they were none of those things.

It simply isn't enough to say I am not a muslim, Mormon or whatever, and your first task before assigning labels to prophets should be to give serious consideration to their messages.

Think demographically, was my message from God. Took 20 years to figure it out.

Mean much to you as a help in prophet identification?

Communication with God turns one from whatever one is into a fool for a time in the eyes of most.

Regards
DL

 

[Great I am not]

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

1st if all, the premise for your question is incorrect. regardless of whether or not you are a Muslim, regardless of your opinion, the Prophet of Allah, Muhammad ibn Abdullah[pbuh] IS the final Messenger of Allah Subahanahu Wa Ta Aala!

There is no God but Allah[swt], and we worship Him alone and without partners and Muhammad[pbuh] is the slave and final Messenger of Allah.

what you think of the other religions will not help you on the day of Qiyama. you should be more concerned with why you are rejecting the final Message from your creator and my creator.

to quote the Messenger[pbuh] of Allah[swt]:

“In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful. Peace be upon him who follows the right path. Furthermore, I invite you to Islam and if you become a Muslim you will be safe, and Allah will double your reward, and if you reject this invitation of Islam you will be committing a sin by misguiding your subjects. And I recite to you Allah's statement:

“O People of the Scriptures! Come to a word common to you and us that we worship none but Allah and that we associate nothing in worship with Him, and that none of us shall take others as Lords beside Allah. Then if they turn away, say: Bear witness that we are Muslims (those who have surrendered to Allah). (Qur’an: Surah 3, Ayah 64).”

You sound like a Bible thumping Christian. Stop hurting your own faith by being too Fundamental.

Regards
DL

 

[Great I am not]

you can tell whos a prophet by what they teach - if it conforms to the ways of all the prophets and teachings of God then you know it

if not they his a liar - kazzab - dajjal

What if he follows a prophet different from the prophet of your religion? Are you willing to switch?

Regards
DL

 

[Great I am not]

What is the Criteria for a True Prophet?


http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/202/

I stopped at evidence of claim.

Your prophet must do miracles must he?

Regards
DL

 

[Great I am not]

I am sure in this forum a million words would have been written defining a prophet. Still, for the benefit of late entrants like me with a paucity of time to wade through all that which has been written previously, I shall be thankful if someone would spell out what sort of a person is entitled to be called a prophet.

He must first claim it so.

Regards
DL

 

[Re.TiReD]

Ali, I'm not going to do that—for the same reason that I don't expect you to go on TalkOrigins and debunk the arguments on there.

I could easily copy and paste a huge chunk of paste from a pro-evolution/abiogenesis sight on here and go "HA! MUSLIMS, DEBUNK THIS OR ADMIT ATHEISM IS TRUUEEE!" I could do this without even understanding the text I'm posting—as I suspect you and Skye have done. But I think this would say more about my own laziness than it would say about the untruth of Islamic creationism.

The point of debate—and the reason I come on websites like this—is that there is a back-and-forth. In the process, both sides can learn something (even if they don't agree). I could argue against Mr. Mullan's website, but he wouldn't be able to answer me.

That said, if Mr. Mullan would like to come on here and have a debate with me, I would love to oblige. Similarly, if you understand his arguments, feel free to make them in your own words, and I'll argue with you.

From Skye Ephemerine:

This isn't about debunking to prove something true or untrue.. this is about the probability of events having happened as you'll have us believe. For starters Mr' Mullan is a doctor, what are your qualifications otherwise?

I am glad you can write with bravado of fifth grade biology of lipid bilayers and RNA as if that means anything . And I am glad you take advantage of my leave for more important matters to sprout some backbone.


The text I have placed is nothing more than a summary, with variables using the smallest unit you describe to favor life, sentience etc.. If you'd actually bothered to read the first two lines, it would have become apparent along with the qualification of the author, since you feel free to speak on behalf of the entire scientific community, and want to challenge them as if you actually have something of substance to impart!


I really don't have the time to sit here and mull over stupidities, if I did I wouldn't suspend my account to begin with-- if events as you describe were even a remote possibility then prove it using known science.. we have liposomes, and Ecoli to use as vectors admittedly with direct human manipulation (I guess we'll otherwise leave to the wind and rain) to mimic those evolutionary milestones --yet here we are in the twenty first century unable to tackle something as trivial as the rhinovirus yet Qingu the mavin has already unlocked the secrets of the universe .. Does anyone here know of a 'prion' or a virus (classified by most scientists) as non-living organisms to survive without a host? Yet this fellow proposes that an RNA can survive outside the body and from it more complex events occurred.. sadly doesn't even want to take the time to tell us how this perfect amino acids managed to come about from spontaneous generation, further manage sentience and functionality in lieu of goo or a worthless haptens to allow for more complex events leading to amongst other things higher reticular function.


Mullan to sum up a summary, has taken the smallest unit, even smaller than modern day viruses which again aren't known to survive without a host, and considering chance alone that they came to be, to cascade the events you believe.. extending the life of this planet even beyond the supposed billions we know of its existence, time when life was made favorable earth's proximity to the sun using our earliest known fossils etc etc etc using the laws of mathematics, Biology isn't a monolithic field-- in order for science to be true it has to be integrated with other branches.. that is, if we are talking of other than poetic science --- and in the end didn't make a conclusion for you, on the account that isn't the aim of science.. Science isn't about certainty it is about possibilities and probabilities and proving the proposed true or untrue.. again if you bother read such things as P values, confidence intervals, Null hypothesis, types I and II errors, I imagine it would all be less difficult for you to understand...


The burden of proof really doesn't lie with us, rather with you.. We are not the ones certain that is how it took place.. but if you are certain then put up or shut up! we wouldn't post articles we haven't read, or science we can't back up... I have come to know you to draw such deep satisfaction from overly simplistic conclusions.. you don't want websites to read yet constantly reference us to websites.. a double sided hypocrisy doesn't nullify itself -- so just take a hike and enjoy life, it is rather short a little RNA virus with a little reverse transcriptase can really do you in -- I wouldn't waste my time trying to send as many astray right along with me!


Cheers

 

[Woodrow]

This thread has gone on for 3 weeks and over 150 posts. It is a very interesting thread. But, it seems that all further posts are simply carrying it further from the original topic.

The thread has long ceased serving any purpose and can only lead to angry responses, rather than honorable debate.

:threadclo: