Print Page | Close Window

Jesus had to die for our sins

Printed From: WhyIslam.org
Category: General
Forum Name: InterReligious Dialogue
Forum Discription: Forum for people of various faiths to discuss and inquire about different religions
URL: http://www.whyislam.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=32775
Printed Date: 19 May 2019 at 3:08pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 8.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Jesus had to die for our sins
Posted By: The_Rock
Subject: Jesus had to die for our sins
Date Posted: 16 January 2019 at 2:39pm
One of the stumbling blocks for muslims is the logic of why jesus had to die for our sins.

If you have questions regarding this, I would be happy to answer.



Replies:
Posted By: Magister
Date Posted: 16 January 2019 at 8:05pm
We don't believe in Original Sin.

-------------
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven


Posted By: Niblo
Date Posted: 17 January 2019 at 7:56am
St Thomas Aquinas writes: ‘It was not necessary that God should become incarnate for the restoration of human nature. For God with His omnipotent power could have restored human nature in many other ways.’ (Summa Theologica: Part Three; Question 1, Answer 3).

Muslims believe that Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) did indeed choose a different way of dealing with Adam – the way of forgiveness: ‘Then Adam received some words from his Lord and He accepted his repentance: He is the Ever Relenting, the Most Merciful.’ (Al-Baqara: 37).

The sin of Adam was wiped out. This act of Mercy ruled out any need for universal redemption.


-------------
'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.'(Alī ibn Abī Tālib‎)


Posted By: The_Rock
Date Posted: 17 January 2019 at 12:26pm
With all due respect to Thomas Aquinas, I would have to disagree with him on this matter.

And of course, I wouldnt ask anyone to believe what is a matter of faith ie original sin.

I think however, we can all agree on common human experiences.

Human societies are based on two competing forces.

1) The law which is imposed from above, which is about justice.
2) The support system which is a grass roots system, that does not judge.

An example of this in the islamic context is the caliphate vs the ummah.

In modern america it is certain arms of the government vs charities and certain other arms of the government.

Even in the traditional family unit, men generally lay down the law with the kids, whilst women tend to be more nurturing.

This arrangement is innate to human nature.

Its not because God couldnt forgive us our sins because of how He is, Jesus had to die for our sins because of how we are.


Posted By: The_Rock
Date Posted: 17 January 2019 at 4:43pm
So you see it isn't in the nature of God to just accept evil as it is.

And evil exists.

Now unless we say that evil is the will of God, which I think we agree it isn't.

Then the only way to stop an evil act isn't to perpetuate it, but to sacrifice ourselves to not reciprocate the evil.

This pattern is also true for God. To not sell retribution someone had to pay the price. Jesus did.


Posted By: Al-Cordoby
Date Posted: 18 January 2019 at 3:05am
Originally posted by The_Rock

So you see it isn't in the nature of God to just accept evil as it is.

And evil exists.

Now unless we say that evil is the will of God, which I think we agree it isn't.

Then the only way to stop an evil act isn't to perpetuate it, but to sacrifice ourselves to not reciprocate the evil.

This pattern is also true for God. To not sell retribution someone had to pay the price. Jesus did.


There s an important point to remember here Rock:

Evil exists because God gave us free will

He created us that way, so He allows us to commit mistakes then return to Him.

And when we do sin, He showed us by teaching our father Adam how to clear those sins, through a direct repentance to Hm only.






-------------
Think Win-Win for a better world for all...

http://cortoby.blogspot.com/ - My Blog
http://www.muslimheritage.com/ - Muslim Heritage



Posted By: The_Rock
Date Posted: 18 January 2019 at 8:32am
Repentance is fine. That's essential.

My point is let's say I steal your bicycle and then I am caught and I repent but I don't return your bike because I lost it.

Have you received justice?


Posted By: ishammad
Date Posted: 18 January 2019 at 5:39pm
On the authority of Abu Dharr al-Ghifaree (may Allah be pleased with him) from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) from his Lord, that He said:

... O My servants, you will not attain harming Me so as to harm Me, and you will not attain benefiting Me so as to benefit Me.
O My servants, if the first of you and the last of you, and the humans of you and the jinn of you, were all as pious as the most pious heart of any individual amongst you, then this would not increase My Kingdom an iota.
O My servants, if the first of you and the last of you, and the humans of you and the jinn of you, were all as wicked as the most wicked heart of any individual amongst you, then this would not decrease My Kingdom an iota.
O My servants, if the first of you and the last of you, and the humans of you and the jinn of you, were all to stand together in one place and ask of Me, and I were to give everyone what he requested, then that would not decrease what I Possess, except what is decreased of the ocean when a needle is dipped into it.
O My servants, it is but your deeds that I account for you, and then recompense you for. So he who finds good, let him praise Allah, and he who finds other than that, let him blame no one but himself.
[Muslim]


https://sunnah.com/nawawi40/24 - Sacred Hadith

-------------
Exalted is your Lord, the Lord of might, above what they describe. And peace upon the messengers. And praise to Allah, Lord of the worlds. 37:180-182


Posted By: Magister
Date Posted: 18 January 2019 at 6:51pm
Originally posted by The_Rock



Now unless we say that evil is the will of God, which I think we agree it isn't.



The Bible says that all good AND evil come from God. Islam says that nothing can happen but by the will of God.

How do you interpret that?

-------------
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven


Posted By: The_Rock
Date Posted: 18 January 2019 at 8:05pm
Well I'm not familiar with any Bible verse that says that all evil proceeds from God


Posted By: The_Rock
Date Posted: 18 January 2019 at 9:52pm
Well what I'm saying in a nut shell is that too defeat evil or sin one must take the hit and move on.

One can't defeat sin with a good act.

So I steal you bicycle and regret it and buy you a better one when I repent.

But in the time that I stole your bicycle, you were unable to reach your dying grandmother on foot.

I still have committed an injustice for which I simply have no means to recompense you.

You simply cannot out do sin with good acts, its not possible.

So now this presents a massive conundrum.

How do you get redeemed?


Posted By: Al-Cordoby
Date Posted: 19 January 2019 at 3:28am
Originally posted by The_Rock

Repentance is fine. That's essential.

My point is let's say I steal your bicycle and then I am caught and I repent but I don't return your bike because I lost it.

Have you received justice?


There are 2 types of sins, Rock

1- A sin between a believer and God only

2- A sin that harms others, like the example you mentioned

in the second case, for God to accept the believer's repentance, he or she MUST repair the damage done

So for God to forgive, what was stolen must be returned to the owner and by that justice s established





-------------
Think Win-Win for a better world for all...

http://cortoby.blogspot.com/ - My Blog
http://www.muslimheritage.com/ - Muslim Heritage



Posted By: The_Rock
Date Posted: 19 January 2019 at 11:43am
Al as I pointed out, it is impossible to make up for the evil, even if I replace it with a better thing and repent.

Also can you explain what a sin against God is and what the course of action for soceity is?


Posted By: The_Rock
Date Posted: 19 January 2019 at 12:45pm
Unless a person can go back in time and undo the wrong, its impossible to actually recompense perfectly a person against whom the sin was committed.

You can come up with imperfect recompenses.

But the sin will always stand.

And thats why sin cannot be outweighed by good actions.

I think once you recognize the impossibility of making good for a sin, you then have to consider the consequence of this situation.


Posted By: The_Rock
Date Posted: 19 January 2019 at 3:48pm
Let's say you murder someone. And in turn you repent and die for the sin. A life for a life.

I'd there justice for the person that lost their lives and for the person's family?


Posted By: Magister
Date Posted: 19 January 2019 at 5:37pm
Originally posted by The_Rock

Well I'm not familiar with any Bible verse that says that all evil proceeds from God


Lamentations 3:38 says, "Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?"

Amos 3:6b says: "Shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?"

-------------
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven


Posted By: Magister
Date Posted: 19 January 2019 at 5:45pm
Originally posted by The_Rock

Let's say you murder someone. And in turn you repent and die for the sin. A life for a life.

I'd there justice for the person that lost their lives and for the person's family?


I think an easier way to make up for a sin against another other than going back in time is for the victim's memory to be cleared of the incident and the consequences surrounding it.

Such sins will always exist, even with a "perfect sacrifice". Someone's death cannot make Hitler un-kill the millions of innocent gypsies and Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons and other undesirables. The death of the "perfect lamb" won't undo the consquences of Stalin's reign.

-------------
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven


Posted By: Shenango
Date Posted: 19 January 2019 at 10:53pm
Originally posted by The_Rock

One of the stumbling blocks for muslims is the logic of why jesus had to die for our sins


Rock,

This topic has been reshashed numerous times. It comes up frequently in Muslim-Christian dialogue. But it boils down to the fact that the concept of sin in the two faiths is an apples to oranges comparison.

Jesus' atoning death on the cross makes perfect sense if premised on a rather extreme view of God's holiness and mankind's sinfulness. If you falsely create an impasse between man and God, you naturally need a third party (Jesus AS) to bridge the divide.

But you don't need to falsely create an impasse. Mankind isn't all evil and God could have created us without free will (to use to rebel against Him) if he wished. That's the Islamic view. So things are more moderate in the Islamic view, not so extreme. So there's no need for a third party. No, God does not want us to sin, but he made us to ask for his forgiveness if we do.

Whether mankind is purely evil or purely good or somewhere in between, is debatable. But it's always puzzled me why more Christians don't reflect more on the second idea, that God could have created us perfect/sinless if He wanted to, but in reality he didn't if He couldn't stand sin that much.

-------------
"I mean, brothers and sisters, the appointed time has grown short; from now on, let even those who have wives be as though they had none"--Paul c. 55 CE


Posted By: The_Rock
Date Posted: 19 January 2019 at 11:13pm
Originally posted by Magister

Originally posted by The_Rock

Let's say you murder someone. And in turn you repent and die for the sin. A life for a life.

I'd there justice for the person that lost their lives and for the person's family?


I think an easier way to make up for a sin against another other than going back in time is for the victim's memory to be cleared of the incident and the consequences surrounding it.

Such sins will always exist, even with a "perfect sacrifice". Someone's death cannot make Hitler un-kill the millions of innocent gypsies and Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons and other undesirables. The death of the "perfect lamb" won't undo the consquences of Stalin's reign.



No it won’t the point I am trying to make is that a sinner has no hope of making restitution. It’s just not possible.

The person against whom the sin is committed is more or less condemned to bear the consequences.

One can demand a tooth for a tooth, but that wont actually deliver justice to the person, in reality.

Ultimately the only way forward is forgiveness and the willingness to understand that one can never ever be made fully whole in this life for the sin committed against oneself.

So the idea that good deeds and bad deeds eliminate each other is fallacious.

So then there is no hope for the sinner.

Jesus was not punished for the sins of man.

Jesus was a sacrifice for the sins of man.

In other words, the sacrificial system was a sign of ones repentance for the sin.

God forgives because the party is repentant and because the payment of death has been made for the sin committed.

In essence the sacrifice dies instead of the person.


Posted By: The_Rock
Date Posted: 19 January 2019 at 11:19pm
Originally posted by Shenango

Originally posted by The_Rock

One of the stumbling blocks for muslims is the logic of why jesus had to die for our sins


Rock,

This topic has been reshashed numerous times. It comes up frequently in Muslim-Christian dialogue. But it boils down to the fact that the concept of sin in the two faiths is an apples to oranges comparison.

Jesus' atoning death on the cross makes perfect sense if premised on a rather extreme view of God's holiness and mankind's sinfulness. If you falsely create an impasse between man and God, you naturally need a third party (Jesus AS) to bridge the divide.

But you don't need to falsely create an impasse. Mankind isn't all evil and God could have created us without free will (to use to rebel against Him) if he wished. That's the Islamic view. So things are more moderate in the Islamic view, not so extreme. So there's no need for a third party. No, God does not want us to sin, but he made us to ask for his forgiveness if we do.


I’m not sure that its a question of how we view sin.

Islam says that good deeds erase bad deeds.

That is observably false.

Whilst one can debate whether God could have chosen an alternative method for atonement.

Christianity has the right view of the subject.

Restitution is almost always impossible.



Whether mankind is purely evil or purely good or somewhere in between, is debatable. But it's always puzzled me why more Christians don't reflect more on the second idea, that God could have created us perfect/sinless if He wanted to, but in reality he didn't if He couldn't stand sin that much.


Well God did create us sinless. I think that is something that every Christian aspires to be.
Imagine a world where we have perfect knowledge of every action we take and we immortal.
What would that world look like?


Posted By: The_Rock
Date Posted: 19 January 2019 at 11:28pm
Originally posted by Magister

Originally posted by The_Rock

Well I'm not familiar with any Bible verse that says that all evil proceeds from God


Lamentations 3:38 says, "Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?"

Amos 3:6b says: "Shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?"


It’s my understanding that the word evil refers to adversities of the world.
Earth quakes, floods etc.

It’s absurd to suggest that sin proceeds from God.


Posted By: Shenango
Date Posted: 19 January 2019 at 11:52pm
Originally posted by The_Rock

I’m not sure that its a question of how we view sin.


Yes, it is. I explained it to you perfectly. Christianity has an extreme view of sin, thanks to Paul.

Originally posted by The_Rock

Islam says that good deeds erase bad deeds.


No it doesn't. Be careful with your terminology. What Islam says is that the rewards of meritorious actions erase the sin of evil actions. But a deed, good or bad is always forever, that goes without saying. No idiot is saying that punching out someone on the street is going to be undone by feeding homeless people for the next few years. That punching someone out was still done. An action can't be undone once it's done. No religion that I know of says that it can.

-------------
"I mean, brothers and sisters, the appointed time has grown short; from now on, let even those who have wives be as though they had none"--Paul c. 55 CE


Posted By: The_Rock
Date Posted: 20 January 2019 at 12:17am
I’m afraid you lost me.

Christianity views sin “extremely”. Muslims don’t view sin as something that is serious?

So what you are saying is that the reward of a positive action is going to make up for a sin. In your example, punching a person is a sin for which there is a punishment, and feeding a poor person is a good action which erases the punishment?
And whilst you contemplate that, are you saying that somehow justice is served by equating the pain caused to one person, by a basic human need being met of another person?


Posted By: Al-Cordoby
Date Posted: 20 January 2019 at 2:28am
Originally posted by The_Rock

Repentance is fine. That's essential.

My point is let's say I steal your bicycle and then I am caught and I repent but I don't return your bike because I lost it.

Have you received justice?


Yes, when you pay back the value of the bike

Or if forgive you


-------------
Think Win-Win for a better world for all...

http://cortoby.blogspot.com/ - My Blog
http://www.muslimheritage.com/ - Muslim Heritage



Posted By: Shenango
Date Posted: 20 January 2019 at 11:53am
Originally posted by The_Rock

Christianity views sin “extremely”. Muslims don’t view sin as something that is serious?


Sin is serious to Muslims. But remember that God created us capable of comitting sin. That means in his infinite wisdom He had a plan along for how we should deal with our sins when we commit them.

So what you are saying is that the reward of a positive action is going to make up for a sin. In your example, punching a person is a sin for which there is a punishment, and feeding a poor person is a good action which erases the punishment?


Yes, punching out someone warrants a legal punishment, absolutely. If you are punished for it, then God accepts that punishment as removal of your sin. You should still try to make it up to the person, somehow, though. But if the victim forgives, that's a more noble action than exacting revenge through punishment.

But a lot of sins go unpunished don't they? There a lot of sins we can't truly rectify with our victims, aren't there? Those sins get erased by making up for them with the rewards of good actions.

-------------
"I mean, brothers and sisters, the appointed time has grown short; from now on, let even those who have wives be as though they had none"--Paul c. 55 CE


Posted By: Magister
Date Posted: 20 January 2019 at 5:43pm
Originally posted by The_Rock

Originally posted by Magister

Originally posted by The_Rock

Let's say you murder someone. And in turn you repent and die for the sin. A life for a life.

I'd there justice for the person that lost their lives and for the person's family?


I think an easier way to make up for a sin against another other than going back in time is for the victim's memory to be cleared of the incident and the consequences surrounding it.

Such sins will always exist, even with a "perfect sacrifice". Someone's death cannot make Hitler un-kill the millions of innocent gypsies and Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons and other undesirables. The death of the "perfect lamb" won't undo the consquences of Stalin's reign.



No it won’t the point I am trying to make is that a sinner has no hope of making restitution. It’s just not possible.

The person against whom the sin is committed is more or less condemned to bear the consequences.

One can demand a tooth for a tooth, but that wont actually deliver justice to the person, in reality.

Ultimately the only way forward is forgiveness and the willingness to understand that one can never ever be made fully whole in this life for the sin committed against oneself.

So the idea that good deeds and bad deeds eliminate each other is fallacious.

So then there is no hope for the sinner.

Jesus was not punished for the sins of man.

Jesus was a sacrifice for the sins of man.

In other words, the sacrificial system was a sign of ones repentance for the sin.

God forgives because the party is repentant and because the payment of death has been made for the sin committed.

In essence the sacrifice dies instead of the person.


But you're now just using semantics to justify your argument for the death of Jesus (as).

I know this is the Bible's argument, and I understand why you believe in it, but for me, I feel that it's illogical. God forgives because He forgives, whether there is a sacrifice or not. In fact, the Jews don't have this notion of a human sacrifice needing to be made for the sake of mankind's sins. This is something that came about AFTER he died, likely as a way to explain to would-be converts why God would allow the world to kill His only begotten son? (After all, if God can't even protect His own son who was begging for help in that garden on the night of his death, how will He protect us?)

But I think this explanation also ruined Christianity in recent centuries. The nailing on the cross of Jesus was supposed to be the end of the sacrificial laws, but Christians have started to use this same sacrifice as the end of ALL God's laws in favor of the laws made by unguided men (some of whom oppose God).

-------------
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven


Posted By: Magister
Date Posted: 20 January 2019 at 5:52pm
Originally posted by The_Rock

Originally posted by Magister

Originally posted by The_Rock

Well I'm not familiar with any Bible verse that says that all evil proceeds from God


Lamentations 3:38 says, "Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?"

Amos 3:6b says: "Shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?"


It’s my understanding that the word evil refers to adversities of the world.
Earth quakes, floods etc.

It’s absurd to suggest that sin proceeds from God.


Lamentations puts it as the opposite of good.

Plus, isn't failing to prevent an evil act defined as evil in and of itself? For instance, if you knew about a school shooting before it was about to occur and you had the power to stop it but failed to do so, would you not be considered an evil person? I remember Penn Jillette one time being interviewed and 9/11 came up when he was debunking predicting the future, and how he said that those "psychics" who claim to have known that 9/11 was about to happen before it happened and didn't stop it are just as evil, if not more evil, than the actual killers. I might be wrong in my wording, I can't remember the interview that clearly and don't have the patience to search the web for it, but it was about people claiming they knew 9/11 was going to happen long before either because they were themselves psychics or because they knew the correct way of interpreting Nostradamus' quatrains.

The point is, God is the only one truly in control of all the good and evil happening in the world, do you agree?

-------------
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven


Posted By: The_Rock
Date Posted: 21 January 2019 at 2:35pm
Originally posted by Magister

I feel that it's illogical. God forgives because He forgives, whether there is a sacrifice or not.


Just saying its illogical doesnt make it illogical.

Posited that the islamic model of restitution is false.

So explain to me how justice is served in islam beyond just words that God forgives.


Posted By: ishammad
Date Posted: 21 January 2019 at 5:25pm
On the authority of Abu Dharr al-Ghifaree (may Allah be pleased with him) from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) from his Lord, that He said:

O My servants! I have forbidden dhulm (oppression) for Myself, and I have made it forbidden amongst you, so do not oppress one another.
...
O My servants, you commit sins by day and by night, and I forgive all sins, so seek forgiveness from Me and I shall forgive you.

[Muslim]


https://sunnah.com/nawawi40/24 - Sacred Hadith

Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said,
“The rights of every people will be restored on the Day of Resurrection until justice is fulfilled, even between the hornless sheep and the horned sheep.”


Source: Sahih Muslim 2582, Grade: Sahih (authentic) according to Muslim

The claimants would get their claims on the Day of Resurrection so much so that the hornless sheep would get its claim from the horned sheep.

-------------
Exalted is your Lord, the Lord of might, above what they describe. And peace upon the messengers. And praise to Allah, Lord of the worlds. 37:180-182


Posted By: ishammad
Date Posted: 21 January 2019 at 5:57pm
As far as i know, Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) will give or reward the one who was wronged, until he is satisfied.




-------------
Exalted is your Lord, the Lord of might, above what they describe. And peace upon the messengers. And praise to Allah, Lord of the worlds. 37:180-182


Posted By: Ken7
Date Posted: 21 January 2019 at 7:11pm
When a lamb or a bird or a human person or whatever living creature is killed to make up for "sins" it breaks my heart to think of all that useless suffering. Shedding of blood to "atone" for human sins is a Christian doctrine that needs to be discarded as nonsense. The Letter to the Hebrews says "without shedding of blood there is no remission of sins". That verse needs to be ignored.

-------------
What is wanted is not the will to believe but the wish to find out.   Bertrand Russell


Posted By: Magister
Date Posted: 21 January 2019 at 10:09pm
Keny7, you don't think this verse in Hebrews fits in with modern Western society?

-------------
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven


Posted By: Magister
Date Posted: 21 January 2019 at 10:17pm
Originally posted by The_Rock

Originally posted by Magister

I feel that it's illogical. God forgives because He forgives, whether there is a sacrifice or not.


Just saying its illogical doesnt make it illogical.

Posited that the islamic model of restitution is false.

So explain to me how justice is served in islam beyond just words that God forgives.


It is illogical because the One who is infinite in power must use a brutal method in order to forgive someone. If I can forgive someone without shedding blood, why is the Almighty obliged to not only shed blood, but to torture to death His OWN son just so He can move past the wrongs done to Him?

It doesn't make sense on the logical level.

In Islam, God reads the hearts. Deeds are not always reflective of intentions. God judges by intentions, punishes accordingly, and then forgives, and even rewards.

The issue you might have is that in Christianity, Heaven is very abstract. The afterlife is not stressed as much as it is in Islam. We believe firmly in the Afterlife. We are confident that we will face Allah (swt) on Judgment Day. It's not a speculation. It's not a far off future. It's something that can happen at any moment of any day. For this reason, while murder is one of the gravest crimes in Islam, death is not an end of existence from the Muslim's point of view. Life continues after this one. In fact, unlike Christians, Muslims tend to view this world more as a try-out, or a temporary acting stage for us, and we are commanded not to get too attached to this world or anything in it. What this translates to is Muslims don't believe the 6 million innocent people killed by Hitler are gone forever - nor are any of the others who were treated unjustly in this world. They are alive with God (time exists for us - for God, it may be that the past, present and future are all accessible to Him at all times).

I suppose you can look at this life as a "trial" life, like a drug trial. Or like a trial run of a new plan a company wants to implement. It's meant more to be like an experiment than a permanent state.

For this reason, what you imagine as unjust of the worst kind may still be unjust, but it's not irreparable. Death is only a transition from this life to the next. This life is not as precious as the next life. Stealing from me when I need it most may harm me in this life, but in the next life, I might never remember the feelings I had or the suffering I had.

I suppose it's like circumcision as a baby - you experience the pain as an infant, but looking back at it, you don't quite remember the suffering you went through. It's another lifetime with a different "you" and the suffering seems negligible now.

-------------
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven


Posted By: Ken7
Date Posted: 21 January 2019 at 10:43pm
Originally posted by Magister

Keny7, you don't think this verse in Hebrews fits in with modern Western society?


What do mean "fit in with modern society"? It says without shedding of blood there is NO remission of sins so no I don't shedding of blood is appropriate for stealing or tax evasion etc. I guess a case could be made for capital punishment for 1st degree murder or genocide. But I'm talking ritual sacrifice shedding of blood to appease some supposed deity when it looks like all that does cause useless of the person or animal sacrificed

-------------
What is wanted is not the will to believe but the wish to find out.   Bertrand Russell


Posted By: Win-Win
Date Posted: 22 January 2019 at 3:34am
Originally posted by Ken7

When a lamb or a bird or a human person or whatever living creature is killed to make up for "sins" it breaks my heart to think of all that useless suffering. Shedding of blood to "atone" for human sins is a Christian doctrine that needs to be discarded as nonsense.


That's common sense.

God does not need Jesus to die to forgive mankind's sins.

A believer repents after sin, and God forgives

He is the Most Merciful, the Most Kind



Posted By: Ken7
Date Posted: 22 January 2019 at 10:32am
Christians say their God requires shedding of blood for sins to be forgiven, Muslims say God doesn't require that. I guess that's the neat thing about fictional mythological beings like the tooth fairy, Allah, the sand man, YHVH, Satan, etc you make them believe or say anything you want.

-------------
What is wanted is not the will to believe but the wish to find out.   Bertrand Russell


Posted By: Win-Win
Date Posted: 22 January 2019 at 11:33am
Originally posted by Ken7

Christians say their God requires shedding of blood for sins to be forgiven, Muslims say God doesn't require that. I guess that's the neat thing about fictional mythological beings like the tooth fairy, Allah, the sand man, YHVH, Satan, etc you make them believe or say anything you want.


Think logically, Ken

And I invite all our Christian friends to do the same

Peace be with you



Posted By: Ken7
Date Posted: 22 January 2019 at 12:08pm
I am thinking logically. All the descriptions of various gods/goddess sound like they were made up by people. I see no no good reason to suppose there is an uncaused first cause

-------------
What is wanted is not the will to believe but the wish to find out.   Bertrand Russell


Posted By: Win-Win
Date Posted: 23 January 2019 at 4:48am
Originally posted by Ken7

I am thinking logically. All the descriptions of various gods/goddess sound like they were made up by people. I see no no good reason to suppose there is an uncaused first cause


The most important reason that there is a Creator, Ken, is that this amazing universe exsists

What is its origin?

Or is it a pure coincidence in your opinion?


Posted By: Ken7
Date Posted: 23 January 2019 at 10:02am
Yes, the Flying Spaghetti Monster did a great job creating the universe

-------------
What is wanted is not the will to believe but the wish to find out.   Bertrand Russell


Posted By: The_Rock
Date Posted: 23 January 2019 at 2:55pm
I dont think that any thing we argue logically can prove the existence of God.

Belief in God is a leap of faith.


Posted By: Magister
Date Posted: 23 January 2019 at 3:17pm
Originally posted by The_Rock

I dont think that any thing we argue logically can prove the existence of God.

Belief in God is a leap of faith.


Maybe not prove, but God is the only logical answer we arrive at consistently.

-------------
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven


Posted By: The_Rock
Date Posted: 23 January 2019 at 4:23pm
Really Magister? God is an explanation, and not a very logical one.


Posted By: Magister
Date Posted: 23 January 2019 at 11:15pm
Probably the most logical of all. You sound more like an atheist than like a Christian.

But then again, the way Christians readily give up their faith to please non-believers, it comes as no surprise that you'd consider the idea of a Creator to be illogical in a world where the only way things come about is through creation or causes lol.

-------------
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven


Posted By: Ken7
Date Posted: 24 January 2019 at 1:17am
Originally posted by The_Rock

Really Magister? God is an explanation, and not a very logical one.

"god", whatever that is, has zero explanatory power. Why? because belivers in a god cannot say what a god is other using nebulous buzzwords like creator, almighty transcendant omnipotent etc. They haven't even begun to establish that any god/goddess exists and until they do that it is not legitimate to say any god created the universe. Saying god is the most logical explanation is just saying "I can't think of another explanation for the origin of the universe, therefore, god" "there has to be a first cause so god sounds good, so I'm just going to go with that". My position is I don't know how the universe came into being and the difference between me and god believers is I am honest enough to admit it and they are pretending to know what they don't know.

-------------
What is wanted is not the will to believe but the wish to find out.   Bertrand Russell


Posted By: Win-Win
Date Posted: 24 January 2019 at 12:22pm
Originally posted by Ken7

Originally posted by The_Rock

Really Magister? God is an explanation, and not a very logical one.
My position is I don't know how the universe came into being and the difference between me and god believers is I am honest enough to admit it and they are pretending to know what they don't know.


I suggest you may wish to read The Qur'an, Ken, and decide for yourself whether it makes sense or not

This is what many agnostics and atheists did, including Prof. Jeffrey Lang:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AvepssBwzY - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AvepssBwzY

Peace and all the best




Posted By: The_Rock
Date Posted: 24 January 2019 at 1:00pm
Originally posted by Magister

Probably the most logical of all. You sound more like an atheist than like a Christian.

But then again, the way Christians readily give up their faith to please non-believers, it comes as no surprise that you'd consider the idea of a Creator to be illogical in a world where the only way things come about is through creation or causes lol.


We dont give up our beliefs. We understand they are beliefs and are not deluded about them being "logical".

The western mind isn't inclined to bastardizing reason and logic to have it conform to religion.

The 2 are separate things.

God is beyond reason because you cannot comprehend infinity.


Posted By: Magister
Date Posted: 24 January 2019 at 10:24pm
Originally posted by Ken7

Originally posted by The_Rock

Really Magister? God is an explanation, and not a very logical one.

"god", whatever that is, has zero explanatory power. Why? because belivers in a god cannot say what a god is other using nebulous buzzwords like creator, almighty transcendant omnipotent etc. They haven't even begun to establish that any god/goddess exists and until they do that it is not legitimate to say any god created the universe. Saying god is the most logical explanation is just saying "I can't think of another explanation for the origin of the universe, therefore, god" "there has to be a first cause so god sounds good, so I'm just going to go with that". My position is I don't know how the universe came into being and the difference between me and god believers is I am honest enough to admit it and they are pretending to know what they don't know.


Your position is one of denial. You know that everything in the universe has a cause, and yet you're trying to maintain an agnostic stance about the first cause.

And no one is pretending to know anything - every engagement I've had with you dealt with evidence you yourself can verify.

How about this, though? I challenge you to show me anything that came into existence without a cause. Once you do, my evidence shuts down. And I'm not talking about something that came about without a KNOWN cause. I'm talking about something we can verify came about without being caused. -- If you can't, then you admit that evidence points to an initial cause.

Then I challenge you to demonstrate to me that the laws that apply to our universe were eternal (there's evidence contrary to this, mind you). -- If you can't, then you admit that there's a strong possibility that the laws we use to understand our universe need not apply to the cause of our universe whether He/It were external or internal to the universe.

With just those two points, we've already found overwhelming evidence for there being a Cause to the universe who might very well be immune to the laws of our universe. This is not conjecture, this is a conclusion brought to us by all the evidence we have available to us. This is how science works: you go to where the evidence points, even if you can't observe it (e.g., like with the theory of the evolution of man which is now accepted fact).

My invitation to you regarding reading the Quran for evidence is not whether a Creator exists, but whether that Creator was conscious. That's a wholly different argument, one that truly separates atheists from theists. As for there being a Creator, that's undeniable. We know the universe is not eternal. We know that everything, including our universe, has/had a cause. We know that the laws of our universe need not apply to whatever caused us as they themselves came into existence AFTER our universe was already existing. This leaves us with only ONE explanation: That there was a Creator who is immune to the Laws of our universe.

The real debate should be whether this Creator is capable of volitional behavior, if it has intentions, if it's conscious or not. It might be a natural phenomenon following the laws of some external universe - or it might be the God of the Quran/Bible or a god from one of the many polytheistic religions or the God of deism or the engineers of Simulation Theory.



-------------
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven


Posted By: Magister
Date Posted: 24 January 2019 at 10:44pm
Originally posted by The_Rock

Originally posted by Magister

Probably the most logical of all. You sound more like an atheist than like a Christian.

But then again, the way Christians readily give up their faith to please non-believers, it comes as no surprise that you'd consider the idea of a Creator to be illogical in a world where the only way things come about is through creation or causes lol.


We dont give up our beliefs. We understand they are beliefs and are not deluded about them being "logical".

The western mind isn't inclined to bastardizing reason and logic to have it conform to religion.

The 2 are separate things.

God is beyond reason because you cannot comprehend infinity.


Which is precisely why the Western mind is abandoning Christianity in droves either officially or unofficially, and considering all other religions to be identical to Christianity.

In the West, less and less Christians are believing in the Bible, less and less people are even identifying as Christian. Europe's already a lost cause - some American pastor went out there asking people if they believe in God and almost all the Europeans said no, with the exception of one, who was later found to be a Muslim.

It might be because of how the Church created this rivalry between early science and religion. Or it might be that the Bible got just about everything about the natural universe wrong that people started thinking, "Hey, if it's wrong about all this, who's to say that ALL of it isn't wrong?"

The same hasn't happened with Islam and the Quran. I remember reading in Tafsir ibn Kathir (I forget which volume now) where I believe it was Umar who commissioned a research team to verify a city or a location mentioned in the Quran to see if it was symbolic or literal. Even its earliest days, Muslims (even the Sahaba themselves) were of the understanding that not every passage in the Quran was meant to be literal. Even the Quran says this - that some passages are allegorical or symbolic while others are literal.

Muslims can still fully believe in Islam while being committed biologists, astronomers, physicists, and so on. Evolution is something that's interesting to bring up. Muslims through and through accept evolution (in fact, it was a Muslim who first penned the idea of humans and other primates sharing a common ancestor, but did not know the mechanism by which they separated and became what they are now; Darwin did that). However, some Muslims might look at evolution as having happened to every species except man. Some might accept evolution wholeheartedly the way the science world accepts it, but still believe in Adam and Eve.

What about life throughout the universe? Most religious Christians I studied with argued that the whole universe is empty and that only humans exist and that demons mislead people into believing there are other planets with beings on them. I remember a Jehovah's Witness saying that demons pretend to be UFOs in order to trick people. Yet Muslims have no issue with the idea of exploring space, looking for ET life, etc.

Islam has nothing against science, and science has nothing against Islam. I think that perhaps you are getting jealous that most Christians are trying to warn fellow Christians to beware of this enemy called science, and thereby are becoming ignorant to mainstream scientific fundamentals, while Muslims are encouraging other Muslims to see how science either promotes Islamic positions or how science gives us a better idea of the universe where the Quran was either silent or ambiguous on. This comes down to Muslim teenagers talking about embryology and the Christian teenagers unsure what embryology even means. Muslims are encouraging their children to find careers in the sciences, Christians are warning their children that the Devil will get them if they go into the sciences. Go to any PhD or other advanced science program in the US, and you'll find a large chunk of Muslims even though they make up only a tiny percentage of the population. This is great for Muslims, but terrible for Christians.

-------------
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven


Posted By: Ken7
Date Posted: 24 January 2019 at 11:43pm
Originally posted by Magister

Originally posted by Ken7

Originally posted by The_Rock

Really Magister? God is an explanation, and not a very logical one.

"god", whatever that is, has zero explanatory power. Why? because belivers in a god cannot say what a god is other using nebulous buzzwords like creator, almighty transcendant omnipotent etc. They haven't even begun to establish that any god/goddess exists and until they do that it is not legitimate to say any god created the universe. Saying god is the most logical explanation is just saying "I can't think of another explanation for the origin of the universe, therefore, god" "there has to be a first cause so god sounds good, so I'm just going to go with that". My position is I don't know how the universe came into being and the difference between me and god believers is I am honest enough to admit it and they are pretending to know what they don't know.


Your position is one of denial. You know that everything in the universe has a cause, and yet you're trying to maintain an agnostic stance about the first cause.

And no one is pretending to know anything - every engagement I've had with you dealt with evidence you yourself can verify.

How about this, though? I challenge you to show me anything that came into existence without a cause. Once you do, my evidence shuts down. And I'm not talking about something that came about without a KNOWN cause. I'm talking about something we can verify came about without being caused. -- If you can't, then you admit that evidence points to an initial cause.

Then I challenge you to demonstrate to me that the laws that apply to our universe were eternal (there's evidence contrary to this, mind you). -- If you can't, then you admit that there's a strong possibility that the laws we use to understand our universe need not apply to the cause of our universe whether He/It were external or internal to the universe.

With just those two points, we've already found overwhelming evidence for there being a Cause to the universe who might very well be immune to the laws of our universe. This is not conjecture, this is a conclusion brought to us by all the evidence we have available to us. This is how science works: you go to where the evidence points, even if you can't observe it (e.g., like with the theory of the evolution of man which is now accepted fact).

My invitation to you regarding reading the Quran for evidence is not whether a Creator exists, but whether that Creator was conscious. That's a wholly different argument, one that truly separates atheists from theists. As for there being a Creator, that's undeniable. We know the universe is not eternal. We know that everything, including our universe, has/had a cause. We know that the laws of our universe need not apply to whatever caused us as they themselves came into existence AFTER our universe was already existing. This leaves us with only ONE explanation: That there was a Creator who is immune to the Laws of our universe.

The real debate should be whether this Creator is capable of volitional behavior, if it has intentions, if it's conscious or not. It might be a natural phenomenon following the laws of some external universe - or it might be the God of the Quran/Bible or a god from one of the many polytheistic religions or the God of deism or the engineers of Simulation Theory.





We have already been over all of these points multiple times. You keep arguing against positioned I do not hold so you need to find someone who says a thing can begin to exist without being caused and argue about it with him/her. You are also claiming that there is a being which has no beginning or end and that is what caused the universe and that it is outside of space and time. But whenever I ask what does it mean to be outside of space and time you have tried to answer and except to proclaim that it is true. I am rejecting your claim of an uncaused cause because you have failed to establish that there is such a thing and saying "well, there HAS to be an uncaused first cause it's just common sense" does not establish that it exists. Unless you can manage somehow to come up with an actual argument for there being a first cause instead of just insisting that there is one I am done here.

-------------
What is wanted is not the will to believe but the wish to find out.   Bertrand Russell


Posted By: Magister
Date Posted: 25 January 2019 at 6:41pm
Originally posted by Ken7


saying "well, there HAS to be an uncaused first cause it's just common sense" does not establish that it exists. Unless you can manage somehow to come up with an actual argument for there being a first cause instead of just insisting that there is one I am done here.


I never said the first cause was uncaused - we don't know its cause because it's not a part of this universe. For all we know, that first cause was eternal. We can't tell. We DO KNOW, however, that whatever caused us is independent of our universe and need not follow the laws of our universe as they came into being after the Big Bang and didn't truly become the way we know them today till millions of years later.

So, we can both agree that there was an initial Cause that is independent of the laws of our universe and which MAY be eternal, right?

-------------
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven


Posted By: Ken7
Date Posted: 25 January 2019 at 7:29pm
Originally posted by Magister

Originally posted by Ken7


saying "well, there HAS to be an uncaused first cause it's just common sense" does not establish that it exists. Unless you can manage somehow to come up with an actual argument for there being a first cause instead of just insisting that there is one I am done here.


I never said the first cause was uncaused - we don't know its cause because it's not a part of this universe. For all we know, that first cause was eternal. We can't tell. We DO KNOW, however, that whatever caused us is independent of our universe and need not follow the laws of our universe as they came into being after the Big Bang and didn't truly become the way we know them today till millions of years later.

So, we can both agree that there was an initial Cause that is independent of the laws of our universe and which MAY be eternal, right?



Ummm, no. You clearly claimed to KNOW that there is a first cause which is outside our universe. Now, how do you know that whatever that is is outside our universe? Saying well, it has to be is not an answer.

-------------
What is wanted is not the will to believe but the wish to find out.   Bertrand Russell


Posted By: Magister
Date Posted: 25 January 2019 at 8:14pm
I claim there is indeed a first cause which is independent of our universe. I don't "know" anything - logic and evidence point to this. Do you think logic and evidence point to something else? Please explain.

"Now, how do you know whatever that is is outside our universe?"
I don't know. Logic just seems to point in that direction given that it makes the most sense.

Perhaps a better phrasing is not that it exists "outside" our universe, but exists "independent" of our universe.

-------------
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven


Posted By: Ken7
Date Posted: 25 January 2019 at 9:45pm
Originally posted by Magister

I claim there is indeed a first cause which is independent of our universe. I don't "know" anything - logic and evidence point to this. Do you think logic and evidence point to something else? Please explain.

"Now, how do you know whatever that is is outside our universe?"
I don't know. Logic just seems to point in that direction given that it makes the most sense.

Perhaps a better phrasing is not that it exists "outside" our universe, but exists "independent" of our universe.


Go back and read your post two posts back. You said "We do KNOW" that there is a first cause. You're being dishonest when you say don't KNOW. In logic our conclusions are only as reliable as the assumptions and premises we started with. A mystery cannot be solved by appealing to another mystery. It's like saying universe creating pixies are the first cause. Just like your god we have to first demonstrate those pixies actually exist before we can say they caused the universe.



-------------
What is wanted is not the will to believe but the wish to find out.   Bertrand Russell


Posted By: Win-Win
Date Posted: 26 January 2019 at 3:24am
Originally posted by Ken7

A mystery cannot be solved by appealing to another mystery. It's like saying universe creating pixies are the first cause. Just like your god we have to first demonstrate those pixies actually exist before we can say they caused the universe.



Think of it this way, Ken

In an earlier post you suggested that (the Flying Spaghetti Monster did a great job creating the universe)

My question to you is the following:

Did the Flying Spaghetti Monster send his intelligent creatures (i.e. human beings) any communication where he says that he created the universe?



Posted By: Ken7
Date Posted: 26 January 2019 at 10:41am
No,it/she/it has not as far as I know has not done than. You are going to say your God, Allah, has done that but how do you know the Qur'an is from a goddess?

-------------
What is wanted is not the will to believe but the wish to find out.   Bertrand Russell


Posted By: Win-Win
Date Posted: 26 January 2019 at 11:02am
Originally posted by Ken7

No,it/she/it has not as far as I know has not done than. You are going to say your God, Allah, has done that but how do you know the Qur'an is from a goddess?


That's where human intellect comes in to making the right judgement.

The first step is to read with an open mind and a sincere objective approach, without prejudice or preconceived ideas.

After reading and reflecting, one is able to reach the right conclusion and make an informed correct decision.

The first word revealed in the Qur'an by the way was (Read)




Posted By: Ken7
Date Posted: 26 January 2019 at 1:46pm
Originally posted by Win-Win


Originally posted by Ken7

No,it/she/it has not as far as I know has not done than. You are going to say your God, Allah, has done that but how do you know the Qur'an is from a goddess?
<font size="3" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's where human intellect comes in to making the right judgement.
<font size="3" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
<font size="3" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The first step is to read with an open mind and a sincere objective approach, without prejudice or preconceived ideas.
<font size="3" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
<font size="3" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">After reading and reflecting, one is able to reach the right conclusion and make an informed correct decision.
<font size="3" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
<font size="3" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The first word revealed in the Qur'an by the way was (Read)
<font size="3" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">



Reading the Qur'an all by itself could not establish that it was written by any other than human beings. Your "god" could not have had anything to do with the Qur'an unless it exists. First you need to establish that your god exists before we can even begin to try to figure out if it/she/he wrote the Qur'an. I have read parts of the Qur'an and I agree to read the whole thing. Now, you need to somehow establish that your god does indeed exist. Saying "well, how else did the universe come into being exist by god creating it" is an argument from ignorance fallacy.

-------------
What is wanted is not the will to believe but the wish to find out.   Bertrand Russell


Posted By: Damo808
Date Posted: 26 January 2019 at 3:07pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJQjpG-lGY4&t=209s

For want of a better title of this video but seems to be the only link i can find now. But in 8 minutes he pretty much sums up the age with Maher .

Your right in some things Magister,(hi by the way) i won't derail in order to detail why i see differently other than that clearly in light of a hindsight stretching between apr 2000-6000 years of biblical history its clear one was not intended to be at one with science in order to be at one so to speak with God. The RC Church did fund and transform science due to the the first universities in which the study of science among the brightest and best minds was something to the Church seen as vital. Western Christendom has become hollow . Indeed, within the very RC Church senior hierarchy have absconded from their solemn oaths,   many have entered the priesthood by deceit many having lost all faith, or having had none to begin with. I am having grave doubts about the very Pope himself who is allaying the church with a modernism that is heretical. Ominous times for Catholicism. However, such times were to proceed the end, when even the elect would falter. The decks have been stacked within the roman church, the conclave has been compromised.

Ironically however other than weaken my faith in Catholicism, it gives me surety in it.
For such things were to unfold.

Ominous times for many Catholics, and perhaps the world.

I hope you have a great 2019.

-------------
out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel: and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity. Micah 5:5


Posted By: Ken7
Date Posted: 26 January 2019 at 3:30pm
I typed in the address of the video but the page that came up said "video unavailable"

-------------
What is wanted is not the will to believe but the wish to find out.   Bertrand Russell


Posted By: Magister
Date Posted: 27 January 2019 at 1:09pm
Originally posted by Damo808

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJQjpG-lGY4&t=209s

For want of a better title of this video but seems to be the only link i can find now. But in 8 minutes he pretty much sums up the age with Maher .

Your right in some things Magister,(hi by the way) i won't derail in order to detail why i see differently other than that clearly in light of a hindsight stretching between apr 2000-6000 years of biblical history its clear one was not intended to be at one with science in order to be at one so to speak with God. The RC Church did fund and transform science due to the the first universities in which the study of science among the brightest and best minds was something to the Church seen as vital. Western Christendom has become hollow . Indeed, within the very RC Church senior hierarchy have absconded from their solemn oaths,   many have entered the priesthood by deceit many having lost all faith, or having had none to begin with. I am having grave doubts about the very Pope himself who is allaying the church with a modernism that is heretical. Ominous times for Catholicism. However, such times were to proceed the end, when even the elect would falter. The decks have been stacked within the roman church, the conclave has been compromised.

Ironically however other than weaken my faith in Catholicism, it gives me surety in it.
For such things were to unfold.

Ominous times for many Catholics, and perhaps the world.

I hope you have a great 2019.


Hi Damo. I remember watching this video a while back (not sure if it was you that referenced it to me at that time or if I came across it on my own), but he shows the errors in the ways that atheists think (or rather, GROUPthink). Don't get me wrong, I do find some atheists showing a healthy amount of skepticism, and skepticism is usually a good thing. But there's also an unreasonable amount of skepticism, or even using misinformation in order to claim religion is bad. The Catholic man's arguments against Maher were my own on these very forums years ago, Damo, if you don't remember my old debates with atheists about how religion is in and of itself not the cause of rotten human nature. It's still my defense to this day toward critics of Islam who attempt to use ISIS as the model Muslims. As for the Pope, you're not the first Catholic I see to show dissatisfaction with his approaches and positions. He is certainly the most progressive of the popes I've ever seen, which I actually find to be nice, but I don't know if he's any less Catholic in his views, opinions, than he ought to be. He's still against gays and abortions, right? He's still of the position that in order to get into heaven, one must be baptized into the church, no? This ultimately may only be a marketing tool he's using to gain more converts or at the very least more people being less hostile to the RCC.

-------------
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven


Posted By: Magister
Date Posted: 27 January 2019 at 1:22pm
Originally posted by Ken7

Originally posted by Magister

I claim there is indeed a first cause which is independent of our universe. I don't "know" anything - logic and evidence point to this. Do you think logic and evidence point to something else? Please explain.

"Now, how do you know whatever that is is outside our universe?"
I don't know. Logic just seems to point in that direction given that it makes the most sense.

Perhaps a better phrasing is not that it exists "outside" our universe, but exists "independent" of our universe.


Go back and read your post two posts back. You said "We do KNOW" that there is a first cause. You're being dishonest when you say don't KNOW. In logic our conclusions are only as reliable as the assumptions and premises we started with. A mystery cannot be solved by appealing to another mystery. It's like saying universe creating pixies are the first cause. Just like your god we have to first demonstrate those pixies actually exist before we can say they caused the universe.




Well, it'd take an atheist to jump immediately to saying "dishonest" (maybe their own guilty conscience, I don't know), but it'd take a person of common sense to think of the alternative scenario: that I made an error.

I'm using different definitions of the word "know" in each post - context-based. In the first one, I'm saying "know" more in the sense of "all the evidence points to this" while in the latter case I'm using "know" more in the sense of "we don't really KNOW anything". It was an error on my part for not clarifying that, and it was an error on my part for using the same word for the two different shades of meaning.

And again, you're jumping to the complex from the simple. You haven't grasped the simple yet in order for us to even address the complex. You can't just make that leap. Forget that anyone's "God" made the universe. First, you have to grasp that the universe did not exist here for all eternity, that it had a beginning.

Second, only after you can admit to yourself that the universe had a beginning, you can then realize that the alternative must be true: that the universe had a beginning and that it was caused to come into existence.

Third, now that you've taken the logical step that the universe was caused into existence, you need to verbally admit there was an initial cause to our universe. Forget the other attributes of the "cause" because that seems to be confusing you. Just make it simple: someTHING happened that caused our universe to exist as it is now. That's it. You've come to the conclusion that I've been bringing up for the last dozen or so posts with you that there was an initial cause to our universe.

Fourth: Now that you realize there was an initial cause to our universe, you need to be honest and answer this question: is it independent of the laws of our universe? Well, one way to discern this is to realize that it existed prior to the existence of the laws of our universe. Another way to look at it is that it brought about the existence of the laws of our universe. Perhaps it has laws it obeys of its own, I don't know - you don't know - but we see from the evidence that it is most certainly independent of the laws that we are subject to.

Fifth: once you get through the prior four steps can we move forward. If you still can't get through the prior points, and if you can't demonstrate how any of them are fundamentally false, then I don't know how to move forward from here.

-------------
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven


Posted By: Damo808
Date Posted: 28 January 2019 at 6:08am
Originally posted by Magister


Hi Damo. I remember watching this video a while back (not sure if it was you that referenced it to me at that time or if I came across it on my own), but he shows the errors in the ways that atheists think (or rather, GROUPthink). Don't get me wrong, I do find some atheists showing a healthy amount of skepticism, and skepticism is usually a good thing. But there's also an unreasonable amount of skepticism, or even using misinformation in order to claim religion is bad. The Catholic man's arguments against Maher were my own on these very forums years ago, Damo, if you don't remember my old debates with atheists about how religion is in and of itself not the cause of rotten human nature. It's still my defense to this day toward critics of Islam who attempt to use ISIS as the model Muslims.


Well, Douthat is speaking specifically on the West's relationship with or lack there-of its Judaeo/Christian heritage.       


Originally posted by Magister

As for the Pope, you're not the first Catholic I see to show dissatisfaction with his approaches and positions. He is certainly the most progressive of the popes I've ever seen, which I actually find to be nice, but I don't know if he's any less Catholic in his views, opinions, than he ought to be. He's still against gays and abortions, right? He's still of the position that in order to get into heaven, one must be baptized into the church, no? This ultimately may only be a marketing tool he's using to gain more converts or at the very least more people being less hostile to the RCC.


He is against homosexual lifestyle buy states 'Who am i to judge' ?

He's pictured wearing and LGBT cross.

https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/report-priest-pedophilia-is-on-the-rise-again-linked-to-homosexuality#comment-241979

He releases a known gay sexual predator of minors (14 yrs old upward)from sanctions placed on him by the then Pope Benedict years earlier and re-appoints him in great places of influence.

He continued his behavior. And now its hitting the fan.

said predator went on to preside over the Chinese negotiations recently in china declaring chinese state appointed 'catholic' Bishops as legitimate clergy. This is spiritual abandonment pure and simple.

Check out the 'Dubia' if you want to know the backdoor he's left open in order for the most liberal of priests to conduct heresy from a catholic perspective.

There is his known interruption of a mass held by cardinal Mueller who was at that time conducting a high level investigation of the now deceased English cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor regarding a ritual abuse claim by a 14 year old girl. He was about to celebrate Holy Communion at His church as he does every week when he was interrupted on the alter and asked to take a call from the very Pontiff himself ( which i should state , even a death within a church should NOT prevent a mass continuing) in order for the Pope to tell him to drop the investigation... This was AFTER the pope was informed that the Cardinal Mueller was at that time mid mass celebration. Not a done thing EVER !!

I could go on and on

Check out the three separate statement issued by the (currently in hiding) Nuncio Vigano, trusted lieutenant of both PJPII and Pope Benedict, of whom Pope Francis simply says i' I will say no word on it'

No Magister, Pope Francis, is set on debasing catholic dogma. I don't believe their plan is to bring this about in but one rein, but successive popes will now be handpicked by a cliche rather than the whole of the church, unless the rot it rooted out. As i said the stacking of the decks has been in the works for over 50 years in the form of freemasonry.. He may be the culmination of the old 'Alta Vendita'.

-------------
out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel: and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity. Micah 5:5


Posted By: Shenango
Date Posted: 03 February 2019 at 3:24pm
Originally posted by Damo808

I don't believe their plan is to bring this about in but one rein, but successive popes will now be handpicked by a cliche rather than the whole of the church, unless the rot it rooted out. As i said the stacking of the decks has been in the works for over 50 years in the form of freemasonry.. He may be the culmination of the old 'Alta Vendita'.


I don't think you can blame liberalization on any one pope or a masonic conspiracy. Popes after all, are human beings, influenced by their environment and times. The ideas they grew up with affect them in subtle, subconscious ways in complementary fashion to their religious training.

It's not to say there isn't a conspiracy, there may well be, but I think the bigger point to be made is about Catholicism's centralization of authority, which leaves it vulnerable both to conspiracy theories and actual conspiracies. Influence one man and you've got the whole flock in toe. It also makes the whole hierarchy responsible for the bad actions of a few (like the Sex Abuse scandal), and gives those actions an official stamp of approval.

I'm not just picking on Catholicism here. Mormons have the same problem, as would any religion with such a centralized authority structure. These religions rely on the demonstrably false idea that one elect guy at the top has special revelation and/or guidance from God. These centralized models usually have poor scriptural support as well. Can a few words in Matthew 16:19 really justify the monstrosity the RCC has become today? It should be clear to all with eyes to see that the popes and Nelson of the Mormons are schmoes no better-guided than the rest of us, except more educated because of their religious training.

The Holy Spirit hasn't protected the current pope and the RCC from the excesses of the modern-day secularist-driven liberalization trend any more than his medieval predecessors against the excesses of their own greed. The common illness afflicting all of them is love of worldly life (what Islam calls the "dunya").

Sunni Islam and Protestantism's decentralized models are better at keeping reality in check.     

-------------
"I mean, brothers and sisters, the appointed time has grown short; from now on, let even those who have wives be as though they had none"--Paul c. 55 CE


Posted By: Damo808
Date Posted: 04 February 2019 at 1:24pm
Originally posted by Shenango


I don't think you can blame liberalization on any one pope or a masonic conspiracy. Popes after all, are human beings, influenced by their environment and times. The ideas they grew up with affect them in subtle, subconscious ways in complementary fashion to their religious training.


A Pope must adhere, preach and uphold to that which is according to and in harmony with Catholic doctrine.
For the vast majority of over its last 2000 years this has demonstrably been a success albeit even though acknowledged anti-popes have come and gone.


Originally posted by Shenango

It's not to say there isn't a conspiracy, there may well be, but I think the bigger point to be made is about Catholicism's centralization of authority, which leaves it vulnerable both to conspiracy theories and actual conspiracies. Influence one man and you've got the whole flock in toe. It also makes the whole hierarchy responsible for the bad actions of a few (like the Sex Abuse scandal), and gives those actions an official stamp of approval.


On the other hand 'too many chiefs' or none at all among other religious groups as the non affiliated world looks on, this also brings well not so much just heresy but bombings and religious lynch mobs, and usually to the detriment of the non affiliated. Who can fix this continual issue if no-one is recognized as authoritative and could condemn it and bring it to a close ?

If you have an answer the Non Muslim world would love to know.

Originally posted by Shenango

I'm not just picking on Catholicism here. Mormons have the same problem, as would any religion with such a centralized authority structure. These religions rely on the demonstrably false idea that one elect guy at the top has special revelation and/or guidance from God. These centralized models usually have poor scriptural support as well. Can a few words in Matthew 16:19 really justify the monstrosity the RCC has become today? It should be clear to all with eyes to see that the popes and Nelson of the Mormons are schmoes no better-guided than the rest of us, except more educated because of their religious training.


Shenango, if you think the hierarchical structure of Catholicism has no basis anywhere else in scripture other than in Mathew 16:19 then what the hell was the purpose of the Temple under the stewardship of the anointed chief priests recorded throughout the Torah ? Demonstrably God indeed set in place a hierarchical structure in which to lead the masses. Scripture as indeed history is on my side here.

Originally posted by Shenango

The Holy Spirit hasn't protected the current pope and the RCC from the excesses of the modern-day secularist-driven liberalization trend any more than his medieval predecessors against the excesses of their own greed. The common illness afflicting all of them is love of worldly life (what Islam calls the "dunya").


As i said such 'falling away' of the 'elect' is scriptural. But the Church as a body of believers will never be orphaned.


Originally posted by Shenango

Sunni Islam and Protestantism's decentralized models are better at keeping reality in check.


30,000 protestant sects and the terms 'moderate', 'fundamentalist' and 'progressive' in regards to any Muslim sect speak volumes to that statement. That and the fact as i've already told you that for thousands of years the Hebrews had centralized hierarchy which even you have to concede that God himself did indeed institute.

-------------
out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel: and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity. Micah 5:5


Posted By: Shenango
Date Posted: 05 February 2019 at 12:53am
Originally posted by Damo808

A Pope must adhere, preach and uphold to that which is according to and in harmony with Catholic doctrine.


Yes, but my point is that Catholic doctrine itself was shaped and promulgated by councils led by popes and shaped by their ideas and teachings. Unless you're claiming the pope is in violation of the Bible, I know of no other source of Christian doctrine that is not even potentially alterable. Much doctrine is established by tradition. Some tradition may become outdated over time. And that's the whole point of a modernization agenda.

Who can fix this continual issue if no-one is recognized as authoritative and could condemn it and bring it to a close ?


Decentralized faiths like Islam and Protestanism employ the scholarly consensus model. True, not having one central authority makes it more difficult to determine something definitively, but because the opinions of individuals vary, they tend to have a moderating effect, and a consensus among them is likely as definitive as things will get.

I never said the decentralized model doesn't have its drawbacks and imperfections, just that the centralized one is fatally flawed. There is simply no comparison in my view.

then what the hell was the purpose of the Temple under the stewardship of the anointed chief priests recorded throughout the Torah?


There is nothing wrong with organizing communal worship and appointing leadership to steward it. But I'm not aware the Sanhedrin or the chief priest it appointed ever claimed to be the vicars of God Almighty, or receivers of his direct revelation. The revealers were only ever the prophets.

I see now that I may have led you down the wrong track with my emphasis on centralized authority. But centralized authority comes from spiritual revelation, and that's ultimately what I'm getting at.

I mean the keys to the kingdom that Jesus (AS) supposedly gave to Peter have been interpreted to mean that popes on down the line have some sort of special access to revelation from God that continues after Jesus (AS) in unbroken succession. Mormon presidents are the same with their 'revelations'. Revelation doesn't continue down some invisible unbroken line of succession. Catholic history is replete with examples of popes who were unholy and the furthest thing from being inspired by God. That is what I'm calling demonstrably false, the idea that they were, such that this belief justifies the existence of a permanently centralized spiritual authority.

I hope my point is clearer now. Islam and Protestantism aren't decentralized by accident. It owes to their demonstrably correct view that God's revelation only came through an elect few God actively sent in history. Aside from these special periods of time, none of us have any special answers, and hence the scholarly consensus model of authority that I mentioned above. No one can claim special access because nobody has been given it.

-------------
"I mean, brothers and sisters, the appointed time has grown short; from now on, let even those who have wives be as though they had none"--Paul c. 55 CE


Posted By: Damo808
Date Posted: 05 February 2019 at 4:06pm
Originally posted by Damo808

A Pope must adhere, preach and uphold to that which is according to and in harmony with Catholic doctrine.


Originally posted by Shenango

Yes, but my point is that Catholic doctrine itself was shaped and promulgated by councils led by popes and shaped by their ideas and teachings.


As time advances so do modern ways, such councils are necessary in order to address the issues of their time. Today its abortion and contraception, unethical stem-cell technology etc etc, a moral mine field of dilemmas which ever present themselves to society throughout the ages which simply cannot be specifically gleaned from any biblical verse if one was to demand one. However such councils are duty bound to ultimately defend and preserve unto death the deposit of faith handed down from the very beginning of the Church.   

Unless you're claiming the pope is in violation of the Bible, I know of no other source of Christian doctrine that is not even potentially alterable. Much doctrine is established by tradition.Some tradition may become outdated over time.


You read my reply to Magister. The objections against Pope Francis are there.

As to conspiracy .. theory or just plain conspiracy.

Did the US infiltrate the conclave immediately post Pope Benedict's very strange resignation(incidentally accompanied with the double lightening strike on St pauls basilica 6 hrs later.)? Well many high level Catholics are concerned over a Wiki cable which suggests it may very well have been a pondered option. Acted upon ? Who can say.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/25256-catholics-ask-trump-to-probe-soros-obama-clinton-conspiracy-at-vatican

One should also check out the so called 'St Gallen mafia' within the American RC church in account to the above.   



And that's the whole point of a modernization agenda.


You seem to miss the point entirely . The Church has been modernizing for the past 2000 years, but is still in line and in keeping with the defending of the deposit of the faith.

Decentralized faiths like Islam and Protestanism employ the scholarly consensus model. True, not having one central authority makes it more difficult to determine something definitively, but because the opinions of individuals vary, they tend to have a moderating effect, and a consensus among them is likely as definitive as things will get.

I never said the decentralized model doesn't have its drawbacks and imperfections, just that the centralized one is fatally flawed. There is simply no comparison in my view.


So you admit then that in approx 1400 years the best you have is, is that some heresy here and there is ok as you see it. I see.


Originally posted by Damo808

then what the hell was the purpose of the Temple under the stewardship of the anointed chief priests recorded throughout the Torah?


There is nothing wrong with organizing communal worship and appointing leadership to steward it.


As it was for God in the Torah for e.g. you mean .


But I'm not aware the Sanhedrin or the chief priest it appointed ever claimed to be the vicars of God Almighty, or receivers of his direct revelation. The revealers were only ever the prophets.


No not vicars no, but anointed High Priests of God Almighty none the less, any difference in title is semantic.   



I mean the keys to the kingdom that Jesus (AS) supposedly gave to Peter have been interpreted to mean that popes on down the line have some sort of special access to revelation from God that continues after Jesus (AS) in unbroken succession.

Mormon presidents are the same with their 'revelations'. Revelation doesn't continue down some invisible unbroken line of succession.


What relevance does Mormonism have here ? You continue drawing false parallels between Mormonism and Catholicism when there are probably more many real parallels between Islam with Mormonism. Mormons have no pope, they operate very differently from Catholics and hold to their own set of 'divine' manuscripts like do Muslims and who likewise have their own self appointed leader who sows seeds of doubt in what came before.      

Catholic history is replete with examples of popes who were unholy and the furthest thing from being inspired by God. That is what I'm calling demonstrably false, the idea that they were, such that this belief justifies the existence of a permanently centralized spiritual authority.


Popes are merely men. As aforementioned anti-popes have come and gone and are acknowledged as such. Even Jesus had His Judas, the Temple also in ancient times had some questionable high priests. However the status of the office is ever authoritative and never questioned on its teaching .   

I hope my point is clearer now. Islam and Protestantism aren't decentralized by accident. It owes to their demonstrably correct view that God's revelation only came through an elect few God actively sent in history.


Whats 'demonstrably correct' about 30,000 + denominations interpreting the same book differently ? This is demonstrably a false statement.

How many separate Islamic groups are there and how many variances are there within each group in their interpretation of their respective scripture ? Who even knows.. ? Seems a bit mish mash to me, but your entitled to your opinion as am i mine.




-------------
out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel: and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity. Micah 5:5


Posted By: Shenango
Date Posted: 08 February 2019 at 1:00pm
Originally posted by Damo808

However such councils are duty bound to ultimately defend and preserve unto death the deposit of faith handed down from the very beginning of the Church.


So if that's not being done, and this pope isn't doing it, what does that tell you about your belief in the Holy Spirit's ability to protect the Church's teachings, and the pope from doctrinal errors? Isn't God all-powerful against any conspiracy? Doesn't that tell you that the RCC and people running it are just schmoes like the rest of us?

So you admit then that in approx 1400 years the best you have is, is that some heresy here and there is ok as you see it. I see.


Pretty much. Heresies will always be around, but the moderating effect of consensus keeps them marginal.

No not vicars no, but anointed High Priests of God Almighty none the less, any difference in title is semantic.


There is a rather chasmic difference. You see the Jews never claimed any special inspiration or direct revelation of God for the Temple priests. That's why they're just organizers of communal worship. They don't have all the spiritual trappings Catholics have wrapped the pope with. Can't you see that?

What relevance does Mormonism have here ?


Mormonism has every relevance. Both Catholics and Mormons believe revelation continues down a spiritual line of holy men. It should be long obvious to both flocks that that's not the case, and that's my whole point.

Whats 'demonstrably correct' about 30,000 + denominations interpreting the same book differently ? This is demonstrably a false statement.


Well, there aren't 30,000 Islamic sects, but even if you're referring to Protestantism that's really just saying in Christianity there's more to disagree over. But it depends on what you value more, truth or unity. I guess you're saying you choose unity over truth.

-------------
"I mean, brothers and sisters, the appointed time has grown short; from now on, let even those who have wives be as though they had none"--Paul c. 55 CE


Posted By: Damo808
Date Posted: 10 February 2019 at 7:58pm
Originally posted by Damo808

However such councils are duty bound to ultimately defend and preserve unto death the deposit of faith handed down from the very beginning of the Church.


Originally posted by Shenango

So if that's not being done, and this pope isn't doing it, what does that tell you about your belief in the Holy Spirit's ability to protect the Church's teachings, and the pope from doctrinal errors?


If we contend the words of Paul "Let no one deceive you in any way. For unless the apostasy comes first and the lawless one is revealed, the one doomed to perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god and object of worship, so as to seat himself in the temple of God, claiming that he is a god"(2 Thess. 2:3-4) - with what Jesus said when He promises that the'Gates of hell shall not prevail against it" in regards the Church. One must contend that the church will always be laid siege, and that such attacks will become more and more devastating towards the faithful, such as that only a 'remnant' will remain, in the last days rather than the 1.2 Billion in the world today.

So first the church must shrink rapidly which we are witnessing today throughout the West. And the scourn being poured upon the Church as a whole due to the sexual appetites of imposters. I think its fair to say that the Gospel has reached all nations, which is a precondition prior to the coming towards the end of time. I fear the day Paul speaks of is not for off.

Ultimately however the Church will not be defeated but what form that preservation takes is not clear. . Preservation of the Church does not necessarily mean preservation of say Vatican City spiritually or even physically.      

Pope Francis is a cunning man. Ex-cathedra dogmatically so far nothing of his pronouncements have been heretical so to speak. However its his off cuff comments to journos which have ruffled many conservatives as well as his post-synodal apostolic exhortation - Amoris laetitia (Joy of Love) which many conservatives also believe leaves the door open to abuse of practice by so called progressive clergy by what has been left to (intentional ?) ambiguity. As protecting the Church. The dogma and teaching of the church will always be preserved, that does not mean to say that those who lead the church are always good leaders . Yet this is nothing new really

Jesus Himself affirmed the unquestionable Authority of the Chair of Moses despite it even at that very time being served by ungodly men.

"The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. [3] All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not." Mat 23:2.

The Holy Spirit was as much at work then as is now. But God has His way of righting things.

Apostasy within the Church was foretold by Christ, also in the book of Revelations.

Its not so much that The Holy Spirit is unable to protect the Church, its just that He is allowing the snare setters to set their own snares for themselves and the unfaithful.

Also as Catholic i am a believer in the 1917 Fatima appearances of the Virgin Mary which many believe concerns Church Apostasy in the coming age and the Divine devastation that will accompany it. According to now deceaced Fr. Amorth, Chief Vatican exorcist Padre Pio said that the Third Secret pertained to the infiltration of the Vatican by Satan and the rise of a “false church” – details that are not found in the Vatican’s official publication of the Third Secret in 2000. Father Amorth stated "“One day Padre Pio said to me very sorrowfully: ‘You know, Gabriele? It is Satan who has been introduced into the bosom of the Church and within a very short time will come to rule a false Church.’”

Isn't God all-powerful against any conspiracy? Doesn't that tell you that the RCC and people running it are just schmoes like the rest of us?


No-one claimed those in high office were more than mere men. But as i said earlier for the vast most part of the last 2000 years the church has maintained and managed its hierarchical system fairly successfully. But prophesy is prophesy.


Originally posted by Damo808

So you admit then that in approx 1400 years the best you have is, is that some heresy here and there is ok as you see it. I see.


Originally posted by Shenango

Pretty much. Heresies will always be around, but the moderating effect of consensus keeps them marginal.


Or it could be said the effect is systemic tribalism and the tensions there-of which spill out in violence within mixed Islamic societies. Not to mention that by your admission within Islam Allah via Muhammad has left a legacy by which man has no source in which to turn for
authoritative spiritual guidance that he can rest assured is pure. That to me is very troubling.



Originally posted by Dam808

No not vicars no, but anointed High Priests of God Almighty none the less, any difference in title is semantic.


Originally posted by Shenango

There is a rather chasmic difference. You see the Jews never claimed any special inspiration or direct revelation of God for the Temple priests.
That's why they're just organizers of communal worship. They don't have all the spiritual trappings Catholics have wrapped the pope with. Can't you see that?


You misunderstand the role of the Chair of Peter. Revelation can come to anyone. As i said prior, the prime job of the Pope is to preserve and defend what has been passed down. But unto the Chair of Peter was conferred by Jesus Himself with great authority :"Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven. 19 Again I say to you, that if two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning any thing whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven." (Mat18:16). That's what i see.

Originally posted by Damo808

What relevance does Mormonism have here ?


Originally posted by Shenango

Mormonism has every relevance. Both Catholics and Mormons believe revelation continues down a spiritual line of holy men. It should be long obvious to both flocks that that's not the case, and that's my whole point.


Thats still your similarity ? Despite as stated that even the Torah puts and end to that nonsensical claim ?



Originally posted by Damo808

Whats 'demonstrably correct' about 30,000 + denominations interpreting the same book differently ? This is demonstrably a false statement.


Originally posted by Shenango

Well, there aren't 30,000 Islamic sects, but even if you're referring to Protestantism that's really just saying in Christianity there's more to disagree over.


No, 30,000 is just the reality of religious freedom and the ability to distinguish such differences via labels freely under the banner Protestantism.

Islam suffers the same variable differences of interpretation of scripture some valid others invalid but non freedom of religion prevents any fragmentation yet great variation remains, regardless of whether they be Shia or Sunni and is disingenuous to pretend that such fragmentation of interpretation is no different to modern day protestant group fragmentation.


Originally posted by Shenango

But it depends on what you value more, truth or unity. I guess you're saying you choose unity over truth.


I say the RCC demonstrably has both, where as Islam has neither, no ultimate source of teaching authority nor is unity ever present in the 'ummah'.

-------------
out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel: and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity. Micah 5:5



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums version 8.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2006 Web Wiz Guide - http://www.webwizguide.info