Do you believe in God?

[Carbonox]

Those people that you were with, although they may have called themselves Muslims, were not. A Muslim does not take joy in the death or suffering of others, any more than a Christian could.

Instead of calling them Muslims, it would be more accurate to label them as arseholes.

How does this make any sense? A person can't be religious and take joy in people's suffering?

Not only have you never met the scum in question to make an accurate judgement about the legitimacy of their faith, but you're taking an incredibly uncritical view on religion here. Subscribing to a faith doesn't automatically make anyone so high and mighty that they're above calling for or taking joy in the suffering of those who aren't like them.

 

[Imari]

How does this make any sense? A person can't be religious and take joy in people's suffering?

Christianity, Islam and Judaism generally all call for treating others with respect and decency. There are passages suggesting otherwise for all, but the idea that one should embrace the Golden Rule is a fairly common modern interpretation.

One can be religious and take joy in others suffering, but at that point I don't think that the defining characteristic of that person is their religion. If someone is cheering thousands of people being killed, whether it's from towers falling or from drone strikes, I feel that the person is best characterised as an arsehole as that pretty solidly overrules anything that one might assume about them because of their religion.

Not only have you never met the scum in question to make an accurate judgement about the legitimacy of their faith, but you're taking an incredibly uncritical view on religion here. Subscribing to a faith doesn't automatically make anyone so high and mighty that they're above calling for or taking joy in the suffering of those who aren't like them.

As far as meeting them, maybe that would help. But I'm working from the information that was provided to me, and I think that it's sufficient to justify what I said.

Subscribing to a faith doesn't make someone perfect, but it should make them try to uphold the central values of their religion. If they don't, in what sense do they belong to that religion?

If it helps, there are plenty of self-described Christians who I don't think are really Christians either, and for similar reasons. We've come across some of them in this thread. I do not accept that people are truly Christians if they ignore central tenets of their religion that are consistent throughout their texts in order to pursue their hatred of homosexuals based on a few random passages.

Perhaps it makes it easier if I say that one doesn't become a Muslim or a Christian simply by calling yourself one. You do it by actually walking the path and behaving as a Muslim or a Christian. I could call myself a doctor, but unless I'm practicing medicine and helping to heal people, I'm no more a doctor than the guy who cleans the dunnies.

 

[Imari]

I don't believe that the Islamic God is the same as the Abrahamic God.

You're unfortunately incorrect.

Although when you look at polls of Muslims a significant amount would then be classed as arseholes and not Muslims.

When you look at Christians a significant amount would be classed as arseholes and not Christians. It's not really much of a surprise, they're also humans and humans are highly capable of being massive shlongs.

It may seem unwise, but that is the nature of turning yourself over to God. Many people through the generations have been called a lot worse for doing just that.

Yes, well, I was being polite.

It is not the nature of turning yourself over to God. It's the nature of turning yourself over to anything else that you don't understand or cannot identify. We make fun of people who get caught up in Nigerian prince scams because they accepted outrageous serendipity at face value without making the slightest effort to question or confirm.

Frankly, I think you're in the same boat. What effort have you made to confirm that your contact with God is in fact contact with God, and not the devil catfishing you or your brain doing that brain thing where it hallucinates stuff?

Heh, you have found my weakness, and that is the belief in free will. I'm not sure if this exists or not, and is something I struggle with on a daily basis.

Yes, well, we're unlikely to answer the question as it's unverifiable by nature.

However, what is more interesting is what do you want the answer to be? Would you prefer there to be a grand plan? Or would you prefer free will?

I've spent a reasonable amount of time thinking about this. I know what I would prefer the answer to be, from my own emotional response and from what I think is best for my community and the world as a whole. Given that there's never going to be a real answer, I therefore act as though the thing that I think is best for everyone is true. Because in this particular case, behaving as though your answer is true is the vast majority of the point.

What about you? Grand plan or free will, and why?

I think the big point here is context

Not really, no.

Putting yourself in danger is putting yourself in danger. Walking into a war zone trusting that God will protect you is no different to walking into a bear den trusting that God will protect you. Both stupid, and arguably walking into a war zone is even stupider because there are humans on both sides and supposedly God is keen to protect all of them. What with him being benevolent and all that. You could argue that God cares about bears less than he cares about humans, but you've at best got a 50:50 chance going up against another human.

Unless you actually think that you're better than other humans. Which is certainly true of a lot of religious folk. I do see a lot of people present their opinion as a reason that they're part of the chosen elite, as though abdicating authority over your own life makes you a better person.

Amusingly, it almost certainly arose as the historical equivalent of authoritarianism. When church and government are one, there's an incentive to get your people to shut up and accept their lot in life, especially when a lot of them are what would be classed as poor.

 

[Dotini]

I don't believe that the Islamic God is the same as the Abrahamic God.

In practice, this statement has some real merit, IMO.

- The two gods have different prophets and different religions.
- One is much newer than the other.
- They have made war on each other for a thousand years plus.
- The religion of one has been watered down and morphed into many offshoots, while the religion of the other is much more vigorous and has only two main branches, which are currently warring with each other.

I have a question. Do the two religions of Allah accept the presence of aliens in our universe or on our world? They accept the Djinn, which are mighty damn close to the same thing. The Vatican has made noises lately about accepting aliens in the universe, and conceivably one day on Earth.

 

[mistersafeway]

- The two gods have different prophets and different religions.

Islam only has two additional prophets and one less son of a god (he's just one of the additional prophets to them). Judaism has one less son of a god and (generally) views said person as a prophet, and is considered a different religion, yet nobody objects to them being described as having the same god. Oh, and they all refer to their god simply as 'god' rather than by name, unless I have been misled on what Allah means.

- They have made war on each other for a thousand years plus.

That's not really an argument against them being related when you say this immediately after:

- The religion of one has been watered down and morphed into many offshoots, while the religion of the other is much more vigorous and has only two main branches, which are currently warring with each other.

And considering Christianity has spent a lot of the time it's existed trying to harm Judaism on some level it doesn't seem to matter. Don't you fight with your relatives ever? Maybe you aren't trying to destroy them (I'd hope you aren't, more likely verbal disagreements), but are these religions really trying that hard to destroy each other when we still have all of them?

 

[Dotini]

It turns out that writing, religion and sky god belief may go back much further than previously thought.

 

[TenEightyOne]

It turns out that writing, religion and sky god belief may go back much further than previously thought.

These were discovered and assessed in the 60s... the discussion continues to the present day but they're quite old news in an archaeological sense. That video makes a couple of presumptions in its attempts to awe us: writing systems are only born in advanced/dense civilisations (not true) and that the oldest known writing is Sumerian (not true... by about 7000-odd years at the very least).

Stratigraphic assessment puts these tablets at about 4500-4800 BCE, sadly there's no C14 to be had as they were baked as part of the original preservation process (somebody would be shot for that nowadays). So, apart from the age, cultural inferences and their place in the history of writing schemes... spot on

 

[MisterWaffles]

Things that evangelists say can be very irrational, but I'm still not convinced the universe could have created itself. Such a strange topic. Ya' givin' me headaches guys.

 

[mistersafeway]

Things that evangelists say can be very irrational, but I'm still not convinced the universe could have created itself. Such a strange topic. Ya' givin' me headaches guys.

So a god created itself from nothing then? Either a god/the universe popped into existence from nothing, the universe was a very strange place if you go far enough back in time, or both.

 

[Dotini]

. That video makes a couple of presumptions in its attempts to awe us: writing systems are only born in advanced/dense civilisations (not true) and that the oldest known writing is Sumerian (not true... by about 7000-odd years at the very least).

Writing older than ~11,600 BC? What writing is that?

 

[MisterWaffles]

So a god created itself from nothing then? Either a god/the universe popped into existence from nothing, the universe was a very strange place if you go far enough back in time, or both.

Agreed. The deeper you go, the more alien and unknown this universe seems. I'm satisfied with my Netflix tbh.

 

[Exorcet]

Things that evangelists say can be very irrational, but I'm still not convinced the universe could have created itself. Such a strange topic. Ya' givin' me headaches guys.

One thing that needs to be understood is that we as a species developed to understand the world that we can interact with. The universe of 13 billion years ago was not such a place, nor is the realm of quantum mechanics. When you combine that with the human need to explain things, you can run into trouble. "I don't know" is always a choice.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Writing older than ~11,600 BC? What writing is that?

Graphemic use in Upper Paleolithic art is a (relatively) new field but a sound one.

http://www.persee.fr/doc/dha_0755-7256_1993_num_19_1_2073

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/mar/11/cave-painting-symbols-language-evolution

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

So you don't believe that it was the same Abraham that God revealed himself to in the shared Judaic, Christian and Islaamic canon, that shares exactly the same name and the same characteristics? Huh?

Given that the only way anybody can suggest his existence to you is from the handed-down writings of men through the ages (unless you've had a personal divine revelation)... how have you ended up with a different version of the text from the established norm?

That really makes no sense and makes me wonder if you're being genuine, quite frankly.

I went through it earlier. If you can explain how we went from OT, to the peaceful NT, to a guy who a) can't perform miracles b) breaks more of the Ten Commandments than he keeps and c) spreads his "religion" by the sword and lying then I'd like to hear it.

Maybe, just maybe it was a ruse to get as many people backing him by pretending our God was suddenly revealing the final part of His plan on earth. Hell, he couldn't even decide which direction to pray to once he fell out of favour with one group. And don't get me started on the nonsense that he peddled that Jesus didn't actually die for our sins.

So no, I don't believe for a second we share the same God. If anything it's probably some moon god what with the various connections with the lunar calendar and images of the moon.

 

[Imari]

I went through it earlier. If you can explain how we went from OT, to the peaceful NT, to a guy who a) can't perform miracles b) breaks more of the Ten Commandments than he keeps and c) spreads his "religion" by the sword and lying then I'd like to hear it.

Maybe, just maybe it was a ruse to get as many people backing him by pretending our God was suddenly revealing the final part of His plan on earth. Hell, he couldn't even decide which direction to pray to once he fell out of favour with one group. And don't get me started on the nonsense that he peddled that Jesus didn't actually die for our sins.

You sound mad. Are you mad? Why get mad about the idea that Islam is Christianity with one more prophet?

I mean, you're calling stuff nonsense because it offers a different explanation to the idea that a guy was God incarnate and got himself killed to remove the sin that he himself tricked humanity into. You sure you want to go down that path? Christianity itself is hardly a paragon of logical and rational thought either. Trying to decide which of Islam and Christianity is less nonsense feels a bit Special Olympics to me.

Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all based on the same things, just with people adding a little bit more of their own to the story each time. You don't like that Islam has a bunch of stuff that doesn't fit with the OT and NT. How do you feel about the stuff in the NT that doesn't square with the ultra-violent approach in the OT? It's exactly the same thing, someone made a new religion by taking an old one and putting a body kit and alloys on it. Even Judaism is arguably built on the remains of previous religions.

Fundamentally, all three basically agree on the origin and properties of their God. As far as the history of God goes, they agree on the vast majority of it. There's some disagreement over what he has said, and exactly what form his messengers took, but that's about it as far as I can tell.

 

[Dotini]

Graphemic use in Upper Paleolithic art is a (relatively) new field but a sound one.

Wow! A writer in the Upper Paleolithic! How about I see that and raise you a giant human in the Middle Paleolithic!!
Published April 1, 2017

 

[sems4arsenal]

I don't believe that the Islamic God is the same as the Abrahamic God.

I must've been following the wrong Islam then

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

You sound mad. Are you mad? Why get mad about the idea that Islam is Christianity with one more prophet?

I mean, you're calling stuff nonsense because it offers a different explanation to the idea that a guy was God incarnate and got himself killed to remove the sin that he himself tricked humanity into. You sure you want to go down that path? Christianity itself is hardly a paragon of logical and rational thought either. Trying to decide which of Islam and Christianity is less nonsense feels a bit Special Olympics to me.

Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all based on the same things, just with people adding a little bit more of their own to the story each time. You don't like that Islam has a bunch of stuff that doesn't fit with the OT and NT. How do you feel about the stuff in the NT that doesn't square with the ultra-violent approach in the OT? It's exactly the same thing, someone made a new religion by taking an old one and putting a body kit and alloys on it. Even Judaism is arguably built on the remains of previous religions.

Fundamentally, all three basically agree on the origin and properties of their God. As far as the history of God goes, they agree on the vast majority of it. There's some disagreement over what he has said, and exactly what form his messengers took, but that's about it as far as I can tell.

Not really. Islam can't be "Christianity with one more prophet" since they dispute the central theme of Christianity. The arguments void before it begins by the fact that Muslims don't believe in Jesus dying for our sins. Jesus fulfilled a prophecy that was laid out in the OT. What followed after was Muhammad getting Jews and Christians onside and creating a mish mash "faith".

Let's have an analogy:

In Exodus there's a famous story where Moses goes away for a long time from the Jews he led out of Egypt to be in the presence of God, leaving them in the desert. In their desperation they turn to Aaron, his brother to give them a god to worship. Aaron then procedes to create a "golden calf", which he claims they can now worship. Now, would you say that if they continued to worship this idol (they weren't in Exodus) they were worshipping the same god as the God of the Jews and Christians?

As far as it matters in this conversation, yes it means wrong.

Let's take an example. Suppose I irrationally believe that I will win the lottery tomorrow. Let's say I just have a feeling about it, that my numbers are the winning numbers. I'm completely convinced, I tell everyone around me "I'm winning the lottery tomorrow". Am I wrong? Technically no, I could win the lottery the next day. But I am wrong to believe it before it happens - because there is nothing rational supporting that belief. I am wrong to be convinced by my "feeling" about how lucky my numbers are. My belief is not based in reality.

But this is introducing logic into the argument - something which is separate to faith.

 

[Danoff]

But this is introducing logic into the argument - something which is separate to faith.

Definitely logic is the antithesis of faith. That's why it belongs in the discussion.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

Which is it? Can't be both.

I have arguments with myself about that, but the short answer is it can be both, depending on how you define free will

 

[huskeR32]

depending on how you define free will

I'm really only aware of one definition that seems worth discussing.

 

[Scaff]

Let's have an analogy:

In Exodus there's a famous story where Moses goes away for a long time from the Jews he led out of Egypt to be in the presence of God, leaving them in the desert. In their desperation they turn to Aaron, his brother to give them a god to worship. Aaron then procedes to create a "golden calf", which he claims they can now worship. Now, would you say that if they continued to worship this idol (they weren't in Exodus) they were worshipping the same god as the God of the Jews and Christians?

Using that analogy Christians are no different to Mulsim's, given that your Golden Calf is Jesus.

Actually given that Muslim's don't worship Mo (or any prophet for that matter), but Christians do worship Jesus as a part of the Trinity (most - JW's don't - but that's secularism for you), the analogy actually applies more to Christians than to Muslims.

That being the case your argument for not worshiping the same God starts to fall apart quite a bit, as either you all do, or you don't worship the same God as Jews (and yet Muslims still would as they don't have a 'Golden Calf', yet Christians do).

 

[Imari]

Not really. Islam can't be "Christianity with one more prophet" since they dispute the central theme of Christianity. The arguments void before it begins by the fact that Muslims don't believe in Jesus dying for our sins.

And so that makes all the other stuff that is similar or identical between the two null and void?

Good, rational discussion going on here. You're not biased at all.

Jesus fulfilled a prophecy that was laid out in the OT. What followed after was Muhammad getting Jews and Christians onside and creating a mish mash "faith".

Oh Lord, the irony. Why must thou smitest me with thine irony?

And so what Christianity did with Judaism is fine. But Islam progressing from Christianity is not.

Behold, I present to you a biblically sized double standard.

In Exodus there's a famous story where Moses goes away for a long time from the Jews he led out of Egypt to be in the presence of God, leaving them in the desert. In their desperation they turn to Aaron, his brother to give them a god to worship. Aaron then procedes to create a "golden calf", which he claims they can now worship. Now, would you say that if they continued to worship this idol (they weren't in Exodus) they were worshipping the same god as the God of the Jews and Christians?

That's a terrible analogy. Islam didn't create a new God. They took about as much of Christianity as the average sect of Christianity keeps, and they moved on with a new prophet who also added things of his own. You know, like when Jesus took the Old Testament but then also added stuff of his own? Sound familiar?

But this is introducing logic into the argument - something which is separate to faith.

That is not logic. What you're introducing to the argument is your desperation to separate yourself and your religion from Islam. Which I don't understand. As far as religions go, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all pretty harmless.

Personally, of the two I prefer the idea that one becomes righteous through the works that he performs on this earth, rather than whether someone died for his sins thousands of years ago and regardless of one's personal actions. But that's me, a humanist of no particular faith who prefers any religion that encourages people to work together and be good to one another.

I have arguments with myself about that, but the short answer is it can be both, depending on how you define free will

Please show us a definition of free will that allows both to be true.

 

[Scaff]

In before it gets used as an example of persecution.

No the National Trust didn't remove the word Easter from its Easter Egg hunt events, despite what has been said by senior members of the Church.

https://humanism.org.uk/2017/04/04/...ust-has-not-removed-easter-from-its-egg-hunt/

In other news a total not extremist Christian fails in threatening Spain...

https://www.indy100.com/article/gibraltar-spain-bring-it-on-brexit-mot-europe-european-rock-7665646

 

[TenEightyOne]

In before it gets used as an example of persecution.

They nicked our equinox festival anyway... off to light the big wicker Archbishbod of Cadbury now while the sun's still a fallin'.

In other news a total not extremist Christian fails in threatening Spain...

https://www.indy100.com/article/gibraltar-spain-bring-it-on-brexit-mot-europe-european-rock-7665646

Actually really sprayed some coffee!

 

[Liquid]

The incongruency of Theresa May playing the religious card for a non-story versus her collaberation with horrid world governments.

No, no that's not my blood pressure rising.

What a hypocrite. A sheer religious hypocrite.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

Using that analogy Christians are no different to Mulsim's, given that your Golden Calf is Jesus.

Huh? Jesus was the Messiah as prophesised in the OT. The golden calf was an idol to a "god"

Actually given that Muslim's don't worship Mo (or any prophet for that matter), but Christians do worship Jesus as a part of the Trinity (most - JW's don't - but that's secularism for you), the analogy actually applies more to Christians than to Muslims.

Err interesting. But the golden calf being Islam argument is that Muhammad created a god for people to worship (or he was given one by the Djinn etc). Jesus being worshipped as a breach of the first of the Ten Commandments....it's erm interesting.

That being the case your argument for not worshiping the same God starts to fall apart quite a bit, as either you all do, or you don't worship the same God as Jews (and yet Muslims still would as they don't have a 'Golden Calf', yet Christians do).

This doesn't make sense. Muhammad wasn't prophesised in the OT or NT. Once again I say, he created a "golden calf".

I'll make it a bit more simple:
Jews are the chosen people who just don't believe that Jesus was the Messiah. Christians believe as Jews do in Yahweh and that Jesus is the Messiah. Muhammad wanted a religion to group people under so took a bit of this, bit of that, claimed he descended from Ishmael and created a false god.

And so that makes all the other stuff that is similar or identical between the two null and void?

Good, rational discussion going on here. You're not biased at all.

....Not null and void, but it doesn't take a genius to realise it was plagiarised (Muhammad used Jewish and Christians to help write the Koran, hence the similarities and differences.

Oh Lord, the irony. Why must thou smitest me with thine irony?

And so what Christianity did with Judaism is fine. But Islam progressing from Christianity is not.

Behold, I present to you a biblically sized double standard.

Hmm not really. You see the OT prophesised Jesus so it wasn't really "doing what Islam did to Christianity/Judaism". It merely followed through - and you either chose to believe in Him or didn't. It's a completely different thing to picking and choosing random Jewish/Christian stories to make a palatable faith.

That's a terrible analogy. Islam didn't create a new God.

Hmm that's what we're debating]

They took about as much of Christianity as the average sect of Christianity keeps, and they moved on with a new prophet who also added things of his own. You know, like when Jesus took the Old Testament but then also added stuff of his own? Sound familiar?

Again, not really because they didn't "move on". They completely ******ised it (Christianity)

Definitely logic is the antithesis of faith. That's why it belongs in the discussion.

I'm really only aware of one definition that seems worth discussing.

I'll give an example.

The other night as I was praying I was lying face down on the pillow. At one moment I turned my head to the other side, and something in me said to pray for my enemies - namely Islamic terrorists and those who persecute Christians. Reflecting on this later I thought how this reminded me of the phrase "turning the other cheek". Logically you would only deduce that this was a mere coincidence. And as for free will, I had the will to stop praying or continue - I wasn't forced by God. But God would have known the choice I would have made - and I emphasise the word choice. God is a power unto Himself and to try and understand "free will" in the context of God would be a fools errand, but as for our definitions of free will then yes, I did have a choice.

 

[Scaff]

Huh? Jesus was the Messiah as prophesised in the OT. The golden calf was an idol to a "god"

Not according to Jews he's not, therefore he is a false messiah and no different to the golden calf. The only way your claim is valid is if you are rather arrogantly forcing your faith onto Jews.

Err interesting. But the golden calf being Islam argument is that Muhammad created a god for people to worship (or he was given one by the Djinn etc).

Muhammad didn't create a God, its the exact same one that Jews and Christians worship, no new deity was created. Oh and technically you just committed blasphemy (god not God - really).

Jesus being worshipped as a breach of the first of the Ten Commandments....it's erm interesting.

Not for the millions (potentially billions) of Christians who believe in the literal holy trinity, that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are as one.

This doesn't make sense. Muhammad wasn't prophesised in the OT or NT. Once again I say, he created a "golden calf".

He not a messiah, he's a prophet. And no he didn't create a "golden calf", its the exact same God from the exact same God from the exact same source!

I'll make it a bit more simple:
Jews are the chosen people who just don't believe that Jesus was the Messiah.

And therefore would consider Jesus to be a "Golden Calf", they do not consider him to be the Messiah, nor the son of God, nor a part of any Holy Trinity.

Christians believe as Jews do in Yahweh and that Jesus is the Messiah.

You mean apart from re-writing huge amount of it and having the fake messiah ransack a temple, abuse the priests repeatedly and attempt to convert as many Jews as possible (turning brother against brother, father against son, etc.). Oh and a good number of them did (and still do) blame the Jews for the death of Jesus, the Bible even once had a book in it dedicated to that exact train of thought.

Muhammad wanted a religion to group people under so took a bit of this, bit of that, claimed he descended from Ishmael and created a false god.

No more than Jesus and later Christians did.

....Not null and void, but it doesn't take a genius to realise it was plagiarised (Muhammad used Jewish and Christians to help write the Koran, hence the similarities and differences

Oh the irony. Do you actually know how much of the OT and NT are plagerised from other, older sources?

Noah for a start is totally and utterly nicked from Gillgamesh, and almost every part of Jesus' origin story can be found in numerous other, older faiths. A rather large amount of pot calling kettle black.

Hmm not really. You see the OT prophesised Jesus so it wasn't really "doing what Islam did to Christianity/Judaism". It merely followed through - and you either chose to believe in Him or didn't. It's a completely different thing to picking and choosing random Jewish/Christian stories to make a palatable faith.

And Mulsims and Jews both believe the real Messiah has not yet come. They share almost exactly the same dietary laws.

I can keep going if you like.

Again, not really because they didn't "move on". They completely ******ised it (Christianity)

Again, not really because they (Christians) didn't "move on". They completely ******ised it (Judaism).
You seem to be totally and utterly ignoring just how much the NT actively fights against the Jewish faith and its established laws and rules (well apart from the ones it likes)

You seriously are displaying a huge amount or confirmation bias here.

I'll give an example.

The other night as I was praying I was lying face down on the pillow. At one moment I turned my head to the other side, and something in me said to pray for my enemies - namely Islamic terrorists and those who persecute Christians. Reflecting on this later I thought how this reminded me of the phrase "turning the other cheek". Logically you would only deduce that this was a mere coincidence. And as for free will, I had the will to stop praying or continue - I wasn't forced by God. But God would have known the choice I would have made - and I emphasise the word choice. God is a power unto Himself and to try and understand "free will" in the context of God would be a fools errand, but as for our definitions of free will then yes, I did have a choice.

How do you know you were not forced by God? How do you know that exact scenario was not exactly how God planned it?

The only way you would know that would be to know the exact mind of God, and I seriously doubt that to be the case.

 

[huskeR32]

it doesn't take a genius to realise it was plagiarised (Muhammad used Jewish and Christians to help write the Koran, hence the similarities and differences.

By this same exact logic, one could say that "it doesn't take a genius to realize that Christianity was plagiarized from not only Judaism, but from many other previous religions, hence the similarities."

You're quite blatantly giving your own religion a free pass on standards that you apply to all the rest.

The other night as I was praying I was lying face down on the pillow. At one moment I turned my head to the other side, and something in me said to pray for my enemies - namely Islamic terrorists and those who persecute Christians. Reflecting on this later I thought how this reminded me of the phrase "turning the other cheek". Logically you would only deduce that this was a mere coincidence. And as for free will, I had the will to stop praying or continue - I wasn't forced by God. But God would have known the choice I would have made - and I emphasise the word choice. God is a power unto Himself and to try and understand "free will" in the context of God would be a fools errand, but as for our definitions of free will then yes, I did have a choice.

If you believe in divine omniscience, then there is no evidence whatsoever that what humans experience as free will is anything more than illusion.

How can your god know what you're going to do, before you do it, if it hasn't already been determined in some way? And if it has already been determined, then you aren't making a choice at all.

 

[Imari]

Muhammad wasn't prophesised in the OT or NT.

Muhammad wasn't the Messiah nor did he ever claim to be. How many prophets were prophesised in the OT and NT? Or were they the ones doing the prophesying?

Muhammad wanted a religion to group people under so took a bit of this, bit of that, claimed he descended from Ishmael and created a false god.

You should probably read some more about Islam so that you're not just writing lies.

....Not null and void, but it doesn't take a genius to realise it was plagiarised (Muhammad used Jewish and Christians to help write the Koran, hence the similarities and differences.

See, it's not plagiarism when you cite your sources. Islam recognises the Torah, the Zabur of David and the Gospel of Jesus as the holy word of God. The God of Abraham, who is the same God of the Torah (and therefore the Jews) and the Bible (and therefore Christianity).

It's a completely different thing to picking and choosing random Jewish/Christian stories to make a palatable faith.

Seriously. Educate yourself about Islam and then come back. We'll wait. There's no point having this conversation when you're so obviously ignorant of any of the history of Islam at all.

You can start by reading the Wikipedia page, because that alone will dispel many of the misunderstandings that you have.

Hmm that's what we're debating

Not really. At the moment it's not a debate. Islam by their own words worship the same God of Judaism and Christianity. They recognise Jewish and Christian holy texts as the word of their God, albeit the outdated and sometimes inaccurately recorded word.

Unless you can produce something a little stronger than "nuh uh" to counter that, there's no debate to be had. You're wrong.

Again, not really because they didn't "move on". They completely ******ised it (Christianity)

For the third time, make a little effort to learn about Islam. You clearly have absolutely no idea what the religion is or is about. You've been taught that it's a bastardised version of Christianity and you've swallowed that whole.

Show a little curiosity and humility and go and learn for yourself rather than simply accepting what you're told. I know that Christianity is big on the whole "shut up and follow the rules" thing, but there are exceptions. God loves a trier.

And as for free will, I had the will to stop praying or continue - I wasn't forced by God. But God would have known the choice I would have made - and I emphasise the word choice. God is a power unto Himself and to try and understand "free will" in the context of God would be a fools errand, but as for our definitions of free will then yes, I did have a choice.

And so had you not had free will, how would this situation have been different?