[Discussion] Religion
- Thread starter HashiraMadara
- Start date
- Status
Made in Heaven
Active member
Awards
You're just blaming God for your own mischief, which you of your own will do. That's low. Humans may be all the things you said, but humans can also control all of those traits. For us Muslims, that's the point of fasting during Ramadan (no food, water, or sexual activities during the day) and other days, as it allows us to control our gluttony and pervertedness, thus increasing our self-restraint and disciple.There are numerous narrations of the Prophet commenting on how one shouldn't eat more than 1/3 of their full. Islam has many practices akin to this one, all of which helps strengthen one's willpower and ability to suppress their own desires in favor of what God wants from us. Too much of anything is discouraged in Islam, even worshiping too much is not recommended, and the same follows for any other desires or wants a human may have.
Violence is only ever a factor of one losing their anger or control of their emotions, which, once again, humans can restrain through their will power. Prophet Muhammad has said that controlling one's anger, or not getting angry, is one of the best practices a human can do, and he has given many instructions on how one should act if they start to feel angry so as not to let that emotion manifest into action. There are even rewards for those who hold back their anger, as God knows how difficult this can be to do. I myself get mad many times, but simply hold back my anger and don't lash out at anyone because that is something I have discipled myself to be able to do.
All of these human traits you're trying to pin the blame on God for CAN be controlled by yourself. You just need to be able to do so.
Also find it funny that, even if you're saying it hypothetically, you actually think you could talk smack to God on the day where he appears before you. On the same day where the Sun is mere miles above our heads, where all the Angels of God are watching over us, and on the same day where Hellfire and Paradise are presented to us, you actually think you'd have the ability then to even dare say such things? Some arrogance . You couldn't even do that to one of the world leaders of today in fear of your safety, so don't go acting like you would actually do that with God, especially not when you know you're in deep trouble already. Only reason you're saying you'd do this is because you don't 100% believe he's real.
In any case, God does in fact expect us to do things outside of his commandments, as no humans, excluding Prophets, sin. tThat's why there's such a thing as asking him for forgiveness, and anyone who asks for forgiveness from him with a sincere heart, with the intention of trying their best to not commit whatever sin it was they did, will always be forgiven.
Last edited:
Punk Hazard
Active member
Awards
God should read this the next time he's about to get pissed off and blow up a couple cities or flood the planet out of anger.
They're not really "human" traits when God has them too.
Made in Heaven
Active member
Awards
Again, like with the other person I was talking to, you're only saying this because you don't believe God exists. So I can't take this seriously. Especially considering you're acting like God doesn't have self control.
God doesn't do such things out of anger. He has so much mercy on all humans. For example, take people like you who insult or mock God. Do you not think he's showing you mercy by not punishing you for your blasphemy right here and now? Yes, so that you may have the chance to repent. The same goes for any other human on earth, even the worst of the worst who have ever lived.
For example, take the Pharaoh of Prophet Moses. Assuming you're aware of what kind of man he was, no doubt you'd agree when I say that he was a horrible person. Yet, even then, God gave him numerous chances to repent and amend his ways by sending not only one prophet, but two prophets to help him fix himself up (those being Prophet Moses and Prophet Aaron). Yet, when the Pharaoh's time was up, God drowned him as a punishment, and even more so will be done in the next world.
The same goes for such people you are mentioning, he destroys via these sort of punishments (which seem to be the people of Prophet Noah and Prophet Lot you're referencing). He sends Prophets to them as a mercy, continues to feed, shelter, and cloth them out of mercy, shows them signs as a mercy, and once their time is, they will get exactly what they deserve.
He does not punish out of anger, it's out of fairness. They deserve the punishment that is fed to them.
God has them on a perfect level.
His mercy is perfect.
His compassion is perfect.
His patience is perfect.
His judgement is perfect.
And yes, even his anger is perfect.
What do I mean when I say his anger is perfect? Simply that he can get angry, but his anger will NEVER dictate his decisions in judgement, and thus, his decisions will always remain fair and just even when he's angry, as his decision making will not be skewered by his anger. He's even told us that his mercy will always overcome his anger. The same cannot be said about humans, who will lose their sense of judgement upon losing their anger and will make decisions that they otherwise would not do if they were calm.
Last edited:
Legendary Saiyan
Active member
do you understand that your replies have lost all rationality and became affected by many biases that make them not worth a replie ?
do you consider how the level of your so called "arguments" have dropped ? and you base your beliefs on such arguments ?
I'm going to ask you a couple of simple questions : after all the arguments that I gave you, do you consider that their is at least a minimal chance that a god as I described exists ? if yes then can you keep living with such "cool" answers based basically on eloquence and poetry like "god has made us in his image, he is an *******, just like us" "god should control his anger yo" "god has human traits, that makes the human god !" "god didn't see adam take the apple ? he must be blind, therefore he's not all knowing hahahaha", their is an infinity of cool arguments to make fun of religion.
these are jokes, not rational arguments and you are basing your beliefs on them I'm telling you that if their is even a minimal probability of god's existence then you're taking huge risks. you are affected by biases such as arrogance, overconfidence, and, believe it or not, you suffer from a mental conditioning caused by the many tv shows that you've seen and by the general trend of making fun of god that is made cool that you've been living in since you were a kid.
the majority of the people in your country and in your age make fun of god, I warn you of staying in the majority. especially if it is a lot easier to stay with that majority than to be out of it. that should give you a measure/warning that the majority might be wrong. I give you a simple exemple : the very smart people of witch you're trying to mimick the attitude (I'm talking about occidental philosophers and thinkers that caused the renaissance era) were not part of the majority, the majority in their time was believing in the church and those people were called by all the names : evil, stupid, wrong, etc.
while these philosophers you're trying to mimick were not entirely right from my perspective, but they were relatively right as they were aiming for rational thinking and were seriously investigating and using a methode.
those philosphers were in fact rebelling not against god, but agains the church, and how religion was used to control the way of people's thinking.
these few smart thinkers / leaders have created a new era, with general great//good principles. after this era the world has changed in a way that these principles were twisted by (again) a few smart people/ leaders of the world to create a new "normal" belief witch is atheism and mockery of god and mockery of Jesus. using the same arguments used in the renaissance era against the church at that time. not even the other religions.
it is an irrational twisted way of thinking : using outdated arguments against an outdated church and generalazing on the other religions and on god without even understanding what you are talking about...an aberration.
so, when you have this belief you have also the belief that you are "rational" and different from the irrational / stupid religious man and then you think that you are smart / emancipated / capabale of critical thinking. this conditionning innevitably generates arrogance. it is a vicious loop.
the majority of the population don't really have this way of thinking (rationality, methodologie), only a few people can have this true rationality (relatively) / critical thinking as history shows. it turns out these few people begin to question seriously the on going trend, using also a relatively rational methode.
Last edited:
Made in Heaven
Active member
Awards
Then why are you trying to blame him for your dumb decisions in life?
Last edited:
Legendary Saiyan
Active member
better than Winx club 
There are no contradictions. The opening part of my post (which you call "fluff") actually serves to set up the terms and definitions so that no misunderstandings or wrong topics arise. It is also interviened with the rest of the post so you not seeing the connection simply means you're not paying enough attention as it is logically indeed connected. Otherwise I would have left it out.
As for the supposed contradiction, you got 2 things wrong. First of all, I didn't at all give a good chunk to the matter, in fact I only mentioned matter in order to eliminate the need for using it as the term is so vague and meaningless that it has no place in this discussion. Instead I decided to talk about the universe as a whole without relaying on the term which I deem would lead nowhere.
Second, the context in which I said that our knowledge is limited didn't reffer to that which one describes as matter but the general term. Basically, we don't know what is and isn't matter (therefore we don't know what properties we should ascribe to it) but we do know what is that which one would describe by matter and what properties we should ascribe to it. I guess the sentence was constructed poorly so that's what mislead you. What I went to argue for was the universe as per its official, universally agreed on definition (in contrast to the ambiguous term that is "matter").
I hope I've made myself clear now.
Indeed, we understand some things about God - those He chose to reveal to us. (Though most of the stuff you listed don't fall into the category and are huge overstatements.) I already said this myself. What we really know about Him is actually nothing more but His Revelation. We didn't discover this on our own, in fact we didn't do anything to gain this knowledge. He came to us and revealed it in a comprehensible way. And that's the reason why His transcendency is intact.
Being a personal God, through His omnipotence, He is able to make that which we cannot comprehend comprehensible. He can do what we consider impossible. This is the miracle of personal revalation and is a crucial doctrine in Judeo-Christian religions.
Unlike God the universe is not a person so it cannot (and didn't) tell us anything. It was solely through our own efforts that we have come to understand it. Unlike God, of whom we can only understand as much as He reveals, we don't have any barriers for understanding the universe that surrounds us besides the current lack of technology (which is sure to be solved soon enough).
I've already adressed this type of rejecting of God's properties in my post. If we're talking about the Judeo-Christian idea of God, we must talk about Him as such, not as something else. Therefore to say this idea of God isn't transcendant is pretty much to ignore the very idea we're talking about.
As I said already, God's omnipotence and personal nature allow him to pass knowledge onto us while staying transcendant (a paradox to us, but non-the less a possible thing for such a diety). Universe on the other hand is neither a being nor a person, therefore it cannot reveal anything. From the fact that we can understand such a thing logically follows that it is not transcendant.
Ok, and? We're discussing His concept here.
Even if He doesn't exist we can still observe His character through what is considered to be His revalation. (Regardless of wether one considers it true or not.)
Well, someone's having a good time...
Last edited:
Are we just discussing his "concept", because the way you refer to "God" in your comments seem to be discussing his existence. What I'm trying to ask you is what is your stance on the belief in a god? You probably answered that already somewhere in this thread, but I dont feel like going through 10+ pages of thread to find the answer.
In this thread we discussed all sorts of things but currently, in the issue you're presenting, we are pretty much just touching on the concept of God rather than His actual existence. The same goes for my currently ongoing debate with Riker. We're not arguing wether God exists or not. We're arguing wether universe can be an exception to certain rules the same way God can. (Regardless of whether He exists or not).
As for my personal beliefs, you'll find them right at the very first page of this thread.
Religions are nothing more than obsolete moral dogmas to control and limited naive societies. No doubt that many things are good in religion, that has created our civilizations today, but overall they often create status quo systems and conserve primitive elements of old society which goes into contradiction of advanced world.
If I really had to choose "religion", then it would be dialectical materialism, which is probably one of most underrated anti-metaphysical philosophies.
If I really had to choose "religion", then it would be dialectical materialism, which is probably one of most underrated anti-metaphysical philosophies.
Because both are connected and practically are same. Religion is just metaphysical form of policies, that were used in time ago and even today not only in countries like Saudi Arabia, Vatican etc. but also in so called "secular" states. My country's constitution even use quotes and ideas of Christianity.
Last edited:
ComplexCity
Banned
She ignores people who pose a threat against her logic
I asked her does it make sense to follow all the things that animals do after one of her central arguments for homosexuality was that animals do it. I was then called a bigot and put on ignore
Uzumaki Macho
Active member
We bring up homosexual animals when someone tries to argue that homosexuality isn't natural. We don't use homosexual animals as an argument for homosexuality being good since we know that natural doesn't mean good (nothing wrong with homosexuality).
- Status