Is Your God Limited to The God of Abraham?

[BluePhantom]

Are you that ignorant or are you being dishonest? I find it hard to believe you honestly believe that.

Dude, it's the same God. Both religions, Christianity and Islam, worship the God of Abraham. They relate to Him differently. They have different beliefs about what God wants. But Judaism and Christianity trace their relationship to God through Isaac to Abraham where Muslims trace their relationship with God through Ishmael to Abraham, but both trace back to the God of Abraham. That's why they have been fighting for thousands of years.

Now it's not God's fault for what people write about Him. The Quran says that Jesus was not the Son of God and the Bible says he was. That's just a point of disagreement between the beliefs of Christianity and Islam. Neither is it the fault of the Bible nor the Quran if extremists take things out of context and screw the whole thing up. Most of those who argue that Allah and the Judeo-Christian God are different deities do so on the basis that the Bible and the Quran are vastly different, but that argument has no merit. All that means is that we have three groups of people who have three different ideas about the same God.

You are arguing with someone who talks to God. islam worships something completely different. Just like Goddess_Ashtara claims she worships the God of Abraham. She does not, or if she does he does not acknowledge her. So islam can claim all night and day they worship the God of Abraham but whoever that is he is not the same God, he is not even a god for that matter. Ask God yourself if you like.

Everyone who believes in God talks to God, dude. Jeez. Or do you have Him on speed dial. 'Siri, call God'. Look, you are getting too wrapped up in the human interpretations and human languages. Just because different cultures use different words and have different traditions about sex does not mean that they are referring to different activities. Sex is sex in all cultures. God is, in my view very similar. Different peoples have related to Him in the manner that made sense for their culture throughout time. You are suggesting that a Muslim can worship God, the exact same God as the Hebrew God, but God doesn't care because they relate to Him in a different way. That's like telling your children that you wish to be referred to as "daddy", and refusing to have anything to do with them if they call you "papa". Thus, if Goddess_Ashtara or Westwall find it easier to relate to God through nature, fine. That's how they best understand and can find communion with Him.

I feel sorry for all those tribes in North and South America before Christianity came. All that worship they did, all those sacrifices...all those souls lost for nothing because they didn't call Him YHWH. BTW, how arrogant of you to speak on behalf of God. I have a feeling God can decide for Himself whether or not He will accept a form of worship or prayer from someone and doesn't need you to make that determination for Him. I am guessing He doesn't call you back on your cell phone after you have left a message

You are an example of what happens when a person gets the concept but does not understand the application. You say that people use different words for sex but it means the same thing. Can you understand that perhaps people use the same word but it refers to different things? Your view is wrong. If when I say tree you think of a tree but I think of a rock then we are not using the same word to refer to the same thing, or different words to refer to the same thing, or anyway you want to mix and match it. They are two separate things in and of themselves. I appreciate the fact that you took a philosophy class along the way or read a book about some philosopher in particular but you lack comprehension in a major way.

Unless you believe you talk to God yourself you have no possible way to know what I am speaking of. My arrogance? You are the one who does not even believe in God and you are trying to tell God who he is and is not. You are like someone who lives in the desert who has never even seen liquid water trying to explain to an oceanographer how everything that lives in the seven seas is exactly the same, included sea weed.

Hate to tell you this, but I am a very strong believer in God. Let me put it to you this way.

Say you have two sons. One owns a farm and the other owns a ranch. You say to them, "I am hungry. I would like some food". So your son that owns the farm goes into his field and gathers vegetables and makes you a salad. Your other son who owns a ranch, butchers a cow and makes you a steak. Each present them to you in good faith and in fulfilling your desire to eat. Now a good father would say "sweet! My one son who has a farm has labored for me and given me what he has to give. My other son who owns a ranch has done them same. Now I can have salad and steak." But no. what you are saying is "what the fuck is with this salad? I only eat steak, not this shit that rabbits eat. Go fuck yourself and the horse you rode in on!"

BTW...you are the one who said he talks to God...as if you have some direct line to him; and if you really think that I would be less worried about my comprehension and your need for psychotherapy.

 

[BluePhantom]

Blue, one of the posters called my God a sack of shit. This does not bother me. I asked the person why he/she felt that way. Muslim75 wrote, "The first thing to do in life is to fear God. If you do not, He will destroy you; in both lives" M75 does not believe all gods are one. He just stated that if anyone says so they should be killed 'in both lives', that means here on earth if you missed that. Both my reaction to people's opinion and and M75's reaction to people's opinion are by in large representative of our religions. How can you miss that glaring fact? I will admit you are far from the only one however.

M75 can believe whatever he wants to believe. He does not speak for all of Islam. He also said that God would destroy you and not him. Nice twist of his words. I really don't give a fuck what M75 thinks. He can argue with the Islamic Supreme Council who writes:

"It is worth noting that the Koran specifically refers to Jews and Christians as "people of the book" who should be protected and respected. All three faiths worship the same God. Allah is just the Arabic word for God, and is used by Christian Arabs as well as Muslims."

Jihad A Misunderstood Concept from Islam - What Jihad is and is not

 

[RandomVariable]

Blue, one of the posters called my God a sack of shit. This does not bother me. I asked the person why he/she felt that way. Muslim75 wrote, "The first thing to do in life is to fear God. If you do not, He will destroy you; in both lives" M75 does not believe all gods are one. He just stated that if anyone says so they should be killed 'in both lives', that means here on earth if you missed that. Both my reaction to people's opinion and and M75's reaction to people's opinion are by in large representative of our religions. How can you miss that glaring fact? I will admit you are far from the only one however.

M75 can believe whatever he wants to believe. He does not speak for all of Islam. He also said that God would destroy you and not him. Nice twist of his words. I really don't give a fuck what M75 thinks. He can argue with the Islamic Supreme Council who writes:

"It is worth noting that the Koran specifically refers to Jews and Christians as "people of the book" who should be protected and respected. All three faiths worship the same God. Allah is just the Arabic word for God, and is used by Christian Arabs as well as Muslims."

Jihad A Misunderstood Concept from Islam - What Jihad is and is not

Personally would like to just flame you some more but God suggested I take a more reasonable tack. If this is any good I heard God's wisdom, if not it is all mine.

RV's parable:
This real strong guy is laying bricks when he drops one of the bricks on his foot. He yelps, picks up the brick, and flings it with all his might. Like I said this guy is really strong. A person hang gliding sees this brick whiz past his and exclaims, "The most amazing thing, a flying brick!" The brick continues its flight and arcs down and splashes into the river. A person scuba diving sees this brick whiz past under water and exclaims, "The most amazing thing, a swimming brick!" Both men go home that evening and start a religion, one of them worships the Flying Brick God and the other worships the Swimming Brick God. Both these religions do really great. The leaders gain millions and millions of followers, and boo-coo bucks.

The bricklayer is agnostic and pays no attention to these Brick religions as they talk of flying and swimming bricks. One day as the bricklayer is surfing the web and he happens to read the origins of these Brick religions. He exclaims, "You have got to be kidding me! That is my brick!" So the guy goes back to where he was when he dropped the brick on his foot and lines up the trajectory he threw the brick. He then goes and rents some scuba gear and goes gets his brick back. To the guy's amazement the brick, while it can not fly or swim, has abilities far beyond any bricklayers imagination.

By coincidence soon after there is a big convention where members of both Brick religions are going to come together in solidarity. Many other people from other religions as well as agnostics and atheists are attending. The guy with the original brick goes to the convention and in the middle of speeches he climbs on the stage and holds up his brick. He shouts to the crowd, "I have here the original brick. This is the object of your worship. It can not fly and it can not swim but it can do so much more." All of a sudden the ground starts to shake and the roof of the building starts to crumble. The guy's brick evaluates the situation and quickly constructs a shelter to protect the people. Some of the people of the Brick religions run in. Most say, "That brick is not the brick I worship. I'm not going in there. I am waiting for my brick to arrive." Some of the agnostics run in. Most say, "An actual brick made that and we know that bricks are not like that." Some of the atheists run in. Most say, "That shelter is just a trick we are not going into that."

end of parable

So, do we all worship the same brick, er, I mean, god?

 

[BluePhantom]

Blue, one of the posters called my God a sack of shit. This does not bother me. I asked the person why he/she felt that way. Muslim75 wrote, "The first thing to do in life is to fear God. If you do not, He will destroy you; in both lives" M75 does not believe all gods are one. He just stated that if anyone says so they should be killed 'in both lives', that means here on earth if you missed that. Both my reaction to people's opinion and and M75's reaction to people's opinion are by in large representative of our religions. How can you miss that glaring fact? I will admit you are far from the only one however.

M75 can believe whatever he wants to believe. He does not speak for all of Islam. He also said that God would destroy you and not him. Nice twist of his words. I really don't give a fuck what M75 thinks. He can argue with the Islamic Supreme Council who writes:

"It is worth noting that the Koran specifically refers to Jews and Christians as "people of the book" who should be protected and respected. All three faiths worship the same God. Allah is just the Arabic word for God, and is used by Christian Arabs as well as Muslims."

Jihad A Misunderstood Concept from Islam - What Jihad is and is not

Personally would like to just flame you some more but God suggested I take a more reasonable tack. If this is any good I heard God's wisdom, if not it is all mine.

RV's parable:
This real strong guy is laying bricks when he drops one of the bricks on his foot. He yelps, picks up the brick, and flings it with all his might. Like I said this guy is really strong. A person hang gliding sees this brick whiz past his and exclaims, "The most amazing thing, a flying brick!" The brick continues its flight and arcs down and splashes into the river. A person scuba diving sees this brick whiz past under water and exclaims, "The most amazing thing, a swimming brick!" Both men go home that evening and start a religion, one of them worships the Flying Brick God and the other worships the Swimming Brick God. Both these religions do really great. The leaders gain millions and millions of followers, and boo-coo bucks.

The bricklayer is agnostic and pays no attention to these Brick religions as they talk of flying and swimming bricks. One day as the bricklayer is surfing the web and he happens to read the origins of these Brick religions. He exclaims, "You have got to be kidding me! That is my brick!" So the guy goes back to where he was when he dropped the brick on his foot and lines up the trajectory he threw the brick. He then goes and rents some scuba gear and goes gets his brick back. To the guy's amazement the brick, while it can not fly or swim, has abilities far beyond any bricklayers imagination.

By coincidence soon after there is a big convention where members of both Brick religions are going to come together in solidarity. Many other people from other religions as well as agnostics and atheists are attending. The guy with the original brick goes to the convention and in the middle of speeches he climbs on the stage and holds up his brick. He shouts to the crowd, "I have here the original brick. This is the object of your worship. It can not fly and it can not swim but it can do so much more." All of a sudden the ground starts to shake and the roof of the building starts to crumble. The guy's brick evaluates the situation and quickly constructs a shelter to protect the people. Some of the people of the Brick religions run in. Most say, "That brick is not the brick I worship. I'm not going in there. I am waiting for my brick to arrive." Some of the agnostics run in. Most say, "An actual brick made that and we know that bricks are not like that." Some of the atheists run in. Most say, "That shelter is just a trick we are not going into that."

end of parable

So, do we all worship the same brick, er, I mean, god?

Yes. They are all worshiping the same brick. They are merely relating to it in different ways according to their experiences. When the brick flew past the hang gliders, they related to the brick in the air and according to that experience. Thus, they assigned properties to the brick having to do with flight. When the brick swam...er.....sank through the water and the scuba divers saw it, they experienced it in that environment and so they assigned attributes to the brick having to do with swimming.

However, since the hang gliders did not experience the brick when it swam they cannot relate to it in that manner. Likewise for the scuba divers, or the bricklayer. In their arrogance, they conclude that since they did not experience it in any other manner, it cannot have the properties others assign it to. They reject the way others have experienced the brick and assume that their way is the only way that the brick can be experienced. Whether or not the brick can truly fly or swim or has other magical properties is irrelevant. All of them were influenced by and experienced the same brick. They merely related to it and offered it worship in different ways.

 

[RandomVariable]

Blue, one of the posters called my God a sack of shit. This does not bother me. I asked the person why he/she felt that way. Muslim75 wrote, "The first thing to do in life is to fear God. If you do not, He will destroy you; in both lives" M75 does not believe all gods are one. He just stated that if anyone says so they should be killed 'in both lives', that means here on earth if you missed that. Both my reaction to people's opinion and and M75's reaction to people's opinion are by in large representative of our religions. How can you miss that glaring fact? I will admit you are far from the only one however.

M75 can believe whatever he wants to believe. He does not speak for all of Islam. He also said that God would destroy you and not him. Nice twist of his words. I really don't give a fuck what M75 thinks. He can argue with the Islamic Supreme Council who writes:

"It is worth noting that the Koran specifically refers to Jews and Christians as "people of the book" who should be protected and respected. All three faiths worship the same God. Allah is just the Arabic word for God, and is used by Christian Arabs as well as Muslims."

Jihad A Misunderstood Concept from Islam - What Jihad is and is not

Personally would like to just flame you some more but God suggested I take a more reasonable tack. If this is any good I heard God's wisdom, if not it is all mine.

RV's parable:
This real strong guy is laying bricks when he drops one of the bricks on his foot. He yelps, picks up the brick, and flings it with all his might. Like I said this guy is really strong. A person hang gliding sees this brick whiz past his and exclaims, "The most amazing thing, a flying brick!" The brick continues its flight and arcs down and splashes into the river. A person scuba diving sees this brick whiz past under water and exclaims, "The most amazing thing, a swimming brick!" Both men go home that evening and start a religion, one of them worships the Flying Brick God and the other worships the Swimming Brick God. Both these religions do really great. The leaders gain millions and millions of followers, and boo-coo bucks.

The bricklayer is agnostic and pays no attention to these Brick religions as they talk of flying and swimming bricks. One day as the bricklayer is surfing the web and he happens to read the origins of these Brick religions. He exclaims, "You have got to be kidding me! That is my brick!" So the guy goes back to where he was when he dropped the brick on his foot and lines up the trajectory he threw the brick. He then goes and rents some scuba gear and goes gets his brick back. To the guy's amazement the brick, while it can not fly or swim, has abilities far beyond any bricklayers imagination.

By coincidence soon after there is a big convention where members of both Brick religions are going to come together in solidarity. Many other people from other religions as well as agnostics and atheists are attending. The guy with the original brick goes to the convention and in the middle of speeches he climbs on the stage and holds up his brick. He shouts to the crowd, "I have here the original brick. This is the object of your worship. It can not fly and it can not swim but it can do so much more." All of a sudden the ground starts to shake and the roof of the building starts to crumble. The guy's brick evaluates the situation and quickly constructs a shelter to protect the people. Some of the people of the Brick religions run in. Most say, "That brick is not the brick I worship. I'm not going in there. I am waiting for my brick to arrive." Some of the agnostics run in. Most say, "An actual brick made that and we know that bricks are not like that." Some of the atheists run in. Most say, "That shelter is just a trick we are not going into that."

end of parable

So, do we all worship the same brick, er, I mean, god?

Yes. They are all worshiping the same brick. They are merely relating to it in different ways according to their experiences. When the brick flew past the hang gliders, they related to the brick in the air and according to that experience. Thus, they assigned properties to the brick having to do with flight. When the brick swam...er.....sank through the water and the scuba divers saw it, they experienced it in that environment and so they assigned attributes to the brick having to do with swimming.

However, since the hang gliders did not experience the brick when it swam they cannot relate to it in that manner. Likewise for the scuba divers, or the bricklayer. In their arrogance, they conclude that since they did not experience it in any other manner, it cannot have the properties others assign it to. They reject the way others have experienced the brick and assume that their way is the only way that the brick can be experienced. Whether or not the brick can truly fly or swim or has other magical properties is irrelevant. All of them were influenced by and experienced the same brick. They merely related to it and offered it worship in different ways.

Let's look at it from the brick's point of view. If the Swimming Brick God religion does synchronized swimming their god and the Flying Brick God does dances where the dancers leap high into the air to their god but the actual brick considers neither one of these acts of worship is anyone worshiping the actual brick god?

 

[RandomVariable]

To add another level to the previous question. What if the Swimming Brick religion is smashing all the rocks that sink in water because they do not swim? What if the actual brick finds the act of smashing rocks because they do not swim an abomination. Do all religions still worship the same brick?

 

[BluePhantom]

To add another level to the previous question. What if the Swimming Brick religion is smashing all the rocks that sink in water because they do not swim? What if the actual brick finds the act of smashing rocks because they do not swim an abomination. Do all religions still worship the same brick?

You are attempting to make a distinction about "right ways" and "wrong ways" to worship the brick, but that means you must assume that you know the desires of the brick. That is an arrogant assumption. It assumes that you know the mind of God and in doing so you put yourself on a higher level. Might want to go read about the Tower of Babel to see how that worked out for them.

What you are overlooking is that the hang gliders, scuba divers, and bricklayers are all telling the truth about the brick. Of course the brick can fly....the hang gliders SAW it fly. It flew right past their nose. Their experience will result in how they can relate to it which is from a human perspective. It is impossible to relate to God on God's level. All we can do is relate to God in the manner that we see, hear, and feel Him work inside us. For every person that will be different. As we develop "personal relationships with God" it means each relationship will be different because we have all experienced God in different ways. Thus, how we see and relate to God will be different, but it is still God.

How can I possibly understand your relationship with God or you understand mine? Our life experiences are different. Why would it even make sense for me to accept your experience as the correct experience or vice versa? If I adopted your relationship with God it would have no application in my life because it is no longer and God and I, but about God and you. So if we each relate to God according to our life experience, what sense does it make for God to insist that people relate to Him according to a specific culture? Does it make any sense for God to insist that ancient Aztecs or the Chinese base their relationship with God around the Covenant between God and the Jews regarding the Holy Land? Of course not. That has no application for them whatsoever. So they based their relationship with God upon something that did have personal application and meaning.

What you are trying to do is stuff God into a box and insist that God can only be experienced according to your relationship with Him. That's totally inconsistent with the idea of an omnipotent God and witht he manner in which God chose to identify Himself according to scripture. When Moses asked God to identify Himself, God said "I am what I am" or "I will be what I will be". The tenses in Hebrew allow for both readings. God did not say "I am who you say I am". Thus, God refused to be defined. He refused to be stuffed inside that box because God is big enough for the entire world and can be related to in an infinite number of ways.

You are behaving very selfishly, indeed. Instead of looking at and rejoicing in how God gave Himself to other cultures, seeing if you can find personal application for it, and marveling about how great God is that He can be related to and experienced in so many different ways, you have stuffed God inside your own little box and refuse to let anyone near it unless it is on your terms. Thankfully, God will not be restrained no matter how much you, and others like you, try. You can try to put up all the barriers around God that you want, but like the Tower of Babel, He will break right through and allow the entire world to experience Him in the manner that each person is able. However, others would be a lot more appreciative if you stopped being so greedy with God and insisting that you keep Him all for yourself.

 

[RandomVariable]

To add another level to the previous question. What if the Swimming Brick religion is smashing all the rocks that sink in water because they do not swim? What if the actual brick finds the act of smashing rocks because they do not swim an abomination. Do all religions still worship the same brick?

You are attempting to make a distinction about "right ways" and "wrong ways" to worship the brick, but that means you must assume that you know the desires of the brick. That is an arrogant assumption. It assumes that you know the mind of God and in doing so you put yourself on a higher level. Might want to go read about the Tower of Babel to see how that worked out for them.

What you are overlooking is that the hang gliders, scuba divers, and bricklayers are all telling the truth about the brick. Of course the brick can fly....the hang gliders SAW it fly. It flew right past their nose. Their experience will result in how they can relate to it which is from a human perspective. It is impossible to relate to God on God's level. All we can do is relate to God in the manner that we see, hear, and feel Him work inside us. For every person that will be different. As we develop "personal relationships with God" it means each relationship will be different because we have all experienced God in different ways. Thus, how we see and relate to God will be different, but it is still God.

How can I possibly understand your relationship with God or you understand mine? Our life experiences are different. Why would it even make sense for me to accept your experience as the correct experience or vice versa? If I adopted your relationship with God it would have no application in my life because it is no longer and God and I, but about God and you. So if we each relate to God according to our life experience, what sense does it make for God to insist that people relate to Him according to a specific culture? Does it make any sense for God to insist that ancient Aztecs or the Chinese base their relationship with God around the Covenant between God and the Jews regarding the Holy Land? Of course not. That has no application for them whatsoever. So they based their relationship with God upon something that did have personal application and meaning.

What you are trying to do is stuff God into a box and insist that God can only be experienced according to your relationship with Him. That's totally inconsistent with the idea of an omnipotent God and witht he manner in which God chose to identify Himself according to scripture. When Moses asked God to identify Himself, God said "I am what I am" or "I will be what I will be". The tenses in Hebrew allow for both readings. God did not say "I am who you say I am". Thus, God refused to be defined. He refused to be stuffed inside that box because God is big enough for the entire world and can be related to in an infinite number of ways.

You are behaving very selfishly, indeed. Instead of looking at and rejoicing in how God gave Himself to other cultures, seeing if you can find personal application for it, and marveling about how great God is that He can be related to and experienced in so many different ways, you have stuffed God inside your own little box and refuse to let anyone near it unless it is on your terms. Thankfully, God will not be restrained no matter how much you, and others like you, try. You can try to put up all the barriers around God that you want, but like the Tower of Babel, He will break right through and allow the entire world to experience Him in the manner that each person is able. However, others would be a lot more appreciative if you stopped being so greedy with God and insisting that you keep Him all for yourself.

Did that reply include a consideration of my question about the religion that commits an abomination to the actual brick?

 

[RandomVariable]

Given all the posts recently with similar thoughts this post is probably redundant but I thought is out so might as well type it out.

A parable to continue the brick parable:
So there is the Flying Brick religion and the Swimming Brick religion. Well a half brick get jealous of the actual brick and decides to do all the damage it can to the actual brick. So the half brick goes out and finds just the right person and says it has a message from the actual brick and that all the other people are being fooled into following the Flying Brick and the Swimming Brick. So the half brick gives a whole bunch of information not for the benefit of the followers of the new religion, The Supreme Brick Religion, but to destroy that which the actual brick has created. The half brick knows that if people were to look too closely at who the half brick really is they would see that it was not the actual brick so the half brick makes it a specific point to place as much focus as possible on the messenger rather than the message to outsiders. And while the half brick can not directly create and destroy it can influence people and so the half brick will get its followers out of the way of airstrikes when it can and get people through airport security when it can but it knows it has rely on its followers to do the actual destruction of people and material objects.


Well hopefully that wraps up my brick parables. Hopefully no one gets upset with these parables as they are completely unrelated to anything happening today. If it does strike too close to the bone for some there might just be some truth in it.

 

[BluePhantom]

Given all the posts recently with similar thoughts this post is probably redundant but I thought is out so might as well type it out.

A parable to continue the brick parable:
So there is the Flying Brick religion and the Swimming Brick religion. Well a half brick get jealous of the actual brick and decides to do all the damage it can to the actual brick. So the half brick goes out and finds just the right person and says it has a message from the actual brick and that all the other people are being fooled into following the Flying Brick and the Swimming Brick. So the half brick gives a whole bunch of information not for the benefit of the followers of the new religion, The Supreme Brick Religion, but to destroy that which the actual brick has created. The half brick knows that if people were to look too closely at who the half brick really is they would see that it was not the actual brick so the half brick makes it a specific point to place as much focus as possible on the messenger rather than the message to outsiders. And while the half brick can not directly create and destroy it can influence people and so the half brick will get its followers out of the way of airstrikes when it can and get people through airport security when it can but it knows it has rely on its followers to do the actual destruction of people and material objects.


Well hopefully that wraps up my brick parables. Hopefully no one gets upset with these parables as they are completely unrelated to anything happening today. If it does strike too close to the bone for some there might just be some truth in it.

Ok first of all the brick analogy is starting to get tiresome. Beyond that, you are making a false comparison because the 'half-brick' represents a totally different entity not a difference in interpretation or experience regarding the same entity. Islam does not worship a different God, they simply have different beliefs about God and relate to Him differently. Nowhere in the Quran does it support the idea of engaging in the indiscriminate slaughter of innocents regardless of their religious identity. Like the Bible, it endorses killing for three general reasons: 1) to protect yourself or other individuals from an attack, 2) to protect your property or land from an attack, 3) when someone is trying to take you away from God or get you to worship a different God. Other than that, Islam forbids killing. These are the same principles in the Bible.

Now neither of us would try to make the argument that the Bible supported the Spanish Inquisition. I am assuming that, like me, you would argue that the Spanish Inquisition was the result of people using Christianity in a manner that the Bible does not support in order to achieve a political or social goal. The same is true of terrorists and Islamic extremists. Like the Inquisition, it was not God who said 'go torture and kill a bunch of Jews'. It was man who twisted scripture and corrupted His word in the Bible. Similarly, it is not God who is telling ISIS to behead a bunch of Christians and non-Muslims. It is man who is twisting scripture and corrupting His word in the Quran.

These people, ISIS and their ilk, are doing the same thing you are doing in principle, although they are causing it to manifest itself in a far more violent and horrendous manner. They are stuffing God in a box and claiming that 'their way is the only way to experience God'. They are being every bit as selfish and greedy with God as you are. The difference is, and granted it's a big difference, is that their application results in war, slaughter, and bloodshed, while yours results in spiritual and social intolerance and rendering God valueless and inaccessible to anyone but yourself. However, both effectively deny others the ability to have a personal and individual 'God experience', due to the insistence that the experience be on your, and their, terms. When one cannot experience God on their own terms, they have no application for God in their lives. This is because God cannot grow the faith inside them if that faith belongs to someone else and is based on anther person's spiritual identity. Thus, God becomes valueless to them.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

What's more likely?

- a guy named Abrham encountered a god while walking through the woods one day.

or

- a guy named Abraham invented his own religion just as Joseph Smith did saying "Hey guys! I just met a god! Only no one else saw it, but you have to take my word for it!"

What's more likely?

 

[RandomVariable]

Delta, these are your two most recent posts:

What's more likely?

- a guy named Abrham encountered a god while walking through the woods one day.

or

- a guy named Abraham invented his own religion just as Joseph Smith did saying "Hey guys! I just met a god! Only no one else saw it, but you have to take my word for it!"

What's more likely?​

[from other thread]:

Without having the originals on hand, or being able to read them if ya did, it's amazing how much can change changing one word. Why I've always emphasized the improtance of understanding the Bible version being used a sa book, not the contents, but how the words themselves came about. Obviously the original isn't in English, so understanding who translated, why, when, under what circumstances all plays a part in answering whether a given version is reliable or not.

Some are more reliable than others, but ultimately none is 'official or authoratative' unless the actual original.​

Are you feeling OK?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

What's more likely?

- a guy named Abrham encountered a god while walking through the woods one day.

or

- a guy named Abraham invented his own religion just as Joseph Smith did saying "Hey guys! I just met a god! Only no one else saw it, but you have to take my word for it!"

What's more likely?​

[from other thread]:

Without having the originals on hand, or being able to read them if ya did, it's amazing how much can change changing one word. Why I've always emphasized the improtance of understanding the Bible version being used a sa book, not the contents, but how the words themselves came about. Obviously the original isn't in English, so understanding who translated, why, when, under what circumstances all plays a part in answering whether a given version is reliable or not.

Some are more reliable than others, but ultimately none is 'official or authoratative' unless the actual original.​

Might have to edit this a bit to get the formatting correct.

Is a difference between believing a book you can hold in yoru hand, or read online is real and worthy or discussion, and believing the tales in it.

Can do the same with works of fiction like "Twilight" and discuss the claims of others about the contents without believing in the contents. Know rather a lot about Bibles as books translated from other translations. Don't believe in gods though.

 

[RandomVariable]

What's more likely?

- a guy named Abrham encountered a god while walking through the woods one day.

or

- a guy named Abraham invented his own religion just as Joseph Smith did saying "Hey guys! I just met a god! Only no one else saw it, but you have to take my word for it!"

What's more likely?​

[from other thread]:

Without having the originals on hand, or being able to read them if ya did, it's amazing how much can change changing one word. Why I've always emphasized the improtance of understanding the Bible version being used a sa book, not the contents, but how the words themselves came about. Obviously the original isn't in English, so understanding who translated, why, when, under what circumstances all plays a part in answering whether a given version is reliable or not.

Some are more reliable than others, but ultimately none is 'official or authoratative' unless the actual original.​

Might have to edit this a bit to get the formatting correct.

Is a difference between believing a book you can hold in yoru hand, or read online is real and worthy or discussion, and believing the tales in it.

Can do the same with works of fiction like "Twilight" and discuss the claims of others about the contents without believing in the contents. Know rather a lot about Bibles as books translated from other translations. Don't believe in gods though.

So you believe Abraham wrote the Bible? Is that what you are saying?

 

[RandomVariable]

Given all the posts recently with similar thoughts this post is probably redundant but I thought is out so might as well type it out.

A parable to continue the brick parable:
So there is the Flying Brick religion and the Swimming Brick religion. Well a half brick get jealous of the actual brick and decides to do all the damage it can to the actual brick. So the half brick goes out and finds just the right person and says it has a message from the actual brick and that all the other people are being fooled into following the Flying Brick and the Swimming Brick. So the half brick gives a whole bunch of information not for the benefit of the followers of the new religion, The Supreme Brick Religion, but to destroy that which the actual brick has created. The half brick knows that if people were to look too closely at who the half brick really is they would see that it was not the actual brick so the half brick makes it a specific point to place as much focus as possible on the messenger rather than the message to outsiders. And while the half brick can not directly create and destroy it can influence people and so the half brick will get its followers out of the way of airstrikes when it can and get people through airport security when it can but it knows it has rely on its followers to do the actual destruction of people and material objects.


Well hopefully that wraps up my brick parables. Hopefully no one gets upset with these parables as they are completely unrelated to anything happening today. If it does strike too close to the bone for some there might just be some truth in it.

Ok first of all the brick analogy is starting to get tiresome. Beyond that, you are making a false comparison because the 'half-brick' represents a totally different entity not a difference in interpretation or experience regarding the same entity. Islam does not worship a different God, they simply have different beliefs about God and relate to Him differently. Nowhere in the Quran does it support the idea of engaging in the indiscriminate slaughter of innocents regardless of their religious identity. Like the Bible, it endorses killing for three general reasons: 1) to protect yourself or other individuals from an attack, 2) to protect your property or land from an attack, 3) when someone is trying to take you away from God or get you to worship a different God. Other than that, Islam forbids killing. These are the same principles in the Bible.

Now neither of us would try to make the argument that the Bible supported the Spanish Inquisition. I am assuming that, like me, you would argue that the Spanish Inquisition was the result of people using Christianity in a manner that the Bible does not support in order to achieve a political or social goal. The same is true of terrorists and Islamic extremists. Like the Inquisition, it was not God who said 'go torture and kill a bunch of Jews'. It was man who twisted scripture and corrupted His word in the Bible. Similarly, it is not God who is telling ISIS to behead a bunch of Christians and non-Muslims. It is man who is twisting scripture and corrupting His word in the Quran.

These people, ISIS and their ilk, are doing the same thing you are doing in principle, although they are causing it to manifest itself in a far more violent and horrendous manner. They are stuffing God in a box and claiming that 'their way is the only way to experience God'. They are being every bit as selfish and greedy with God as you are. The difference is, and granted it's a big difference, is that their application results in war, slaughter, and bloodshed, while yours results in spiritual and social intolerance and rendering God valueless and inaccessible to anyone but yourself. However, both effectively deny others the ability to have a personal and individual 'God experience', due to the insistence that the experience be on your, and their, terms. When one cannot experience God on their own terms, they have no application for God in their lives. This is because God cannot grow the faith inside them if that faith belongs to someone else and is based on anther person's spiritual identity. Thus, God becomes valueless to them.

I am going to do this point by point. Otherwise is becomes a pick and choose of points and meaningless.

Do you believe the actual brick can have any abominations? (And it is a parable, not an analogy. You brought up islam, not me. And whatever in the world gave you than idea anyway? )

 

[RandomVariable]

[edited out]
Nowhere in the Quran does it support the idea of engaging in the indiscriminate slaughter of innocents regardless of their religious identity. Like the Bible, it endorses killing for three general reasons: 1) to protect yourself or other individuals from an attack, 2) to protect your property or land from an attack, 3) when someone is trying to take you away from God or get you to worship a different God. Other than that, Islam forbids killing. These are the same principles in the Bible.
[edited out]

I am going to start stop giving people the benefit of the doubt that they do not know this statement is categorical false.

 

[RandomVariable]

Similarly, it is not God who is telling ISIS to behead a bunch of Christians and non-Muslims.

We can both agree on this. Unfortunately ISIS thinks it is.

 

[RandomVariable]

However, both effectively deny others the ability to have a personal and individual 'God experience', due to the insistence that the experience be on your, and their, terms. When one cannot experience God on their own terms, they have no application for God in their lives. This is because God cannot grow the faith inside them if that faith belongs to someone else and is based on anther person's spiritual identity. Thus, God becomes valueless to them.

This is an example of 'basically the same principle'.

 

[BluePhantom]

Given all the posts recently with similar thoughts this post is probably redundant but I thought is out so might as well type it out.

A parable to continue the brick parable:
So there is the Flying Brick religion and the Swimming Brick religion. Well a half brick get jealous of the actual brick and decides to do all the damage it can to the actual brick. So the half brick goes out and finds just the right person and says it has a message from the actual brick and that all the other people are being fooled into following the Flying Brick and the Swimming Brick. So the half brick gives a whole bunch of information not for the benefit of the followers of the new religion, The Supreme Brick Religion, but to destroy that which the actual brick has created. The half brick knows that if people were to look too closely at who the half brick really is they would see that it was not the actual brick so the half brick makes it a specific point to place as much focus as possible on the messenger rather than the message to outsiders. And while the half brick can not directly create and destroy it can influence people and so the half brick will get its followers out of the way of airstrikes when it can and get people through airport security when it can but it knows it has rely on its followers to do the actual destruction of people and material objects.


Well hopefully that wraps up my brick parables. Hopefully no one gets upset with these parables as they are completely unrelated to anything happening today. If it does strike too close to the bone for some there might just be some truth in it.

Ok first of all the brick analogy is starting to get tiresome. Beyond that, you are making a false comparison because the 'half-brick' represents a totally different entity not a difference in interpretation or experience regarding the same entity. Islam does not worship a different God, they simply have different beliefs about God and relate to Him differently. Nowhere in the Quran does it support the idea of engaging in the indiscriminate slaughter of innocents regardless of their religious identity. Like the Bible, it endorses killing for three general reasons: 1) to protect yourself or other individuals from an attack, 2) to protect your property or land from an attack, 3) when someone is trying to take you away from God or get you to worship a different God. Other than that, Islam forbids killing. These are the same principles in the Bible.

Now neither of us would try to make the argument that the Bible supported the Spanish Inquisition. I am assuming that, like me, you would argue that the Spanish Inquisition was the result of people using Christianity in a manner that the Bible does not support in order to achieve a political or social goal. The same is true of terrorists and Islamic extremists. Like the Inquisition, it was not God who said 'go torture and kill a bunch of Jews'. It was man who twisted scripture and corrupted His word in the Bible. Similarly, it is not God who is telling ISIS to behead a bunch of Christians and non-Muslims. It is man who is twisting scripture and corrupting His word in the Quran.

These people, ISIS and their ilk, are doing the same thing you are doing in principle, although they are causing it to manifest itself in a far more violent and horrendous manner. They are stuffing God in a box and claiming that 'their way is the only way to experience God'. They are being every bit as selfish and greedy with God as you are. The difference is, and granted it's a big difference, is that their application results in war, slaughter, and bloodshed, while yours results in spiritual and social intolerance and rendering God valueless and inaccessible to anyone but yourself. However, both effectively deny others the ability to have a personal and individual 'God experience', due to the insistence that the experience be on your, and their, terms. When one cannot experience God on their own terms, they have no application for God in their lives. This is because God cannot grow the faith inside them if that faith belongs to someone else and is based on anther person's spiritual identity. Thus, God becomes valueless to them.

I am going to do this point by point. Otherwise is becomes a pick and choose of points and meaningless.

Do you believe the actual brick can have any abominations? (And it is a parable, not an analogy. You brought up islam, not me. And whatever in the world gave you than idea anyway? )

I think there are very few things we can do that would actually offend God. Most of them would have to do with interfering with another's path to God or relationship with Him, or intentionally corrupting God's word, through various forms of scripture, in order to manipulate society for political or independent gain. So I believe that God sees ISIS as an abomination because they do both. I think God sees Westboro Baptist Church as an abomination because they do both as well. I think God sees a murderer as an abomination because by killing another they interfere with a person's spiritual development with God.

Things that are directed inward I don't think God is offended by, but that's just my personal view. For example, if someone decided they are atheist, I don't think God gets all irate. I think He just says 'oh you are not interested in this? Ok, no problem. Go do whatever you wish then. Good luck. I hope it works out for you and I am here if you change your mind.' But that situation represents a person choosing for themselves and not having a theology thrust upon them when they are unwilling to receive it. As long as we have freely chosen as individuals and do no harm to others, physically or spiritually, I really don't think God cares what manner we choose to find communion with Him.

So lets take an example, and I am going to pull Goddess_Ashtara in here for a second. I tagged her because I don't like referring to people in these kinds of posts without them knowing it. So I don't know exactly what GA believes. From what I gather it is not Judeo-Christian but she has some kind of spiritual belief that is apparently working for her. You and I would probably consider her a pagan. Whatever...the specific definition isn't important. What is important is that she has application in her life for her beliefs, she feels a sense of physical and spiritual connection with the universe around her, and thus there is value to some sort of spiritual identity within her. Now it's different than what you and I have chosen in our relationship with God. We have chosen a Christian path and so we relate to God primarily through Jesus and the teachings of the apostles. That is what is working for us.

But you and I look at GA and say "oh no, no, no...you are doing this all wrong,' because apparently we know what she needs better than she does. 'Let us tell you about Jesus and the right path to God.' we say to her. We do this lovingly and with no foul intent, but we essentially thrust our belief system onto her. So she goes with it and finds that she cannot relate to it for whatever reason. Therefore, it ceases to have application in her life. Because it has no application, her spiritual growth becomes stunted, and God becomes valueless to her.

Now, I tend to think that God isn't going to be very happy with the two of us. I tend to think God is going to look at us and say 'what the fuck, man?!?! GA and I had a good thing going. We were communicating, she was growing spiritually, she and I had a relationship that was working until you two came and fucked it all up.' Ever been in a relationship with someone and that person's friends hated you and destroyed the relationship? Pissed you off, didn't it? Same concept.

So what we should do, in my opinion, is celebrate the fact that GA has found a path to God, even though it is not our path. We should praise the Lord that she has found a way to connect with God which is personal, meaningful, and has the application and value in her life that allows God to grow her spiritual communion with Him. We may not understand it, but it is not ours to understand. We may not relate to her relationship with God, but it is not our relationship to have to relate to. Who are we to interfere or define for another the manner through which they must or cannot find God?

 

[RandomVariable]

What's more likely?

- a guy named Abrham encountered a god while walking through the woods one day.

or

- a guy named Abraham invented his own religion just as Joseph Smith did saying "Hey guys! I just met a god! Only no one else saw it, but you have to take my word for it!"

What's more likely?​

[from other thread]:

Without having the originals on hand, or being able to read them if ya did, it's amazing how much can change changing one word. Why I've always emphasized the improtance of understanding the Bible version being used a sa book, not the contents, but how the words themselves came about. Obviously the original isn't in English, so understanding who translated, why, when, under what circumstances all plays a part in answering whether a given version is reliable or not.

Some are more reliable than others, but ultimately none is 'official or authoratative' unless the actual original.​

Might have to edit this a bit to get the formatting correct.

Is a difference between believing a book you can hold in yoru hand, or read online is real and worthy or discussion, and believing the tales in it.

Can do the same with works of fiction like "Twilight" and discuss the claims of others about the contents without believing in the contents. Know rather a lot about Bibles as books translated from other translations. Don't believe in gods though.

If it is not for the understanding of God what practical use of the Bible could there possibly be?