Are you deceived? How can you know?

1. 79

   aka-djposted 16 years ago

   Deception. Does it exisit? If it does NOT exist, there ends the discussion. But if it does exist, what is it, what does it do and HOW can you tell?
   Truth is always in despute. Some say there is "absolute truth", others deny it. So many today say truth is "relative". If that were so, (true), then what place is there for deception? There are then NO lies either.
   To be "deceived" is to be lied to or mis-informed. Am I now lieing to you, and therefore deceiving you? Or am I speaking the truth?
   Are you "deceived", about insignificant things, perhaps about "vital" things?

   replyreport
   1. 89

      Paragliderposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Deceived is different from mistaken. Deceived implies a deceiver, e.g. the author of a book or website. Mistaken implies no 'malice aforethought', merely a failure of understanding. Deception is a valid word for a process that requires intent.
      
      The word can also be used loosely, as in "I was deceived by slippery road surface"  In such cases, deceived does not imply malicious intent.  I think I know where you're leading, but let's see...

      replyreport
2. 75

   Shadesbreathposted 16 years ago

   Para is right.  "Deception" is the act of purposefully providing false information. To be "deceived" technically one has to have been provided with false information and has to have believed that information is true.
   
   Answering the question "How can you know if you are deceived?" is simple:  Investigate the claims of others; read; do research and seek other opinions (preferably from expert sources).  The more you poke and prod at a particular given concept, the more information you will have with which to evaluate claims regarding that concept and thereby be in position to determine if you have, in fact, been deceived.
   
   From there, anyone trying to jockey around the idea of "a truth" or the existence of "absolute knowledge" can be easily dismissed because anyone who's possessed of anything approaching intellect and wisdom can tell you that there are no certainties in fact, only certainties of probability and certainties of faith, neither of which are actually "certain" and the latter of which becomes fodder for religion and lots of long-winded but ultimately meaningless sermons... meaningless in respect to the question "are you deceived?"  At that point, one person's "truth" is another person's "idiocy" and because of this, the ability to purposefully provide "false" information [the definition of "deception" above] on something for which there is no "true" information becomes an exercise in argumentative techniques, persuasion and force of will.
   
   Hope this helps. 

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Ben Bushposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      You seem to have made the absolute statement that there is no "absolute knowledge" or "certainties in fact"?
      
      By your own standard, your absolute statement of knowledge regarding "absolute knowledge" is non existent, simply because, according to you, there is no such thing as "absolute knowledge."
      
      You then make another absolute statement[b] that there are only "certainties in probability". Ditto
      
      Does this create an absolute quandry?[b]

      replyreport
      1. 0

         sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this

         it is more like no one knows the absolute truth.  is there one, yes, do we know what it is other than knowing that in life there is one absolute truth?  Anyone who says that they know the absolute truth is caught up in the deception of truth as well.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Ben Bushposted 16 years agoin reply to this

            Sandra, in order for you to state your truth that "no one knows the absolute truth", you must make an absolute statement, which, in and of itself, is an absolute truth.
            
            You state absolutely that there is "one absolute truth", which is an absolute truth other than the "one" you have identied.
            
            Obviously, you are deceived, if you proceed according to your own standard.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this

               nope, I also said, anyone who says they know the absolute truth is caupt up in decption of truth as well. 
               I also could have said there is no absolute truth, and would have been caught in the same booby trap. 

               replyreport
      2. 75

         Shadesbreathposted 16 years agoin reply to this

         Nope, doesn't create a quandry at all.  My statement falls under the category of "certainty of probability," and allows in its own construction the examination of it as being a matter of likelihood.  Sophistry is required to dismantle it logically.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Ben Bushposted 16 years agoin reply to this

            Are you trying to tell me that your above statement was made by someone who "probably" exists. And you are certain of the probability of your own existence.
            
            Are you trying to tell me that you are not certain of your own existence? Only the certainty of the probability of your existence?

            replyreport
            1. 0

               sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this

               what if you are dreaming?  What if you have not ever really been born and the everything you ever saw, though, liked, hated, witnessed, believed, felt or understood never happened?
               
               How could you establish that you are alive if the whole time it was always just a dream?

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  Ben Bushposted 16 years agoin reply to this

                  Who has dreams?

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this

                     exactly!

                     replyreport
                  2. 79

                     aka-djposted 16 years agoin reply to this

                     This sounds like a great theme for a movie. Yep, and I think I will call "The Matrix".
                     Ah, sorry, that one's already been made.

                     replyreport
      3. 68

         Make Moneyposted 16 years agoin reply to this

         Absolutely.
         
         Backslash added.

         replyreport
         1. 75

            Shadesbreathposted 16 years agoin reply to this

            See above statement regarding false binaries, sophistry, ontology and solipsistic arguments.  No point in me retyping it for you.
            
              lol, yep.

            replyreport
3. 75

   Shadesbreathposted 16 years ago

   Sandra, don't be put off by that argument.  That's the same ontological mumbo-jumbo religions always use, trying to trap you into conceding what your senses, what logic, reason and tangible efforts of man over centuries has shown you to be the most probable because of the philosophical toy commonly known as "you can't prove a negative."
   
   The easiest example being:
   
   Questioning Mind:  There is no tangible proof of God.  If I could find evidence of God, I would believe.  (Solution:  present evidence of God:  He shows up on the White House lawn etc.)
   
   Zealot's Trick:  If you can prove there is no God; I will stop believing.  (Solution:  there is no solution.  How can you prove there is no God?  No matter what you say, show or conclude, there will always be the possibility that there is something you missed.)
   
   
   It's a trap, one that sophists and folks with no real evidence rely on.  Dismissing rational thought for a logical loop hole if you will.  Same goes for the argument:  You can't say there is no "truth" without your statement relying on it's own truth.  In otherwords:  There is truth or there is not.  (A false binary, and a crutch of the weak mind or unsupportable position.)

   replyreport
   1. 0

      sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      hence the booby trap, or if you a man, the mooby trap! lol

      replyreport
      1. 59

         secondsamuelposted 16 years agoin reply to this

         Deception is an act of "free will"........................

         replyreport
4. 75

   Shadesbreathposted 16 years ago

   Dude, solipsism and false binaries belong in freshman philosophy class.  I mean, normally I'd mess around with it just to help you work through how that stuff has all been hashed out over the last few millenia, but there's not really any point.  It's the kind of thing you need to want to understand intellectually for yourself, and generally not the kind of stuff people will learn in the midst of what they believe is a solid argument.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      booby trap!!!   again...

      replyreport
   2. 61

      Ben Bushposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Dude????????
      
      In Texas, we reserve special treatment for such flippant disrespect. The only exemptions are for designated English Atheists.
      
      Solipsism? I had to check myself before I shot myself in the philosophical foot (Yes, I exist!)
      It deals with theory that the self is the only thing which can be verified to exist. While I don't agree with the this premise and its ramifications, I do agree with the one premise primarily dealt with, the the self acn be verified to exist. And the principles used to verify the existence of the self can be usually used to verify the existence of other things, depending on what they are.
      
      So far it is verified, subject to further verification, of course, that you have not appropriately responded to my statements.
      
      And please, the allusions to sophistry and weak mindedness on my part, add nothing to the conversation.
      
      Please teach this freshman Texas some philosophy worth learning, but don't expect me to recognize hogwash for anything other than what it is, stinky.

      replyreport
5. 75

   Shadesbreathposted 16 years ago

   Sandra, that's the solipsism I was talking about.  It's an old and pretty much completely destroyed philosophical position.  One of the presocratic philosophers (it's been awhile, sorry) said essentially that: nothing exists, and even if it did exist we have no way to know anything about it really, and even if we could somehow know about it, we wouldn't have the ability to communicate what we knew anyway.
   
   It's considered bad philosophy, or very weak anyway.  I should go find out who that was.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      sure, I wouldn't piss my day away all day every day thinking about it, but at times it is fun to imagine what could be.  If I wanted to stay in the boring everyday life, then I would just give up on certain thoughts and then life would be increadibly boring.
      
      I don't think the philosophy is weak. I think it is more mind fu**ing then other arguments because it's a dangerous philosophy.

      replyreport
   2. 59

      secondsamuelposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      You must be maestrowhits' spiritual guide?..............

      replyreport
      1. 61

         maestrowhitposted 16 years agoin reply to this

         I see, you can't make insulting gestures to me directly, but you have to get them out of your system somehow, so you do it where I might not come along and see it.

         replyreport
6. 75

   Shadesbreathposted 16 years ago

   Well, thank god you were able to look that up real fast and get to the bottom of it so quick. And here philosophy took centuries to work through that particular idea in its ontological and epistemilogical variations, complexity and implications. And yet you still manage to not get how it applies to your reasoning above.
   
   What you call "disrespect" I call impatience, which I will admit is a fault, but it comes about because I keep thinking we're going to have a real debate.  Fallacy, no matter how politely couched is still fallacy and after awhile becomes tedious, and therefor gives me cause for impatience.  Intentional misrepresentation is equally vexing and has the same net effect. You insist on fancy footwork rather than substance.   So, if you're easily offended, I apologize for my tone.  I confess to having spirited debates amongst my friends, most of whom have thick skin and can give tit for tat.  It's fun if you've the stomach for it.
   
   Anyway, I'll leave off with that.  Let your opinions run as freely as they will on this topic, I shant try to reign in your fancy further.  Good luck with it; I'm sure you'll convince a few.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      secondsamuelposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      I wish i wus as smart as yew

      replyreport
   2. 61

      Ben Bushposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      I accept nothing from you.
      
      You can't or won't take the time to acknowledge your own existence pursuant to your own philosophical musings. So how can I accept something from someone who only has the certain probability of existing? Besides, any acceptance on my part would certainly be no more probable than your probability of existence.
      
      Intentional misrepresentation? I assure you it's no more a misrepresentation than any statement a probable person could probably posit to persons for the strict purpose of pondering its potential probability.
      
      Offended? By someone who only has a certain measure of probably existing. You are certainly probably mistaken. You must realize with certainty that certainly being offended can only occurr by the absolute certain existence of offendable substance.
      
      I apologize if this philsophical dance is tedious to you. But I am certain that any probability of handling it with the proper decorum, presuming the probable existence of such decorum, can be certainly established by such a mature individual, presuming that such a mature individual resides within your philosophically probable universe.
      
      Am I ever glad this is all a dream.

      replyreport
   3. 68

      Make Moneyposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Now that we have determined that you 'probably' exist maybe we can get on with the questions at hand.
      
      And the questions were;
      
      Are you deceived? How can you know?

      replyreport
   4. 79

      aka-djposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Yep, I think I have found one that IS deceived. (that's if he exists?)

      replyreport
7. 59

   knolyourselfposted 16 years ago

   Ben Bush: I'm thinking you should be a philosophical stand-up comedian.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      

      replyreport
      1. 68

         Make Moneyposted 16 years agoin reply to this

         Yeah I thought it was comical too.

         replyreport
8. 59

   knolyourselfposted 16 years ago

   "Ben Bush: I'm thinking you should be a philosophical stand-up comedian." "Yeah I thought it was comical too."
   You understand I mean in a good sense.

   replyreport
   1. 68

      Make Moneyposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah for sure.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Ben Bushposted 16 years agoin reply to this

         The accolades are all wonderful, but I am afraid I am unable to fully accept them.
         
         Being unsure that I am currently in a state of undeception, how can I know if they were offered sincerely?
         
         Being a stand up philosophical comedian is a bit unworkable since I dream only while lying down. I think better when I'm uncounscious. Buuuuuuutt........at least it is appreciated.

         replyreport
9. 89

   Paragliderposted 16 years ago

   Now that we've been round the houses (I would have joined in but was asleep) can we go back to the question - are you deceived? It's important to recognise there are two questions here.
   1. Are you in error? (if no, then you are not deceived)
   2. If yes - are you deceived (by someone) or simply in error (by yourself)
   e.g. I believe I am Napoleon. But I am not Napoleon, so I am in error. Nobody ever told me I was Napoleon. So I am not deceived.
   or - I believe there was no holocaust. But there was, so I am in error. But I didn't make it up for myself. Holocaust deniers keep shouting about it. So I am deceived.
   
   I'm certain that aka-dj wanted to lead onto the idea that anyone who doesn't believe in (a type of) Christianity is not in error, but deceived, by Satan the great deceiver. Am I right?
   
   (edited, because I'd made a careless logial error)

   replyreport
   1. 79

      aka-djposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Interesting!
      I notice you you used the term "I believe". I thought that was to do with "faith", which, elsewhere you attempt to do away with!?
      Also an interesting assumption about where I was going. It seems you actually took it there yourself. I see you DO understand biblical truth, but have chosen to avoid(or perhaps reject) living it.

      replyreport
      1. 89

         Paragliderposted 16 years agoin reply to this

         I used the term 'I believe' intentionally, to demonstrate that beliefs are prone to error which may be simple error or the result of deception.
         
         In other words I was attempting to answer your original question. Did you not want an answer?

         replyreport
10. 75

    Shadesbreathposted 16 years ago

    LOL Para, good luck.  Sophist festival in here, as you can see by that reply you already got.  Don't waste your time.  The reliance on quirks of language belies the total inability to grasp the philosophy (as was grossly exhibited above) in here.  You've a better chance of being heard arguing with a rock.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       Ben Bushposted 16 years agoin reply to this

       Any philosophy that cannot be expressed in common language is nothing more than etymological and linguistic sophistry. Any philosophy that fails to exhibit logical consistency is worthy of ignorance.
       
       Any supposed philosopher than cannot explain his own philosphy upon legitimate enquiry should shut up and remain happy in his own philosophical drunkenness.
       
       As far as Paraglider arguing with a rock, I'm sure that the certain probability of obtaining a consistent and verifiable response from the rock is higher than obtaining one from a person living in a constant philosophically induced stupor.

       replyreport
11. 0

    sandra rinckposted 16 years ago

    Shadesbreath and Ben are both rocks. 
    Shadesbreath, you totally just played the game.  Most of the time I cannot stand Ben, but in this little bit of the thread, I would say that he knowing played the game, you you got suckered. lol.
    
    Or is that a Freshman philosophy.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       Ben Bushposted 16 years agoin reply to this

       Sandra, It could be that I got suckered. That's the price you pay when you tend to be more serious about some of these matters. It's not always easy to tell when someone is playing.
       
       Either way, my questions stand.
       
       PS   "Most of the time I cannot stand Ben"
       
       Am I supposed to say Thank You? {b][/b]

       replyreport
       1. 58

          Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          
          
          Is that because Ben asks the tough questions?
          
          And did I miss these pivotal questions?

          replyreport
       2. 0

          sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          Would it kill ya to say thank you? lol.  Who said you got suckered?  Must be the heavy Christian influence in your life that automatically made you assume that I was talking about you.  ???
          
          What was the question.  who is dreaming?  I answered it already with 'exactly".

          replyreport
12. 75

    Shadesbreathposted 16 years ago

    No, Sandra, he introduced the sophist tactics with the language twisting (rather than actual reason) and brushes with solipsism , and when I pointed it out, he ran to his dictionary and looked up a simplistic answer, then came back with some random interpretation that it was me working a solipsistic argument (which is absurd if you read what I wrote).  I at no point was I suggesting that nothing existed, I only used the term to point out his use of the thought process, which he was pulling parts of to underpin his argument.  Given his inability, or unwillingness, to delve more deeply into the essence of the terms (which would then require that I have to explain them in detail, in essence having to sum up the work from Georgias through Descartes, among others), and his having been unable to stay focused long enough to remember that it was his statements that were sophist, solipsistic and gimmicky, I realized that there was no point in continuing.  Basically it's like I said, "Your arguments contain the following logical fallacies" (which I then named, expecting an intelligent reply steeped in some form of understanding of the terms) and instead he said, in essence, "Nuh, uh, yours do, neener neener."  Then his lackies clapped and told him how clever he was.   If that counts as being "suckered in" then, well, so be it.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this

       that is why I said, the philosphy is not weak, it's dangerous. I thought about it once for a long time, a long time.  After a while I understood how easy it is to become insane if you aren't careful.  So...I was never in any disagreement with you assesment of probablities.  I was just playing too.

       replyreport
    2. 61

       Ben Bushposted 16 years agoin reply to this

       There comes a point where, in order to carry on a legitimate conversation with anyone, a person must take certain statements at face value. Why? Partially because it's very possible for two people to use the exact same terms, yet their definitions are very different. Therefore, the need sometimes for questions asking somone to explain their terms or elaborate further on a statement or message in order not to jump to absurd conclusions, vast philosophical knowledge notwithstanding.
       
       If providing simple explanations for the sake of dialogue offends your sensibilities, then please don't provide them. I wouldn't want to be thought of as offensive to someone with much higher and sensitive thoughts processes than mine.
       
       But of course, if you listen to me, I supposedly pretend that your whole body of philosophical thought is solipsistic, therefore mutual conversation is impossible. I am left to converse with myself. But that reality is completely within your power.

       replyreport
       1. 75

          Shadesbreathposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          I'll be honest with you Ben; I don't believe you give enough thought to the things your opponents say.  You disrespect the spirit of the debate with empty wordplay rather than substantive response.  Then you come back and play innocent with a post like this.  I don't mean to be disrespectful, and if I came off that way before, I apologize, yet again.  For some folks, sophistry is fun, and it can be - in a whimsical way and on empty points or when everyone is drunk in a bar.  But when people take the time to consider your points honestly and seriously and you reward their time and energy with that stuff, well, it just takes away the desire to continue taking your arguments seriously.  Don't expect me to engage you seriously.  You may have something good to say, you may not.  But I'm not going to be the one to spend time on it again.

          replyreport
13. 61

    maestrowhitposted 16 years ago

    I like what Jesus said about this.
    He said that anything is possible, if we just believe. He said that with just a tiny speck of faith, we can command mountains to move from one place to another. He said that if we have faith in Him, we could do the same miracles that He did, and even better ones.
    
    Now that describes a reality that I've never encountered. And I've never heard of that kind of thing being possible to anyone in the history of the world (unless you believe that the miracles of Jesus accounted for in the Bible were actual events - I do). So I conclude that the faith He was talking about has either never occured outside of Jesus Himself, or it does occur without ever reaching history books or primetime news.
    
    A reality where I can heal sick people, walk on water, and move mountains, would probably be a reality in which there was no question as to The Truth. Jesus describes faith, not so much as an action, but a power. I think of it as an ability not only to see the light (truth), but to contribute to it.
    
    To me, the question isn't whether or not I am deceived, but whether or not I am doubtless as the truth I perceive. Anything less than absolute certainty could very well appear as deception, becasue how can you know? There is no method to knowing, except knowing itself. And really knowing something is when you no longer need verification from a secondary source, and you no longer need to prove it.

    replyreport
14. 68

    Make Moneyposted 16 years ago

    In defense of Islam in general. 
    
    Most people on this planet grow up with the religion of their father's or the main religion of the region they live in.  I have read that at one time all three religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam were called the people of the Book because all three have the same roots.  And I believe Allah is just Islam's name for the God from those roots.  It is actually amazing how many similarities there are between Islam and Christianity.
    
    I just have two questions for our Muslim brothers.
    
    I've read that Muslims believe that just before Jesus returns to correct everything Muslims will be sent a religious leader.  I apologize, I can't remember what the name of that religious leader is.  But my first question is, what would you think if that religious leader declared that the coming Jesus is actually the Son of God?
    
    I asked this second question in another thread.  From this simple dictionary we see that omnipotent means "having unlimited power".
    
    If Muslims accept that God is omnipotent then could Muslims eventually accept the three parts of the Trinity, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost?
    
    
    The reason why I ask these two questions is because in Chapter 4 Malichi it is saying in the end days God will send Elijah (Elias), where he shall come for the conversion of the Jews to the faith of Jesus Christ. This can also be confirmed with the Epistle of Paul to the Romans, Chapters 9, 10 and 11. (note, you may want to read both the King James Bible and the Douay Rheims Bible for comparison.)
    
    I am wondering whether God will also send this Islamic religious leader to the Muslims for the same reason.
    
    Lets try to not make this an argument folks.
    
    Peace
    Mike

    replyreport
    1. 58

       Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

       
       
       Paraglider is no Muslim.
       
       Do you guys ever read what anyone else writes, or are you so wrapped up in your own TRUTH, you can't?
       
       "Let's not make this an argument, but I am going to make an unreasonably condescending statement that pretty much says I know nothing about your religion and think it is garbage"
       
       
       
       Love it !

       replyreport
       1. 68

          Make Moneyposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          Relax oh salami of the god of darwinism. 
          
          I assumed Paraglider was a Muslim because of a thread that he started in the political forum regarding the Palestinians.  This one.  I guess I was wrong.  I should have asked you first Mark seeing you test everyone's belief.
          
          Condescending?  How can you possibly think that by eventually coming to the same conclusion that it would be condescending?  Maybe your false god of darwinism would be more threatened. 
          
          I've edited my above post in hopes of having a friendly dialog with Muslims.
          
          Mike

          replyreport
          1. 58

             Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

             Well, I would certainly be interested to know where you "heard" that the Muslims believe that Jesus is coming back.
             
             As far as I understand it, Mohammad was the last prophet and there ain't no more to come. Not only that, but he came to set you guys straight and show you the error of your false ways......
             
             So, I heard that christians believe there will be another messiah bringing truth to the world in the form of scientific theories that the faithful will disparage and lie about with the intention on falsely discrediting them by lying and attempting to persuade others that this is just another religion whereas it is not even though it says this is a sin in the bible and directs you not to do so:
             
             "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor"
             
             Sound condescending to you? Or are you just happy to be going to hell for all eternity?
             
             

             replyreport
             1. 68

                Make Moneyposted 16 years agoin reply to this

                No I don't Paraglider.  If you read that thread you will see that I was also standing up for the Palestinians.  No hard feelings eh Paraglider?
                
                
                
                I heard it from Muslims Mark.  Muslims also believe in Mary's virgin birth of Jesus.  And they believe that Jesus will return to do away with the anti-christ, which they call the dajal.  Millions of both Muslims and Christians seen apparitions of Mary in Cairo, Egypt between 1968 and 1970.  Mohammad's daughter was named Fatima which is also the name of a town in Portugal where apparitions of Mary were seen in 1917.  Warner Brothers produced a movie in 1952 called the Miracle Of Our Lady Of Fatima.  Since then it has been redone in color and put on YouTube in 7 parts.  I'll post the 7 parts of the movie if anyone is interested.
                
                I believe all this means something.  That's why I posted the two questions to Muslims above.  I find the similarities between Islam and Christianity very interesting.  Similarities for a change, not differences.
                
                Mike

                replyreport
                1. 58

                   Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

                   Which Muslims exactly?
                   
                   The same place you heard Paraglider was a Muslim because he posted a thread about an atrocity in Palestine?
                   
                   The same place you heard that I am a communist and hate god and condone murder in the name of atheism?
                   
                   The same place you heard that evolution is a religion designed to destroy the church and not a scientific theory?
                   
                   I am not sure what you are trying to prove here, but breaking the commandments is a mortal sin..........

                   replyreport
                2. 89

                   Paragliderposted 16 years agoin reply to this

                   No hard feelings at all. And I appreciated your pro-Palestinian contributions.

                   replyreport
                   1. 68

                      Make Moneyposted 16 years agoin reply to this

                      Good.  Thanks.

                      replyreport
          2. 89

             Paragliderposted 16 years agoin reply to this

             Unbelievable!  I started the thread about Israeli atrocities because they are atrocious. I love my fellow creatures and hate to see war crimes perpetrated against them. Do you seriously think people only stand up for people of their own religion? We're human first, surely?

             replyreport
       2. 89

          Paragliderposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          Jings. I'm not a Muslim. When forced to describe myself, I call myself a Rationalist, partly because agnostic sounds feeble and atheist sounds aggressive. But mostly because I prefer not to close open questions. I don't believe in belief. I see no need to take leaps of faith. But I'm not an enemy of god. How can I be an enemy of something of whose existence I see no evidence?

          replyreport
    2. 59

       daeemominposted 16 years agoin reply to this

       To know the similarities and differences between Islam and Christianity see what I have written. Here is the link:
       http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/8959?page=3
       
       
       As far as your questions are concerned, I would like to say that it is nowhere mentioned in Quran that Jesus will return. However it is mentioned in the traditions attributed to Prophet Muhammad, wherein it is said that Jesus will come in the capacity of a follower not as a prophet. So there is no question of Jesus overruling the Quran or prophetic traditions. Moreover the message of both Jesus and Muhammad is same. Because it was from the single source i.e. God. Now we find differences because the message which Jesus brought has been distorted and changed. We do not find the authentic Bible. Quran is available in its original form. Prophet Muhammad came to invite people towards one God, the lost message of Jesus.
       It also should be clear that it is not a part of our faith (that distinguish between believer and non believer) that Jesus will return.
       Our basic faith is:
       1.Monotheism (oneness of God).
       2.Prophethood of Muhammad and all who are mentioned in the Holy Quran including Jesus, Mosses and Abraham.
       3Belief in the Day of Judgment.

       replyreport
       1. 68

          Make Moneyposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          I totally agree with you when you say this in the other thread,
          
          
          In the other thread you say this,
          
          
          The Douay-Rheims Bible that I quote in these forums is a 1582 to 1609 English translation from the Latin Vulgate that St. Jerome translated from the original Hebrew and Greek text in the 5th century, just 2 language translations from the original.  I can not speak or read Hebrew, Greek or Latin.  The 1930s archeological findings of the original text at Qumran and other findings verify the Bible.  You say the Quran is available in its original language.  But Jesus, Mosses and Abraham would have spoke Hebrew or Aramaic, not Arabic.  Do you not think Muslims in other parts of the world like Indonesia or Malaysia would have a problem understanding the Quran in Arabic?
          
          It is said that the Quran was dictated to Mohamed by an angel.  It is also said that the Holy Ghost (The Spirit of God, the third part of the Trinity) guided the writers of the Bible.  So both Christianity and Islam believe their Holy Books are the Word of God.  So we are kind of at an impasse here.  And because Matthew 28 says "Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." we seem to be at an impasse regarding the Trinity as well.
          
          I originally asked you to reply to my posts because of the similarities between Islam and Christianity that I noticed on this web site.  And thank you for doing so.  There are a lot of similarities.  The 3 authors of this web site look to be Muslim.
          
          You replied to my first question by saying "that it is nowhere mentioned in Quran that Jesus will return. However it is mentioned in the traditions attributed to Prophet Muhammad".  But you did not reply to my question regarding the Islamic religious leader that will be sent just before Jesus returns.  Maybe you could address this please?  Here's my first question again.
          
          
          
          
          Also maybe you could reply to my post regarding the beginning of the kingdoms of Babylon, Arach, Achad and Chalanne in the land of Sennaar on the bottom of this page in a thread that you started titled "nobody can deny the existence of God".
          
          Thanks again
          Mike

          replyreport
    3. 59

       daeemominposted 16 years agoin reply to this

       Your second question is that “If Muslims accept that God is omnipotent then could Muslims eventually accept the three parts of the Trinity, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost?”
       We don’t want to make changes in Quran by using our limited knowledge and reason. Allah has clearly mentioned in the Holy Quran that trinity is a form of polytheism and that He is one.
       Quran says:
       They do blaspheme who say: "(Allah) is Christ the son of Mary." But said Christ: "O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with Allah,- Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help.
       They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.
       Why turn they not to Allah, and seek His forgiveness? For Allah is Oft- forgiving, Most Merciful.
       Christ the son of Mary was no more than an apostle; many were the apostles that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth make His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth!
       Say: "Will ye worship, besides Allah, something which hath no power either to harm or benefit you? But Allah,- He it is that heareth and knoweth all things."
       Say: "O people of the Book! exceed not in your religion the bounds (of what is proper), trespassing beyond the truth, nor follow the vain desires of people who went wrong in times gone by,- who misled many, and strayed (themselves) from the even way.
       Curses were pronounced on those among the Children of Israel who rejected Faith, by the tongue of David and of Jesus the son of Mary: because they disobeyed and persisted in excesses.
       (Chapter: 5, verses: 72-78)

       replyreport
15. 75

    Shadesbreathposted 16 years ago

    It's all good, Sandra. 

    replyreport
16. 75

    Shadesbreathposted 16 years ago

    "false god of Darwinism?"  Since when has Darwinism, a body of scientific inquiry and anthropological theory, declared itself, presented itself, or in any way portrayed through the data that comprises it to be a Divine entity?
    
    And yeah, Para is not Muslim.  Big old assumptions really make for bad foundations for good opening salvos in a debate (and for bad responses etc.).

    replyreport
17. 68

    Make Moneyposted 16 years ago

    Thank you for your concern for my salvation Mark.  And it's nice to know that deep down in your heart you actually believe in God.
    
    
    
    Quotes from this web site on the similarities between Islam and Christianity.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    And many more similarities.  I think the similarities between Christianity and Islam are fascinating.  Please recognize that I am showing this in the spirit of peace.
    
    Mike

    replyreport
    1. 58

       Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

       I am well aware of the similarities Mike.
       
       Most importantly -
       
       They are both the ONE TRUE RELIGION AND WORD OF GOD and allow for no other
       
       But I am concerned for you salvation........
       
       Doesn't mean I believe in god though

       replyreport
       1. 68

          Make Moneyposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          Oh, well thanks for asking me Mark, giving me the incentive to show the similarities.  This charity should carry spiritual rewards for both of us.
          
          At least the similarities have the potential to bring two large groups closer together.

          replyreport
          1. 58

             Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

             I would love to think that is the case.
             
             So, do I take it that you are now prepared to accept that Mohammad is the last true prophet come to show the false christian interpretations and you do not need to accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior, because he was just a prophet who's words have been distorted by the christian religion?

             replyreport
18. 67

    knslmsposted 16 years ago

    Wow are there even two people who agree on this????

    replyreport