by AK - Jeff 1495 Replies latest jw experiences
Peace, dear Size, truly... and I hope you can bring yourself back to a place where you can give ME the same benefit of the doubt I try to give you.
Of course . . . on that I'm sure we speak a common language.
Beyond that however, I freely concede . . . I'm not versed in every dialect (so to speak).
But as I said . . . I've learned all I can from this thread.
I hope this helps and, as always, peace to you!
Peace to you Shelby. It does help me understand how you view the world. However, you just happen to be wrong on this. Allah is not related to Hallelujah at ALL. It is related to elhohim. Arabic and Hebrew have ancient shared roots but are widely diverged. You are simply taking the english form of two totally different words and relating them. It would be like me saying collected and sold seashells for a living because Shelby and shell happen to share four letters.
Allah is derived from two words, "al" and "ilah", the Arabic cognate of the feminine semitic "eloah". It literally means "The God". It has nothing to do with Ishmael or Muhammed or Muslims. These words and names were around long before imaginary Ishmael ever was put to papyrus.
It's fairly simple and the above posts are going off topic:
a) God exists but does not want to help anyone. He takes pleasure in suffering (seemingly the OT god and most other war gods), I don't want to serve such god.
b) God exists but cannot help anyone. He is powerless and weak, maybe human (seemingly the NT god and most other non-war gods).
c) God exists and will help some people in the future. He doesn't give any clear evidence though as to whom those people are or when he will do so. He seemingly clouds the evidence of his own existence and plans in order to make a selection of the most irrational people that still believe in him, he takes pleasure in such confusion (seemingly the god people these days have hypothesized the OT and NT talks about, the god humanized by modern religion to make it palatable in the age of science, reason and understanding).
d) God doesn't exist (what everyone with rational thinking comes eventually to the conclusion when pondering the above choices)
Who this god or gods are is irrelevant, everyone has their own irrational belief about it. There could be one god or multiple gods or no god, there is no evidence to any of the points and for every point of evidence you get from your own holy books, I will raise you someone else's holy book that contradicts it. Therefore, I go by the evidence and Occam's razor tells me that I should make the fewest assumptions given the evidence so I make no assumptions about any god and simply say he/she/they doesn't exist unless demonstrated.
I'm not saying you can't believe in a god or gods but if you do believe in one your thinking should not be clouded to the extent that you actively dismiss evidence and facts that goes contrary to your belief system. Eg. believe in god and creation but when the facts and proof of evolution comes up you should be able to discern that maybe your religious leaders and holy books were wrong about some things. And yes, there are hypothesis using quantum physics that can be proven with mathematics that the Universe came into existence out of nothing, they will be tested within the next few years if not already done so, if those hypothesis become theory any god that created the universe will officially be dead.
Well stated Anony Mous.
There are many invisible things that have been demonstrated using scientific method. Atomic particles, gravity, black holes, electricity, magnetism, radiation, fission, and fusion - to name but a few of the common. Over time, experimentation, double blind methods, they are regarded now as fact. If at some point in the future, the nature of any of them is determined by scientific method to be in error - that change will be embraced, not feared, by science.
Scientific method has improved our planet, our lifestyle, our lifespan and health immeasurably over the centuries. It has proven to be a consistent manner in which to arrive at 'truth', and has given us platform for development of technologies.
Faith on the other hand is just acceptance because our parents accepted because their parents accepted because.... on and on. We are of a particular religious sort, not because we were called - but because we were born in a particular culture. That is why the difficult questions, like this one, are bombarded with circular reasoning, straw men arguments, false dilemmas, red herring, and leaky logic by the 'faithful'. Their premise, lacking foundational strength, seems under attack. It is not really. No more than if an engineer pointed out that your house is about to fall due to structural failure while you wish to believe otherwise. But the wise man/woman examines more closely, looks at the details not as an attack, but as a warning offered for protection from false security. But of course, that same person is allowed to ignore warnings from others should he/she desire. But when the end of the structure happens, he should not be surprised.
When you die, faithful ones, there is nothingness. Forever. Choose to ignore that reality. Or choose to live in delusions of grandeur. IN the end, you will not know it anyway. But it is the life now that will gone forever, filled with hope that is not true, faith that is only credulous, and belief without basis.
Jeff
It's fairly simple and the above posts are going off topic:
No argument here . . . except to say it's not through want of trying. Sometimes you need to deconstruct things to try and find what makes the message make sense . . . and there's no guarantees.
Speaking of Occam' razor, I'm inclined to take to all 16 pages of this thread with it . . . pick the three most rational and logical posts, and throw the rest out starting with the wackiest. The last couple would probably be in the running. After that exercise, at least you have the most rational and logical result.
SA... floating like a butterfly back to her corner... but not before giving dear Twitch a little taste of "rope-a-dope"... ("Ah'm so pretty!")
Cassius was a master of presence, charisma and self-promotion, was he not? A gifted boxer, to be sure.
I was always curious as to why he chose to convert to Islam.
;)
I have read this thread with interest and enjoyed all your comments.
AK-Jeff's opening post is very simple. It poses a question that is of fundamental importance to all humans. Whether we believe God to be the Jehovah or Yahweh of the Bible, Christ Jesus, Jaheshua or a nameless all powerful force the question remains the same. Arguing about the name of God is a red herring. The argument about free will and the right to self determination is also a red herring. This is because humans have much less free will than we are credited with.
For example Let’s just look at the destruction and death caused so called ‘by acts of God.’ Earth quakes, volcanoes, and tsunamis. We now know that they are the result movement or ruptures in the earths crust. They are not the result of man’s greed, atheism or angry gods.
This leaves just 2 possibilities:
A) Is there a being or God powerful enough to stop these natural disasters? The answer for many is No. End of story.
B) If your answer is YES and this being, cosmic intelligence or God that created us and put us on this planet but now just floats around in outer space in retirement, when it could stop these pointless disasters, then it does not deserve the worship of humans.
There really is no alternative conclusion that we can come to without appearing as callous and cold hearted as the absent God. For me plan a works well and makes more sense.
I mean it in the sense that some are SO entrenched in their thinking...
The popcorn was worth it, me thinks!
Sarcasm is round, I always didn't want to know that, but thanks Mr. Jeff, sir, for sharing.
Shelby, you have to be kidding about being "probably the most unworthy of people". Did I get it right? I know you don't kid, so I'm being facetious, but what a laugh for a snowing sunday morning!
Mr The Gladiator wins of course. If I might be so bold. Will* With all the evidence we have so far he's the rightest. OK But someone somewhere said quacks quakes are Earth natural response for needing more room for more people, and people who need money for good works don't have enough money for the planning, designing, and building of earthquake proof buildings because the money is being spent on bad works of, well you know, you know, don't you know?. Am I being round enough to remain in character Mr Jeff, sir?
*WTF?
N. drew, I think that you think we understand your comments. I think that "we" don't. But I won't speak for everyone. I know I don't "get" them.
Still, post on. They are fascinating to try and figure out.
