Judith said
It’s because we only have one shot and being saved from eternal punishment that we should give it our all.
Would any god punish anyone knowing whatever that human did any other human would do given the same disposition, temptation and genetic inclination that proved irresistible?
To explain the above: Think of leaving a tray of white chocolate snowmen on a counter next to a hot stove top. Those snowmen closest to the stove melt. The snowmen on the opposite side of the tray might be critical of those melting snowmen not holding themselves together. But they would melt if in that same place. And would the one who left the tray close to the hot stove condemn the melted snowmen? The field of neurocriminology is revolutionizing our concept of anti-social behavior. If we are indeed our brother’s keeper (Genesis 4:1-9), then love and care might be the only way to provide what is necessary to help. And where is the justice in a loving, all-knowing god condemning anyone?
MMahmud says
It’s because we only have one shot and being saved from eternal punishment that we should give it our all.
It’s about what I thought. Usually my Christian friends go through the love and mercy stuff before they get to the fear part but I appreciate you getting straight to the point.
I would oppose your god even if I thought he existed. I will not live my short, unrepeatable life living in fear. If this consigns me to hell then so be it. I wouldn’t want to spend even five minutes in paradise worshiping such a monster. Even less hanging out with his slaves.
MMahmud, my friend, I hope ( though can hardly pray) that one day you will escape this prison you’re created for yourself. I know it’s hard, almost beyond our power. I still marvel at the narrowness of my own escape.
Judith said
To explain the above: Think of leaving a tray of white chocolate snowmen on a counter next to a hot stove top. Those snowmen closest to the stove melt. The snowmen on the opposite side of the tray might be critical of those melting snowmen not holding themselves together. But they would melt if in that same place. And would the one who left the tray close to the hot stove condemn the melted snowmen? The field of neurocriminology is revolutionizing our concept of anti-social behavior. If we are indeed our brother’s keeper (Genesis 4:1-9), then love and care might be the only way to provide what is necessary to help. And where is the justice in a loving, all-knowing god condemning anyone?
Ok, now I am hungry! I think you might have forgotten one important detail here. The person who left the tray supposedly designed and built the kitchen precisely for these snowmen ( and if you throw in the fine tuning argument…) and then placed them next to the stove. It remains to be seen how the implications are worked out for the (advances?) in our understanding of antisocial behavior.
spiker said
Judith said
To explain the above: Think of leaving a tray of white chocolate snowmen on a counter next to a hot stove top. Those snowmen closest to the stove melt. The snowmen on the opposite side of the tray might be critical of those melting snowmen not holding themselves together. But they would melt if in that same place. And would the one who left the tray close to the hot stove condemn the melted snowmen? The field of neurocriminology is revolutionizing our concept of anti-social behavior. If we are indeed our brother’s keeper (Genesis 4:1-9), then love and care might be the only way to provide what is necessary to help. And where is the justice in a loving, all-knowing god condemning anyone?
Ok, now I am hungry! I think you might have forgotten one important detail here. The person who left the tray supposedly designed and built the kitchen precisely for these snowmen ( and if you throw in the fine tuning argument…) and then placed them next to the stove. It remains to be seen how the implications are worked out for the (advances?) in our understanding of antisocial behavior.
That same theologian I’m always quoting used this to explain why we were not to judge but you are right, Spiker! It does hold up well when thinking about it.
Judith said
That same theologian I’m always quoting used this to explain why we were not to judge but you are right, Spiker! It does hold up well when thinking about it.
Yea, we’re not supposed to judge others, but whether we judge a situation like being put next to the oven is entirely different.
spiker said
Judith said
That same theologian I’m always quoting used this to explain why we were not to judge but you are right, Spiker! It does hold up well when thinking about it.
Yea, we’re not supposed to judge others, but whether we judge a situation like being put next to the oven is entirely different.
spiker, That’s hilarious but, no doubt, you understand it’s just to make the point that we might do whatever anyone else has done given the same temperament, temptations, circumstances, etc. Who has not had real trauma at some point and just narrowly managed to escape whatever total disaster might have resulted? Therefore, to follow Jesus’ teaching that we are not to judge seems only right to me.
Ok Judith but what Does that have to do with your snowman analogy?
I thought that was in relation to the idea of a crestor god.
as far as antisocial behavior is concerned, there are still victims, if you will,and like it or not even people who commit antisocial acts often do so with an eye toward how their behavior will be treated. Moreover, the law already allows for many differences like a crime of passion etc; although this requires judgement; judgements about motive, intent etc.
spiker said
Ok Judith but what Does that have to do with your snowman analogy?I thought that was in relation to the idea of a crestor god.
as far as antisocial behavior is concerned, there are still victims, if you will,and like it or not even people who commit antisocial acts often do so with an eye toward how their behavior will be treated. Moreover, the law already allows for many differences like a crime of passion etc; although this requires judgement; judgements about motive, intent etc.
spiker, The snowman analogy has to do with why we are as we are. Some of us are born into families where most all of our needs are met and we have a fair chance for a good life. Others have no chance and no hope for getting what they need. When we start seeing everyone as our brother, maybe then we can do what will help prevent so much crime (and so many victims). I think our jails are atrocious. My sister has a jail ministry. There is no way for those women to make a living when they are released and most have no family to return to. The only answer I have is that each of us should do whatever we can to help but as we would a beloved brother. It makes such a difference to do what we can with the knowledge of how fortunate we are to be able to help. It could be us in that situation.
Judith
There is much to what you say.
Unfortunately, the picture is so much bigger. I don’t have an issue with people wanting to help others. All of us, in jail or not, live with the consequences of our decisions and behavior.
The road from jail back to society is very rough and long. I don’t think there’s an easy solution. I don’t see much of an alternative.
As for our prisons, you are probably right, but as opposed to what?
I’m thinking I’m not expressing well what needs saying.
To begin again:
We are all part of humanity, some fortunate, some not. Those of us who are should do whatever we can do for those who are not.
We should do whatever we can with the attitude that we could be them and they could be us and with no judging!
And that’s all I am going to say about that. 🙂
Omar6741 said
Steefen said
Omar6741:… there is no plausible way a lone unlettered individual could have had such a detailed knowledge of, and sophisticated response to, the Hebrew Bible in an isolated and distant desert town like seventh century Mecca …
Steefen:
No plausible way, Omar6741?
Waraqa: paternal first cousin of Khadija, the first wife of the Islamic prophet Muhammad
Muslim tradition maintains that Waraka studied the Bible under Jews and Christians.
Muhammad ibn Ishaq. Sirat Rasul Allah. Translated by Guillaume, A. (1955). The Life of Muhammad, p. 107. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
He read an Arabic translation of the New Testament. He also “wrote the New Testament in Arabic,” but it is not clear whether this means that he translated it from the Greek or merely wrote out someone else’s translation so that he would have his own copy.
Good point, Steefen!
The problem is that those same traditions about Waraqa that were recorded by Ibn Ishaq show that he had not taught anything to the Prophet (s) before the latter’s first revelatory experience, and died soon after. For example, the Prophet(s) was not even aware of the general principle, of which Waraqa informed him, that prophets tend to be driven out by their own people when they come with divine messages.
As further confirmation, we can see that nobody among the opponents of Islam pointed to Waraqa as a possible source of the teachings of Islam — and they were in the best position to find out something like this if it were true, and would have surely made use of it just as they did with other matters.
For these reasons, the “Waraqa hypothesis”, among others, is often not found satisfactory by modern secular scholars, who feel obliged to try to move the origins of Islam out of the Arabia peninsula altogether — and this causes even bigger problems than before.
Steefen:
There is no plausible way Muhammad had such a detailed knowledge of, and sophisticated response to, the Hebrew Bible in an isolated and distant desert town like seventh century Mecca; but, a first paternal cousin of his wife studied the Bible under Jews and Christians, read an Arabic translation of the New Testament, and copied the translation in his own handwriting so he could have his own copy?
He did not travel? His cousin did not travel? Khadijah did not travel? No one else traveled? No one traveled to either of them?
Steefen said
Omar6741 said
Steefen said
Omar6741:… there is no plausible way a lone unlettered individual could have had such a detailed knowledge of, and sophisticated response to, the Hebrew Bible in an isolated and distant desert town like seventh century Mecca …
Steefen:
No plausible way, Omar6741?
Waraqa: paternal first cousin of Khadija, the first wife of the Islamic prophet Muhammad
Muslim tradition maintains that Waraka studied the Bible under Jews and Christians.
Muhammad ibn Ishaq. Sirat Rasul Allah. Translated by Guillaume, A. (1955). The Life of Muhammad, p. 107. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
He read an Arabic translation of the New Testament. He also “wrote the New Testament in Arabic,” but it is not clear whether this means that he translated it from the Greek or merely wrote out someone else’s translation so that he would have his own copy.
Good point, Steefen!
The problem is that those same traditions about Waraqa that were recorded by Ibn Ishaq show that he had not taught anything to the Prophet (s) before the latter’s first revelatory experience, and died soon after. For example, the Prophet(s) was not even aware of the general principle, of which Waraqa informed him, that prophets tend to be driven out by their own people when they come with divine messages.
As further confirmation, we can see that nobody among the opponents of Islam pointed to Waraqa as a possible source of the teachings of Islam — and they were in the best position to find out something like this if it were true, and would have surely made use of it just as they did with other matters.
For these reasons, the “Waraqa hypothesis”, among others, is often not found satisfactory by modern secular scholars, who feel obliged to try to move the origins of Islam out of the Arabia peninsula altogether — and this causes even bigger problems than before.
Steefen:
There is no plausible way Muhammad had such a detailed knowledge of, and sophisticated response to, the Hebrew Bible in an isolated and distant desert town like seventh century Mecca; but, a first paternal cousin of his wife studied the Bible under Jews and Christians, read an Arabic translation of the New Testament, and copied the translation in his own handwriting so he could have his own copy?
He did not travel? His cousin did not travel? Khadijah did not travel? No one else traveled? No one traveled to either of them?
Well Waraqa definitely travelled; he was one of a group of four who were fed up with idolatry, and secretly made a pact to find a better religion. One of them became an independent monotheist; Waraqa travelled, converted, and returned to live in Mecca, though he didn’t try to preach to anyone (he would have been persecuted, for sure).
The Christians and the Jews of those days in Arabia did not just give out their sacred texts to anyone. You had to go through the entire conversion process before they would entrust you with their sacred writings, or give you any information at all. That’s why, when in Medina, the Jews asked the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, to judge between them according to the Torah, he had to ask them to read it out to him. Even the people living among the Jews for generations had no idea what was in the Torah, since the contents were not publically revealed.
We know that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, did not learn anything from Waraqa, partly because of his own sincere conviction he was hearing it for the first time, and partly because of the character of their interactions. Christians kept their ideas to themselves around those polytheists, for fear of being beaten up or worse. The widespread access you see to the Bible was not at all the norm in those days; religious literature was treated as classified, not to be handed to anyone but those one could trust to be members of one’sown religion.
No, the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, didn’t travel, except twice in his youth. There’s a reason for that,though it is long.
Steefen said
What does Allah say about the Destruction of the Temple of Judaism, the Destruction of Allah’s Temple, the end of Temple Judaism?
Please see the quote below, the first ten or so verses from Chapter 17 of the Quran, entitled “The Children of Israel” (the translation is by Muhammad Asad).
I have italicized the part that deals directly with your question.
LIMITLESS in His glory is He who transported His servant by night from the Inviolable House of Worship [at Mecca] to the Remote House of Worship [, at Jerusalem] – the environs of which We had blessed -so that We might show him some of Our symbols: for, verily, He alone is all-hearing, all-seeing.
And [thus, too,] We vouchsafed revelation unto Moses, and made it a [source of] guidance for the children of Israel, [commanding them:] “Do not ascribe to any but Me the power to determine your fate,
O you descendants of those whom We caused to be borne (in the ark] with Noah! Behold, he was a most grateful servant (of Ours]!”
And we made [this] known to the children of Israel through revelation: Twice, indeed, will you spread corruption on earth and will indeed become grossly overbearing!
Hence, when the prediction of the first of those two [periods of iniquity] came true, We sent against you some of Our bondmen of terrible prowess in war, and they wrought havoc throughout the land: and so the prediction was fulfilled.
And after a time We allowed you to prevail against them once again, and aided you with wealth and offspring, and made you more numerous [than ever].
[And We said:] “If you persevere in doing good, you will but be doing good to yourselves; and if you do evil, it will be [done] to yourselves.” And so, when the prediction of the second [period of your iniquity] came true, [We raised new enemies against you, and allowed them] to disgrace you utterly, and to enter the Temple as [their forerunners] had entered it once before, and to destroy with utter destruction all that they had conquered.
Your Sustainer may well show mercy unto you; but if you revert [to sinning], We shall revert [to chastising you]. And [remember this:] We have ordained that [in the hereafter] hell shall close upon all who deny the truth.
VERILY, this Qur’an shows the way to all that is most upright, and gives the believers who do good deeds the glad tiding that theirs will be a great reward;
and [it announces, too,] that We have readied grievous suffering for those who will not believe in the life to come.
Steefen said
What does Allah say about the Destruction of the Temple of Judaism, the Destruction of Allah’s Temple, the end of Temple Judaism?
As the quote above shows, the Temple Mount is a site of the utmost sacredness in Islam: the second caliph Omar, the mightiest ruler of his time, after conquering the city close to the mid-seventh century, personally cleansed the site of accumulated rubbish with his own hands, and considered it an honor to do so.
Omar6741 said
Steefen said
What does Allah say about the Destruction of the Temple of Judaism, the Destruction of Allah’s Temple, the end of Temple Judaism?Please see the quote below, the first ten or so verses from Chapter 17 of the Quran, entitled “The Children of Israel” (the translation is by Muhammad Asad).
I have italicized the part that deals directly with your question.
LIMITLESS in His glory is He who transported His servant by night from the Inviolable House of Worship [at Mecca] to the Remote House of Worship [, at Jerusalem] – the environs of which We had blessed -so that We might show him some of Our symbols: for, verily, He alone is all-hearing, all-seeing.
And [thus, too,] We vouchsafed revelation unto Moses, and made it a [source of] guidance for the children of Israel, [commanding them:] “Do not ascribe to any but Me the power to determine your fate,
O you descendants of those whom We caused to be borne (in the ark] with Noah! Behold, he was a most grateful servant (of Ours]!”
And we made [this] known to the children of Israel through revelation: Twice, indeed, will you spread corruption on earth and will indeed become grossly overbearing!
Hence, when the prediction of the first of those two [periods of iniquity] came true, We sent against you some of Our bondmen of terrible prowess in war, and they wrought havoc throughout the land: and so the prediction was fulfilled.
And after a time We allowed you to prevail against them once again, and aided you with wealth and offspring, and made you more numerous [than ever].
[And We said:] “If you persevere in doing good, you will but be doing good to yourselves; and if you do evil, it will be [done] to yourselves.” And so, when the prediction of the second [period of your iniquity] came true, [We raised new enemies against you, and allowed them] to disgrace you utterly, and to enter the Temple as [their forerunners] had entered it once before, and to destroy with utter destruction all that they had conquered.
Your Sustainer may well show mercy unto you; but if you revert [to sinning], We shall revert [to chastising you]. And [remember this:] We have ordained that [in the hereafter] hell shall close upon all who deny the truth.
VERILY, this Qur’an shows the way to all that is most upright, and gives the believers who do good deeds the glad tiding that theirs will be a great reward;
and [it announces, too,] that We have readied grievous suffering for those who will not believe in the life to come.
The Pharisees also maintained that an after-life existed and that God punished the wicked and rewarded the righteous in the world to come.
The Sadducees did not believe in an after life, since it is not mentioned in the ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
Allah did not tell people through the Torah to expect an after life.
Twice, indeed, will you spread corruption on earth and will indeed become grossly overbearing!
In what way/s were the Jews of the first century spreading corruption on Earth?
In what way/s were the Jews of the first century becoming grossly overbearing?
Ancient Roman authority over Judea-Israel was corruption-free and free of being overbearing?
You’re saying The Koran is saying AD 70 was Allah’s punishment, not Allah’s defeat.
It is more a weak attempt at saving face / saving an ethnic god, the God of Abraham
than it is anything else.
Allah is not good natured enough to lead with “no cruel and unusual punishment.” Was it an honor killing?
You mean to tell us that destruction of house of prayer, killing people, having people in such dire straits that they turn to cannibalism is punishment and not military defeat. The destruction was not done by followers of the god of Abraham but by Jupiter and Mars worshippers. The Ancient Romans did not go to the god of Abraham and said, we have carried out your instruction to discipline your chosen people and take away their Promised Land.
Steefen said
Twice, indeed, will you spread corruption on earth and will indeed become grossly overbearing!
In what way/s were the Jews of the first century spreading corruption on Earth?
In what way/s were the Jews of the first century becoming grossly overbearing?
Not sure, you’ll have to ask Bart.
Still, here is the well known ancient Christian answer.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)