Well tbh, I was wondering more about where you were brought up and your experience in or around certain cultural/religious groups, given you post with the insight of someone who has experienced them first hand.
Religion Discussion | Read the OP before posting
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
I've spent a few years on-and-off living and travelling in Islamic countries, and more time studying Islamic history. This has been more to do with chance than anything in my background, I went Interailing when I was 19 and had an amazing time in Morocco and things went from there, I've been fortunate enough to have done things like attended sufi zikr sessions in Lahore (and Dublin funnily enough), visited the shrine of Imam Reza in Mashad, lived in East Jerusalem, etc. I really know very little about other religious traditions, including Catholicism.
Last edited:
What do you make of 'omnipotence'?
For example in Sikhism we would say that God is omnipotent. As we believe, the Christian God, Allah etc. is the same one god we worship, we would assume that God is omnipotent to them too. But if you don't believe that feel free to interject. Anyways there's a 'paradox' you might have encountered with regards to omnipotence, the idea is that if God is omnipotent then God should be able to create a boulder so heavy that God cannot lift it. Now if it can't do that then it cannot be omnipotent, but if God can, then there being a boulder which even God cannot lift suggests that God is not actually omnipotent also.
Wondering what people of various faiths say to this?
For example in Sikhism we would say that God is omnipotent. As we believe, the Christian God, Allah etc. is the same one god we worship, we would assume that God is omnipotent to them too. But if you don't believe that feel free to interject. Anyways there's a 'paradox' you might have encountered with regards to omnipotence, the idea is that if God is omnipotent then God should be able to create a boulder so heavy that God cannot lift it. Now if it can't do that then it cannot be omnipotent, but if God can, then there being a boulder which even God cannot lift suggests that God is not actually omnipotent also.
Wondering what people of various faiths say to this?
I think when man decided to attribute 'omnipotence' to their gods, they just meant power beyond human understanding (which you've conveniently demonstrated).
There is an ancient stone circle underneath Old Trafford in the secret catacombs. There you will find the scroll of power.Did anyone else think OT meant Old Trafford for a while? I was wondering why the hell do you need to go back there for your sources?
Why do you think they call it "Old" Trafford?
Surley the example you give is merely that, a conundrum. Much more serious is the problema of evil, I'd say.
Isn't this just an issue of numbers? Omnipotence, in this case, is a limit that goes towards infinity. And in such limits, the comparison of numbers becomes meaningless.
Let's say God has infinite strength. He can also create a boulder that requires infinity + 1 strength to lift. But infinity + 1 is the same as infinity.
Unless one assumes some sort of finite set though, in that case it remains a paradox. But in that case, the example doesn't work.
I didn't invent this example by the way, it's actually a fully theorised concept known as the 'omnipotence paradox'. The boulder idea is most commonly used example.
Where's this prophecy then?
sorry, I replied to another poster on my mobile and inadvertently deleted it thinking it was just a copy in my text box... I will find it again and post
Ok found it again. This is a good one because it has a good structure:
http://www.onereason.org/muhammad-in-the-bible/
It's from Isaiah and Ezekiel.
I remember this one, I thought you might do Deuteronomy 18 as well lol.
The thing about prophecies is that they tend to be personal, we'll let our biases shape what they mean to us but the same prophecies will be taken another way by different people.
I believe the prophecy you posted though.
Yeah, absolutely fascinating. There is no way of getting around it as we have exact geo-location and even down to the number of people that would be with him when he migrated. I was watching a discussion about this and it blew my mind. I had no idea. One guy was saying it was not about Mohammed but Jesus... Which was very embarrassing I must say. I am still waiting for him to explain How Jesus was from the descendants of Ismail, Khadar etc and how he was in Saudi Arabia and specifically Medina.
That's a very interesting interpretation of the beginning of Isaiah 42.
Verses 1-4 in the Christian tradition have always been seen as Isaiah's prophesy of Jesus Christ (Matthew 12).
The chapter states that Gentiles should also celebrate the coming of the prophesied individual as well as the sons of Ishmael.. The implication being that redemption will be for all people through this person.
The verse does not say that the person will be from Arabia, it just says those in Arabia will/should rejoice about his coming.
It also mentions the birth place of Mohammed specifically (mountain of Medina where to this day muslims go as part of pilgrimage I think) not just Arabia. Also the Lineage of Ismael is mentioned.
It is my understanding that Jesus was not from the line of Ismael?
Also Jesus did not being 10,000 people with him Roth is region (or any).
Isaiah 42 says that?
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah 42
Read it in its entirety. The author of the webpage leaves out context when he quotes specific verses.
Sela could have also meant the capital of Edom (2 Kings), or any mountainous/rocky region, (meaning of the word Sela in Hebrew, the language of Isaiah).
Which bit, the 10,000 people/saints part?
Here is a commentary:
Let us look at the following Verse in the New Testament from the King James Version Bible: "And Enoch [Idris in Arabic, one of Allah Almighty's Prophets peace be upon all of them to the people of Israel.] also, the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard [speeches] which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. (Jude 1:14-15)"
Let us also look at the following Verse: "And he said, The LORD came from Si'-nai, and rose up from Se'-ir unto them; he shined forth from mount Pa'-ran [Mecca in Arabic], and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them. (The King James Version Bible, Deuteronomy 33:2)" According to Islam's history, when Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him and his followers faced hostility from the people of Mecca (Paran), they had to leave the city. They fled to the City of "Yathrib" which was called later "Madina" where Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him continued to spread Islam to all of the Arabs and then later to the countries near by.
When Islam became complete and the number of the Muslims grew up, Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him decided to liberated the Holy City of Mecca, the city of our beloved father Abraham the father of Ishmael and Isaac peace be upon all of them who built the black cube building of Kaaba in the same city, the Holy House of GOD Almighty.
The army of the Muslims that conquered Mecca without any blood shed (peacefully) were exactly 10,000 men (From the book of "Muhammad the Prophet" by Maulana Muhammad Ali, pages 128-129). The Bible calls them "ten thousands of saints"
I'll post more tomorrow I have an early start.
Speak to you then
A couple things...
1. What translation of the Bible do you want to use?
The KJV uses "ten thousands" in Deut 33, but the NIV (used by the link you posted) uses "a myriad of..."
The difference in translation there changes the whole conversation.
2. Deuteronomy 33 isn't a prophesy of a person to come. When read in context it is easy to see that it is a description of God appearing to the Israelites.
1. What translation of the Bible do you want to use?
The KJV uses "ten thousands" in Deut 33, but the NIV (used by the link you posted) uses "a myriad of..."
The difference in translation there changes the whole conversation.
2. Deuteronomy 33 isn't a prophesy of a person to come. When read in context it is easy to see that it is a description of God appearing to the Israelites.
I think all mainstream religions are deeply misinterpreted, and at their worst, utterly insane.
My personal, subjective opinion on the Bible is that it's a collection of texts that use mythology to describe the human experience mixed in with various political/historical accounts told from highly subjective viewpoints.
Regarding the symbolism, lots of it is deeply esoteric, but a few really simple Genesis examples, again this is just my take after musing on it a lot...
Old Testament God = Human Id and Ego
Creation = Conception
Eden = Childhood
Serpent = DNA / drive to evolve/further oneself / desire to change the world / be equal to one's elders
Fall = Beginning of adult desires or 'temptations', end of innocence
Wilderness = Spiritual aimlessness
When viewed in this way, you can see how lots of those myths could be very meaningful and useful.
When viewed literally, well, yeah...
My personal, subjective opinion on the Bible is that it's a collection of texts that use mythology to describe the human experience mixed in with various political/historical accounts told from highly subjective viewpoints.
Regarding the symbolism, lots of it is deeply esoteric, but a few really simple Genesis examples, again this is just my take after musing on it a lot...
Old Testament God = Human Id and Ego
Creation = Conception
Eden = Childhood
Serpent = DNA / drive to evolve/further oneself / desire to change the world / be equal to one's elders
Fall = Beginning of adult desires or 'temptations', end of innocence
Wilderness = Spiritual aimlessness
When viewed in this way, you can see how lots of those myths could be very meaningful and useful.
When viewed literally, well, yeah...
In my opinion the world would be a much better place if all religion was removed entirely (obviously taking into account the 'good' and the 'bad' aspects of religion). I don’t believe we will truly progress and reach our maximum potential as humans unless this happens.
I believe that anyone who truly believes the nonsense in holy books are thoroughly misguided at the least, or outright brainwashed at worst.
Quite simply religion was created by man as a means to explain away the natural happenings of the time that could not yet be explained. For example, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, famine, disease, etc. All were simply explained away by the existence of an omnipresent god. Now, thankfully we have broken out of this line of thinking and thanks to modern scientific (is that word allowed in here?) discovery we have answers to these questions. Why is there lightning bolts? No, not because Zeus was angry. The plague of locusts weren’t sent by god because he saw two boys kissing, etc. etc.
Religion evolved to provide hope to people in desperate situations. It offers the ultimate escape to a harsh and futile existence, which is why (in my opinion), we see the that most fervently religious places are also the poorest, most downtrodden and uneducated throughout the world – across all religions. This is also why we see more and more people 'de-converting' or simply not believing in the more educated places of the world (yes, there are obviously exceptions to this but I am speaking in general terms).
I hear a lot of Christians in particular mention that religion, or should I say their religion, was the basis for our moral compass – why be good if not for God? For example.
I believe that evolution has confirmed (for me) that our moral compass has been developed and is an innate ‘thing’ we find within us. The human race has survived and now thrived based on the simple principle of self-preservation, which is survival of the fittest. And we have done this by working together, lest we all still live as squabbling tribes smashing each other over the heads and raping/pillaging. We had realised that if we set aside our differences and work together it will increase our chances of surviving this harsh world, and thus increase our likelihood of thriving. History suggests this has worked, and because of the need to work together we have developed an innate human moral compass.
We don’t, and haven’t, needed an imagined god to tell us what is right or wrong. And we should especially not be adhering to the moral values of a god that also endorses genocide, rape, murder (of homosexuals, etc), misogyny, slavery, pedophelia, etc. The Bible cannot offer selective moral values, you have to look at everything within it and not simply pick-and-choose.
I believe that anyone who truly believes the nonsense in holy books are thoroughly misguided at the least, or outright brainwashed at worst.
Quite simply religion was created by man as a means to explain away the natural happenings of the time that could not yet be explained. For example, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, famine, disease, etc. All were simply explained away by the existence of an omnipresent god. Now, thankfully we have broken out of this line of thinking and thanks to modern scientific (is that word allowed in here?) discovery we have answers to these questions. Why is there lightning bolts? No, not because Zeus was angry. The plague of locusts weren’t sent by god because he saw two boys kissing, etc. etc.
Religion evolved to provide hope to people in desperate situations. It offers the ultimate escape to a harsh and futile existence, which is why (in my opinion), we see the that most fervently religious places are also the poorest, most downtrodden and uneducated throughout the world – across all religions. This is also why we see more and more people 'de-converting' or simply not believing in the more educated places of the world (yes, there are obviously exceptions to this but I am speaking in general terms).
I hear a lot of Christians in particular mention that religion, or should I say their religion, was the basis for our moral compass – why be good if not for God? For example.
I believe that evolution has confirmed (for me) that our moral compass has been developed and is an innate ‘thing’ we find within us. The human race has survived and now thrived based on the simple principle of self-preservation, which is survival of the fittest. And we have done this by working together, lest we all still live as squabbling tribes smashing each other over the heads and raping/pillaging. We had realised that if we set aside our differences and work together it will increase our chances of surviving this harsh world, and thus increase our likelihood of thriving. History suggests this has worked, and because of the need to work together we have developed an innate human moral compass.
We don’t, and haven’t, needed an imagined god to tell us what is right or wrong. And we should especially not be adhering to the moral values of a god that also endorses genocide, rape, murder (of homosexuals, etc), misogyny, slavery, pedophelia, etc. The Bible cannot offer selective moral values, you have to look at everything within it and not simply pick-and-choose.
Last edited:
To our Christian posters:
Do you believe that the story of Noah's Ark is literally true?
Do you believe that the story of Noah's Ark is literally true?
Why can't you selectively pick and choose which aspects you like and discard the ones you don't ?
Well of course you can, and I understand individuals that practice these religions will do this - and it's clearly better for the rest of us that they do (lest homosexuals be stoned in the street, etc).
But then you must forfeit the argument that that particular religion is right and the revealed truth from god. You can't argue that you must adhere to the message(s) in these books and base your moral foundations upon the words/stories within it. You can't pick-and-choose like that and be taken seriously.
Our human nature naturally fights against that.
Both the Quran and the Bible are held-up as holy books and the word of god - and so their believers follow them. And if these claims are to be true (that they are the revealed word of god, the 'truth,' and the basis for our morals) then you can't simply leave out all of the nasty gory bits but hold on to the nice ones. It shouldn't work that way.
But few people accept and practice everything in these books do they ? I'd imagine they're a bit like philosophical buffets where you can cherry pick random things you find useful and applicable to your own life. Not saying either way is right or wrong, just making a general observation that most religious folk seem ok with choosing what suits them over the complete absolutism of literal interpretation. As a non-believer, I don't really see a problem with this sort of approach.
That's fine, and like I said it is better for the rest of us that they do this given all of the morally corrupt and reprehensible things that are endorsed by god in these holy books.
My point is that whilst they are free to do this - they cannot claim some sort of moral superiority or claim that it is their particular religion that is the revealed truth from god, and then use their holy books as a 'proof' of their deities existence. The whole book needs to be taken into consideration.
We have a word for those who take it all literally - extremists.
I think the better question is - in the grand scheme of Christianity (redemption through Christ) does it matter if it is?
I think it matters given it is these stories that apparently speak of the power of god, and for so many years were held-up as being true and facts. 100 years ago you wouldn’t dare question that this story was true, but now we know there was actually no flood 4,000 years ago, and so the goalposts have been moved by the believers.
If the book of god is the holy word, the truth, and the path to salvation then it better be infallible. However, it is quite clearly not.
Speaking as a Christian, I don't feel the force of this paradox. As far as I understand it, the Christian view of omnipotence does't include the power to do logically impossible things. So he can not make a married bachelor, a square circle, or a boulder he cannot lift, but not doing any of these things don't diminish Him in any way, for being able to do the logically impossible isn't regarded as a power.
But let's say that God can do the logically impossible. Then he could indeed make a boulder that he couldn't lift. But then he'd go ahead and lift it, thereby doing the logically impossible.
I don't see the issue as a problem!
Thank you for your honest answer. Further to that:
What evidence do you have to confirm or even suggest this occurred?
We also have a Religion - What's the Point thread, which is mainly for arguing about the validity of religion.
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/religion-whats-the-point.215250/page-241
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/religion-whats-the-point.215250/page-241
Apologies Raoul, I'll take my more pointed questions there.
Not all Christians are "sola scriptura" (only the Scriptures), that's a position Protestant denominations take.
This explains it from the Catholic position:
https://www.catholic.com/tract/scripture-and-tradition
Last edited:
Not everything in the Bible is to be taken as literally true. I believe there was a man called Noah whom God called upon to do his work however I believe the tale to be allegorical and also believe could be told to describe geological events.
As to whether I trust that certain parts of the Bible have not been altered over time to subtly change the intended meaning I do not however I do believe that there is one clear and unmistakeable message from The New Testament. Holding us to fortune as proper Christians whether we do or do not believe the whole Bible in its entirety is not a new attack.
Last edited:
The argument is ridiculous when we understand that God is a spirit, and thus is himself logically impossible from a limited humanistic viewpoint. This is why faith is necessary to go beyond human logic.
The reason why this view is risky is because it is then left to religious organisations to determine truth as the absolute authority, even when scripture is obviously disregarded in certain situations.
For example, the Catholic church teaches that the apostle Peter was never married. Obviously he was married, but that would mean he would be disqualified to be the first pope.
Matthew 8:14 Now when Jesus had come into Peter’s house, He saw his wife‘s mother lying sick with a fever.
1 Corinthians 9:5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas (Peter)?
It doesn't matter, actually. Many Catholic commentators think that as no mention is made of Peter's wife in that first passage, she had probably already died. He wasn't 'disqualified' for anything, as Jesus Himself said Peter was the rock on which the Church would be built.
Remember that the Church was already in existence before the Bible was written. That's why apostolic tradition is so important.
We know she was still alive when Paul wrote to the Corinthians. The fact that Peter was singled out as a leader in the church while his wife was still alive, proves that marriage is perfectly ok for those in church leadership.
The example shows that the Catholic view of celibacy is not supported in scripture, or in the early post apastolic church. So what is their authority based on?
It's a disciplinary rule in the Roman Rite, not a dogma. Married men may become Eastern Rite Catholic priests. We have some Roman Catholic priests today who have converted from the Anglican faith, who are married with families.
The bold part is what's significant. This is what is overruling scripture.