Is the god of the Muslims the same as the Jewish god?

Author: Timid8967

Posts

Read-only
Total: 118
Topic's author
#91
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Lemming
there are some books that ought to be wiped out. - Timid8967
Mainly out of personal taste, but also out of logical argument. I'm not for any book being wiped out. Well. . . No, no, even some books I hate, I don't think I'll go the direction of wiping them out.
Personally I just hate to see things die, even books that I hate, I'd rather lock them deep behind red tape, but allow people to access them if they're determined enough.

Logical argument is it sets precedent for 'other people to burn 'your books, as well as allowing history to be repeated if people are not aware of it.
Though I suppose one could record 'of Mein Kampf, without needing the actual text, or the argument that evil should be stomped out.

I'm still not one for book burning myself, I think.

Once upon a time I would have made the same argument.  Yet, now I am ok with people burning my books.  We live in a world where the survival of the fittest or the strongest survive.  And in my opinion, only the best arguments should prevail.  This means by virtue of natural succession, that the weak should be eliminated.  Of course what the weak is and who the strong are - will be determined how?  By history.  In other words, those who survive - those who eliminate their competition. 

Hitler and Stalin hated each and their ideologies not because they were so different. Fascism and Communism are very alike. Nevertheless, they were both competitors.  They both started together - because they needed each other - but very soon - they started to fight against each other.  

I despise Hitler and I don't have a lot of time for Stalin although communism is attractive.  Yet,  it is a matter of logic. The strong will survive - this means the weak will be eliminated.  I take the view that atheism or non-theism is strong - and for it to survive - means the elimination of all religion. As John Lennon wrote "imagine ... no religion too." 

Only be destroying it - will it be removed from our psyche. 

Public Schools are already doing it now by stealth.  Religion has been removed from public schools. It is removing the deadwood. And the world is becoming less religious and more secular.   Science has become the new god. As it should.  

Yet, I am now being distracted. Sorry. Back to the topic. 
Topic's author
#92
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2

Just to throw a brick amongst the dogs.  
#93
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 3,436
4
5
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
5
10
-->
@Timid8967
An ideology where the strong survive and the weak are eliminated, does not sound different than Hitler's own ideology, to my ears.

It's true enough that strength is useful for surviving in the world, but an intentional culling, a pursuit of strength 'more than what one believes is right, does not appeal much to me.
There is additionally a difference between survival of the strongest, and survival of the fittest.
If a person with a supple spine can bend the knee and live, while another with a rigid spine fights and dies,
If a person with a rigid spine can fight and win, while another with a supple spine is enslaved and killed,
Who is to say who was stronger?

I assert,
Atheism is more fit for some situations in life,
Theism is more fit for some situations in life,

I feel doubt that we will ever remove religion from our psyche.
This is evident to me by the reverence in which you address science.

There are too many atheistic religions, too much 'meaning in existence for humans for religion to disappear.
Way it seems to me anyhow.
Topic's author
#94
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Lemming
Who is to say who was stronger?
I think that at the end of the day - the one who is still standing is the strongest.  

The question really comes down to - why not? 

Why shouldn't the strongest fight and pursue their own ends - just like everyone else? 


I think it is a bit like Hitler but also like Stalin. Both were dictators - both used their power and their strength to subvert their enemies. 

I don't see why this is intrinsically a bad thing.   
#95
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 3,436
4
5
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
5
10
-->
@Timid8967
I believe that might influences reality,
But I do not believe that might is right,
Even a slave or a victim has their own beliefs of what is right, regardless of if they are enslaved or overpowered by others. 

If I witness someone bullying another weaker than the bully,
Even if the bully is stronger than I,
Shall I do nothing?
It is not that I 'must do something,
But I 'would think better of myself if I did something.

That I am stronger than some others, does not make it my right to abuse them, should it take my fancy.
The physical ability perhaps, but I would think less of myself 'for such an action, I hope.
Topic's author
#96
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Lemming
I believe that might influences reality,
But I do not believe that might is right,
Even a slave or a victim has their own beliefs of what is right, regardless of if they are enslaved or overpowered by others. 
Having a belief of what someone thinks is right does not automatically determine they will succeed or that they are correct. 
Slavery is only considered wrong in our world today because the stronger won the battle  in relation to that argument. Previously the stronger side was those in favor of slavery. 

If I witness someone bullying another weaker than the bully,
Even if the bully is stronger than I,
Shall I do nothing?
It is not that I 'must do something,
But I 'would think better of myself if I did something.
If you witness someone bullying another person - it is a matter for you what you will do about it. If you nothing that is ok - and if you do something and lose - that was your choice - and if you do something and are successful, then that too was a matter for you.  

If it makes you feel better or not is an emotional response.  IT does not determine whether it is right or wrong, just that you have emotions. 


That I am stronger than some others, does not make it my right to abuse them, should it take my fancy.
The physical ability perhaps, but I would think less of myself 'for such an action, I hope.
It is true that it does not make it your right to abuse someone else- but nor does it mean you are wrong to do that.  If however someone believes that they are stronger and have a sense of purpose that ought to change the way the world works and set their mind to do it - that is also ok. Admittedly some people won't like this - but so what? 

That person no more has to subscribe to their morality than they to his.  In the end - it will be the one who is strong that will survive. Strength is not always only brute power - sometimes it is strength of mind - or perhaps character.  Or the ability to win over the most people.  However it looks - the strong will survive.  

#97
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 3,436
4
5
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
5
10
-->
@Timid8967
No, possessing a belief that one is right, alone will not mean they will succeed.

Even without war and death, slavery has been declared unlawful, at various points in history.
Even before the American Civil War was lost and won,
Slavers, slaves, abolitionists, and owners, had different ideas of slavery being right or wrong.

I would like to believe that by word and action, a common path can be found.
That it is not necessary to cull from the world, any who disagree.
That even to a degree, disagreement could be had.

. . .

To act in a fashion one views as right, is not 'only emotion, I assert.
For that emotion is derived 'from my idea of right, at the justice or injustice perceived.

. . .

It appears to me, that you justify the burning of books by lionization of strength.

Yet what you 'mean by this is yet unclear to me.

You state survival of the fittest in whatever survives,
That the strongest ought fight and pursue their own ends,
You state it is neither right nor wrong to abuse another.
 
. . .

When intellectual's are burned by the ignorant,
It appears to me you answer that, by right of the strong.

When  millions are slain for difference of blood,
It appears to me you answer that, by right of the strong.

When collars are cast about necks, medical experiments commenced upon unwilling,
It appears to me you answer that, by right of the strong.

I do not deny that what 'happens in life, 'happens.
I 'do oppose a moral system, by which one's concern is only in being strong.
In 'justifying the trampling of others by that strength.
Topic's author
#98
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Lemming
No, possessing a belief that one is right, alone will not mean they will succeed.
That is exactly my point.  Success will be understood as the one left standing.  Not by someone else's understanding of success or not.  There is no right or wrong - just us. 

Even without war and death, slavery has been declared unlawful, at various points in history.
Even before the American Civil War was lost and won,
Slavers, slaves, abolitionists, and owners, had different ideas of slavery being right or wrong.
Slavery is part of history.  It was neither right nor wrong.  It has been declared lawful and unlawful. Those who declared it either were the ones who had the power and the strength.  It is an idea. 

I would like to believe that by word and action, a common path can be found.
That it is not necessary to cull from the world, any who disagree.
That even to a degree, disagreement could be had.
That is nice.  In a world where people can disagree and still forge forward together.  But it, respectfully, will go nowhere. It cannot for it has no singleness of mind, of vision. Only of being nice to each other, of compromise, of  stalling - in reverse for the most part.  It however is doomed to fail - like all the rest in history who cannot take what is given to take. 
. . .

To act in a fashion one views as right, is not 'only emotion, I assert.
For that emotion is derived 'from my idea of right, at the justice or injustice perceived.

. . .
 I love your quotes - where do you get them all from? But I never said I disagreed with emotion. Emotion is simply a reflection of what is going on in my heart. Yet, emotion is not a gauge of a measure of right and wrong. It is only a measure of me and my views, whether right or wrong and how they are offended.   


It appears to me, that you justify the burning of books by lionization of strength.

Yet what you 'mean by this is yet unclear to me.
I justify the burning of books, and probably worse than that - genocide by the philosophical position of the ends matter.  Whatever it takes to get what we want is justified.  It is the destination.  The ends - the utilitarian approach - the outcomes we desire.  How we get there is irrelevant in the sands of time - it is only the getting that matters.  To rid the world of untruth - such as religion is a glorious thing.  A pursuit well worth pursuing. 

You state survival of the fittest in whatever survives,
That the strongest ought fight and pursue their own ends,
You state it is neither right nor wrong to abuse another.
 How can it right or wrong to abuse someone? Surely that is just someone else's morality. It is not mine.  True if someone abused me - then I would fight back. Not because what they did was wrong - but because it was preventing me from doing what I wanted to do. It is not wrong of them to do it.   People hate America interfering in their politics - so they get annoyed when they invade a country with guns - but they are happy to let them interfere by giving money by way of foreign aid. I think this is two faced and hypocritical.  Stop with the guns and stop with the foreign aid.  Or - just send in the bombs and finish of the problems. 

The strongest ought to pursue their ends is justified and inevitable.  It is what it is.  It has always been the way and it will always be the way.  In our modern world we think we are sophisticated enough to control our own evolution.  This is nonsense.  We can no more control our evolution that we can control the wind or the sun or the universe we live in.  Yet, this is why we need to  not stop the strong from pursuing what they want. 


When intellectual's are burned by the ignorant,
It appears to me you answer that, by right of the strong.

When the strong wins, then we will see who is the intellectual and who is the ignorant.  What many today claim as intelligent, many others decry as foolishness.  

When  millions are slain for difference of blood,
It appears to me you answer that, by right of the strong.
I am not sure what blood has to do with this.  I don't particularly think any sort of blood or race is superior or stronger than another.  In fact - they all bleed when they get cut -and the blood all flows red.  There are strong and weak in every race and tongue. 

When collars are cast about necks, medical experiments commenced upon unwilling,
It appears to me you answer that, by right of the strong.

If science can be trusted in any field, it can be trusted in every field.  Science -and the pursuit of it ought to be given carte blanche to do everything it can - and to go wherever it is possible. 

I do not deny that what 'happens in life, 'happens.
I 'do oppose a moral system, by which one's concern is only in being strong.
In 'justifying the trampling of others by that strength.
So you oppose evolution.  Are you a creationist then? 

I think that morality is as morality does.  My morality is clearly as valid as anyone else's. Why would you consider it ok - to let everyone else have their morality - but would oppose mine?

Surely, if you think we could all exist together, even in disagreement, then there must be a place for mine ? Or do you think my position should be burnt? Put to death. Not because it is strong or because it is weak or even because it is valid - but because it opposes the substance of what you are desiring. 

And if hypothetically, my views could exist together with yours, how would that look?   Would it simply be paraded as a relic of hypothetical thinking - which I would consider worse than burning it - or would it be allowed to breathe in short bursts at different times in various places with appropriate boundaries?  The boundaries that ultimately are created by those who disagree with it but don't have the strength to destroy it completely. 





#99
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 3,436
4
5
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
5
10
-->
@Timid8967
Apologizes if I was a bit ragging on the conversation a bit.
Mainly just curious what you believe, or myself believe. I'm not always sure what my thoughts are, unless I force myself to speak.
Your system described is. . . explicit, precise.
My own morality/ethics are vaguely known to myself, but I can't quite agree with such a utilitarian philosophy as your focus on survival of the fittest.
I can acknowledge results, but knowing an end result, need not mean one submits to it.
Means, are worthy as ends in themselves, to my way of thinking.
I would rather people act as they believe is right, justified, than what they believe will emerge victorious.
Doesn't mean I 'ignore the survival instinct in humans. Or that I deny people often have opposite ideas of 'right.
Personally I consider religion 'stronger than irreligion, but depends how one defines religion, perhaps.
I even think that there's truth in religion to some people, or truth in pieces of some religions.
Though I can admire your motivations, in that you view religion as false, that I assume you think it is better for people not to be influenced by it.

Though there's likely a more explanatory philosophy on right and wrong, I lack it myself. And can only speak in the morality I was raised.
Can't say I'm a fan of American foreign policy myself, though it could be worse.

I'm still not convinced by the strongest being 'ought to pursue their own ends, or the 'justification of such.
That 'someone will win in conflicts, I cannot deny, that some people will have their way I cannot deny.
But I'm not sure I support a philosophy of admiring strength above virtue.

I believe in evolution, rather than Earth being created in six days.
I 'am an atheist, as atheism is commonly understood.
But believing in the 'existence of natural selection, is different from 'applying it to social interactions in a. . . stringent manner.

I suppose I oppose your view of morality, if I'm viewing it right,
As pragmatic system of advocating that which survives,
Because I see flaws in it, though I could be wrong.
I oppose other systems of morality as well, though 'how I oppose different systems varies. In ways I can't recall off the top of my head.

Our different views of morality coexisting, would for the moment, exist as it does in this moment.
I am not able, nor do I desire to ban you from this site for possessing different views. Instead I'd rather hear you out, consider your ideas, discard or improve my own.

. . .
Quotes, I'm unsure which you mean exactly.
I 'do have a habit of including the ' symbol, over words I mean to place inflection upon, which may be mistaken as quoting. But I 'so also have a habit of borrowing history or other people's works and ideas. Sometimes.

history to be repeated if people are not aware of it - Common saying, attributed to many people.

supple spine - I'm thinking of a line in Cyrano de Bergerac, a Play by Edmond Rostand

Even before the American Civil War was lost and won - William Shakespeare's play Macbeth, "When the battle's won and lost"

When intellectual's are burned by the ignorant, - I was thinking of Hypatia, https://existentialcomics.com/comic/163

When  millions are slain for difference of blood, - numerous genocides in history

When collars are cast about necks, medical experiments commenced upon unwilling, - numerous scientific experiments upon slaves in history.

Means as ends in themselves, - I'm misusing Kant, who said that rational human beings should be treated as an end in themselves and not as a means to something else.
Topic's author
#100
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Lemming
 just curious what you believe, or myself believe.
that's ok. Mostly we are all inconsistent in our views - and moreso if we are vague. 

Your system described is. . . explicit, precise.
I try to be as consistent with my understanding of the world as possible.  The reason why my view is so explicit and precise is because it is moreso consistent with the position that there is no god and that humanity makes its own rules as we go along.  In other words,  morality is whatever I decide it is - not some institution or book. Or even the values that others consider typically valuable such as life, democracy, fairness, justice, accountability.  If anything has a value it is the notion of consistency - because it at least gives me perspective and a framework to measure against.  Hence - since life has happened to me - then I desire to make it all about me and the way I see it. Now this of course could lead me into two paths. One, specific for my individuality or for the betterment of society as a whole.  I prefer the former option - yet understand that for me to achieve this consistently and more fully, it will require me also pursuing the outcome for the betterment of society within the same parameters. Anything short of this means I cannot truly be happy. 

My own morality/ethics are vaguely known to myself, but I can't quite agree with such a utilitarian philosophy as your focus on survival of the fittest.
Why not? You are suggesting that the means and the ends ought to be balanced. That the destination and the journey are both important. Unfortunately, I take the view that can only hold up if a god exists.  Since god does not exist, then there are no absolute morals that require me worrying about the journey.  How I get to an end is entirely up to me and once I get to that end then - I have achieved what I wanted - and am fulfilled.  There is no logical explanation except for moral conscious that would require me to worry about the journey otherwise. 

I can acknowledge results, but knowing an end result, need not mean one submits to it.
Results are a measure. That is why you can acknowledge them.  Yet what other way is there to objectively understand anything except by its results.  True, we don't have to submit to anything - yet - I am talking about an outcome. Whether we want it to happen or not - there will always be an outcome. Outcomes are inevitable. 

Means, are worthy as ends in themselves, to my way of thinking.

Yes, I can see that. Yet it is inconsistent to an atheist.  An atheist has no valid reason to be concerned about the means apart from morality.  This is something which atheists imbibe from morality systems. And morals per se - arise from religious convictions.  Morals intrinsically are saying that right and wrong exists.  Atheism suggests implicitly that there are no rights or wrongs, just learning experiences along the way.  


I would rather people act as they believe is right, justified, than what they believe will emerge victorious.
Yet, you would find it difficult to take the view that I should act as I believe is right - and that is to destroy religion.  Again - inconsistent. No offence meant by the way - just trying to clear away some of the misconceptions.  I don't believe that I am right - since I don't I believe in right or wrong. Nevertheless, it is inconsistent and in my view actually is self contradiction. 

Doesn't mean I 'ignore the survival instinct in humans. Or that I deny people often have opposite ideas of 'right.
People believe all sorts of things.  This is what I love about human nature. I don't mind that people think very differently to me. For me this is part of the tapestry of life.  Yet,  this does not mean that any person is right or wrong. Survival instinct is flee or fight.  Fleeing can take various manners as can fighting.  The only negative outcome really is to die.  Even if you lose a fight but survive - then you have another day to fight. Unless of course you are so seriously wounded that you don't want to fight anymore - then you really are a waste of air.  And should kill yourself.  

Personally I consider religion 'stronger than irreligion, but depends how one defines religion, perhaps.
Religion has evolved for some reason. I can agree with that.  Was it make humanity stronger or weaker? Good question. IDK.  Yet, for the human to continue to evolve - he needs to be able to adapt and fly - this means letting go of the past - and the errors in thinking - such as right and wrong.  This is the only way that individuals will be able to evolve into the next phaze in our journey. 

I even think that there's truth in religion to some people, or truth in pieces of some religions.
Though I can admire your motivations, in that you view religion as false, that I assume you think it is better for people not to be influenced by it.
Truth is truth. It is quite different from right and wrong.  Truth is that which accords with reality. Right and wrong is what accords with someone's understanding of reality.  The two although similar are quite different. Religion is based in someone else's understanding of reality - not with the reality itself. 


Though there's likely a more explanatory philosophy on right and wrong, I lack it myself. And can only speak in the morality I was raised.
Can't say I'm a fan of American foreign policy myself, though it could be worse.
Yep US policy sucks. 

I'm still not convinced by the strongest being 'ought to pursue their own ends, or the 'justification of such.
That 'someone will win in conflicts, I cannot deny, that some people will have their way I cannot deny.
But I'm not sure I support a philosophy of admiring strength above virtue.
Obviously or you would not have replied so. But why not? What is the logical reasoning for why you think that some can pursue this but others cannot.  Strength is not just the might of the brute beast. Might can be intelligence. Might can be money. Might can be good looks. Might can be the ability to reason.  Might is not just brute strength. But might is might and the mightiest - whoever they are - and they will win. 

I believe in evolution, rather than Earth being created in six days.
I 'am an atheist, as atheism is commonly understood.
But believing in the 'existence of natural selection, is different from 'applying it to social interactions in a. . . stringent manner.
Glad to hear.  I think consistently it needs to be applied in every field, otherwise,  we take on board a false dichotomy. If we borrow from the religions around us in the way we interact, then we deny who we really are. 


I suppose I oppose your view of morality, if I'm viewing it right,
As pragmatic system of advocating that which survives,
Because I see flaws in it, though I could be wrong.
I oppose other systems of morality as well, though 'how I oppose different systems varies. In ways I can't recall off the top of my head.
Ok. 


Our different views of morality coexisting, would for the moment, exist as it does in this moment.
I am not able, nor do I desire to ban you from this site for possessing different views. Instead I'd rather hear you out, consider your ideas, discard or improve my own.

. . .
Does it exist? If I applied my view it would soon become extinct. I would be canceled quicker than Donald Trump.  The fact is - the world is so inconsistent now in its thinking that my position is abhorrent despite the fact that it is pure atheism through and through.  Yet many would disagree with me and that is ok.  I cannot pretend to be right. 



#101
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 3,436
4
5
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
5
10
-->
@Timid8967
I 'am fond of means as ends in themselves, perhaps for the sake of being conscious of them, perhaps for the sake of desire and aesthetic. For the sake of what I want to accomplish. I believe that the act of 'living life, is something that a person can be aware of, appreciate, do well.

I speak of acknowledging results, but not submitting. . . For there exist situations, moments in life, where the end result looks assured, a bully shall beat the stuffing out of me, should I defy them.
But that is not the only result, should I submit, something 'inside me, shall die instead. . .
A poor man's martyr, one who survives that which distresses, but by such sentiments and ideas, do I imagine those who have died for their faith felt.
That someone else appears likely to be victorious, need not be victorious over my soul.
(Poetically speaking)

I confess, a man beyond morality, is beyond my ken.
Morality is a part of the human condition, as I see it.
Arising even in the murk.
Existentialism.

I can believe that you would act as you see right, but that does not mean I agree 'with you, upon that which you view as right.
Valuing morality, society, and existence, as a dog eating dog, survival of the fittest, just not to my tastes.
If I reckon your suggested system correctly.

Many books and interactions, result in a learning of reality, through the minds of others.

Might may exist in many avenues, then perhaps it can exist in virtue.

I believe your views exist, in you, in others, in parts of society, though perhaps not vogue, at the moment.

Topic's author
#102
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Lemming
I speak of acknowledging results, but not submitting. . . For there exist situations, moments in life, where the end result looks assured, a bully shall beat the stuffing out of me, should I defy them.

But that is not the only result, should I submit, something 'inside me, shall die instead. . .
A poor man's martyr, one who survives that which distresses, but by such sentiments and ideas, do I imagine those who have died for their faith felt.
That someone else appears likely to be victorious, need not be victorious over my soul.
(Poetically speaking)
With respect, you are talking about the soul.  That something which provides to humanity, what some may call humanity.  What separates them from the animals.  Animals have no morality system.  They do what they do - for their own interests.    Humanity is just another animal. An animal who can think philosophically and by using an moralistic sense - something which seems to have derived from a belief in god. 

Animals do not worship god.  There are no animal temples.  They have no religion. They live and they die.  What separates humanity from the animals is a intellectual ability to imagine god.  it is this imagination which provides to us the notion that something is right or it is wrong.  Although I see you are doing so poetically, it is inconsistent with atheism.  Atheists have no morality of their own, they have to borrow it from religions.  Atheists have no beliefs, except there is no god. it goes without saying that this means they cannot consistently have morals.  Yet atheists do have morals.  They say that they do not borrow them from religions - so where do they come from? I say - morality is an invention of humanity borrowed from a superstitious belief.   To evolve  - we need to divest ourselves of morality. 


I confess, a man beyond morality, is beyond my ken.
Morality is a part of the human condition, as I see it.
Arising even in the murk.
Existentialism.
Neitche imagined it. I am simply trying to apply it.  

I can believe that you would act as you see right, but that does not mean I agree 'with you, upon that which you view as right.
Valuing morality, society, and existence, as a dog eating dog, survival of the fittest, just not to my tastes.
If I reckon your suggested system correctly.
I think perhaps you have misunderstood me somewhat. I am not claiming to be right.  Nor am I claiming that you are wrong. I think right and wrong belong to a moralistic system. I do think I am being consistent. And that you are being inconsistent.  All I am doing is taking the philosophies of evolution and atheism as part and parcel of the same thing - and extending their particular distinctions in a true trajectory. To not do this would be to deny who I am.  I am alone in this universe.  I have no purpose but what I make of it. Survival of the fittest. Strongest survives.  Amoral system. Outcome orientated and measured.  Whatever it takes.  It is neither right nor wrong. It is what it is.  


Many books and interactions, result in a learning of reality, through the minds of others.

Might may exist in many avenues, then perhaps it can exist in virtue.

I believe your views exist, in you, in others, in parts of society, though perhaps not vogue, at the moment.
I think it exists in all of us.     It is slowly revealing itself more and more as we embrace who we really are.  There are still far too many cloaks of morality and institutional mores that hold onto us and which try and prevent us from living.  Yet, soon.  And then it will become normal once again.  As we once again become the animals - the beasts that we are on the inside.  Why is it that the more progressive and sophisticated we are - the rarer our meat becomes - and the more we move towards vegetarianism.    We like the beast - and to be the beast - eating grass - and eating our kill.  

In the most progressive there is the hint of the primitive.  Or rather the exotic.  and the future. 
#103
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,647
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Timid8967
I don't give a rat's arse about blasphemy.

 I know and that is another thing we also agree on. 


 I cannot blaspheme against something that does not exist.

Then you do not understand blasphemy. there again, you do not understand the "confusing and contradictory"scriptures either, do you?




  And if religious people get upset - well good for them.  It is not my job to make people feel happy about nonsense.  

And that is another thing we can agree on. And this is what puzzles me about your attitude towards me.  Why are you so upset that I feel there is more to the Jesus story?  A story that you believe is a complete "myth " anyway? 


Ok, my bad.  Perhaps more than christians care about the bible. IDK. 

No, you Don't Know do you?  You see when you told us that Christian believe the bible to be "only a book"  I noticed that you had taken that right out of the book of the Reverend tradesecret. he spoke for others too and often.  Is that where you got this idea?  You do tell us that you had researched all his posts , don't you?

  Lets look at this closer;

You said:

Dimtim8967 wrote : If it were the Koran - that would be true. But the bible at least for the Christians I know is just a book.

Stephen asked:  How do you know that the bible is "just a book to Christians"? <<<<<<<Please don't ignore that question.
See that, "the bible is just a book" are the words that  you have used there . The Reverend tradesecret used a similar expression to you and he is a devote pastor  #3


It certainly sounds like you worship it. 
Nope. I worship my wife, my children and my grand children.


Jesus said he came to divide family.

That will be one of the hypocrisies you mention and that I also agree with.



To set man against son and mother against daughter. How is that peace?

It isn't is it? That will be another of    those confusing one of the hypocrisies you mention and that I also agree with.



He told one of his disciples to go and get swords. Swords which then they used in a violent manner. 

  He did and and we know at least one of them did. We have to wonder why don't we? He also said " put it away, those that live by the sword die by it,"  didn't he?  I can see why it is all so terribly confusing to you in particular, for someone that has only read it once?


Jesus was often talking about hellfire - gnashing teeth and all of that. To say Jesus did not advocate violence is simply a lie. 

Lets see those verses.


And you appear to be awfully eager to promote  a belief system that you say is a danger to our children and existence and  a book and   the you want committed to the flames.
Do you just read what I say - and think "he is saying the opposite of these things". 

I di see what you have only JUST wrote. I also notice you have only mentioned this since I have pointed out that you appear awfully defensive of the se "confusing and contradictory" scriptures?


Stephen, I am not promoting the bible and I am not promoting christianity or indeed any religious position.  Stop being a jerk.  

Ok. 

And as I said - keep to the topic.

  Then simply stop leaving yourself op to question that are not related to your topic that I have to respond to......
...... such as here>>

To me - it looks as though you are simply a paranoid white old man who MUST get his way.
Oh the privilege that exists in your tiny little half assed brain.


As I  have said numerous times now.  I feel your ad hominems towards me serves to  sooth and massage  your own  troubled mind rather than do their intentions to offend me.  Because they don't  work on me you see.  As long as you don't go all disgusting  and filthy as you did after only being here a short while. Would you like a reminder?

Here you are >>>#272   

Timid8967 Wrote:

" I thought you understood animal and pussy.  Ask your god, it might help.  Although it seems to be silent.  Stephen is a dick." <<< absolute uncalled for filth from you.

Was those filthy and disgusting  words of yours  keeping on topic?  Was that utter bile and filth adhering to  the theme of the thread? My thread? 
 Like you, your thread is spent. 






 







#104
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 3,436
4
5
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
5
10
-->
@Timid8967
Well, it has been fun chatting, but for the moment, my steam has run out.
With myself having little more to add, conversation wise, at the moment.
Topic's author
#105
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
Why are you so upset that I feel there is more to the Jesus story?  A story that you believe is a complete "myth " anyway? 
You misunderstand me.  I am not upset. You can believe whatever you want about Jesus. I even encouraged you to explore it IN YOUR own THREAD.  My issue is - that you keep bringing Jesus and christianity into this topic.  This topic is about the Jewish god and the Islam god.  What part of that is so difficult to understand? Oh that is right. NOTHING is difficult about that.  

Stephen asked:  How do you know that the bible is "just a book to Christians"? <<<<<<<Please don't ignore that question.
See that, "the bible is just a book" are the words that  you have used there . The Reverend tradesecret used a similar expression to you and he is a devote pastor 
Now I am really smiling.  I knew if I kept needling you would once again reveal your paranoia.  I didn't expect it from this one though.   How many other people on this site have called the bible a book? Oodles.  Are they all the Reverend tradesecret as well?  Obviously they must be.  I also said above that humans are animals. Did you reference that with anyone as well? Perhaps I am zed? Or perhaps I ragnar? Or perhaps i am Poly?  Give it a break Stephen.  I am not tradesecret.  (Although reading his posts that you keep referring to he - he seems to be a giant amongst those on here, and what is it that you keep trying to put on - oh that is right. yes I would be proud to be mistaken for him.) He must have really upset you - for you to keep seeing his ghost everywhere.  perhaps I should read more of his stuff - hey he might even -  - convert me.  You would really love that.  Please don't stop.  This is too much fun. 

You are one in a million Stephen.  but  Please keep to the topic.  This is about the Jewish and the Islam god.  
#106
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,647
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Timid8967
Why are you so upset that I feel there is more to the Jesus story?  A story that you believe is a complete "myth " anyway? 
I even encouraged you to explore it IN YOUR own THREAD. 

 And I do. I haven't mentioned my own ideas or thoughts or theories that I have about the scriptures on this thread!  What I have wrote is and are well documented FACTS of others and the bible itself.  


I am not upset. You can believe whatever you want about Jesus.

 That's kind of you.I shall keep that in mind.  But I do anyway.



My issue is - that you keep bringing Jesus and christianity into this topic. 

 Nope I don't KEEP bringing that into the topic. !  I said my piece at post  #15 corrected you stupid schoolboy  mistake at post #43  which you acknowledged as " a fair point" and haven't mentioned  either since only that I do agree with those here that believe Christianity cannot be left out!!!!! and that it should be part of this thread.   BUT  since in my eyes you have completely changed the theme of your thread  I have told you that I have nothing to add here.. So simply stop addressing ME and stick to the  theme of the thread, YOUR OWN THREAD because  the political side that you have now  introduced  doesn't concern me.

I can't be anymore clearer than that.


Now I am really smiling.  I knew if I kept needling you would once again reveal your paranoia.

 I am not paranoid sunshine. I am simply pointing to the fact that you must have really studied all those post of the Reverend tradsecret to continually be mirroring what he said while he was here. And I have said that it is a shame that you don't pay such close attention to my post as you admit to paying his. 




I knew if I kept needling you

 "Needling me".  I see. Is that what you think you have been doing.  you think far too highly of yourself, dimtim.


To me - it looks as though you are simply a paranoid white old man who MUST get his way.
Oh the privilege that exists in your tiny little half assed brain.


As I  have said numerous times now.  I feel your ad hominems towards me serves to  sooth and massage  your own  troubled mind rather than do their intentions to offend me.  Because they don't  work on me you see.  As long as you don't go all disgusting  and filthy as you did after only being here a short while. Would you like a reminder?

Here you are >>>#272   

Timid8967 Wrote:

" I thought you understood animal and pussy.  Ask your god, it might help.  Although it seems to be silent.  Stephen is a dick." <<< absolute uncalled for filth from you.

Was those filthy and disgusting  words of yours  keeping on topic?  Was that utter bile and filth adhering to  the theme of the thread? My thread? 
 Like you, your thread is spent. 



 Bye for now.








Topic's author
#107
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
So filthy you keep repeating it - almost like a badge of honor.  I think it is time you sucked it up princess. 
#108
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
What started as an interesting comparative subject has turned into a food fight. As usual interest in reading the commentary has waned. Too bad. Children can be cruel.
#109
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,647
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@fauxlaw

What started as an interesting comparative subject has turned into a food fight.

And all started by none other that yourself . Lets have a look at your own contribution to what started of as a pretty "interesting  subject" Shall we.? Here>.

Your very first post -Baiting the Brother;

14  fauxlaw   " I'm sure poundmeThomas will add this to my list of failures." 


Then a little sarcastic suggestion for Dimtim himself  , which really helped the conversation along, didn't it?  


Ask Abraham. He's the father of the two sides.  #17 fauxlaw


Then again another pop at the Brother concerning  what is relevant to a thread that is   SUPPOSEDLY  about  the a Abrahamic god of Jews Muslims and Christians that Dimtim doesn't even believe in!  And what certain gods themselves believe in. <<<, which is irrelevant to Dimtim's thread isn't it? 
Romans clearly offers us a variety of heavenly glories, and not one of them includes hell, so there is apparently a differing set of kingdoms in heaven for varying grades of righteousness in people, outside of hell.#77 fauxlaw



 Yes, Fauxlaw this from you  was an absolutely great contribution to this"interesting  subject" !. You really added some food for thought about what eventually turned out to be a discussion concerning the war in Palestine?    Not a single word of rebuke or condemnation  for the man that pretends to be just about everything Anti  your own religious beliefs. 

So when are you  going to even attempt to answer the OP?  Or have you forgotten his question? 

here you go:  
Dimtim8967 asked ; " Is the god of the Muslims the same as the Jewish god"?

So do you have an answer other than "ask Abraham".?  #17 fauxlaw
 


#110
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
@ Stephen

Sure, the same answer I've offered to you: Ask God.
#111
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,647
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@fauxlaw
So when are you  going to even attempt to answer the OP?  Or have you forgotten his question? 

here you go:  
Dimtim8967 asked ; " Is the god of the Muslims the same as the Jewish god"?

So do you have an answer other than "ask Abraham".?  #17 fauxlaw



 Sure, the same answer I've offered to you: Ask God.
You didn't offer me anything you idiot. And I didn't ask.

 But  I am sure Dimtim8967 will be absolutely delighted with your in depth and thoughtful experienced contribution to his thread, in any language.  You do know that Dimtim believes that he is his own god , don't you?

I am the captain of my own soul - the master of my own destiny. The most important in this world is me.  

I am the center of my own universe.  Everything I do - is about me and for me and to make me succeed and go forth. #16



Topic's author
#112
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
But  I am sure Dimtim8967 will be absolutely delighted with your in depth and thoughtful experienced contribution to his thread, in any language.  You do know that Dimtim believes that he is his own god , don't you?
Always stirring aren't you, Stephen? Well I suppose that makes sense as you have not even once contributed to this topic in a meaningful manner. And you have the gall to accuse others of not doing so either.  

I answered a question in another thread.  And  you could not even get that right.  I never said I was god. The question was how do you define god. And I replied that it was whatever was the ultimate authority in someone's life.  

Since I don't believe in god or any god, then I certainly do not consider myself god.  Just because I have provided a definition for god does not mean that I am suggesting that I am god.  

I am the master of my own fate for better or for worse.  This however does not mean I think I am god.  It only means that the definition I have expressed to define god fits that description. It is not more than that. So stop being ridiculous.  And stop twisting what people are saying.  

It effectively says that there is no god - because everyone definitionally is their own god - making the notion of god as a specific or a general term redundant.  


#113
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,647
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Timid8967
But  I am sure Dimtim8967 will be absolutely delighted with your in depth and thoughtful experienced contribution to his thread, in any language.  You do know that Dimtim believes that he is his own god , don't you?
Always stirring aren't you, Stephen?

 Nope. And stop addressing me on a thread that I have finished with pages ago. 




Since I don't believe in god or any god, then I certainly do not consider myself god. 


 Yes indeed and it was that which has puzzled me. You do define yourself as your own "god",  But that's the trouble with you. You can never seem to remember what shite you actually write and always need reminding. If you are not saying that you define god as "us" then what the hell are you talking about? HERE>>


God is the one we find worthy above all others.  Hence we worship it.  It might be a superstitious person or thing. It might be a power or principle - but in most cases it is simply us.#16  Timid8967


So, does that  "god is us"^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ include you among the "us" or doesn't it? 



Just because I have provided a definition for god does not mean that I am suggesting that I am god.  

 That's correct you did, and you have defined god as  " we "  "us"  and "YOU" have you not!? Or is it a case of YOU not even realising what YOU say ALL the fkn time!

Now stick to your  thread about the conflict in Palestine or has it returned to the original topic of god   of  the Jews and Muslims being one and the same... or not? 





#114
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Timid8967
@Stephen

 " I'm sure poundmeThomas will add this to my list of failures." 
poundmeThomas keeps a list, yeah? Calls me a Bible fool. And you're bothered that I respond with a reminder? Let him deal with it.

Ask Abraham. He's the father of the two sides.
Sarcasm? That's merely a suggestion to read the record. Have you, other than by cherry picking?

Romans clearly offers us a variety of heavenly glories
A simple understanding that there is more than heaven and hell. Sorry if youy're confused. like I said, stop cherry picking and read. All of it. Why must I keep reminding that it is that easy. Takes some time, but maybe you have more of that available than you think. Stop hurling vindictives here and speand a little more time reading. pondering. Asking God. Is that bad advice?

So when are you  going to even attempt to answer the OP?  Or have you forgotten his question? 
When? Seriously, in my post #17. If one wants to know a subject, go to the source. Read the account of Abraham. Is that so hard to get? Summarily, go to the Qu'ran. Read it. What is your aversion to reading? Same advice to Timid. Seems like an easy answer. Maybe too easy for Stephen?
#115
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,647
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@fauxlaw
@Stephen

 " I'm sure poundmeThomas will add this to my list of failures." 
poundmeThomas keeps a list, yeah? Calls me a Bible fool. And you're bothered that I respond with a reminder? Let him deal with it.


 No I am not bothered in the slightest. My point was that you were saying the thread "had turned into a food fight". I simply reminded YOU that YOU had started the food fight and hadn't contributed FK ALL to a thread that you have called an "interesting  subject".. Stones and glass houses. 

Ask Abraham. He's the father of the two sides.
Sarcasm? That's merely a suggestion to read the record. 

But why the sarcasm? Dimtim had asked membership here  a reasonable question, that you simply replied "ask Abraham". Seriously, was there any need for that?  




Romans clearly offers us a variety of heavenly glories
A simple understanding that there is more than heaven and hell.


That may well be, but Dimtim keeps reminding us, and me  especially  to stay on topic and not post anything irrelevant to his  theme. You gave us multiple lines about Romans and their Gods. Although he himself has discussed many things apart from the theme of his own thread.



Sorry if youy're confused.


 Nope. Not at all. So no need to apologise.  I highlighted your own hypocrisy and double standards is all.  i.e. It was YOU that started  " the food fight" and contributed nothing to the OP.


like I said, stop cherry picking and read. All of it.

I have and do and have studied these scriptures for well over 40 years. 




So when are you  going to even attempt to answer the OP?  Or have you forgotten his question? 
When? Seriously, in my post #17. If one wants to know a subject, go to the source.


Then why the fk didn't you just simply reply in that fashion to Dimtim?  Could you not be a little kinder and more  respectable and show him where his answer lies? 

What biblical  verses in particular show that the Muslim god and the Jew god are one and the same on not one and the same? 

Just rudely shouting "ask Abraham"  isn't going to get Dimtim anywhere or even provide and answer for him is it?  Where about in the story of Abraham would Dimtim find his answer to his very reasonable question? Where is your  guidance as a Christian?    

#116
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,647
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Timid8967
So filthy you keep repeating it - 

 No. I was just reminding YOU of YOUR OWN filthy disgusting words towards another forum member here, ME!

I would never "repeat" YOUR filthy disgusting words. You sure showed us your true colours didn't you? 

I posted your filthy comment simply to show  you that while stamping your feet and crying about staying on point, that you were  writing filth like this  to the membership.>>

Here you are >>>#272   

Timid8967 Wrote:

" I thought you understood animal and pussy.  Ask your god, it might help.  Although it seems to be silent.  Stephen is a dick."#272 <<< absolute uncalled for filth from you.

Was those filthy and disgusting  words of yours  staying on topic!!!?

Was that utter bile and filth adhering to  the theme of the thread? My thread? 

Now please stop giving me cause to keep having to remind you of your true colours and double standards?







Topic's author
#117
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen
Stephen - you repeat them because you probably have sort of sick deviancy that enjoys it. 

And whatever spin you label your repetition of it - it is you choice and your posts which include them. 

Get a life - and at least try and stay on topic. 

It is not like this is the first time you have been asked. 
#118
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,465
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
***
Due to too many user complaints about rudeness, this thread is being locked. It can be unlocked by request after 24 hours, but if continuing to participate in after that, infractions will be viewed worse.
-Ragnar, DM
***