ChatterBank0 min ago
if there was a god . . .
23 Answers
would it prefer people to be agnostic than belong to another religion?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mollykins. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Unfortunately,the Christian God is not Panteheistic,and as jno so rightly says would exclude all other (Non Christians).
However,if you ARE referring in effect to a Pantheistic God then he/she would welcome all religions (or indeed those that had no religion).
Of course most religions will tell you that they are the ONLY religion,so finding an all embracing God could be a difficult task!
However,if you ARE referring in effect to a Pantheistic God then he/she would welcome all religions (or indeed those that had no religion).
Of course most religions will tell you that they are the ONLY religion,so finding an all embracing God could be a difficult task!
Surely if a god existed, and by a god I mean a supreme omnipotent being, it could reveal itself to us in such a way as left no doubt and then tell us clearly in a language we could all understand exactly what it wanted us to believe and what we ought to do on a day by day basis.
Logic suggests therefore, that either there is no god or else he doesn't give a monkey's whether you believe or not or how you show it.
Then again logic doesn't come into religion.
Logic suggests therefore, that either there is no god or else he doesn't give a monkey's whether you believe or not or how you show it.
Then again logic doesn't come into religion.
God can not come to every single person one by one and say “remember me, I am God” because logic suggests that if whenever someone denies God, if lightning come there and then and dry roast that person then out of fear you would accept even if you did not want to accept him. Just imagine a worldly example. How many people will deny a human who declare himself god and would kill you there and then if not accepted him as such? Then human eyes, ears and other senses have limitations. We find it difficult even staring into a car lights coming from other side with high beam on.
So God sent his messengers 125K according to Islamic belief. And they told people in their language whatever they wanted to know about God. Quran says that God never did and never will punish anyone who did not get his message. Now people do not believe in the right message or can’t differentiate right from the wrong then they were either lazy or thought that they were too clever to believe in certain things. But believe me human do have limitation and as someone said that the one who says that he knows about everything in fact knows about nothing. Logic is good thing and so is reasoning. But if human had been able to solve all the mysteries using their given senses only then they would have done that long time ago.
So God sent his messengers 125K according to Islamic belief. And they told people in their language whatever they wanted to know about God. Quran says that God never did and never will punish anyone who did not get his message. Now people do not believe in the right message or can’t differentiate right from the wrong then they were either lazy or thought that they were too clever to believe in certain things. But believe me human do have limitation and as someone said that the one who says that he knows about everything in fact knows about nothing. Logic is good thing and so is reasoning. But if human had been able to solve all the mysteries using their given senses only then they would have done that long time ago.
Keyplus,
I beg to disagree. If a god is omnipotent and all powerful then yes he can simultaneously appear to everybody in the world different shape form or manner.
I'm not suggesting he need smite non-believers down but merely demonstrate something that was a trifle to him but beyond comprehension to us. I suspect I'd be half way to converted if he appeared on my computer screen, promised to end poverty in Africa and then just did it.
The nub of my post on here wasn't about the existence of god so much as whether he was overly concerned if we believed or not.
Would 'god' be happier if we all believed in him and prayed in the right way or if we were all agnostic but spent our lives doing good deeds for other out of a sense of personal satisfaction?
I beg to disagree. If a god is omnipotent and all powerful then yes he can simultaneously appear to everybody in the world different shape form or manner.
I'm not suggesting he need smite non-believers down but merely demonstrate something that was a trifle to him but beyond comprehension to us. I suspect I'd be half way to converted if he appeared on my computer screen, promised to end poverty in Africa and then just did it.
The nub of my post on here wasn't about the existence of god so much as whether he was overly concerned if we believed or not.
Would 'god' be happier if we all believed in him and prayed in the right way or if we were all agnostic but spent our lives doing good deeds for other out of a sense of personal satisfaction?
i think omniscent is the word your looking for, omnipotent is all powerful omniscent is everywhere.
but what if the god(ess)(s/es) that did exist were of a different religion?
i think aslong as you are agnostic and a good person (kind, generous etc), you are safe with most gods if it turns out they exist. and vegetarians are probably best of even still, if they are kind etc. as this would please gods of vegetarian religions/ reincarnate you as nirvana etc.
but what if the god(ess)(s/es) that did exist were of a different religion?
i think aslong as you are agnostic and a good person (kind, generous etc), you are safe with most gods if it turns out they exist. and vegetarians are probably best of even still, if they are kind etc. as this would please gods of vegetarian religions/ reincarnate you as nirvana etc.
Incorrect mollykins on two counts.
Omniscent isn't actually a word but if it was I imagine it would mean "smelling of everything". God certainly stinks so we could add it I guess.
Omniscient is the word you meant but that means all knowing not being everywhere.
Omnipresent means being present everywhere.
Omniscent isn't actually a word but if it was I imagine it would mean "smelling of everything". God certainly stinks so we could add it I guess.
Omniscient is the word you meant but that means all knowing not being everywhere.
Omnipresent means being present everywhere.
KeyPlus said: How many people will deny a human who declare himself god and would kill you there and then if not accepted him as such?
Perhaps this will give an insight in to why religions are so widespread. It certainly applies to Islam where Mohammed (pbuh) and those who followed conquered countless groups by offering them the chance to willingly convert or be "converted by the sword".
The Catholic oligarchy had a similar attitude to anyone who spoke out against their doctrine.
Incidentally Keyplus, which perfect Muslim truth do you subscribe to, Shi'ite or Suni?
Perhaps this will give an insight in to why religions are so widespread. It certainly applies to Islam where Mohammed (pbuh) and those who followed conquered countless groups by offering them the chance to willingly convert or be "converted by the sword".
The Catholic oligarchy had a similar attitude to anyone who spoke out against their doctrine.
Incidentally Keyplus, which perfect Muslim truth do you subscribe to, Shi'ite or Suni?
Beso – “Islam was spread by Sword” is something Muslims hear every day. But people who claim that have no knowledge about the history as well as religion. So lets see if you have that ability. Answer my three questions and I will agree with you.
1- Indonesia is the largest Muslim country on the basis of population. Can you give me any reference as such that when, and who conquered Indonesia? In simple words, which Islamic army invaded Indonesia.
2- Muslims ruled over Spain almost 900 years, then why when they were defeated and pushed out still majority of the people there were Non Muslims?
3- You may answer same question as number 2 about India or subcontinent? Where when Britain took over Hindus and other Non Muslims were still in majority?
Finally Sunni and Shia have co existed over centuries and you speak to any Sunni or Shia personally and they do not have problem with each other as we all know that difference between both has nothing to do with Islamic teachings. In fact Islam is against these division. So question again,
1- Ask any Muslim (if you know one)that Muhammad (pbuh) and his companions, were they Sunni or Shia?
2- Why this has become more known since USA and allies invaded Iraq? Seems to me USA did learn something from Britain in this regard, Divide and rule.
Otherwise find me one reference from the history where any well known religious leader (Sunni or Shia) said that it is OK to kill others.
1- Indonesia is the largest Muslim country on the basis of population. Can you give me any reference as such that when, and who conquered Indonesia? In simple words, which Islamic army invaded Indonesia.
2- Muslims ruled over Spain almost 900 years, then why when they were defeated and pushed out still majority of the people there were Non Muslims?
3- You may answer same question as number 2 about India or subcontinent? Where when Britain took over Hindus and other Non Muslims were still in majority?
Finally Sunni and Shia have co existed over centuries and you speak to any Sunni or Shia personally and they do not have problem with each other as we all know that difference between both has nothing to do with Islamic teachings. In fact Islam is against these division. So question again,
1- Ask any Muslim (if you know one)that Muhammad (pbuh) and his companions, were they Sunni or Shia?
2- Why this has become more known since USA and allies invaded Iraq? Seems to me USA did learn something from Britain in this regard, Divide and rule.
Otherwise find me one reference from the history where any well known religious leader (Sunni or Shia) said that it is OK to kill others.
Rev – Sorry I saw your question in the last post a bit late. Even good deeds are a questionable subject. I have asked so many people two things. Where the concept of good deeds have come from if not from religion? And then who decides what is good? And what criteria do you use to decide that? There has to be one God who gives guides you about good or bad otherwise people can never agree on one common good deed apart from basic things. For example one country says speed limit on motor way is 70 miles an hour and other may say 80. I know it is a different example, but speed limit saves people’s lives so it is a good deed to abide by the law but which one is right 70 or 80?
I was once talking to a Christian friend and he said that Jesus said that we should love everyone regardless who he/she might be. I asked him that would he love someone who (for example) would rape and kill his daughter, sister or mother? He said no. So good deed in this case “loving everyone” was dumped there and then.
I believe my religion tells me to believe in God and do good things that are practically good for the whole society. I believe there is not a single thing my religion wants me to do which is against humanity. Now that is other question that few people (including few Muslims too) may not understand or agree with that due to certain misconception and personal likes and dislikes.
So to answer your question if you are agnostic then to you good deeds might be localized and ever changing as it would depend upon human thoughts that ever changes.
I was once talking to a Christian friend and he said that Jesus said that we should love everyone regardless who he/she might be. I asked him that would he love someone who (for example) would rape and kill his daughter, sister or mother? He said no. So good deed in this case “loving everyone” was dumped there and then.
I believe my religion tells me to believe in God and do good things that are practically good for the whole society. I believe there is not a single thing my religion wants me to do which is against humanity. Now that is other question that few people (including few Muslims too) may not understand or agree with that due to certain misconception and personal likes and dislikes.
So to answer your question if you are agnostic then to you good deeds might be localized and ever changing as it would depend upon human thoughts that ever changes.
KP,
I'm not sure I really understand "good deeds might be localized". I take it to be that if you don't follow a religion then your concept of "good" is based on personal experience and may change over time.
I agree as far as precise detail but I am arguably an agnostic and I consider I am fundamentally a good person. My basic beliefs as to what constitute "good" have been unwavering, basically not harming others without good cause and helping others where possible. I believe these are the guiding principles of virtually all religions with the exception I see no moral benefit in praying to another being, supreme or otherwise.
For me, yes the practical applications will vary but isn't that the case for people following a god as well. Take your example of a christian loving everyone.
One of my problems with religions is they tend to be based on books written centuries ago from the view point of that time. There is then 3 options (1) follow the letter of these laws despite the fact that the world has changed (2) Have a religious leader interpret and amend these laws but then you are following a man and his views not the original religion or (3) Interpret the words for yourself in which case the followers of that religion will diverge and splits will occur.
I don't know the answer as to where my definition of "good deeds" comes from but I don't know where the universe came from either yet it is still there. I know your response to this will be both came from god but if you can conceive that god has always existed and was not created then why can the universe not have always existed rather than have been created?
I'm not sure I really understand "good deeds might be localized". I take it to be that if you don't follow a religion then your concept of "good" is based on personal experience and may change over time.
I agree as far as precise detail but I am arguably an agnostic and I consider I am fundamentally a good person. My basic beliefs as to what constitute "good" have been unwavering, basically not harming others without good cause and helping others where possible. I believe these are the guiding principles of virtually all religions with the exception I see no moral benefit in praying to another being, supreme or otherwise.
For me, yes the practical applications will vary but isn't that the case for people following a god as well. Take your example of a christian loving everyone.
One of my problems with religions is they tend to be based on books written centuries ago from the view point of that time. There is then 3 options (1) follow the letter of these laws despite the fact that the world has changed (2) Have a religious leader interpret and amend these laws but then you are following a man and his views not the original religion or (3) Interpret the words for yourself in which case the followers of that religion will diverge and splits will occur.
I don't know the answer as to where my definition of "good deeds" comes from but I don't know where the universe came from either yet it is still there. I know your response to this will be both came from god but if you can conceive that god has always existed and was not created then why can the universe not have always existed rather than have been created?
Rev – You are right that why people can’t follow on God if any? And I know what you mean by centuries old books. I can only talk about Islam and Quran. Original Quran since the time of Muhammad (pbuh) is present to date and original language too. No other religion can claim that. Now the remaining thing is interpretation. And that depends upon how people interpret it. For example trinity does not exist in Bible but there are more than one verses in Bible itself where Jesus (pbuh) talked about only one God but Christian still believe in trinity. I believe trinity is more historic than religious.
Then you are right in saying that all of the religions speak about good deeds. But they don’t tell you how to do that, whereas Islam tells you how to do good deeds and how to apply limits. Again the same example of my Christian friend. Because even good deeds must have a limit otherwise it will create imbalance in the society. Our benefit system is another example of that.
As for the creation of the universe, I am not a scientist but I believe scientist believe that Universe is changing and anything that change has beginning and an end. For God we believe (again faith) that he was always there and will always be there. Scientists talk about big bang theory now and it has been mentioned in Quran 1400 years ago. Scientists are talking about life on other planets and this too has been mentioned in Quran.
Then you are right in saying that all of the religions speak about good deeds. But they don’t tell you how to do that, whereas Islam tells you how to do good deeds and how to apply limits. Again the same example of my Christian friend. Because even good deeds must have a limit otherwise it will create imbalance in the society. Our benefit system is another example of that.
As for the creation of the universe, I am not a scientist but I believe scientist believe that Universe is changing and anything that change has beginning and an end. For God we believe (again faith) that he was always there and will always be there. Scientists talk about big bang theory now and it has been mentioned in Quran 1400 years ago. Scientists are talking about life on other planets and this too has been mentioned in Quran.
-- answer removed --
Keyplus:
Many polytheistic people did convert willingly to monotheistic religions. Some liked the idea of only having to pray to one God instead of spending so much time attending to a multitude of deities. Frequently they converted in the face of the obvious might of the conquering faith which they presumed had a more powerful god.
Islam was brought to Indonesia and many other places by traders. These traders were wealthy and influential. Undoubtedly they were more likey to favour those of their own faith hence providing a strong motive to convert. Those who continued with the ancient Hindu and Buddhist traditions moved to Bali. It would not be unreasonable to presume they did so because they were disadvantaged compared to the Muslim majority.
Muslims were driven from Spain by the brutal Roman Catholic regime. I don't like their values either. Like Islam they rely on pervasive techniques of indoctrination and repression to avoid philosophical development.
Hinduism was already long established in India before Islam arrived. The religious tension between the faiths ultimately resulted in the separateion between India and Pakistan.
India and Spain are excellent examples contrary to your earlier proposition that many people convert because Islam is so obviously superior to other faiths.
Many polytheistic people did convert willingly to monotheistic religions. Some liked the idea of only having to pray to one God instead of spending so much time attending to a multitude of deities. Frequently they converted in the face of the obvious might of the conquering faith which they presumed had a more powerful god.
Islam was brought to Indonesia and many other places by traders. These traders were wealthy and influential. Undoubtedly they were more likey to favour those of their own faith hence providing a strong motive to convert. Those who continued with the ancient Hindu and Buddhist traditions moved to Bali. It would not be unreasonable to presume they did so because they were disadvantaged compared to the Muslim majority.
Muslims were driven from Spain by the brutal Roman Catholic regime. I don't like their values either. Like Islam they rely on pervasive techniques of indoctrination and repression to avoid philosophical development.
Hinduism was already long established in India before Islam arrived. The religious tension between the faiths ultimately resulted in the separateion between India and Pakistan.
India and Spain are excellent examples contrary to your earlier proposition that many people convert because Islam is so obviously superior to other faiths.
Mohammed (pubh) did not have to deal with the difference between Shia and Suni interpretations of his doctrine.
Please correct me if I am wrong but my understanding is that this division happened upon his death. I have been told that Shia faith is based on the descendents of Mohammed (pbuh) believing they having elite status. This status is expressed through black headwear. Shia Muslims are among the most primitve and bigoted of all human kind.
I have little doubt that Mohammad (pbuh) would be as disappointed as Jesus (pbuh) with the acts perpetrated in their names.
Please also understand that I stood up and protested about the grave injuctices perpetrated upon Iraq and its people by some western governments including my own. I have no respect whatsoever for George Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard for the attrocities they committed. Their worship of the God of Greed disgusts me. I will concede a lttle credit to the Brits for their attempt in demand an explanation from Blair.
The deplorable treatment of the Middle-East and insidious lies perpetrated by Western powers rank among the most shameful acts of modern humanity. It thoroughly sickens me that these acts were committed in the name of Christ.
With them, Winston Churchill stands among the most deplorable bigots, liars and cheats in all history. His contribution, along with that of the CIA, to the retrogade development of Middle eastern Arab culture is without comparison.
Please correct me if I am wrong but my understanding is that this division happened upon his death. I have been told that Shia faith is based on the descendents of Mohammed (pbuh) believing they having elite status. This status is expressed through black headwear. Shia Muslims are among the most primitve and bigoted of all human kind.
I have little doubt that Mohammad (pbuh) would be as disappointed as Jesus (pbuh) with the acts perpetrated in their names.
Please also understand that I stood up and protested about the grave injuctices perpetrated upon Iraq and its people by some western governments including my own. I have no respect whatsoever for George Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard for the attrocities they committed. Their worship of the God of Greed disgusts me. I will concede a lttle credit to the Brits for their attempt in demand an explanation from Blair.
The deplorable treatment of the Middle-East and insidious lies perpetrated by Western powers rank among the most shameful acts of modern humanity. It thoroughly sickens me that these acts were committed in the name of Christ.
With them, Winston Churchill stands among the most deplorable bigots, liars and cheats in all history. His contribution, along with that of the CIA, to the retrogade development of Middle eastern Arab culture is without comparison.
If God were a sentient being of some sort, would they know what you meant by "another religion" ? As I don't. They're all much of a muchness aren't they ? Quibble on details but ... Mind you, a sentient deity would probably be better than working out these things than I. But then I ask myself, why the heck should a deity care which religious group I chose to join ?
If anything, I am with Old Geezer on this one. Simply because no god has incontrovertibly manifested itself, all gods we have heard of are man made/imagined (I know this will thoroughly anger you Keyplus, but this is my observation while you are entirely entitled to your acceptance of the Quran and I have no desire to disillusion you) and generally the sentiment of vanity, desire for power, intolerance and punishment pokes through among the practitioners of all religions, especially monotheistic ones. I hope there is a god and that it will choose to prove to all of us how the point was missed: god is almost certainly not at all interested in party-political comparisons between bickering groups. Yes, I also agree that both M and JC would be appalled by quite a lot of what is put forward in their names because I choose to think they had a lot of human decency about them - they wanted to make a positive contribution and that desire is what drove them to prominence. Those who came afterwards molded things to fit their own perceptions and desires. It is even my understanding that both Cristian and Muslim scriptures were formally written after each of the two "founders" were dead and could not be consulted regarding their "final" form.
Karl – I agree with whatever you said apart from what you said right at the end. If not because of that (just to clarify) I wouldn’t have posted any further on this thread.
Quran had been completed in the life of Muhammad (pbuh) although it was not in a book form. What people usually forget is that since the time of Muhammad (pbuh) to this date (without any break in the history) there have been hundred of thousands people who remember Quran word to word by heart. During the month of Ramadan (fasting month) Muhammad (pbuh) used to recite whole Quran during night prayers. During last Ramadan of his life he recited it twice and that was confirmation for people around him that Quran is complete (after 23 years). Soon after his death it was only converted into book form and because so many Muslims at that time knew the whole Quran by heart then it was easy to compile it without missing out any segments.
Beso – your point about Shia being from Muhammad’s family is the reason Shia’s give otherwise there are so many people still in the world who claim to be descendents of Muhammad but do not want to be called Shia. Then very simply Islam is above family ties, otherwise people like Bilal Ibne Rabah (a black freed slave) would never had lead Islamic army where few of his ex masters were following his orders. If anyone ask me if I am Shia or Sunni I always say I am what people were at the time of Muhammad and his companions (pbuh) as they were just Muslims and nothing else.
Apart from that I agree with all what you said.
Quran had been completed in the life of Muhammad (pbuh) although it was not in a book form. What people usually forget is that since the time of Muhammad (pbuh) to this date (without any break in the history) there have been hundred of thousands people who remember Quran word to word by heart. During the month of Ramadan (fasting month) Muhammad (pbuh) used to recite whole Quran during night prayers. During last Ramadan of his life he recited it twice and that was confirmation for people around him that Quran is complete (after 23 years). Soon after his death it was only converted into book form and because so many Muslims at that time knew the whole Quran by heart then it was easy to compile it without missing out any segments.
Beso – your point about Shia being from Muhammad’s family is the reason Shia’s give otherwise there are so many people still in the world who claim to be descendents of Muhammad but do not want to be called Shia. Then very simply Islam is above family ties, otherwise people like Bilal Ibne Rabah (a black freed slave) would never had lead Islamic army where few of his ex masters were following his orders. If anyone ask me if I am Shia or Sunni I always say I am what people were at the time of Muhammad and his companions (pbuh) as they were just Muslims and nothing else.
Apart from that I agree with all what you said.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
ChatterBank7 mins ago
Film, Media & TV100 mins ago
Could All Help With Signing My Petition
Seasonal156 mins ago
