Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes it appears that both Christians and Muslims end up reverting to this free will argument to justify human suffering.
I don't know if Islam makes the same tri-omni claim for god's characteristics as Christendom (all knowing, all powerful, all benevolent) but I am pretty sure that it does. Which means you have to construct the same theodicy as Christians to get around the logical impossibility of a tri-omni god to coexist with / permit / allow / author human suffering. And the only way you can even appear to do it (while still not doing it) is to make this free will claim.
But it is not a question of free will that I am making. I can still be free to "reject" god even if he fully and unambiguously reveals himself. And since god is "merciful and kind" he will not want me to suffer, temporally or eternally, and if it is his will that all should come to knowledge of the truth then his will, being all powerful, would have to be done. By definition. And the bare minimum there would be to make sure that all creatures he loves, has the information they need to be right with him.
Except that many, myself included, have been diligent and interested seekers and have found absolutely nothing. You are assuming that those who seek, inevitably find. Which ignores the inconvenient truth that people often make a lifetime of seeking, and find nothing. Mother Theresa for instance sought god her whole life, had not felt his presence in her life since her youth, and judged herself a fraud and a failure in this regard. It would be easy for you to say that she failed to look in the right place ... Islam ... for god. She failed in her responsibility. Meanwhile a Christian would say the very same thing about a Muslim seeker in the same situation.
Others would say that my insistence on accumulating at least some probability for god based on sound epistemology causes me to reject religious faith as a discovery mechanism and that is also my own fault. Well ... I can't pretend to believe what I don't believe. And if I COULD pretend, a la Pascal's Wager, any god worth the label would see right through it anyway.
So I guess that is how much, probably most, of the world's population gets consigned to various versions of hell, despite a supposedly merciful and loving deity who wants to save the people that he himself has chosen to condemn.
I think where we differ is I do not see where Allaah(swt) owes us anything. We are the servants, not he.
Basically we are explorers dropped into a jungle and told that 2 places exist. There are maps and guide signs spread around the jungle. It is up to us to learn what those places are and what roads lead to each. there are also teachers. that will try to lead us to either one. It is our responsible to find what destination each teacher is trying to lead us to. We are born into a "Sink or Swim" environment. It is up to each of us to learn that, and then to either Build a boat, learn to swim or drown. We have to search and learn. The burden is upon us as individuals. Guidance and advice to make it through life is available, but we carry the responsibility to learn to recognize it and then follow it.
With nearly every post, you exhibit what you do not see.
And you obviously prefer the umpteen hundred/thousand scribes/copyists/editors/translators of the 66 ramblings of various unknown, long-dead, anonymous men whom Constantine decided were channeling god in order to please his mother.
Yay you.
Amazing the hypocrisy you display on one post from statement to statement.
You continue to demonstrate a lack of knowledge about the topic, yet you continue to state your uninformed opinion as if its fact.
...and you think that a book, edited in the 17th century from 16th century translations of 8000 contradictory copies of 4th century documents that claim to be copies of lost letters that were written in the 1st century is better?
If you think that statement describes the Bible, you demonstrate a complete ignorance of the Biblical texts. I'd encourage you to do some research.
If you think that statement describes the Bible, you demonstrate a complete ignorance of the Biblical texts. I'd encourage you to do some research.
People like to throw that around, when in reality, the Bible is one of the most accurate and reliable ancient texts we have from a historical document perspective.
This thread has nothing to do with evolution. I'd prefer to keep it on track.
Quote:
It describes the KJV perfectly.
I don't use the KJV. I prefer a better translation such as the ESV, NASB, or even the NIV. They are not based on the textus receptus. I'd encourage you to research those a bit more. You might be interested in what you find.
People like to throw that around, when in reality, the Bible is one of the most accurate and reliable ancient texts we have from a historical document perspective.
People like to throw that around, when in reality, the Bible is one of the most accurate and reliable ancient texts we have from a historical document perspective.
Feel free to debate the accuracy of the content at the time it was written, but as far as modern translation of historical texts go, we can't do much better.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
