Are all gods egocentric?

[§outh§tar]

Why so? The same question redirected at you.

In case you did not know, I wanted you to explain it to me. Hence the word, "why".

You give exactly the answers I anticipated. I knew you were digging up some god-glorifying texts from someone...how predictable.

If you actually believe so, I would advice you to look at the text and see if contradicts what is written.

But still, there is no evidence, only faith and empty retoric. The text gives praise to your God and condems the others. So?
How about this, the early people believed in idols because they were uneducated and their mind was not as sophisticated as ours. So they perceived many natural things for which they did not have an explanation. Some of those things were rather powerful, they felt fear towards them, as a result they tried gain favor with them. This could be archieved by personifying those forces, applying human characteristics to them.

These were vulgar makings of steel and wood which blasphemed Truth. By your knowledge, you did not believe in these foolish and contemptuous acts of rebellion.

Those who believe in God can also be called foolish. But blind faith overwrites every reasoning.

From whence do you conclude so?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Because ego is contrary to the concept of the ultimate enlightened all powerful being. What do you think when you meet an egotistical person? Now multiply it by 100 and you have christianity's, judaism's and islam's egomaniacal god.

I hope you can appreciate the difference between "egocentric" and "egotistical" although they might overlap.
I can accept an egocentric as not being a bad person, especially if the indivual with the trait is for instance just to his environment. If the person bases his actions on himself and views himself as the center of the world and at the same time is (in aristotelian sense) virtuous then I can but applaud him. This certainly goes for Him that indeed sustaines every single aspect of this world/reality. And this case He is above virtue.
And one other thing, before judging could you elaborate on "enlightened all powerfull being".

Peace be upon you.

 

[Dreamwalker]

These were vulgar makings of steel and wood which blasphemed Truth. By your knowledge, you did not believe in these foolish and contemptuous acts of rebellion.

If you have noticed, I believe in nothing... But obviously, the author of your source does believe in only one god, because he called those heathens that also believed in one god wise. Then the author degrades them because they rather worshipped idols, calling this vanity.
This shows that he dislikes idols and likes the idea of one true god. Hence he "glorifies" this god. But I was also referring to the other text you posted in ... I´ll look it up after finnishing this post...

Those who believe in God can also be called foolish. But blind faith overwrites every reasoning.

From whence do you conclude so?

How I conclude? Easy, I ask you, but all I get is material, answers that are without much reason and content. They show nothing... I do think that pretty foolish...
Also, as you demonstrated in other threads, you always give similar "explanations", some "proof" for god and all the construct around him. At the same time, you manage to contradict yourself and make fun of others. Besides that, you show an enormous amount of arrogance and your views are very one-dimensional.
This I call foolish, you obviously call it faith.


And could you please elaborate the "why so" question, I think the answer I gave

Originally Posted by Dreamwalker
Why has something to be absolute? Is there a real need for it? Our existence might be impossible, or drastically different from what we perceive.

is pretty easy to understand.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Neildo,

But their individual details create fundamental conflicts that mean that such a common god is impossible or at least severely and mortally schizophrenic.

So no they cannot be worshipping the same god.

Kat

They can be worshipping one and the same. I am not saying they do, but they can. Now if we limit the religions to three; that of the Jews, the Christians and ours, Muslims, two will be wrong and one will be right. Only one can be right at maximum.

The three faiths don't actually recognise one another. Jews recoginse no one. The christians claim the same God but suddently change him to be three! The Muslims also claim the same god, but say that the Jews were wrong not to accept Jesus and the Christans because the deified him. Nevertheless we (Muslims) say that the source is One.

 

[§outh§tar]

If you have noticed, I believe in nothing... But obviously, the author of your source does believe in only one god, because he called those heathens that also believed in one god wise. Then the author degrades them because they rather worshipped idols, calling this vanity.
This shows that he dislikes idols and likes the idea of one true god. Hence he "glorifies" this god. But I was also referring to the other text you posted in ... I´ll look it up after finnishing this post...

How I conclude? Easy, I ask you, but all I get is material, answers that are without much reason and content. They show nothing... I do think that pretty foolish...
Also, as you demonstrated in other threads, you always give similar "explanations", some "proof" for god and all the construct around him. At the same time, you manage to contradict yourself and make fun of others. Besides that, you show an enormous amount of arrogance and your views are very one-dimensional.
This I call foolish, you obviously call it faith.

Please tell me where I have contradicted myself, that I may make it right. Where have I also shown arrogance, I am again a wretched sinner and you must help me as I must help you. As for being one-dimensional, would you rather they be two-dimensional?

Please show me how my views are very one-dimensional, especially in comparison to yours.

And could you please elaborate the "why so" question, I think the answer I gave

is pretty easy to understand.

Not for me. I am a wretched man and these things are not readily edible to me. Please explain it nicely.

 

[§outh§tar]

The christians claim the same God but suddently change him to be three! The Muslims also claim the same god, but say that the Jews were wrong not to accept Jesus and the Christans because the deified him. Nevertheless we (Muslims) say that the source is One.

LIES!

Have we not already been through this, triune is NOT three Gods!

 

[Bruce Wayne]

LIES!

Have we not already been through this, triune is NOT three Gods!

I knew you 'd say that.

 

[§outh§tar]

I knew you 'd say that.

100% + 100% + 100% = 100%

 

[Dreamwalker]

Well, I think the self-contradiction I´ll take back, I was pretty sure I read something self-contradictory from you. But there are so many threads, I cannot find it right now. So I´ll take back that accusation.

Arrogance? Several times, at least from my perspective. For example, you seem to rule out very possibility of a god (or multiple) that is not conform with yours. You believe that you are right, no matter what others say, sometimes you seem to be unable to view things from another perspective. That, I perceive as very arrogant, together with your grand user title "Defender of the Faith"... I ahve to say that sometimes you look like a christian version of Proud_Muslim.
These things also lead to your one-dimensional appearance (i mean in opinion, not in person), I could also call you narrow-minded if you prefer, you only give references to the bible or christian religious writings. I never saw you quoting an objective text. Also, as stated above you sometimes seem to be unable to see things from another point of view, it looks like you do not even consider the views of others. It seems like you only read their posts to find appropriate quotes.
Furthermore, I have the definite impression that you do not deem to consider another possibility of god, or spirituality. You are arrogant to believe that you are right because you have some religious guys to back you up. You try to explain God with God or at least the Word of God, but you don´t seem to consider the possibility that you and ultimately those words are false.
This strong faith (and faith can be very one-dimensional) gives you a certain amount of arrogance. Your God is your arrogance and your narrow mindedness.

You asked me "Why so" as I stated that not everything is the way we perceive it.
I ask you, why so? Why a god? And I have asked you before. But the answers you gave me were empty. You are running in circles, you sprout emty words and yet, you are sure that you bear the truth within you. You may call it faith, but I call it arrogant and narrow-minded.

 

[§outh§tar]

Well, I think the self-contradiction I´ll take back, I was pretty sure I read something self-contradictory from you. But there are so many threads, I cannot find it right now. So I´ll take back that accusation.

Arrogance? Several times, at least from my perspective. For example, you seem to rule out very possibility of a god (or multiple) that is not conform with yours. You believe that you are right, no matter what others say, sometimes you seem to be unable to view things from another perspective. That, I perceive as very arrogant, together with your grand user title "Defender of the Faith"... I ahve to say that sometimes you look like a christian version of Proud_Muslim.

You are a HATER and a ZIONIST! How can you possibly lower me to PM's standard..

Well, I do try to bring in notes from commentaries and books from time to time to show that I am not making this up.

As for my "grand" user title (why thank you), I do believe everyone here is defending their faith, regardless of how blasphemous it may be. How is my user title then grand?

I only rule out the possibility of a god of man's invention because such a belief system is utmost heresy and mocks your God and my God. Surely you do not want your God to be blasphemed, even if you claim to not believe in Him? Certainly I do not dismiss these false doctrines for personal reasons for doing so has benefitted me little, if any.

These things also lead to your one-dimensional appearance (i mean in opinion, not in person), I could also call you narrow-minded if you prefer, you only give references to the bible or christian religious writings. I never saw you quoting an objective text. Also, as stated above you sometimes seem to be unable to see things from another point of view, it looks like you do not even consider the views of others. It seems like you only read their posts to find appropriate quotes.

It is because I do not wish to see our God mocked, for it is our job as His eternal slaves to gently chide and correct in matters of ambiguity and heresy. Yes, we are His slaves for all eternity. Neither have I seen you referring to objective text, but we know that this is a thread for religion and any pertaining "objective" texts have most likely been penned by maddened heretics inspired by Satan. You see, to follow God, you must either do so with ALL your soul or not at all. There is certainly no in between and therefore one must either be zealous for the Almighty or be labeled a heathen. There is no passive stance in these spiritual matters that I can see, but surely you will illuminate me on the possibility of such a thing. I also welcome others to nitpick at what I write for I do not want to spread something incorrect as I am sure you too would rather be corrected than spread something false.

Furthermore, I have the definite impression that you do not deem to consider another possibility of god, or spirituality. You are arrogant to believe that you are right because you have some religious guys to back you up. You try to explain God with God or at least the Word of God, but you don´t seem to consider the possibility that you and ultimately those words are false.
This strong faith (and faith can be very one-dimensional) gives you a certain amount of arrogance. Your God is your arrogance and your narrow mindedness.

What at all in nature indicates that there is more than one Deity? If "they" are all Deity, then they are all God and God is one. God is however spirit and can never be reflected in idols made out of wood and steel and gold, items deemed precious by man. As for trying to explain God with God, do tell me, how else do you expect me to "explain" Him? There is nothing I can know about God, save for what He reveals through His Spirit of Holiness. By rejecting the message that I give through the eternal grace of the Spirit of Holiness, you do not reject me or what I say, but reject God and what He says. But before you jump on my neck and say that is arrogant, you and I must very well remember that I may very well be mistaken on certain details and it is the community's responsibility to set me on the right path when I deviate, as I too will do. You claim that this "strong faith" gives me a certain amount of arrogance but verily, would you rather that I have a "weak faith"? Do you yourself not have a strong faith in your beliefs? If not, you are like a house of uncertain straw built on the rocks.

This should illustrate my point:

Matthew 8
24"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash."

You asked me "Why so" as I stated that not everything is the way we perceive it.
I ask you, why so? Why a god? And I have asked you before. But the answers you gave me were empty. You are running in circles, you sprout emty words and yet, you are sure that you bear the truth within you. You may call it faith, but I call it arrogant and narrow-minded.

I tried to give you the texts that you may interpret for yourself but you seldom responded about the texts but about something I said. This led me to believe you weren't really looking for where "God is" but where "God isn't". Thus, you must ask yourself who is being narrow-minded here.

 

[Neildo]

I have seen religionists make this argument as a way to pretend friendly tolerance between religions (i.e. we all share the same god club), especially Christians, Muslims, and Jews. But the only real common factor is that they all believe in a ONE god and they quote the same ancient historical heritage etc. But their individual details create fundamental conflicts that mean that such a common god is impossible or at least severely and mortally schizophrenic.

So no they cannot be worshipping the same god.

Heh, if someone is worshipping the almighty creator of all, they're worshipping the same being, they just have a different name for it. It's not as if they don't try and specify their God where that would mean that they don't follow the same god, but each religion says their god is the god almighty creator of all and if so, there can be only one. There's nothing you can say to refute that. The only thing where each religion is wrong or has differing beliefs is all the politics of that god. They try and say how that god acts, thinks, and whatever, when they cannot possibly know.

If you and I worship Tom Cruise* yet I call him Bubba, and you say Tom does this and that and I say no, Bubba really does this and that when we don't know (for simplicity sake let's say it's in regards to something private with him that we can't know so it's more equal to him being like the unknowable god which everyone makes assumptions about), we're still worshipping the same person, just by a different name. When you see him, you go gaga googoo and yell out his name, and if I see him, I go gaga googoo and yell out his name too. The only thing different is our perspective of him, but Tom is still Tom as the almighty creator of all is still the almighty creator of all.

- N

*note* Tom Cruise is just used as an example.

 

[path]

How is God enlightened? He that gives enlightenment does not recieve it.

Of course he doesn't receive it he IS IT.

 

[Dreamwalker]

I tried to give you the texts that you may interpret for yourself but you seldom responded about the texts but about something I said. This led me to believe you weren't really looking for where "God is" but where "God isn't". Thus, you must ask yourself who is being narrow-minded here.

Oh, I did respond to your texts, but sometimes, I just could not see the meaning of them. They did not seem to have a point or a meaning for the current discussion. Hence they appeared to be somewhat empty and useless in the context.


And of course I did not fall back on any texts, why? To the most part, I ask questions. I do not need books for that. Also, it is quite a bother to search for books that say the same things I do just to make a point.

 

[path]

The failure of Muslim nations was exactly due to the fact that they fell into secularism, before Europe did. Muslims were once great exactly beacuse of religion..

I would disagree islam derived it's golden age on the backs of the diverse and educated lands it conquered. In it's conquest of ancient and advanced cultures such as the Egyptian, Syrian, Persian etc islam acquired the vast stores of knowledge that these cultures possessed. At the time islam broke out of the arabian desert, arabic had just developed into a written language, the muslim arabs had nothing to offer these other civilizations but their religion or conflict.

Christianny made Europe backward, Islam made the nomads great and civilised,

Utter nonsense, The advent of christianity coincided with the decline of the roman empire. The decline of the political power of rome left a social vacuum in the west which as it turned out the early church was best able to fill. Unlike islam there is nothing in christian doctrine that defines how to run a government so the church wasn't exactly prepared to overtake the role of governance. Also unlike early islam early christianity was not a religion of conquest.

the first to accept religious plurality even when they ruled the world. All thanks to a shepard in the 8th century that could not read nor write.

Two fallacies

And may peace be upon you.

And also with you

 

[path]

And one other thing, before judging could you elaborate on "enlightened all powerfull being".

Peace be upon you.

Developed beyond anger, jealosy, spite, self importance, insecurity, vengefulness. In short beyond all those human characteristics which the torah, bible and quran assign to IT.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I would disagree islam derived it's golden age on the backs of the diverse and educated lands it conquered. In it's conquest of ancient and advanced cultures such as the Egyptian, Syrian, Persian etc islam acquired the vast stores of knowledge that these cultures possessed. At the time islam broke out of the arabian desert, arabic had just developed into a written language, the muslim arabs had nothing to offer these other civilizations but their religion or conflict.

The Shepard -peace be upon him- could not read or write. The men around him could even thought the arabic "alphabet" was not fully developed.

The Muslims conquered many lands. Thanks to Allah first and to his prophet -peace be upon him.

The muslims took over lands, rich lands, advanced lands. But the crucial thing is how did they manage. While like you say Christianity was never enough develped to rule. The laws the Muslims had received, however made them well equipped. They didn't ravage the lands like some barbarians. They built rodes, hospitals, cities. They would be justb and firm. So the examplary governance skills of these nomads where due to their religion and that has had it's fruits.

Their social justice was also great. This helped assimilate many in the ranks of Islam. This was because the others were given ample room to be citizens. And they were given that because Islam decreed that. Again thanks to Allah and his prophet -peace be upon him.

But you have to admit that Muslims did not simply copy all that was. They have had their many achievemnts themselves. Achievements to be contributed to Muslims themselves and their zeal in work and science. They have furthered already present sciences and they have come up with many of they own, e.g. sociology (and flight attempts). So it would be a fallacy to contribute al that was to previous civilizations and negate centuries of Muslim Endeavor.

Utter nonsense, The advent of christianity coincided with the decline of the roman empire. The decline of the political power of rome left a social vacuum in the west which as it turned out the early church was best able to fill. Unlike islam there is nothing in christian doctrine that defines how to run a government so the church wasn't exactly prepared to overtake the role of governance. Also unlike early islam early christianity was not a religion of conquest.

Thank you for strengthening my point. They were ill-equipped and not prepared. Thanks to Allah and his messenger -peace be upon him, and the work of many great men, we were apt to the task and we gave the world Baghdad and Andalusia.

Two fallacies

For the first I urge you to do a search on Andalusia. I believe I fully explained to you the fact that we owe allot to that man in the desert -peace be upon him.

And may peace be upon you.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Developed beyond anger, jealosy, spite, self importance, insecurity, vengefulness. In short beyond all those human characteristics which the torah, bible and quran assign to IT.

You mean in your Perceived self-image. And dude he created the universe. He is important.

I would not go on the other terms you used. Because they reflect what you feel is God, and because that discussion would have too much nuances for you anf me to really come to a discussion. Maybe another time, k?

:m:

 

[path]

You mean in your Perceived self-image. And dude he created the universe. He is important.

I would not go on the other terms you used. Because they reflect what you feel is God, and because that discussion would have too much nuances for you anf me to really come to a discussion. Maybe another time, k?

:m:

Importance is man made if he is truly he knows it and has no need of affirmation from his minions

 

[path]

The Shepard -peace be upon him- could not read or write. The men around him could even thought the arabic "alphabet" was not fully developed.

The Muslims conquered many lands. Thanks to Allah first and to his prophet -peace be upon him.

The muslims took over lands, rich lands, advanced lands. But the crucial thing is how did they manage. While like you say Christianity was never enough develped to rule.

It was never meant to rule it was meant to be a spiritual guide


The laws the Muslims had received, however made them well equipped. They didn't ravage the lands like some barbarians.[/quote]

That varied from one ruler to the next and also depended upon just who was being conquered. Some indian historians reckon that india's population dropped by 80 million during the centuries of jihad india endured. In addition thousands of old and magnificent temples and shrines were leveled (they were idol worshippers afterall)

They built rodes, hospitals, cities.

most were already there

They would be justb and firm. So the examplary governance skills of these nomads where due to their religion and that has had it's fruits.

No they made extensive use of the newly conquered territories administrators, especially Persians who were well educated in running the affairs of a large empire. Check and see they kept the buearocrats in place and only replaced the top ruling officials in the lands of the middle east.

But you have to admit that Muslims did not simply copy all that was. They have had their many achievemnts themselves. Achievements to be contributed to Muslims themselves and their zeal in work and science. They have furthered already present sciences and they have come up with many of they own, e.g. sociology (and flight attempts).

If they hadn't at the very least continued to develop the aquired knowledge base they would have been inept indeed, all civilizations have done this since the beginning of time.

So it would be a fallacy to contribute al that was to previous civilizations and negate centuries of Muslim Endeavor.

As long as you don't do the same to the Persians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Phoenicians, Minoans, Sumerians, Babylonians etc etc.

Thank you for strengthening my point.

No your point was saying it was christianity the caused the west to deteriorate I simply pointed out that that was incorrect.

we gave the world Baghdad and Andalusia.

Oh my listing acheivements now are we? is it a competition?

For the first I urge you to do a search on Andalusia. I believe I fully explained to you the fact that we owe allot to that man in the desert -peace be upon him.

And may peace be upon you.

I know about Andalusia do you know about constantinople? How many people died because of that man from the desert?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Importance is man made if he is truly he knows it and has no need of affirmation from his minions

He doesn't need it. But I (we) recognise Him to be important, Because He is.

Hadith Qudsi 17:
On the authority of Abu Dharr al-Ghifari (may Allah be pleased with him) from the Prophet (PBUH) is that among the sayings he relates from his Lord (may He be glorified) is that He said:
O My servants, I have forbidden oppression for Myself and have made it forbidden amongst you, so do not oppress one another. O My servants, all of you are astray except for those I have guided, so seek guidance of Me and I shall guide you, O My servants, all of you are hungry except for those I have fed, so seek food of Me and I shall feed you. O My servants, all of you are naked except for those I have clothed, so seek clothing of Me and I shall clothe you. O My servants, you sin by night and by day, and I forgive all sins, so seek forgiveness of Me and I shall forgive you. O My servants, you will not attain harming Me so as to harm Me, and will not attain benefitting Me so as to benefit Me. O My servants, were the first of you and the last of you, the human of you and the jinn of you to be as pious as the most pious heart of any one man of you, that would not increase My kingdom in anything. O My servants, were the first of you and the last of you, the human of you and the jinn of you to be as wicked as the most wicked heart of any one man of you, that would not decrease My kingdom in anything. O My servants, were the first of you and the last of you, the human of you and the jinn of you to rise up in one place and make a request of Me, and were I to give everyone what he requested, that would not decrease what I have, any more that a needle decreases the sea if put into it. O My servants, it is but your deeds that I reckon up for you and then recompense you for, so let him finds good praise Allah and let him who finds other that blame no one but himself.

It was related by Muslim (also by at-Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah).

This sums that up.