Are you an atheist?

[Galaxiom]

As you seem to reject the Qur’an completely, here’s part of a verse which I’m sure you agree with, in substance regarding our treatment of out parents.

Whether one or both of them attain old age in thy life, say not to them a word of contempt, nor repel them, but address them in terms of honour. Qur’an - Surah al-Isra (The Night Journey) 17:23 See also 2:83.

Here Mohammed takes a moment from the endless drivel of praising Allah and recounting the punishments that will befall those who fail to worship Him.

However one does not require a doctrine to have respect for one's parents. My children are entirely without religion and hold their parents in the highest regard. They do not comply with orders to do so from me or a holy book at pain of great suffering promised by a deity.

They do it not because they were threatened but entirely because they were shown respect throughout their lives. Children learn far better through example rather than doctrine and fear.

Do we find verses in the Qur'an imploring the devotee to treat their children with same respect they give they would have for their parents?

I very much doubt it for the Qur'an (like the Bible) has a strict order of authority and respect. First to God, then to men, then below all men, to women .... and the children? Hopefully the Qur'an does better than the Bible which implores its followers to stone them to death for insults.

The Qur'an clearly is extremely prejudiced against women. Again without religion the relationship between me and my wife is one of equals just as it is between my children and their partners. Our children also show great respect to their children who also adopt the position of respecting both parents and grandparents. A far healthier condition for all and not a religious doctrine in sight.

Again with the little knowledge you have on the subject of Islam you make another error. God doesn’t ask us to worship Him for His benefit but for our benefit.

This is the position adopted by every dictator in history.

Oh and spikepl and Dick7Access, just because a group of Muslims have done what you say does not mean Islam is to blame just as what the Christian Crusaders did had anything to do with Christianity.

Both the Qur'an and the Bible reinforce the superiority of those who follow their doctrines. Their fascist philosophy of brutal retribution for those who do not comply is endlessly repeated, especially in the Qur'an, and lies behind the thinking of the extremist elements.

 

[John Big Booty]

Perhaps like the Nac Mac Feegle we are already dead and this is in fact the afterlife, and those who die have simply been reincarnated.

 

[Dick7Access]

They do it not because they were threatened but entirely because they were shown respect throughout their lives. Children learn far better through example rather than doctrine and fear.
Does that mean that you never spanked them, or punished them in anyway?

 

[Galaxiom]

Does that mean that you never spanked them, or punished them in anyway?

We never hit them at all. We had reasoned discussions about why their behaviour was considered unacceptable.

 

[ChrisO]

To me the following would seem to be logically correct:-

An omnipotent being would have no trouble proving its own existence to all.

This very thread proves that the proof of its own existence does not exist.
The fact that the proof of its own existence does not exist does not prove it doesn’t exits.
That fact leads only to the fact that, if it does exist, it does not want its existence to be known.
Anyone who tries to disprove its existence is a heretic to the writings of mankind.
Anyone who tries to prove its existence is trying to circumvent the dictate of the omnipotent being, if it exists, to remain unknowable.

That raises a question in my mind; which is more important?
To follow the writings of mankind to prove its existence and to know it as a fact.
To follow the dictate of the omnipotent being, if it exists, to remain unknowable.

What is it to be; the writings of mankind or of which it writes about?

 

[John Big Booty]

To me the following would seem to be logically correct:-

An omnipotent being would have no trouble proving its own existence to all.

This very thread proves that the proof of its own existence does not exist.
The fact that the proof of its own existence does not exist does not prove it doesn’t exits.
That fact leads only to the fact that, if it does exist, it does not want its existence to be known.
Anyone who tries to disprove its existence is a heretic to the writings of mankind.
Anyone who tries to prove its existence is trying to circumvent the dictate of the omnipotent being, if it exists, to remain unknowable.

That raises a question in my mind; which is more important?
To follow the writings of mankind to prove its existence and to know it as a fact.
To follow the dictate of the omnipotent being, if it exists, to remain unknowable.

What is it to be; the writings of mankind or of which it writes about?

 

[Dick7Access]

We never hit them at all. We had reasoned discussions about why their behaviour was considered unacceptable.

I brought my kids up without religion. I didn’t become a Christian until years later. I brought them up like I was brought up. Some stuff good, some stuff bad. I never had to spank my daughter, my son a few times, and only for direct disobedience. My parents never spanked my sisters, me often, again for directed disobedience. Evidently whipping didn’t do me much good. Taking away my privileges didn’t help me much either. I didn’t start straightening out my life until I was 17 and joined the Navy to get away from my parents because they were always telling me what to do, and they were so stupid. I came back from Boot Camp three months later and I couldn’t believe how smart they had become in three months. <G>

How about punishment? Sent to their room, can't go someplace, etc. If so that is a type of fear.

 

[Dick7Access]

That fact leads only to the fact that, if it does exist, it does not want its existence to be known.

Does not the resurrection prove His existence?

 

[ChrisO]

>>Does not the resurrection prove His existence?<<

No, it does not prove anything. Our knowledge of the resurrection is an artefact of mankind.
More to the point, the use of His, as gender specific, is also an unfortunate artefact of mankind.

 

[John Big Booty]

...

I didn’t start straightening out my life until I was 17 and joined the Navy to get away from my parents because they were always telling me what to do, ...

That must have been a shock given that the armed services are all about discipline and being told what to do.

 

[Dick7Access]

>>Does not the resurrection prove His existence?<<

No, it does not prove anything. Our knowledge of the resurrection is an artefact of mankind.
More to the point, the use of His, as gender specific, is also an unfortunate artefact of mankind.

Are you saying that all the people that seen him after the resurrection where lying? Thats not just Bible, thats also history.

 

[Galaxiom]

Does not the resurrection prove His existence?

There is no evidence for the resurrection. Moreover even if there was, rational analysis would suggest he wasn't actually dead.

Moreover there is absolutely no contemporary evidence that Christ even existed at all. Quite remarkable that nobody thought his accomplishments were worth mentioning.

Indeed on the balance of evidence, the New Testament is a work of fiction written expressly to "fulfill" the prophesies of the Old Testament thus validating it as the work of God. Conveniently, the first mention of Christ appears in writings when there would be no living memory of the time he was supposedly at the peak of his fame.

Then Mohammed had another go at the same game a few centuries later but the church was not impressed, pointing out that he hadn't done anything exceptional that would show his writing were anything more than a product of his own prejudices. Mohammed responded by creating a new religion where he would be exalted as a "prophet" despite the fact that he never prophesised anything unless you want to count his description of the end of the Universe.

Later others have tried too but with a few exceptions their mental impairment has been recognised by most, leaving them with relatively small numbers of devotees.

I don't understand why the faithful seem to think simply quoting from a book can validate its own authenticity. On that basis we could reasonably consider Harry Potter as fact yet anyone claiming that would rightly be considered a fool.

 

[Galaxiom]

Are you saying that all the people that seen him after the resurrection where lying? Thats not just Bible, thats also history.

No it isn't history. There is no mention of Christ until Josephus "Antiquities of the Jews" in c 93 CE. He hadn't even been born when the the resurrection was supposed to have occurred.

 

[Beetle]

Perhaps like the Nac Mac Feegle we are already dead and this is in fact the afterlife...

I'm looking around but......no, there are no strippers here. I also checked the basement for a beer volcano, although, admittedly, I'm not exactly sure where the beer volcano would manifest itself. Perhaps the back yard, but then how am I going to keep the neighbors out of my beer? No, this can't be the afterlife.

 

[John Big Booty]

I'm looking around but......no, there are no strippers here. I also checked the basement for a beer volcano, although, admittedly, I'm not exactly sure where the beer volcano would manifest itself. Perhaps the back yard, but then how am I going to keep the neighbors out of my beer? No, this can't be the afterlife.

Point taken The beer volcano has been conspicuous by it absence, although I think I know where there's a stripper factory

 

[Galaxiom]

Point taken The beer volcano has been conspicuous by it absence, although I think I know where there's a stripper factory

O ye of little faith!

Don't you realise that like all holy materials they cannot be read out of context.That is the way of the unbelievers who try to discredit the holy materials. Do not be fooled by the wicked!

Moreover, the apparent absence of evidence for a beer volcano does not mean it does not exist. Read and observe with faith and you will understand!

Besides, the beer volcano is not a literal beer volcano. It is a metaphor designed so that we can comprehend in the best way possible, something that is beyond our understanding. It really means there will be beer in unimaginably unlimited quantities.

You must also be careful not to doubt. To doubt is to show disrespect for the Lord and for this you could be punished by being cast into a vat of cheap red wine for eternity.

 

[John Big Booty]

Thanks Galaxiom. I will hence forth go about my quest for the Beer Volcano with renewed vigour and refreshed faith.

 

[Brianwarnock]

Presumeably having had a swift pint of the holy liquid.

 

[Galaxiom]

But alas my understanding has wavered. What kind of beer will issue from the volcano?

 

[Brianwarnock]

O ye of little faith! Remember where you are, the holy liquid will always taste of the faithfulls favourite and also be ice cold to tepid also according to taste.

Brian