'Let's call God Allah'

[Von Tonner]

I could do along with this guy on the hungry stealing bread IF it was ONLY bread and a last resort between that and starvation. Condoms and aids is a given. But calling on Christians to call God Allah? I think that is pushing the envelope too far imo.



'Let's call God Allah' - Bishop
15/08/2007 23:05 - (SA)
The Hague - A Dutch Catholic bishop who once said the hungry were entitled to steal bread and advocated condom use to prevent Aids has made headlines again, this time by saying God should be called Allah.
"Allah is a very beautiful word for God. Shouldn't we all say that from now on we will call God Allah?" Bishop Tiny Muskens said in an interview broadcast this week. "God doesn't care what we call him."
In this nation where religious tolerance has been eroded in recent years by a rise in radical Islam, the comments drew little support.
Muskens, bishop of the southern Diocese of Breda, previously created a stir by suggesting the hungry could steal bread to feed themselves.
He also supported the use of condoms as a way of reining in the spread of Aids and suggested popes have term limits of 10-15 years and an age limit of 85.
In an interview broadcast on Monday's edition of current affairs show Netwerk, Muskens said he had worked in Indonesia where God is referred to as Allah in Christian services.
But a spokesperson for one of the capital's leading mosques said he was not happy with the statement.
"We didn't ask for this," a spokesperson for the Moroccan Mosque in Amsterdam told De Telegraaf. "Now it is as if we have a problem between Muslims and Christians."
Gerrit de Fijter, chairperson of the General Synod of the Dutch Protestant Church, also rejected Muskens' suggestion.
"I applaud every attempt to encourage dialogue with Muslims, but I doubt the sense of this manoeuvre," De Fijter told De Telegraaf.
Neither De Fijter nor Muslim community leaders returned calls seeking comment on Wednesday.
Speaking to a local television network on Wednesday, Muskens said he was pleased his comments had sparked debate.
"That they are interested in how to get along with God, that is a positive result," he told Omroep Brabant.

[The Avon Lady]

That could have been posted on the "Goodbye Holland" (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=118563) thread. :yep:

[Skybird]

Idiot.

[joea]

Allah is just the Arabic word for God. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah
Arabic speaking Christians use the word, including Greek Orthodox as I ahve heard it used in the liturgy. :roll:

Of course it is a bit silly for Dutch speakers to use the word, I might as well call Him "Bog" (slavic) or well I use Dieu (when I speak French) or well "Theos"
Θεός in Greek. I understand what the bishop was trying to do, but I find it silly at best. I would not accept prayers for certain Catholic saints in the Orthdox Church even if I like their writings or admire them...nor do I expect Protestants to honour saints at all.

[Reaves]

http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/7532/ilikethisthread19f6af16xk9.jpg

[The Avon Lady]

From a mostly Christian perspective:

Is Allah God? (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/006848.php)

Allah: May This Arabic Name of God be used by Christians? (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/006922.php)

Which One God? Comparing the Muslim and Christian conceptions of God. (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzYwMDNjZDRiMTRkODUyMTQ1ZWYwMjA4OWI3NjYwMTM)

Also discussed a bit within this article:

Dhimmitude in the Augusta Free Press: "Jews and Christians are 'muslim'" (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/004468.php)

[Fish]

Being a small country , you have to do extraordinari to come in the news.
Till now we do fine. :up:

[lorcan3]

I know it's been many years since I've been to Israel. I went there on a Med cruise when I was in the Navy between 76-79. The Med cruise was Feb-Oct of 1978. The port we hit was Haifa and the people were so very happy to see us. Never once when I went on liberty and I bumped into someone than that person offered their house to me with a home cooked meal. All I ever saw were friendly people, happy to shake my hand and wondered what was happening in America. We took a two day trip around the Holy Land and I was very impressed with what you folks have done to the land. This plus all the hardship from the PLO and other terrorist groups at the time that were giving the Israeli govmn't problems. I made many friends with the Israeli sailors who took me out on one of their(our)coastal patrol boats. I thought I recognized them. They were our old PT boats from WW2, just upgraded with better radar. But those dual .50 cals did sing when they ripped apart the targets. Also the 20 and 40MM Oerlikon cannons. I didn't want to leave but home is where the heart is. How about your email address so we can talk when you're online?:arrgh!:

[AntEater]

A dutch catholic bishop is about as important as a italian protestant bishop.
By definition dutch are protestant, that is why there's Belgium in the first place.
Flanders is the part of the netherlands that remained catholic and spanish/austrian.
I suppose there are fewer catholics in the netherlands than muslims.

[HMCS]

After careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that the only hope for the continued survival of the human race is Atheism.

But if we insist that there HAS to be an invisible man up in the sky, then Deism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

For my American friends, I ask you to consider that many of your founding fathers believed whole-heartedly in this....

Thomas Jefferson, for one.

Otherwise, I believe that there is a very good chance that we will end up as fanatical, pious lumps of radioactive ash.

[Fish]

A dutch catholic bishop is about as important as a italian protestant bishop.
By definition dutch are protestant, that is why there's Belgium in the first place.
Flanders is the part of the netherlands that remained catholic and spanish/austrian.
I suppose there are fewer catholics in the netherlands than muslims.

Most are catholic (religious) '
But overall, most are none believers.
http://www.rivm.nl/vtv/object_map/o1204n22742.html

[Iceman]

After careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that the only hope for the continued survival of the human race is Atheism.

But if we insist that there HAS to be an invisible man up in the sky, then Deism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

For my American friends, I ask you to consider that many of your founding fathers believed whole-heartedly in this....

Thomas Jefferson, for one.

Otherwise, I believe that there is a very good chance that we will end up as fanatical, pious lumps of radioactive ash.

Your pretty naive to assume that it is "ANY" "Religious" group/faith or denomination that holds any nuclear weapons whatsoever....do a check up there buddy who holds what....it is the lack of morals/common sense/love/or respect for life, that drive people to where we find ourselves currently....

We are merely passing thru this life and guests on this planet no matter if you are atheist or believe in the flying green spaghetti monster....give account of yourself.

Governments are holding the reins of wmd's and not just nuclear...I would worry more about clean water,food, and wether or not how the hell I or my kids are gonna be able to survive in this oven we have created.

Have a Good Day. :)

P.S. Good links AL...from one of them led me to this brief history of the origins of Islam...was a good read.

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/moongod.htm

[AntEater]

A dutch catholic bishop is about as important as a italian protestant bishop.
By definition dutch are protestant, that is why there's Belgium in the first place.
Flanders is the part of the netherlands that remained catholic and spanish/austrian.
I suppose there are fewer catholics in the netherlands than muslims.
Most are catholic (religious) '
But overall, most are none believers.
http://www.rivm.nl/vtv/object_map/o1204n22742.html
Strange that the religious demographics of the Netherlands changed so much in recent years.
In germany, the religious composition hasnt really changed much since 1648, at least on paper (really religious people are rare, though almost everyone is part of a church). I assumed it was similar in the Netherlands.
For example, I'm lutheran protestant, but hardly go to any religious service except for family matters. It's just a matter of heritage, as my family are Prussians, we have to be Protestant

Personally, I think I'm still too young to really bother with religious matters.
:D

[SUBMAN1]

Simply speaking - I have one word for this Bishop - Dumbass

[TteFAboB]

For the transcendental unity of religions to be effective each religion must maintain its sufficiency. Any attempt to force a merger will destroy the involved religions mutually contaminating one another, resulting in the absolute contrary of the intented goals. Or are they?

Madness or method? Method in madness?

[Stealth Hunter]

"Allah" is just what WE call God. You call God... "God".:88)

Let's simply make an international name for him and leave it at that so we won't have to suffer through any more of this religious BS mixed in with political shenanigans...:stare:

[Skybird]

"Allah" is just what WE call God. You call God... "God".:88)

Let's simply make an international name for him and leave it at that so we won't have to suffer through any more of this religious BS mixed in with political shenanigans...:stare:
Let's use Esperanto for that purpose. Side-effect: it makes the Vatican obsolete and turns the EU headquarter into the new Holy See.

[clive bradbury]

"Allah" is just what WE call God. You call God... "God".:88)

Let's simply make an international name for him and leave it at that so we won't have to suffer through any more of this religious BS mixed in with political shenanigans...:stare:

Call him whatever you like - he won't care - he doesn't exist...

[joea]

"Allah" is just what WE call God. You call God... "God".:88)

Let's simply make an international name for him and leave it at that so we won't have to suffer through any more of this religious BS mixed in with political shenanigans...:stare:
Call him whatever you like - he won't care - he doesn't exist...

IYO ;) but yea, water does exist and is the same whether you call it eau or voda or aqua. As Shakespeare put it "a rose by any other name..." just make sure y'all really talking about water and not one person beer (mmm beer) the other person cyanaide laced koolaid.

[The Avon Lady]

P.S. Good links AL...from one of them led me to this brief history of the origins of Islam...was a good read.

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/moongod.htm
More on the same subject plus the consequences of falsifying equations of names and concepts:

Who Is Allah? (http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/08/who_is_allah.html)

[Safe-Keeper]

Well, his original name is Yahweh, so it's not like he's not already been renamed. And it'd help stop this ridiculous misconception that God and Allah are not the same deity.

But yes, of course it's downright moronic nonetheless. Some people:rotfl:.

"Allah is a very beautiful word for God. Shouldn't we all say that from now on we will call God Allah?" Bishop Tiny Muskens said in an interview broadcast this week. "God doesn't care what we call him."Moron.

[tycho102]

Well, his original name is Yahweh, so it's not like he's not already been renamed. And it'd help stop this ridiculous misconception that God and Allah are not the same deity.

There's debate on that one. There is one place that has something like the letters Y-V-A-H. Some other place has something completely different (I forget the specifics). At some point, Yaweh became the popular version.

I'd also like to point out that there ARE still leaders in Catholicism. Making outrageous statements -- like this one -- is one way to determine current intention. Don't write this guy off as a surrender-monkey just yet.

[The Avon Lady]

Well, his original name is Yahweh, so it's not like he's not already been renamed. And it'd help stop this ridiculous misconception that God and Allah are not the same deity.

There's debate on that one. There is one place that has something like the letters Y-V-A-H. Some other place has something completely different (I forget the specifics). At some point, Yaweh became the popular version.
I have no idea what you're referring to. Unless you're referring to the confusion of the English translation or transliteration.

The Hebrew letters are Yud - Hey - Vav - Hey and always have been. Also known as the Tetragrammaton. Or is it the Getamarathon? Or is is the Turnagremlinon? Whatever........... :88)

More info at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton).
I'd also like to point out that there ARE still leaders in Catholicism. Making outrageous statements -- like this one -- is one way to determine current intention. Don't write this guy off as a surrender-monkey just yet.
No! No! This one's a chimp. :yep: :p

[Rockin Robbins]

One thing is clear. Allah is the god of the Koran and God is the name of the God of the Torah and the Bible. They do not have the same characteristics, and in fact, there are stark irreconcilable differences between the two. Both cannot co-exist. Either one of them exists, or none of them exists.

People have a choice to believe in one, the other, or none. Their choice has no bearing on the truth, which is not subject to a vote. (Who voted in the law of gravity. Can we repeal it?) This choice should be freely made by people not subject to restrictions, harm or lack of opportunity because they have made the "wrong" choice.

It is clear that in "Christian" and "Jewish" countries, people of other faiths are tolerated and integrated into their societies and given full rights of citizenship. The same cannot be said for Moslem countries, where making the "wrong" choice can be punished by measures up to and including death. When you believe the truth, you need not fear those who believe differently. Only when you know you are in error do you need to enforce your belief system. The borders of Islam with all civilizations runs with blood. What does this say about Islam as now practiced? Are all other civilizations wrong? Or is the one thing they all commonly have a problem with what is really wrong? Just two things to think about.

Christianity once had the same problem, so I'm not casting stones. During the Crusades, we were the savages and Islam was the cradle of civilization. The West received all we know about the Romans, Greeks, political organization and ancient history as a gift from the tolerant, scientific, politically advanced and enlightened Islamic world we were attacking. In a real sense, our civilization today is a gift from Islam. It is no accident that the Renaissance immediately followed the end of the Crusades. Those ideas, that rebirth of civilization came from exposure the the Islamic world of the day. Now, almost 1000 years later, the shoe is on the other foot. It could be strongly argued that we have an obligation somehow give to them as they gave to us, to help them come out of their own dark ages, or they face anihilation, guilty and innocent alike. It would be a tragedy of unimaginable proportions if it came to that. But if present tactics of radical Islam continue, there may be only a choice of whose innocents will die. Eventually we will choose theirs.

[HMCS]

I disagree. Nothing is clear.

The whole notion is ridiculous. If there's a god, and that's a BIG if, he has left us to it. He's obviously not watching the store.

I'm not an atheist, per se. Deist is a better description. I believe in god, I just don't think that he gives a hoot. Heaven (or hell) is whatever we create in the now.

You have to do better than to just say "there's a god because it's written right here...."

[bookworm_020]

I believe that god himself told moses what to call him

"I AM"

[HMCS]

Hmmm. Maybe so.

As long as you take the biblical exodus story for what it is. A load of heifer-dust.

The stories are obviously apochrypal.

But I get what you mean.

[Happy Times]

During the Crusades, we were the savages and Islam was the cradle of civilization. The West received all we know about the Romans, Greeks, political organization and ancient history as a gift from the tolerant, scientific, politically advanced and enlightened Islamic world we were attacking. In a real sense, our civilization today is a gift from Islam. It is no accident that the Renaissance immediately followed the end of the Crusades. Those ideas, that rebirth of civilization came from exposure the the Islamic world of the day.

I would give a max 1/3 credit to Islam on Renaissance, the rest goes to the Byzantine Empire and Catholic church on preserving the Greco-Roman heritage of Europe. And to the Medici and other families for sponsoring these arts and sciences.

[The Avon Lady]

The stories are obviously apochrypal.
Oh really? How so?

Already discussed earlier this year and beforehand. If you want to revive the last dormant thread, it's here (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=115768). There were other such threads as well.

[Rockin Robbins]

I would give a max 1/3 credit to Islam on Renaissance, the rest goes to the Byzantine Empire and Catholic church on preserving the Greco-Roman heritage of Europe. And to the Medici and other families for sponsoring these arts and sciences.
That's the problem. The Catholic church in both camps had lost all of that: art, history, politics, science, logic, Greco-Roman heritage. Actually they had done worse than that. They destroyed it as unholy pagan dog crap.Yes, precious little remnants of that were held prisoner in remote monasteries, but there weren't getting out to benefit society! Until the Crusaders who went to destroy heathenism and came back with civilization returned, we knew not of Aristotle, Democrates, Archimedes, Euclid, Plato, Socrates, Athens, Sparta, the Persian Empire.... They even lost the recipe for concrete for 1000 years! By the Catholic church's attitude that all human knowlege was contained within the Bible and the church, Western civilization was reduced to tribes of unruly and unruled savages! And I would ask why. And answer that the Catholic church substituted the rule of law for the rule of men, the insular oligarchy at the top of their organization. There was absolutely no protection from the capricious and sometimes cruel decisions of those who happened to be in power at the time. That ALWAYS results in tyranny.

Example from memory, so the names have been omited to protect the forgetful: me. A Catholic general is poised to attack a city of heathens. Their crime: the belief that marriage should be a union of love, not a union of arrangement, and that this union of love was our closest analog, our instructor, of God's love for us. The Catholic general has gained entry into this evil city and contacts his Pope. "Some of these are innocent and remain within the faith. How am I to separate those who are apostate and kill only them?" The pope's infamous reply, "Kill them all and let God sort them out." (this is where you get out your pom-poms and cheer his holiness, perfect expression of Jesus' love) They still retain the fallacy of infallability of the Pope when performing his official function. Oh well... At least they haven't put their nonsensical doctrine into ultimate practice lately. I would point out that this is entirely non-Biblical behavior and does not bear on the truth claims of Christianity at all. It only proves that ANY authority is subject to abuse, and NO authority should be without question or without review. A child-abusing teacher does not prove that teachers are bad. It certainly does not prove that what teachers teach is untrue. This is the logic of many anti-Christians. It is not logic at all but appeal to emotions. (The present abuse of Islam by its radical faction, must also be viewed in this light. It does not necessarily mean that all Islam need be destroyed in order to regain peace.)

Haha! The early Catholic church and 20th century communism sharing the same defect! :lol: Ain't life queer? The childrens' crusade could only have happened in a truly alien, primitive, savage society, the likes of which we cannot possibly identify with. (Doesn't he split infinitives well? A sign of true inspiration!)

The explosion of the Renaissance, with the possible exception of the French Revolution and other brain farts, changed Western civilization forever, fueled by the discoveries brought back from the thankfully failed crusades.

Heck, I'm getting out of here to play some Silent Hunter 4. Ducimus was right.

[Skybird]

"I won't sacrifice the Enterprise... We made too many compromises already, too many retreats. They invade our space - and we fall back! They assimilate entire worlds - and we fall back! Not again - the line must be drawn here! This far - no further!" (Picard in Star Trek VIII)

[The Avon Lady]

....................the thankfully failed crusades.
To quote Robert Spencer, at the start of Chapter 13, in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) (http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Crusades-Guides/dp/0895260131/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-8794452-4943966?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187953105&sr=8-1):
What if the Crusades had never happened?

If the Crusades had never taken place, what kind of a world would we live in today? Would there be peace, understanding, and goodwill between Christians and Muslims? Would the Islamic world be free of the suspicion and often downright paranoia with which it regards so much that comes from the West? After all, Amin Aalouf says, "there can be no doubt that the schism between these two worlds dates from the Crusades, deeply felt by the Arabs, even today, as an act of rape."

Or would the world be different, in other, quite unexpected ways? Do the words "St. Peter's Mosque un Rome" mean anything to you?


PC Myth: The Crusades accomplished nothing

Faced with the Muslims' continued pursuit of Jihad even into the heart of Europe, the Crusaders' inability to establish any lasting states of continued presence in the Holy Land, and the enmity that the Crusades undoubtedly sowed not only between Christians and Muslims, but between Eastern and Western Christians, most historians have deemed the Crusades a failure.

After all, their objective was to protect Christian pilgrims in the Holy Land. They originally established the Crusader states for this reason. But after the Second Crusade, those states were immensely diminished, and remained so; after 1291, they were gone. Nor did the Crusaders prevent Islamic warriors from crossing into Europe.

However, it is significant that the level of Islamic adventurism in Europe dropped off dramatically during the era of the Crusades. The conquest of Spain, the Middle East, and North Africa, as well as the first siege of Constantinople, all took place well before the first Crusade. The battles of Kosovo and Varna, which heralded a resurgent Islamic expansionism in Eastern Europe, took place after the collapse of the last Crusader holdings in the Middle East.

So what did the Crusades accomplish? They bought Europe time - time that might have meant the difference between her demise and dhimmitude and her rise and return to glory. If Godfrey of Bouillon, Richard the Lionhearted, and countless others hadn't risked their lives to uphold the honor of Christ and his church thousands of miles from home, the jihadists would almost certainly have swept across Europe much sooner. Not only did the Crusader armies keep them tied down at a crucial period, fighting for Antioch and Ascalon instead of Varna and Vienna, they also brought together armies that would not have existed otherwise. Pope Urban's call united men around a cause; had that cause not existed or been publicized throughout Europe, many of these men would not have been warriors at all. They would have been ill-equipped to repel a Muslim invasion of their homeland.

The Crusades, then, were the ultimate reason why Edward Gibbon's vision of "the interpretation of the Koran" being "taught in the schools of Oxford" did not come true.

This is not a small matter. It is from Christian Europe, after all, no matter how reluctant the PC establishment is to acknowledge it, that most philosophical and scientific exploration, as well as technical advancement, have sprung. We have already seen one key reason why science developed in the Christian world and not in the Muslim world: Christians believed in a coherent and consistent universe governed by a good god; Muslims believed in a universe governed by a god whose will was so absolute as to preclude coherence and consistency.

But the implications of this all-important philosophical difference could not have worked themselves out without freedom. That freedom was not available to Christians or any other non-Muslims who had the misfortune to live under Muslim rule. In fact, any people who came under Muslim rule throughout history were ultimately reduced - no matter how extensive their numbers and grand their achievements before the Muslim conquest - to the status of a tiny and culturally derivative minority. Of course, few conquered peoples have ever escaped this fate. The only people who have escaped Muslim dhimmitude have been those who were successful in resisting Islamic jihad: the Christians of Europe and the Hindus of India.

Others were not so fortunate
The subject continues on in the book. Read and learn.

[Skybird]

(above)
Good perspective of looking at the crusades, where i usually focus on seeing them as a counterattack to regain ground that previously was lost to an aggressive invader. Not that both perspective are excluding each other - they are mutually supportive.

I always thought that turning the crusades into an act of aggresison instead of seeing it as the defensive counter-attack that it initially was, compares to a women being raped and then being accused of having provoked it, and being held accountable for her fate. Which, indeed, is the way in which Muhammedanism is dealing with such an issue: turning the victim into the perpetrator.

On a slightly more general level, since this topic is featuring "God" and "Allah" in it's headline:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPAC_cGVnUg

[The Avon Lady]

On a slightly more general level, since this topic is featuring "God" and "Allah" in it's headline:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPAC_cGVnUg
3""Let us break their bands and cast off their cords from us."
He Who dwells in Heaven laughs; the Lord mocks them."
- Psalm 2:3-4

(I've given you a finger and you've taken a hand).

[Skybird]

(I've given you a finger and you've taken a hand).
Not really. I took almost four hands.

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/8519/snap0008qf5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Are you a Jewish Kali, maybe? :lol: Eating forum members in secret, maybe? :cool:

That guy is good, he could almost be me. Sometimes there is a detail he mentiones that I do not agree with at all, but all in all I am with him. Only where he mentions "religion" in a generalized way, I differ between the esoteric (mystic) and exoteric (institutional, dogmatical) level of "religion".

[The Avon Lady]

Are you a Jewish Kali, maybe? :lol: Eating forum members in secret, maybe? :cool:
When was the last time you heard from Drebel? or Abraham?

Think! Think!

Here's a drumstick. Now shut up. :p
That guy is good, he could almost be me. Sometimes there is a detail he mentiones that I do not agree with at all, but all in all I am with him. Only where he mentions "religion" in a generalized way, I differ between the esoteric (mystic) and exoteric (institutional, dogmatical) level of "religion".
I find many details of his I disagree with, many going right back at him. In short, he assumes that religion is based solely on faith and not on claims of fact. This is not true, at least for most major religions. One may argue whether the claims are true or not. That is another matter.

Anyway, running around the kitchen doing way too much way too late today.

[Skybird]

Are you a Jewish Kali, maybe? :lol: Eating forum members in secret, maybe? :cool:
When was the last time you heard from Drebel? or Abraham?

Think! Think!

Here's a drumstick. Now shut up. :p
That guy is good, he could almost be me. Sometimes there is a detail he mentiones that I do not agree with at all, but all in all I am with him. Only where he mentions "religion" in a generalized way, I differ between the esoteric (mystic) and exoteric (institutional, dogmatical) level of "religion".
I find many details of his I disagree with, many going right back at him. In short, he assumes that religion is based solely on faith and not on claims of fact. This is not true, at least for most major religions. One may argue whether the claims are true or not. That is another matter.

Anyway, running around the kitchen doing way too much way too late today.
Many "claimed facts" in institutional religions I find to be belief items only, additonally having been object to hear-say and distortion over the times, so I do not see him contradict his attitude in this. In fact he illustrates that old passage from the kalamas-Sutra that I have quoted several times now in the past years:


"Do not put faith in traditions, even though they

have been accepted for long generations and
in many countries. Do not believe a thing because
many repeat it. Do not accept a thing on
the authority of one or another of the sages of
old, nor on the ground of statements as found
in the books. Never believe anything because
probability is in its favour. Do not believe in
that which you yourselves have imagined,
thinking that a god has inspired it. Believe
nothing merely on the authority of the teachers
or the priests. After examination, believe that
which you have tested for yourself and found
reasonable, which is in conformity with your
well being and that of others."

Pat Condell - or Buddha? well, it is said that all things are of Buddha-nature, so in the end it is the same. :lol:

[JetSnake]

"Allah" is just what WE call God. You call God... "God".:88)

Let's simply make an international name for him and leave it at that so we won't have to suffer through any more of this religious BS mixed in with political shenanigans...:stare:

Call him whatever you like - he won't care - he doesn't exist...

Can't prove that can you.

[Skybird]

Can't prove that he does exist, can you. so why is it more reasonable to believe in something unproven, unexamined, unchecked, untested? Is it really that much demanded that He shall give us a sign of existence if he expects us to worship him? I would call that a reasonable demand. Scepticism is no sin, but a prerequisite to develope true reason. Ancient scriptures just are not good enough and just records of hear-say and chinese whispers, buried under a lot of dust. Maybe good enough for some people, but certainly not good enough for me.

But honestly, an old man behaving as brutal and tyrannic and demanding submission in the way He does in the bible's old testament or Muhammad's files, is somebody that either is mentally ill and belongs into a psychiatric station (talking as an ex-psychologist here: we would enforce by court's ruling that every man behaving like that must be brought to hospital and prison if he behaves like He did), or probably is not real, but a product of human imagination. The OT is dripping with blood and cruelty and His selfishness and His narcisissm and sadism and war. And that humans are capable of all this brutality, tyranny and demands for submission is obvious and a well-proven historic fact.

Conclusion: He does not exist, but we can prove that we exist, can we.

The gods we imagine, tell something about man himself - not about the question wether there are gods, or none. If they are there, they can give us a hint that is undeniable. If they don't, they either are not there, or they do not care. If the latter, why running after them, then. I have more important things to do.

[Rilder]

Religious talk on forums is never good, period...

This is coming from a Pagan of the Greek/Roman, Egyptian, Norse mythology syle with a grudge against a couple popular religions due to them causing downfall of his religion as a major belief system.

[robbo180265]

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w181/robbo180265/1183361173147.jpg