₦airaland Forum

Why is following God's way good?

Most religious people don't understand atheists, they place so much assumptions as our underlying reasons. Yea I would be afraid, but the word Jesus sounds so useless and helpless. I just know that life and everything ends for me and that will be the sad part. Afterlife is wishful thinking. I too aware of many cultures with that mentality.

I simply used that as an illustration: God created the Universe so He is separate from it and its laws.

Your illustration wasn't helpful. God would need the universe create, as it would serve as both the material and platform.

God is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The example of His light is like a niche within which is a lamp, the lamp is within glass, the glass as if it
were a pearly [white] star lit from [the oil of] a blessed olive tree, neither of the east nor of the west, whose oil would almost glow even if untouched by fire.
Light upon light. God guides to His light whom He wills. And God presents examples for the people, and God is Knowing of all things. (24:35)

Light-  i.e., the source and bestower of light and enlightenment.
Niche-  His guidance in the heart of a believing servant
Lamp- Literally, “a burning wick,” which is the essence of a lamp

Sorry, that wasn't helpful either. The idea I got from there was the God is a higher power other than that nothing. You keep making use of physical references, I compelled to believe that God occurs no space. Does God have mind and with all these references is he complex?

Can God create reality?

^^^

As far as Boko Haram is concerned we are all kaffir. I'm an atheist also, so I'm not in the class of sympathizers. But I find them similar to Prophet Muhammed

Do you think God created existence or reality?

^^^

Yep, if first he can fit into a package.

I give a simple illustration, If i make a phone, the phone and i are not bound by the same laws; That, my phone is not water-proof does not mean i am not too. The phone is bound by that limit - It can't go under water.

No, the phone and the maker have to conform or rather be compatible with the natural laws of the universe (existent primary). You didn't create phone from nothing, but more or less assembled parts, and you didn't create any laws, you simply made use of principles u discovered to repurpose the aggregate parts to your desire.

If God is the creator of the Universe, It also means he is the source of all knowledge existent in the Universe> Meaning your knowledge which comes as a result of study is already known to the creator:

A mind is needed to hold such information. With a mind God would be complex.

The cause or creator must also be transcendent, this means that the cause of the universe must exist outside of and apart from the universe. Since this being exists apart from the universe it must be non-physical or immaterial, if it was material then it would be part of the universe.

I understand non-physical and immaterial mean not physical and not material, but there is no picture, could say more or provide more information, since you simply cancelled out material and physical.

^^^

I'm asking as an atheist without any idea of god

Boko Haram have claimed many times to follow the example of the Prophet Muhammed, and that their violence is directed against the Nigerian State and its collaborators. They claimed to have been murdered, incarcerated unjustly and have suffered the same sort of oppression suffered by the Prophet Muhammed thus justifying their retaliation and use of violence.

And as it appears, their chief targets are agents of government ie local leaders, police, soldiers and outspoken critics. The remainder collateral damage. They have also promised to end the conflict after disbelief disappears. Are they a valid example of islamic teachings?

The Buddhists have been practising their doctrines for centuries, they have peaceful means of opposing oppression by sending powerful messages of self sacrifice, civil disobedience. Peace is never sacrificed at the altar of war or violence. A warrior with blood soaked hands can't claim to be a saint of peace.

Peace is not impracticable.

I don't understand what you mean by finite mind.

Infinity makes no sense without time

Deep Sight:
Actually, infinity is the only reality.

yeah, kind of.

He neither begets nor is born,

Is he without beginning? Wouldn't the absurdity of infinity apply?

He knows what is [presently] before them and what will be after them,

and they encompass not a thing of His knowledge except for what He wills.

In order to acquire and hold knowledge requires the ability to conceptualize, and that requires a mind. Isn't a being with a mind complex?

Is God Matter?

There can be Peace without Justice, there can be peace and fairness without justice. Justice has is a brother of laws, rules and rigidity. Justice is blind adherence to laws. Justice is an eye for an eye and it makes the world go blind. There can be no justice without laws

Buddhists had discovered this long ago. Wars and struggles lead to exhaustion both physical and spiritual.

An army is not an agent of peace but master of war, a virgin can't have sex for the purpose of preserving her virginity.

Religion! It was well tailored for the masses.

I doubt if the body was as fresh as it was before the burial.

And Lenin is the freshest, because Muhammed and Jesus love him so much??

Who is God??

Isn't it misleading to say Islam is a peaceful religion? It invokes the images of Buddhist monks and Jainism in which its totally forbidden to raise arms and strike a fellow human and even life. Whether they are entitled to self defence is a big controversy.

But that's entirely different from Islam, to Islam violence is another means and tool of the Islamic state. It could be wielded to acquire and secure conquests, to destroy perceived enemies. Even the Prophet Muhammed was also a military leader and conqueror as well as a spiritual leader.

By comparing Islam with Buddhism and Jainism, its very difficult to say its a religion of Peace. Shouldn't it be described as a Religion of Justice? Since Islam sees a life thereafter necessary solely to dispense justice.

This is another piece of bad journalism. . .

Waiting for pictures, Waiting. . .

^^
What is the use of prayers since god is said to be omniscient?

^^^

1. I believed Muslims are allowed to fight in self defence, which tbaba successfully dissipated.

2. In accordance to the first misconception, I was shocked to find Prophet Muhammed attacking unarmed caravans and looting and killing while at it.

3. Abu Sufyan as leader of a caravan with lots of money asked for protection from the Meccans against the highway robbers.

4. Sweetnecta said all the caravans were carrying Muslim goods, thus Muslims were still under an extension of self defence, which I disagreed to.

5. But you saw the battles Abu Sufyan fought to protect his property, city and religion as folly and dishonourable.

^^^

Thanks tbaba, you have cleared all my doubts and misconceptions. I had always Islam restricted violence to self defence as it was a necessity.

@maclatunji

Rather than dance around like an opium insect and spit out trash, you should have been clear on Islamic grounds for violence.

^^^
I was complaining about Muhammed lay waiting NUMEROUS caravans, which is robbery. Abu Sufyan a leader in one of the caravans called out to Mecca for help culminating to battle of Badr.

If Abu Sufyan wasn't a victim, why did he seek for help??

@maclatunji

My argument is simple, the violence Muhammed was involved in was not self defence.

@Sweetnecta

As I said earlier, retrieving property, even lawful one is not SELF DEFENCE. Retaliation is not self defence. And murder of the unarmed trader is not. At least Goliath and David were in a fight, so its not at all similar to the trader's case.

@brentkuge

Maclatunji is a clown and nothing more.

@tbaba

Since most Muslims claim that Islam permits violence only in cases of self defence. My argument was that banditry or an aggressive act of war was not self defence. Such an act against the lifeline of a State (trading) is a declaration of war. Its a provocation. The newly revealed verse to Muhammed justified the killing of an unarmed trader, since he was an unbeliever is cruel and uncivilized

@brentkuge

Maclatunji is a clown and nothing more.

@tbaba

My argument was that banditry or an aggressive act of war was no

@olasesi

I'm glad you have accepted!! At you ppl have quit lying.

Its becoming tiring. Muslims kill for anything that they believe rubbish the Image of Islam, either cartoons, or mere inconsequential statements.

As far as history and I are concerned Islam is not a religion of Peace, its a religion for barbarians with animalistic energy.

maclatunji:
Okay, you ACTUALLY SAW HIM ATTACKING the Caravan? If you didn't, who told you he did? Can this be independently verified? Again, your last sentence shows that you don't know what you are talking about?

This is your first post

This the basis of my discussion with you and it is obvious that you are arguing from a point of ignorance, don't shy away from the topic you started yourself with wild assertions. Is that how you were taught to do research and debate issues?

Abu Sufyan died a happy Muslim, so where does that leave your point about his "lawful caravan" being robbed by Muslims?

that's uneducated talk from you! Did I see it??
What fact are you trying to dispute??
Check out this Islamic site.

ahya.org/amm/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=159

@ Sweetnecta

Abu Sufyan's caravan was one of the many caravans Muhammed targeted, no reasonable man will expect the caravans to be carrying only Muslims goods to and fro for the sake of physical exercise. Normal honest private business is what caravans are all about. They are like cargo ships, so imagine what sort of people attack such ships.

After the MURDER of the poor trader, Muhammed's convenient verse was that his killing was justified! How could that be justified? An unarmed trader! There was no self defence.

How does Abu Sufyan justify violence?

maclatunji:
Okay, you actually saw him attacking the Caravan? If you didn't, who told you he did? Can this be independently verified? Again, your last sentence shows that you don't know what you are talking about?

This is your first post

This the basis of my discussion with you and it is obvious that you are arguing from a point of ignorance, don't shy away from the topic you started yourself with wild assertions. Is that how you were taught to do research and debate issues?

Abu Sufyan died a happy Muslim, so where does that leave your point about his "lawful caravan" being robbed by Muslims?

But Abu Sufyan was against Muhammed until Mecca was captured. I think this suggests Abu Sufyan had good reason to oppose Muhammed and another in being a muslim.