Muslims and Christians?

[shunyadragon]

Well, being human does seem to mean that we are incorrect quite often I don't see, however, how being human automatically precludes being right at all.

It, of course, does not preclude being 'right at all.' The amount of objective verifiable evidence available would determine the reliability and certainty of human claims,

A broken clock is exactly right once every 12 hours.

 

[1213]

Why don't Christians consider Muslims and believe they are children of God? Don't Muslims worship the God of Abraham from the old testament? Aren't Muslims a part of the old testament?I know they called God Allah but this is the God of the old testament right?

Unfortunately, it seems to me that Muslims worship a stone in the desert (Kaaba stone). My God is greater.

 

[Riders]

Unfortunately, it seems to me that Muslims worship a stone in the desert (Kaaba stone). My God is greater.

Thats not fair.

 

[dianaiad]

It, of course, does not preclude being 'right at all.' The amount of objective verifiable evidence available would determine the reliability and certainty of human claims,

A broken clock is exactly right once every 12 hours.

Ah. I see a considerable moving of the goalposts here. "objective verifiable evidence" is the way we deal with observations of the physical world. One cannot use it to establish the truth of philosophical or religious beliefs.

Or a bunch of other things that are peculiarly human, either.

You tell me how you can find objective verifiable evidence that your spouse loves you, or that you love your spouse.

Or that either one of you love your kids, if you have any.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ah. I see a considerable moving of the goalposts here.

No goal posts moved. It responds specifically to your question concerning the criteria of what makes humans right.

"objective verifiable evidence" is the way we deal with observations of the physical world.

True. That is the closest you can come to humans being right.

One cannot use it to establish the truth of philosophical or religious beliefs.

True.

Or a bunch of other things that are peculiarly human, either.

Nebulous nonsense.

You tell me how you can find objective verifiable evidence that your spouse loves you, or that you love your spouse.

Or that either one of you love your kids, if you have any.

You cannot find the objective verifiable evidence. Subjective measures of love or not love is not remotely science, not supported by objective verifiable evidence, and faces the same problems as claims of subjective philosophical and religious beliefs.

 

[shunyadragon]

Unfortunately, it seems to me that Muslims worship a stone in the desert (Kaaba stone). My God is greater.

. . . and Christians worship idols of statues, crosses, and holy sites like where Jesus was buried.

 

[paarsurrey]

. . . and Christians worship idols of statues, crosses, and holy sites like where Jesus was buried.

A good reply/rebuttal.
Regards

 

[dianaiad]

No goal posts moved. It responds specifically to your question concerning the criteria of what makes humans right.




True. That is the closest you can come to humans being right.

It doesn't, you know. All any of us can do is make guesses (hopefully good ones) about the things we see, hear, touch, smell or taste. While the facts don't change, our perceptions of them certainly can...and frequently do.

Scientists have to be careful about that sort of thing, not allowing themselves to be too hidebound in an opinion regarding evidence, so that new evidence--or new ideas about evidence already there--can be examined and folded into theories.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for that....however, I also remember--well, I was taking a college geology course, and was incredibly interested in the idea of plate tectonics. My professor was absolutely convinced of this theory, and he taught it to us as pure fact. Turns out that he was right, but at the time, he was not in the majority of geologists. The debate was still raging loud and long about the whole idea. Indeed, I had one of my father's old geology textbooks from HIS college days, where he majored in geology (before he switched to chemistry), and that book mentions the idea in the very back, in a footnote, dismissed as a hairbrained notion by people who weren't 'real scientists."

Now it's not as if the evidence for plates and moving continents wasn't right there in front of people, very ready to view, and darned obvious to any student of geology today, but at the time, nearly half a century ago?

there were still a great many scientists who objected to it. They saw the same evidence very differently.

You cannot find the objective verifiable evidence. Subjective measures of love or not love is not remotely science, not supported by objective verifiable evidence, and faces the same problems as claims of subjective philosophical and religious beliefs.

Ah, but I never claimed that religion was science, or could be proven scientifically. Indeed, I'd be one of the first people to raise my virtual eyebrow (I can't raise one eyebrow in real life, darn it) at anybody who claimed to be able to do so.

However, that spouses love one another is true, and real. That parents love their children is true, and real. That there are other very subjective areas of human existence that are 'true and real' but NOT scientifically provable is also, pardon me, evident.

.....and so, I firmly believe, is religion.

 

[shunyadragon]

It doesn't, you know. All any of us can do is make guesses (hopefully good ones) about the things we see, hear, touch, smell or taste. While the facts don't change, our perceptions of them certainly can...and frequently do.

This is a subjective view, with science we can do better then that.

Scientists have to be careful about that sort of thing, not allowing themselves to be too hidebound in an opinion regarding evidence, so that new evidence--or new ideas about evidence already there--can be examined and folded into theories.

Scientists as a whole are neither hidebound nor does 'opinion' carry any weight in science. It is standard the the knowledge of science changes and evolves over time based on new evidence.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for that....however, I also remember--well, I was taking a college geology course, and was incredibly interested in the idea of plate tectonics. My professor was absolutely convinced of this theory, and he taught it to us as pure fact. Turns out that he was right, but at the time, he was not in the majority of geologists. The debate was still raging loud and long about the whole idea. Indeed, I had one of my father's old geology textbooks from HIS college days, where he majored in geology (before he switched to chemistry), and that book mentions the idea in the very back, in a footnote, dismissed as a hairbrained notion by people who weren't 'real scientists."

This is an anecdotal view of the evolving knowledge of science, which I understand very well, because I am a geologist of more than 50 years.

Ah, but I never claimed that religion was science, or could be proven scientifically. Indeed, I'd be one of the first people to raise my virtual eyebrow (I can't raise one eyebrow in real life, darn it) at anybody who claimed to be able to do so.

Never said you did, but the question was what basis can humans be RIGHT. It is assumed that the knowledge changes over time, but based on the knowledge present humans can be closest to be RIGHT concerning the nature of our physical existence.

However, that spouses love one another is true, and real. That parents love their children is true, and real. That there are other very subjective areas of human existence that are 'true and real' but NOT scientifically provable is also, pardon me, evident.

I already stated that is evident, so what?!?!? They are likely true and real, but in the reality of human relationships it is not always 'true and real,' because humans are not always consistent in this subjective world of relationships

.....and so, I firmly believe, is religion.

First, too vague and general, which religion?!?!, and all religions believe their RIGHT (without objective evidence), make strong statement of their claim, and consider ALL other religions WRONG.

This is not a coherent response to the problem.

 

[dianaiad]

This is a subjective view, with science we can do better then that.

Actually...no. It doesn't matter what the physical facts are, since they do not change. However, WE, being humans, can only have subjective reactions to those facts.

Tell me: from the age of Aristotle to Copernicus to Newton to Einstein...what changed about the sun, the stars, the universe and gravity?

Did the sun move from the center of the universe to where it is now?
Did the earth suddenly stop being the center of the sun's orbit, and then become an orbiting body of the sun?

Here's one....all MY life I was taught that the solar system had nine, count 'em, NINE, planets. All the charts said so. The astronomers said so. I had to memorize the names....all the way out to poor little Pluto of the heart shaped whatever on it's surface. Did Pluto suddenly become a planet? Did it change in any way?

Or did WE change our ideas about Pluto, so that it is now 'not a planet,' but a 'planetoid,' or whatever it is they are calling it?

IS there a larger planet orbiting outside the Kyper belt that messes with the orbits of inner planets?

FACTS do not change. What we THINK about them does...and that's subjective.

Scientists as a whole are neither hidebound nor does 'opinion' carry any weight in science. It is standard the the knowledge of science changes and evolves over time based on new evidence.

I repeat. Did the sun change it's orbit? Did the evidence change?

Or did WE change our understanding of the evidence that has ALWAYS BEEN THERE? That...is subjective. Understanding always is.

You might consider this: the "Big Bang," now considered by most scientists to be THE beginning of the universe, was named in mockery by rather hide bound scientists.

This is an anecdotal view of the evolving knowledge of science, which I understand very well, because I am a geologist of more than 50 years.

Am I wrong? tectonic plates have always been there. They didn't suddenly pop into view to astound the geologists. It is their understanding...their very subjective understanding...that allowed them to see the evidence in a different way, or even to see it at all.

BTW...fifty years? Hmmmnnn....that means you were taking your geology courses about the same time I was. What did YOUR professors think about this issue?

As for me, I was...and remain...fascinated by geology. However, the math defeated me and I had to satisfy myself by being an English major and the one who took all those theses and dissertations written by scientific majors and making them readable. It was more fun, as it turns out.

Never said you did, but the question was what basis can humans be RIGHT. It is assumed that the knowledge changes over time, but based on the knowledge present humans can be closest to be RIGHT concerning the nature of our physical existence.

Well, I'm not sure we'll ever know if we are RIGHT about science. As I mentioned, what is doesn't change. it is our understanding of what is that does. Will we ever get 'what is' nailed down?

(shrug) I do know this: throughout history, every scientist thinks that is opinion of 'what is' is right....whether it is or not.

I already stated that is evident, so what?!?!? They are likely true and real, but in the reality of human relationships it is not always 'true and real,' because humans are not always consistent in this subjective world of relationships

Nope. They aren't.

First, too vague and general, which religion?!?!,

Well, mine, of course.

and all religions believe their RIGHT (without objective evidence), make strong statement of their claim, and consider ALL other religions WRONG.

Yes. And?

This is not a coherent response to the problem.

Of course it is. but you, kind friend, are attempting to measure the depth of the ocean by using an anemometer. Religion cannot be proven...or even examined...by scientific methods any more than the hardness of a rock may be examined by praying about it.

Someone called this 'different magesteria.' Religion is squishy, subjective, and very, very personal. It cannot be measured with a ruler, plumbed with a line, or described in a mathematical formula, any more than one can formulate scientific theories by divine revelation.

Use the correct tools for the correct field, and stop getting frustrated because your scientific ruler cannot prove that God exists...or doesn't.

 

[shunyadragon]

Actually...no. It doesn't matter what the physical facts are, since they do not change. However, WE, being humans, can only have subjective reactions to those facts.

In terms of science, and by definition science does include 'opinions' nor use 'subjective reactions,'

Tell me: from the age of Aristotle to Copernicus to Newton to Einstein...what changed about the sun, the stars, the universe and gravity?

Did the sun move from the center of the universe to where it is now?
Did the earth suddenly stop being the center of the sun's orbit, and then become an orbiting body of the sun?

Here's one....all MY life I was taught that the solar system had nine, count 'em, NINE, planets. All the charts said so. The astronomers said so. I had to memorize the names....all the way out to poor little Pluto of the heart shaped whatever on it's surface. Did Pluto suddenly become a planet? Did it change in any way?

Or did WE change our ideas about Pluto, so that it is now 'not a planet,' but a 'planetoid,' or whatever it is they are calling it?

IS there a larger planet orbiting outside the Kyper belt that messes with the orbits of inner planets?

I repeat. Did the sun change it's orbit? Did the evidence change?

Or did WE change our understanding of the evidence that has ALWAYS BEEN THERE? That...is subjective. Understanding always is.

You might consider this: the "Big Bang," now considered by most scientists to be THE beginning of the universe, was named in mockery by rather hide bound scientists.

Am I wrong? tectonic plates have always been there. They didn't suddenly pop into view to astound the geologists. It is their understanding...their very subjective understanding...that allowed them to see the evidence in a different way, or even to see it at all.

BTW...fifty years? Hmmmnnn....that means you were taking your geology courses about the same time I was. What did YOUR professors think about this issue?

As for me, I was...and remain...fascinated by geology. However, the math defeated me and I had to satisfy myself by being an English major and the one who took all those theses and dissertations written by scientific majors and making them readable. It was more fun, as it turns out.

Nothing, but you are not reading my posts completely. I have fully realized that the knowledge of science evolves and changes by the increase in knowledge and evidence. At any point in history science has been the closest to right based on the knowledge of the time.

Actually at the times of Jesus Christ the best view of the nature of our physical existence was Lucretius, a Roman philosopher.

FACTS do not change. What we THINK about them does...and that's subjective.

No the knowledge of science is not subjective. It changes over time based on the objective knowledge of the time

You ARE NOT READING MY POSTS, and responding with babble.

Well, I'm not sure we'll ever know if we are RIGHT about science. As I mentioned, what is doesn't change. it is our understanding of what is that does. Will we ever get 'what is' nailed down?

Again, again, again, and again . . .

Knowledge of science objectively changes over time based on the knowledge at that time. I have repeatedly described science as an evolving changing body of knowledge that changes and evolves over time. It is not based on subjective knowledge, nor 'opinions.'

(shrug) I do know this: throughout history, every scientist thinks that is opinion of 'what is' is right....whether it is or not.

Absolutely false as previously described. Scientific knowledge at any point in history is based on the availability of objective verifiable evidence at that time and NOT the opinion of individual scientists.

I have clearly said a number of times that the knowledge of science changes.

So have I and you are not responding coherently to my posts.

Well, mine, of course.

Which is one of at least hundreds of different belief systems that make strong claims that they are RIGHT. You may believe this, but please STOP misrepresenting science.

Yes. And?

It makes your claims very very weak, and reflect fallible human claims.

Of course it is. but you, kind friend, are attempting to measure the depth of the ocean by using an anemometer.

Absolutely false. It would be very refreshing if you would cite me and science accurately, and not continue this train of misrepresentation.

quote]
Religion cannot be proven...or even examined...by scientific methods any more than the hardness of a rock may be examined by praying about it.

Someone called this 'different magesteria.' Religion is squishy, subjective, and very, very personal. It cannot be measured with a ruler, plumbed with a line, or described in a mathematical formula, any more than one can formulate scientific theories by divine revelation. [/quote]

One of the first valid statements you have made. This goes to the root of to what degree and how can fallible humans be considered RIGHT.

Use the correct tools for the correct field, and stop getting frustrated because your scientific ruler cannot prove that God exists...or doesn't.

Never claimed that it could, and if you cite my posts correctly you would understand this. I have made that abundantly clear.

The issue remains; How and by what standards can claim to consistently and coherently RIGHT.

What is the basis of the strength of your claim that you are RIGHt and ALL the others are wrong?

 

[Fool]

Why don't Christians consider Muslims and believe they are children of God? Don't Muslims worship the God of Abraham from the old testament? Aren't Muslims a part of the old testament?I know they called God Allah but this is the God of the old testament right?

quakers believe everyone is a child of god

We believe that every person is loved and guided by God. Broadly speaking, we affirm that "there is that of God in everyone." Everyone is known by God and can know God in a direct relationship. We are called to attend to this relationship and to be guided by it. Quakers use many words to describe the Divine. Some of them include: God, the Light Within, Christ, Spirit, Seed, and Inward Teacher.

 

[1213]

. . . and Christians worship idols of statues, crosses, and holy sites like where Jesus was buried.

If that is true, it is sad and against what the Bible tells.

 

[shunyadragon]

If that is true, it is sad and against what the Bible tells.

It is true and sad.

 

[dianaiad]

In terms of science, and by definition science does include 'opinions' nor use 'subjective reactions,'



Nothing, but you are not reading my posts completely. I have fully realized that the knowledge of science evolves and changes by the increase in knowledge and evidence. At any point in history science has been the closest to right based on the knowledge of the time.

Actually at the times of Jesus Christ the best view of the nature of our physical existence was Lucretius, a Roman philosopher.



No the knowledge of science is not subjective. It changes over time based on the objective knowledge of the time

You ARE NOT READING MY POSTS, and responding with babble.



Again, again, again, and again . . .

Knowledge of science objectively changes over time based on the knowledge at that time. I have repeatedly described science as an evolving changing body of knowledge that changes and evolves over time. It is not based on subjective knowledge, nor 'opinions.'



Absolutely false as previously described. Scientific knowledge at any point in history is based on the availability of objective verifiable evidence at that time and NOT the opinion of individual scientists.



So have I and you are not responding coherently to my posts.



Which is one of at least hundreds of different belief systems that make strong claims that they are RIGHT. You may believe this, but please STOP misrepresenting science.



It makes your claims very very weak, and reflect fallible human claims.




Absolutely false. It would be very refreshing if you would cite me and science accurately, and not continue this train of misrepresentation.

quote]
Religion cannot be proven...or even examined...by scientific methods any more than the hardness of a rock may be examined by praying about it.

Someone called this 'different magesteria.' Religion is squishy, subjective, and very, very personal. It cannot be measured with a ruler, plumbed with a line, or described in a mathematical formula, any more than one can formulate scientific theories by divine revelation.

One of the first valid statements you have made. This goes to the root of to what degree and how can fallible humans be considered RIGHT.



Never claimed that it could, and if you cite my posts correctly you would understand this. I have made that abundantly clear.

The issue remains; How and by what standards can claim to consistently and coherently RIGHT.

What is the basis of the strength of your claim that you are RIGHt and ALL the others are wrong?[/QUOTE]

Y'know, I'm a little tired of being insulted by you every time you disagree with something I'm saying. I don't do this to you.

 

[shunyadragon]

Y'know, I'm a little tired of being insulted by you every time you disagree with something I'm saying. I don't do this to you.

Yes you do concerning the nature of the knowledge of science.

Get used to it! We disagree. I strongly disagree with your description of 'opinion' and subjective conclusions having a role in science. Scientific knowledge indeed changes over time, but based on the progressive knowledge of science based on objective verifiable evidence.

What is the basis of the strength of your claim that you are RIGHT and ALL the others are wrong?

 

[dianaiad]

Yes you do concerning the nature of the knowledge of science.

Get used to it! We disagree. I strongly disagree with your description of 'opinion' and subjective conclusions having a role in science. Scientific knowledge indeed changes over time, but based on the progressive knowledge of science based on objective verifiable evidence.

What is the basis of the strength of your claim that you are RIGHT and ALL the others are wrong?

I disagree with you. I don't insult you personally. Disagreeing with a position is NOT the same thing as calling you names. You have, in one post, accused me of misrepresenting you, lying, not reading you and being stupid.

I do not write that you are stupid, or deliberately misreading me, or lying, or misrepresenting what I write. You, however, can't seem to restrict yourself to addressing the content of the post, rather than ad hominems.

 

[shunyadragon]

I disagree with you. I don't insult you personally. Disagreeing with a position is NOT the same thing as calling you names. You have, in one post, accused me of misrepresenting you, lying, not reading you and being stupid.

I DID NOT SAY LYING NOR STUPID. It is a fact that you misrepresented my posts.

Please respond coherently and represent me correctly.

 

[dianaiad]

I DID NOT SAY LYING NOR STUPID. It is a fact that you misrepresented my posts.

Please respond coherently and represent me correctly.

......and there you go again.

bye now.

 

[j1i]

Muslims believe in the Bible among Christians and Jews and believe in Christ as a prophet
We share the worship of the same Lord but against the idea of the Trinity which is a diabolical scheme
As a Muslim I love Jesus as a prophet but not the Son of God

this is my website to read
THE CONCEPT OF GOD'S MERCY IN ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY

http://www.ipci.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Concept-of-Gods-Mercy-in-Islam-and-Christianity.pdf

you can watch this also