Evidence for God from Science

Mallz wrote:Most people do wrong because it's what they want to do. What's your point?

My point is, when they do it, they are usually aware that what they are doing is wrong. Even your Bible agrees with me. (James 4:17)

Mallz wrote:I don't watch fox news. I watch the news coming from countries where the majority of Muslims live: in the Middle East and southeast Asia.
Just because someone identifies as something, doesn't mean they are that thing.

Says who? You?

Mallz wrote:You mention people who don't read their bibles, pray, go to church, or know the God who they say they worship. Does that sound like a Christian to you?

That sounds like half of the Christians I know. Most of my Christian friends know less about the Bible than I do.

Mallz wrote:Same goes for the Muslims. Or anyone who identifies to a belief system. You don't get to say I believe this and not that. It's all or nothing. You either do or you don't.

Says who? You? So is it your job to determine who is or is not Muslim?

Mallz wrote:Anyways, not sure what your point was in the reply regarding you can't get everyone to agree on morality; the point of me using the 1.37 billion Muslim example in the first place.

My point is, if you are gonna start tossing that 1.37 billion number around as the number of Muslims world wide, you need to include those moderate ones as well; you can’t have it both ways.

Ken

RickD wrote:K was referring to atheists killing people for their religion. Not the atheists' religion. The people's religion who the atheists killed!
See? Even the almighty Audie misreads other people's words!

Actually, I saw the dual meaning and intentionally left both meanings there.

Thankfully, no one uses the historical grammatical method when trying to interpret my writings. Or do they?

Kurieuo wrote:

RickD wrote:K was referring to atheists killing people for their religion. Not the atheists' religion. The people's religion who the atheists killed!
See? Even the almighty Audie misreads other people's words!

Actually, I saw the dual meaning and intentionally left both meanings there.

Thankfully, no one uses the historical grammatical method when trying to interpret my writings. Or do they?

Leaving me to wonder if we have a "atheist religioneer" on our hands or not.

My point is, when they do it, they are usually aware that what they are doing is wrong. Even your Bible agrees with me. (James 4:17)

I think I'm just confused here. We seem to be saying the same things?

Mallz wrote:
I don't watch fox news. I watch the news coming from countries where the majority of Muslims live: in the Middle East and southeast Asia.
Just because someone identifies as something, doesn't mean they are that thing.
Kenny wrote:
Says who? You?

No, by examining the religious/belief system someone says they claim to belong to and then seeing if their revealed beliefs and actions fit it. If they are in contradiction to their claimed belief system they are hypocrites. Right?

That sounds like half of the Christians I know. Most of my Christian friends know less about the Bible than I do.

It's a sad fact

Mallz wrote:
Same goes for the Muslims. Or anyone who identifies to a belief system. You don't get to say I believe this and not that. It's all or nothing. You either do or you don't.
Says who? You? So is it your job to determine who is or is not Muslim?

Says their religion. If we want to start another thread to go over the Islamic religion in detail I'd be grudgingly willing (because it'll take a lot of work for me)

My point is, if you are gonna start tossing that 1.37 billion number around as the number of Muslims world wide, you need to include those moderate ones as well; you can’t have it both ways.

Gotcha, I think we are talking through each other here? The amount of Muslims assumes followers of Islam. Whether or not they are is another story, but it is a demographic of people with unique moral principles (In this case coming from the Quran and Hadith). I was using a demographic group to show an example of a large portion of the world that wouldn't agree with everyone else on morality. Showing that the state of the world, in large, is in disagreement with itself (especially since these large groups have so many sub divisions). We were talking about morality, not examining how many people are living true to their claim of following said religion.

Mallz wrote: I think I'm just confused here. We seem to be saying the same things?

No, I'm saying when people do wrong they usually know it. You claim they are unaware they are doing wrong when they do it.

Mallz wrote:No, by examining the religious/belief system someone says they claim to belong to and then seeing if their revealed beliefs and actions fit it. If they are in contradiction to their claimed belief system they are hypocrites. Right?

Yes and there are plenty of hypocrites out there. But just because they are a hypocrite doesn't mean they don't believe.

Mallz wrote:Says their religion. If we want to start another thread to go over the Islamic religion in detail I'd be grudgingly willing (because it'll take a lot of work for me)

Going over a religion is not necessary to determine who accepts that religion as true.

Mallz wrote:Gotcha, I think we are talking through each other here? The amount of Muslims assumes followers of Islam. Whether or not they are is another story, but it is a demographic of people with unique moral principles (In this case coming from the Quran and Hadith). I was using a demographic group to show an example of a large portion of the world that wouldn't agree with everyone else on morality. Showing that the state of the world, in large, is in disagreement with itself (especially since these large groups have so many sub divisions). We were talking about morality, not examining how many people are living true to their claim of following said religion.

So you agree some Muslims are moderate?

Ken

Kurieuo: Thankfully, no one uses the historical grammatical method when trying to interpret my writings. Or do they?

I'm thinking many here don't even know what the historical grammatical method even is

Philip wrote:

Kurieuo: Thankfully, no one uses the historical grammatical method when trying to interpret my writings. Or do they?

I'm thinking many here don't even know what the historical grammatical method even is

Ok then. Thankfully, no one tries to "literally" interpret my writings. Or do they?

No, I'm saying when people do wrong they usually know it. You claim they are unaware they are doing wrong when they do it.

Where was my claim? I'm still confused over where this part of the conversation has progressed to.

Yes and there are plenty of hypocrites out there. But just because they are a hypocrite doesn't mean they don't believe.

Yes it does. It means they don't accept and believe what their religion is telling them. Some things they don't believe doesn't matter to the religion (not making them hypocrites). Some things are necessary to be a part of it (if they don't believe make them a hypocrite).

Some Christian teaching on hypocrisy that might clear some things up.
1 John 1:6 1 John 4:20 John 2:9 James 1:26 Matthew 15:7-9 1 James 2:14-26 Luke 6:46 Luke 20:46-47 (interesting how in this last one they receive condemnation, what Christian will receive condemnation from God?) Luke 16:13 2 Peter 2:1-3

Lastly: James 2:19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!
Let me assure you now, demons are damned. They believe, and are damned.

Going over a religion is not necessary to determine who accepts that religion as true.

You missed my point again. You go over a religion to necessarily see what it means to be a follower of that religion.

So you agree some Muslims are moderate?

No. I believe some Muslims talk and act like they are Muslim but aren't. Like some people from every faith who are really interested in themselves, their families, their lives and religion is and addition to their life, a culture. I see most people from religions (And I see this big in Christianity too, unfortunately)are deists and fundamentally humanists.

Mallz wrote: Where was my claim? I'm still confused over where this part of the conversation has progressed to.

Your exact words were: if you stole when no one is looking, then you don't believe it is wrong. You just believe everyone else says it's wrong and need to make sure they don't find out about it.

Mallz wrote:Yes it does. It means they don't accept and believe what their religion is telling them.

What about you? Are you sinless? Or do you not accept and believe what your religion is telling you.

Mallz wrote:You missed my point again. You go over a religion to necessarily see what it means to be a follower of that religion.

Going over a religion doesn't mean you are going to interpret it the way the other person will

Mallz wrote:No. I believe some Muslims talk and act like they are Muslim but aren't.

Oh so now you've been given the authority to determine who is Muslim and who is not?

Ken

Mallz?

Are you saying that only Muslim extremists are true Muslims?

Storyteller wrote:Mallz?

Are you saying that only Muslim extremists are true Muslims?

Great question Annette!
Was thinking the same thing.
Is that kind of thinking a little extreme?

My honest opinion?

Yes, I think it is.

Honest opinion? You gals should research what Muslims think in Muslim countries.

Take Turkey’s PM Erdogan: The term “moderate Islam” is ugly and offensive — Islam is Islam
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/09/turke ... m-is-islam

The link doesn`t work for me K

Storyteller wrote:The link doesn`t work for me K

Haha. Is your country censoring what you can see on the Internet?