discussion on the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth

[Soup]

Don't be dense.

I promise, I'm not going to turn every thread in here into a religious discussion, so In the future if you have questions like this refer it back to the nature of the creator thread, because, You know how it goes.

Quoted post

[knkr]

Panthiesm

 

"Pantheism is the philosophy that everything is God (pan="everything" theos="God") or that the universe and nature are divine"

 

"Pantheism is a metaphysical and religious position. Broadly defined it is the view that (1) "God is everything and everything is God ... the world is either identical with God or in some way a self-expression of his nature""

 

I see religions as FUCKING STUPID DIRECTION seriously... the three main religions branch of the SAME FUCKING STORY. what the bible? 2000 years old. HHAHAAHAHAHA probally write by a group of mates pissed in a pub.

There a reason for people to disagree. "it was like this." "no it was like that"

"fuck you" "fuck you" *stab stab* bla bla

 

just look around you. you will see. read some panthiest ideals.

get back to me on this one.

 

cheers.

 

http://www.panthiesm.net

 

or just google "panthiesm"

 

peas.

[John Birch]

knkr:

 

 

I am a "devout" atheistist/nihilist who smokes crack and writes his name on things....that be my muthafucking religion nigga...

[Dawood]

Don't be dense.

I promise, I'm not going to turn every thread in here into a religious discussion, so In the future if you have questions like this refer it back to the nature of the creator thread, because, You know how it goes.

Quoted post

Quoted post

 

 

yeah, but you have to stay on topic, bro, no politics in the creator thread, sorry.

 

 

P.S. I hate politics

[MAR]

Ok I have a serious question.

 

As a practising Jew I would like to know why some of the Muslim populus hate Jews (and dont say Israel b/c we both know it started before that).

 

We both believe in the same G-d and both of our religions are tollerant to other monotheistic religions, provided that they are not corrupted. I have heard the argument that the Jews today are not G-d fearing and so on but that seems rather pretentious to me to make such a call.

 

Im throwing this out on a religous level and hope that maybe you can give me a better understanding.

 

Sorry I know I have some spelling errors but I dont have time to correct them, I need to go to sleep.

 

Edited for grammer and readability

[Soup]

Don't be dense.

I promise, I'm not going to turn every thread in here into a religious discussion, so In the future if you have questions like this refer it back to the nature of the creator thread, because, You know how it goes.

Quoted post

Quoted post

 

 

yeah, but you have to stay on topic, bro, no politics in the creator thread, sorry.

 

 

P.S. I hate politics

Quoted post

 

HAH, my bad for not putting that quote into context. It was you saying "oh, my bad" for bringing this discussion into another thread, and you suggesting that it should be continued elsewhere in this thread. You and your word must be the most worthless things in this forum.

[Soup]

Don't be dense.

I promise, I'm not going to turn every thread in here into a religious discussion, so In the future if you have questions like this refer it back to the nature of the creator thread, because, You know how it goes.

Quoted post

Quoted post

 

 

yeah, but you have to stay on topic, bro, no politics in the creator thread, sorry.

 

 

P.S. I hate politics

Quoted post

 

That'd be sources supporting one side to a theology discussion, bob, and a written invatation to continue it here, in this thread.

 

P.S. Then getting involved in Islam was a bad move.

[Dawood]

No, soup, Islam is less political and more spiritual for the average muslim. Just because all you see on the news is muslims fighting for power, well thats because the cameras go to the action, they don't go to the mosques and show you prayers or they don't go to the villages and the cities that are not covered in turmoil.

 

Sex, Drugs and Violence. people want to be entertained, even if other people gotta die.

[Spuds Mckenzie]

God is a dick.

[Lonesome Cowboy Bill]

Occam's Razor (also spelled Ockham's Razor), is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham. It forms the basis of methodological reductionism, also called the principle of parsimony or law of economy.

 

In its simplest form, Occam's Razor states that one should make no more assumptions than needed. Put into everyday language, it says

 

Numquam ponenda est pluritas sine necessitate. [Latin]

 

which translates to:

 

Multiples should never be used if not necessary.

 

or

 

"Shave off" (omit) unnecessary entities in explanations.

 

But the more commonly used translations are:

 

Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler, and The simplest answer is usually the correct answer.

 

For example, after a storm you notice that a tree has fallen. Based on the evidence of the storm and the fallen tree, a reasonable hypothesis would be that the storm blew down the tree — a hypothesis that requires you to suspend your disbelief very little, as there exist strong logical connections binding what you already know to this solution (seeing and hearing storms does indeed tend to indicate the existence of storms; storms are more than capable of felling trees). A rival hypothesis claiming that the tree was knocked over by marauding 200-metre tall space aliens requires several additional assumptions, with various logical weaknesses resulting from inconsistencies with what is already known (concerning the very existence of aliens, their ability and desire to travel interstellar distances, their ability and desire to (un-)intentionally knock down trees and the alien biology that allows them to be 200 metres tall in terrestrial gravity), and is therefore less preferred.

 

The principle is most often expressed as Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, or "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity", but this sentence was written by later authors and is not found in Occam's surviving writings. This also applies to non est ponenda pluritas sine necessitate, which translates literally into English as "pluralities ought not be supposed without necessity".

 

This can be interpreted in two subtly different ways. One is a preference for the simplest theory that adequately accounts for the data. Another is a preference for the simplest subset of any given theory which accounts for the data. The difference is simply that it is possible for two different theories to explain the data equally well, but have no relation to one another. They share none of the same elements. Some would argue that in this case Occam's Razor does not suggest a preference. Rather Occam's Razor only comes into practice when a sufficient theory has something added to it which does not improve its predictive power. Occam's Razor neatly cuts these additional theoretical elements away.

 

 

 

Used in religion:

 

In the philosophy of religion Occam's Razor is sometimes used to challenge arguments for the existence of God: if there doesn't seem to be a need for God (to explain the universe), then God most likely doesn't exist.

 

An example of such an argument would take this form: we have a set of models which does a good job of predicting various aspects of our experience (theories from physics, biology, psychology, etc.). Taken together these constitute a larger model of our overall experience, call it a World model. Elements (sub-models) of this World model which do not contribute to the precision or improve the accuracy of the model should be "cut away" with Occam's Razor. Given this foundation it can be seen that World models including God have an extra element which does not improve accuracy or precision.

 

A common response is that God can "simplify" the world model, for instance by providing a less complex explanation of the origion of species via creationism (i.e. even though we are adding the God-submodel we are removing a more complicated "evolution" model achieving a simpler theory). However, such arguments do not take into account that the evolution sub-model is necessary for accuracy and precision (for instance the evolution models makes many good predictions about where we will find various kinds of fossils). Since removing the evolution sub-model reduces the accuracy and precision of the World model it must be kept (in some form). If the evolution model is kept then the God sub-model hasn't simplified the World model.

 

The other possible justification for including the God sub-model would be that it improves accuracy or precision, i.e. it is a better fit for the data. An example of this would be the idea that "religious experience," such as visions, voices, and other sorts of personal experience are *not* explained/predicted by the other sub-models, in this case sub-models of human psychology. In examing this question the principle of Occam's Razor would dirrect us to remove the God sub-model if it did not provide better predictions about those sorts of experiences than alternative sub-models about human psychology, and to keep it if it did. Some people thus argue that Occam's Razor puts the question of the existence of God squarely within the realm of testable science. I.e. the idea of "God" is no different from any other idea, and can be evaluated with the same criteria we use for other models.

 

While arguments taking the above form are common, they are not universally accepted among philosophers or scientists, possibly because the enourmous social and cultural implications make it an extremely emotional and contentious issue, or possibly because there is an philisophical flaw in the argument.

 

The principle is only a guide to the best theory based on current knowledge, not to the "truth".

 

It is argued that Ockham was an intellectual forefather of the scientific method because he argued for a degree of intellectual freedom in a time of dogmatic belief, similarly to Roger Bacon. He can also, however, be seen as an apologist for Divine Omnipotence, since he was concerned to demonstrate that creation was contingent and the Creator free to change the rules at will. Thus, if God is free to make an infinity of worlds with completely different rules from those which prevail in our world, then we are free to imagine such worlds and their logical and practical consequences.

 

 

 

 

from wikipedia, I only pasted the intro and the section relating to religion, reda the whole here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

[MAR]

science is all fine and dandy until you ask what caused the big bang. or why animals decided to evolve and why they dont now.

 

occoms razor to the neck!

[hobo knife]

^^^haha...yeah, ....scientists you can keep your fine and dandy "science"!!!

[Dawood]

The truth is, that Sceince doesn't have to be divorced to religion or a beleif in God. The only way science would have to be divorced from God is if a person took every present day scientific theory and held them in absolute esteem without any chance of any part of it being incorrect. Which would never be possible because scientific theories change rapidly with new evidence and speculation.

 

As a matter of fact, the sceintific theories that attempt to cancel out God are in fact theories and not proven.

And one will say that a person who beleives in God is taking a leap of faith into the unknown. But similarly, the one who disbeleives in God is ALSO taking a leap of faith into the unknown. Except that the one who beleives in God is hopefully leaping toward the mercy of God. While the one who doesn't is leaping into a severe punishment. (that is....If God exists....according to non beleivers)

 

It seems to me that the leap of the non beleiver is much more risky than that of the beleiver.

[Lonesome Cowboy Bill]

but we could take the inverse of what you say and postulate that beliefing in an entity that created being is just as risky. I'd rather be safe...

 

 

 

and there is no truth, thats a concept created by a mammal in the primate order...

 

 

if you read the occam's razor thing, you will see its easier and more logical to conclude that all things are equal and in equilibruim instead of positing than some entity with mamalian characteristcs decided to "talk" to one particular individual within one particular species of mammals 2.5 billion yaers after what is called life came into being...hmmm...

 

 

 

and also remeber alchemy doesn't have to be divorced from chemistry or astrology divorced from cosmology and astronomy either...

 

using you logic, its safer to assume that being born during a certain month when stars are in a certain configuration in the northern hemisphere is safer than assuming that that idea is just a remnant of 2000 year old scientific knowledge of medditeraean peoples....

[Dawood]

Nope, no connection between God and astrology, except that he created the people who thought of it.

 

And how is believing in a creator risky? Do scientists tell you that you'll evlove back into a monkey if you beleive in God or something? Where's the risk?

[Lonesome Cowboy Bill]

science isn't a religion...scientists aren't a cabel of people who TELL people stuff, unlike like those so-called sheiks you keep quoting......and we are not monkees..

 

 

 

and if we are created, why were we designed so bad relative to say sharks?

 

 

[shape1369]

Originally posted by MAR@Jan 31 2006, 12:05 PM

science is all fine and dandy until you ask what caused the big bang. or why animals decided to evolve and why they dont now.

 

occoms razor to the neck!

Quoted post

 

That is a rediculous statement. Science, as a mode of thinking, can not be broken down by specific questions like that. Those are the very questions that science is trying to answer . The intention of science is to deduce truth from the natural world as succintly and elegantly as possible. The questions that your using against science, we wouldn't even be able to ask if it were not for the pursuit of science itself. While we do not profess to know the answers, we strive for them.

 

 

and to respond to the recent discussion in the amount of time its taken me to finish and edit this post...

 

Yes, using occum's razor to show all things are equal is nice, but what we are finding is that the universe is not nice. I reference you to the slight discussion of qauntumm phenomena in this thread. I think you and I agree on science's validity Lonesome, but I don't agree with your dsimissal of ideas using occum's razor. Perhaps I misunderstood your intent with it.

 

And Dawood, I think that once again you are using some of the fundamental symantics in science as munitions against it. You state that all ideas in science are just theories, your right. The use of the word theory as the common classification for general accepted ideas in science is to provide us with a means to correct our mistakes. We realize we are fallible and ultimately incapable of a perfect act. To me, one of the largest differences in Religion and Science as philosophical/theological parallels is the infallibility that Religion requires and the acceptance of possible error that Science creates as an intrinsic part of itself. Thus, a "theory" is a living icdea, its abilities, implications and ingenuity are constantly up for revision or nullification. Religous ideals and concepts, especially presented in the forms of contemporary monotheism, can not exist with that flexibility. A person MUST accept religion as an infallible truth for them to be faithfull. It is this disparity in validation and its processes that is one of the main reasons I can not adhere or accept any form of religion...

[imported_dowmagik]

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm

enjoy kiddies

[Dawood]

Originally posted by Lonesome Cowboy Bill@Feb 1 2006, 05:05 AM

science isn''t a religion...scientists aren''t a cabel of people who TELL people stuff, unlike like those so-called sheiks you keep quoting......and we are not monkees..

 

 

 

and if we are created, why were we designed so bad relative to say sharks?

 

 

Quoted post

 

 

Sharks were created too

[MAR]

Originally posted by shape1369+Feb 1 2006, 05:12 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shape1369 - Feb 1 2006, 05:12 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-MAR@Jan 31 2006, 12:05 PM

science is all fine and dandy until you ask what caused the big bang. or why animals decided to evolve and why they dont now.

 

occoms razor to the neck!

Quoted post

 

That is a rediculous statement. Science, as a mode of thinking, can not be broken down by specific questions like that. Those are the very questions that science is trying to answer . The intention of science is to deduce truth from the natural world as succintly and elegantly as possible. The questions that your using against science, we wouldn't even be able to ask if it were not for the pursuit of science itself. While we do not profess to know the answers, we strive for them.

[/b]

 

Honestly, I agree with Dawood; science and religion can co-exist. I have read numerous books and attended lectures proving that they can. My point wasnt to say that science is wrong per say, rather that there are numerous holes in it that can be nicely tied together with G-d, and since that’s the case, Occum’s razor is useless because G-d holds as much validity as any other theory.

 

 

A person MUST accept religion as an infallible truth for them to be faithfull.

Quoted post

 

That is not the main point of a religion. The point is to gain a closeness to G-d, but acceptance is the first step.

 

In my religion (Judaism) we are encouraged to ask questions and delve deeper in to the religion. One should learn why they do the things they do.

[Dawood]

Not to mention that, nobody is perfect, I don't care who you are, you make mistakes and commit sins.

 

and the best of us is not the one who claims to be so perfect that he gets it right all the time and never screws up.

 

The best of us is the one who makes mistakes, commits sins and then returns to his Lord asking sincerely for forgiveness.

 

This shows humility. I've heard some of the people of knowledge say that if a person commits a sin out of desire then hope for him, but if he commits a sin out of arrogance then fear for him because to desire is human, although the best of us is the one who controls his desire and not the one who lets his desire control him.

But arrogance will burn up any good he has in him like a fire consumes a forest.

 

 

edited for MARS.

 

I've always seen that (G-D) in books of Judaism. Why do Jews do that? Just asking. I could probably google it, but it'll make for good conversation here.

[MAR]

It's out of respect. Writting G-d's name in vain is a sin, so to be extra careful not to transgress on the commandment some write it "G-d".

 

Edit: Some people will add dashes to their names if it contains the name of G-d, Which actually makes more sense than writting "G-d".

 

It is not a real issue being as "G-d" is not one of his true names (rather an English title for the concept of the Almighty) so I could write it normaly, but like I wrote, I don't out of respect.

[Lonesome Cowboy Bill]

^^^and people wonder why our country is falling behind....

[Dawood]

Originally posted by MAR@Feb 6 2006, 03:28 AM

It's out of respect. Writting G-d's name in vain is a sin, so to be extra careful not to transgress on the commandment some write it "G-d".

 

Edit: Some people will add dashes to their names if it contains the name of G-d, Which actually makes more sense than writting "G-d".

 

It is not a real issue being as "G-d" is not one of his true names (rather an English title for the concept of the Almighty) so I could write it normaly, but like I wrote, I don't out of respect.

Quoted post

 

 

Actually, that's true, I made this point one one of the pages on this thread.

 

God is an english word for the concept of the creator. None of the prophets in the bible or the torah or the Quran spoke english, so therefore the true name would be "Allah" in Arabic or "Yahweh" in hebrew.

Although, i don't think that mentioning the name "god" in a conversation is what was intended by "mentioning the lords name in vain"

From what i've always understood about that (maybe because I was raised christian before I became muslim) Is that you shouldn't mention the name of God while uttering lies or vain speech like "trash talk" or even by saying something like "By God ! I would never do that" while knowing you did it. Or in a belittling manner.

Because , as you said, God is not even an english word, so how could Moses have commanded people to put a dash between the G and the D? or maybe the rabbis came up with that, I don't know. Just my thoughts on it.

[MAR]

Originally posted by Dawood+Feb 6 2006, 12:37 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dawood - Feb 6 2006, 12:37 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-MAR@Feb 6 2006, 03:28 AM

It's out of respect. Writting G-d's name in vain is a sin, so to be extra careful not to transgress on the commandment some write it "G-d".

 

Edit: Some people will add dashes to their names if it contains the name of G-d, Which actually makes more sense than writting "G-d".

 

It is not a real issue being as "G-d" is not one of his true names (rather an English title for the concept of the Almighty) so I could write it normaly, but like I wrote, I don't out of respect.

Quoted post

 

 

Actually, that's true, I made this point one one of the pages on this thread.

 

God is an english word for the concept of the creator. None of the prophets in the bible or the torah or the Quran spoke english, so therefore the true name would be "Allah" in Arabic or "YKVK" in hebrew.

Although, i don't think that mentioning the name "god" in a conversation is what was intended by "mentioning the lords name in vain"

From what i've always understood about that (maybe because I was raised christian before I became muslim) Is that you shouldn't mention the name of God while uttering lies or vain speech like "trash talk" or even by saying something like "By God ! I would never do that" while knowing you did it. Or in a belittling manner.

Because , as you said, God is not even an english word, so how could Moses have commanded people to put a dash between the G and the D? or maybe the rabbis came up with that, I don't know. Just my thoughts on it.

Quoted post

[/b]

 

One is not supposed, in Judaism, to speak G-ds name fivolously, (outside of Torah learning, prayer, and the like.) When Jews refer to G-d the call Him HaShem, which means the name. G-d has many names according to Judaism, each one discribing a different atribute of the Almighty.

 

The most important name is the ineffable name of G-d which you wrote out above (and which I would ask that you not to do again). The name, which no one knows the pronounciation anymore, was said once a year on Yom Kippur, in the Holy of Holys (a room in the center of the Temple).

 

As a rule of thumb, Jews do not believe that Mose, our teacher, or any of our other prophets commanded us to do anything, rather that they were the vessels in which G-d communicated his will unto the Jewish people.

 

Anyways I explained above that its a formality to add the dash and not a commandment.

[MAR]

Originally posted by Lonesome Cowboy Bill@Feb 5 2006, 11:54 PM

^^^and people wonder why our country is falling behind....

Quoted post

 

 

well if we reverted to hedonism I dont think we'd be better off. At the very least religion provides a structured lifestyle for people to exist in and a reason not to do things that would be viewed as "bad".

 

If I were atheist I would most definatly be robbing you right now, because I want stuff but work just doesnt appeal to me.

[Lonesome Cowboy Bill]

robbing someone is a form of work though...if you really think about it robbing people doesn't really pay well and is dangerous. Working on a computer is funner and easier and pays WAYYYYYYYYYY bettter...

 

 

 

 

anyway the ancient Jews had two words for god:

 

Elohim and what we call yaweh...elohim is related to allah and was used in i ancient sreal (as opposed to ancient judah, which had the yawh tradition)

 

 

"Although, outside the Arab world, use of the word AllÄ?h is most often associated with Islam, it is not exclusive to that faith; Arab Christians and various Arabic-speaking Jews (including the Teimanim, several Mizrai communities and some Sephardim) also use it to refer to the monotheist deity. Arabic translations of the Bible also employ it, as do Roman Catholics in Malta (who pronounce it as "Alla"), Christians in Indonesia, who say "Allah Bapa" (Allah the Father) and Christians in the Middle East who use the Aramaic "AllÄ?ha".

 

It was used in pre-Islamic times by Pagans within the Arabian peninsula to signify the supreme creator. Pre-Islamic Jews referred to their supreme creator as Yahweh or Elohim. The pagan Arabs recognized "AllÄ?h" as the supreme God in their pantheon; along with Allah, however, the pre-Islamic Arabs believed in a host of other gods, such as Hubal and 'daughters of AllÄ?h' [the three daughters associated were al-LÄ?t, al-`Uzzah, and Manah]" (Encyclopedia of World Mythology and Legend, "The Facts on File", ed. Anthony Mercatante, New York, 1983, I:61). This view of Allah by the pre-Islamic pagans is viewed by Muslims as a latter development having arisen as a result of moving away from Abrahamic monotheism over time. Some of the names of these pagan gods are said to be derived from the descendants of Noah, whom latter generations firstly revered as saints, and then transformed into gods (although non-Muslims often view polytheism as having come before monotheism). The pagan Arabians also used the word "AllÄ?h" in the names of their children; Muhammad's father, who was born into pagan society, was named "`AbdullÄ?h", which translates "servant of AllÄ?h". "`AbdullÄ?h" is still used for names of Muslim and non-Muslim arabs.

 

The Hebrew word for deity, El (×?ל) or ElÅ?ah (×?לוה), was used as an Old Testament synonym for Yahweh (יהוה), which is the proper name for the Jewish God according to the Tanakh. The Aramaic word for God is alôh-ô (Syriac dialect) or elâhâ (Biblical dialect), which comes from the same Proto-Semitic word (*ilâh-) as the Arabic and Hebrew terms; Jesus is described in Mark 15:34 as having used the word on the cross, with the ending meaning "my", when saying, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (transliterated in Greek as elÅ?-i). One of the earliest surviving translations of the word into a foreign language is in a Greek translation of the Shahada, from 86-96 AH (705-715 AD), which translates it as ho theos monos[1], literally "the one god". Also the cognate Aramaic term appears in the Aramaic version of the New Testament, called the Pshitta (or Peshitta) as one of the words Jesus used to refer to God, e.g., in the sixth Beatitude, "Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see AlÄ?ha." And in the Arabic Bible the same words (Mt 5:8): "Ø·Ù?وبَى لأَنْقÙ?يَاءÙ? الْقَلْبÙ?ØŒ Ù?ÙŽØ¥Ù?نَّهÙ?مْ سَيَرَوْنَ الله"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

from wiki

[MAR]

Who ever wrote that is very wrong when it comes to their Jewish research. In the Torah alone I can think of countless other names used for G-d.

 

As far as that article, I dont understand how people can be so calous to write out G-d's name (IN HEBREW!) seeing as that is a sin for Jews. That bothers me alot.

 

People are so ignorant these days...

[Dawood]

It's out of respect. Writting G-d's name in vain is a sin, so to be extra careful not to transgress on the commandment some write it "G-d".

 

Edit: Some people will add dashes to their names if it contains the name of G-d, Which actually makes more sense than writting "G-d".

 

It is not a real issue being as "G-d" is not one of his true names (rather an English title for the concept of the Almighty) so I could write it normaly, but like I wrote, I don't out of respect.

Quoted post

 

 

Actually, that's true, I made this point one one of the pages on this thread.

 

God is an english word for the concept of the creator. None of the prophets in the bible or the torah or the Quran spoke english, so therefore the true name would be "Allah" in Arabic or "YKVK" in hebrew.

Although, i don't think that mentioning the name "god" in a conversation is what was intended by "mentioning the lords name in vain"

From what i've always understood about that (maybe because I was raised christian before I became muslim) Is that you shouldn't mention the name of God while uttering lies or vain speech like "trash talk" or even by saying something like "By God ! I would never do that" while knowing you did it. Or in a belittling manner.

Because , as you said, God is not even an english word, so how could Moses have commanded people to put a dash between the G and the D? or maybe the rabbis came up with that, I don't know. Just my thoughts on it.

Quoted post

 

One is not supposed, in Judaism, to speak G-ds name fivolously, (outside of Torah learning, prayer, and the like.) When Jews refer to G-d the call Him HaShem, which means the name. G-d has many names according to Judaism, each one discribing a different atribute of the Almighty.

 

The most important name is the ineffable name of G-d which you wrote out above (and which I would ask that you not to do again). The name, which no one knows the pronounciation anymore, was said once a year on Yom Kippur, in the Holy of Holys (a room in the center of the Temple).

 

As a rule of thumb, Jews do not believe that Mose, our teacher, or any of our other prophets commanded us to do anything, rather that they were the vessels in which G-d communicated his will unto the Jewish people.

 

Anyways I explained above that its a formality to add the dash and not a commandment.

Quoted post

 

so why don't Jews say H-sh-m?

(not trying to be funny, just asking) And, MArs were you raised into Judaism or did you convert? In some (I beleive Hasidic) sects of Judaism people are not allowed to convert, correct? either you are a Jew from your mothers side or youre not, right? I read also, that the hasidic Jews do not even acknowledge the establishment of Isreal because they beleive that the state of Isreal should only be set up by the "coming" messiah, So therefore the present Isreal is not official in thier eyes because it was set up by secularist Jews.

 

(p.s. I don't really want to go too deep off into a Jewish/ christian / Muslim /athiest debate on politics and the state of Isreal and palestine, etc. etc. because the thread is really about the nature of the creator)

 

that being said: I'm going to post a few attributes of Allah going off what you said...

 

Quoted post

 

G-d has many names according to Judaism, each one discribing a different atribute of the Almighty.

Quoted post

 

Islam has this same concept. concerning his names and Attributes

 

Allaah: He is the One and Only Deity, the One Who is Worshipped and the One Who deserves to be worshipped by the whole of His creation due to the Perfect Godly Attributes that He is described with.

 

Al-Malik (The King), and al-Maalik (The Master and Owner), Alladhee lahu al-Mulk (the One to Whom belongs the dominion): He is described with the Attribute of The Master and Owner. These are Attributes of Grandeur, Majesty, Omnipotence and Regulation of the affairs of creation. The One Who directs all of the affairs to do with creation, command and recompense. To Him belongs the whole of Creation, all of it is subservient, owned and in continuous need of Him.

 

 

Al-Waahid, al-Ahad (The One): He is the One Who is singled out in all aspects of Perfection such that nothing else shares with Him in these. It is obligatory upon the servants to single Him out alone in belief, saying and action by acknowledging His unrestricted perfection, His uniqueness and singling Him out Alone for all types of worship

 

As-Samad (The Self-Sufficient): He is the One upon Whom the whole of creation relies upon in all of their needs, predicaments and necessities. This due to His unrestricted perfection with regards to His Essence, His Names, His Attributes and His Actions

 

this is only four of his names and attributes. there are many more. at least 99 names that we know of and more names that only Allah is aware of.

 

Judaism and Islam resemble eachother in many ways, even more than christianity, also, Muslims exalt Moses (peace be upon him) as being one of the best prophets of Allah.

[MAR]

Originally posted by Dawood@Feb 6 2006, 09:58 AM

so why don't Jews say H-sh-m?

(not trying to be funny, just asking)

 

Jews dont write H-sh-m because it would be like abreviating an abreviation. Some people will write (the letter without the brackets) instead but its really just the same thing.

 

 

And, MArs were you raised into Judaism or did you convert?

I was born Jewish but at the age of 10 deviated secretly from my faith when I turned 13 I decided that I believe in G-d but I wasnt sure what religion to believe in. After doing research from christianinty to sintuism I realised that Judaism made the most sense to me. Whether it was because I realised it through research or it just felt right at the time I do not know. Some things have happened later in life that have solidified my belief.

 

In some (I beleive Hasidic) sects of Judaism people are not allowed to convert, correct?

 

Not really, you can convert but othodox Jews will give you a hard time. We dont want converts that decide they dont like being Jewish after two years. Thats why after a Rabbi says ok you have to study the bible until he is satified with your knowlage.

 

either you are a Jew from your mothers side or youre not, right?

 

Yes.

 

I read also, that the hasidic Jews do not even acknowledge the establishment of Isreal because they beleive that the state of Isreal should only be set up by the "coming" messiah, So therefore the present Isreal is not official in thier eyes because it was set up by secularist Jews.

 

There is a small sect of Hassidic Jews that feel that way. They are shunned by most Jews for thier extremist beliefs. Few Jews believe that the state is truly Jewish becase it is not run as outlined in the Torah.

 

(p.s. I don't really want to go too deep off into a Jewish/ christian / Muslim /athiest debate on politics and the state of Isreal and palestine, etc. etc. because the thread is really about the nature of the creator)

Quoted post

 

Yeh me too thats a whole other agument and I've been there too many times.

 

 

Judaism and Islam resemble eachother in many ways, even more than christianity, also, Muslims exalt Moses (peace be upon him) as being one of the best prophets of Allah.

Quoted post

 

Jews refer to Muslims as their cousins for that reason.

 

For Jews Moses was the greatest. He brought down the Torah and taught it to us all. As well as took us out of Egypt and lead us to Israel.

 

As a prophet none have matched him. He was able to speak to G-d directly. All other prophets spoke through angels.