Christian Adoption

[ManxTaxPayer]

You're all as mental as each other.

[Chinahand]

&roid, the Zhuangzi - a 2400 year old text from China talks about the transformation of life from amoebas to higher forms. Is this a scientific insight which would make you believe in Daoism?

 

These books simply don't use clear enough language to make useful scientific predictions - do you believe in Nostrodamus? You can make all sorts of interpretations of his writings.

 

If there were unambiguous descriptions of cosmology, or subatomic structure, or microrganisms it would be fascinating, but the verses you quoted show no such clarity in my mind, surely you must recognize their obscurity.

[&roid]

&roid, welcome to the forums - are you based on the Island, or have you found us from further afield?

 

Anyway I hope you enjoy our VERY rough and tumble forums - be warned, we are lightly moderated and there are very opinonated people who post here and they may not be particularly polite!

 

Its great to hear the opinion of a Muslim - I've had very little opportunity to understand your beliefs, and as you say your religion has a bad press in the west with terrorism, stonings, mutilation and intolerence towards apostates and believers in other faiths being at the forefront of news coverage.

 

Concerning your comments - I feel great awe when looking at nature and the night sky - I'm a keen amateur astonomer and find the absolute insigificance of the earth and sun in the myriad galaxies trully humbling. I have no idea how it came into being, but see no reason to fill it with any intelligence who would want to write a book of rules for us, and punish our behaviour.

 

I presume you believe in judgement and some form of afterlife with heaven and hell - that man is special, priveledged above the rest of nature. Why? I see no evidence for these beliefs whatsoever and they seem very much based on humanity's fear of death and desire for some equilization of a very unequal and unjust world.

 

Do you believe in evolution? The contingent, error strewn history of life found in our, and every other living creatures, DNA very strongly shows that humans are in no way unique. Nature is indifferent, brutal, red in tooth and claw and humanity along with the rest of life has to face plagues, famines, preditors, and natural disasters to live. A loving God seems very absent in all this - though then again is the Muslim God a loving God, or a demanding one?

 

I love the way you say you believe in all the Abrahmic religions - should a jewish temple be built on the Temple Mount? Is Jesus the way, the truth, and the life, and does no one go to the Father except through him. If you are a conventional Muslim then I don't think you believe these things at all. Your religion may have exapted these older beliefs to give it credibility, but in adopting parts of them it also left much behind to the extent followers of those religions reject your interpretations as strongly as you reject theirs - why are your later reinterpretations any more valid than their earlier ones?

 

I know very little about the Koran - I've read some of the shorter chapters - I started at the back! But didn't get too far - it was massively obsessed with heaven, hell and judgement. I am certain you can find verses which can be interpreted as being consistent with modern science - but could you give me a prediction based on the Koran of future scientific discoveries? Or is the Koran silent on future progress in science? What does it say about the evolution of DNA?

 

I find none of the Abrahamic holy books contain anything other than poetic allegory which provides very little insight into the physical nature of this world. For me, I find that totally unsuprising, but you think it is the infallible word of God. I cannot comprehend that, in the same way you cannot comprehend my lack of belief in a creator - c'est la vivre.

 

Chinahand, Thanks a lot for your kind words. I'm not from the Island, and that's why this time difference isn't allowing me to reply properly now, I'll be back later to reply

 

I'm not the best person to represent the Muslim beliefs, as I have already said I'm just a regular humble person, but I'll just represent my understanding of my religion. and next time I'll try to bring a better source - than a random website - to support my claims

 

Peace all

[La_Dolce_Vita]

A brief look at the website, looking at most of the examples given, I would say I can make a strong judgement. And that's because the use of such part of the Qur'an in such a metaphorical way are either false or appear to be very desperate ways to attribute them to aspects of the known universe. It also brings up the question why any such God would be so cryptic and metaphorical when such things can be explained in better ways.

 

My goal is not to disprove a God's existence. You need to prove it, because you are making the claims and you claim to know these things.

 

It is interesting that you say it will take weeks or even months before I can come to the knowledge of this God. Is this because such a God's existence is not obvious? If it not obvious then this would NOT conform very well with the presumed character of Allah or the Christian God who wish belief in them to be known to all, if they care about their human creations and think it best they come to him when they die.

 

If someone can prove that there is knowledge that cannot be obtained by any other means but by a God then that would be compelling evidence for a God's existence. You would have to find an instance of knowledge from Ancient times that a human could in no way have gained by their own means first and then provide evidence of where it came from.

Determining it is the Allah of the Qur'an and the determining the veracity of the Qur'an in its entirety is another matter. It might not be a God. It might be aliens. Or some intelligent being of a different character to Allah, but which was misunderstood by Muhammed.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I'm not the best person to represent the Muslim beliefs, as I have already said I'm just a regular humble person, but I'll just represent my understanding of my religion. and next time I'll try to bring a better source - than a random website - to support my claims

 

Peace all

Your understanding of your religion is all that is required in discussing why you belief. Your understanding is the basis for your believe. If you find it difficult to justify that understanding, you can always hold back and reserve judgement about your understanding of the world and people and God's until you can

[John Wright]

At long last I have read the judgement

 

First it was about fostering, not adoption, second it is a case on its facts and does not lay down any law banning fostering, or adoption, by Christians, or penetcostalists, or fundamentalists. It could apply to any member of a religious or ethnic group or social group or political group with extreme views who if they expressed those views directly, or indirectly, to a child in their care, would potentially damage the child.

 

Remember fostering and adoption are not about the rights of the fosterers or adopters, but of the child

 

It says, and this is all that it says, bearing in mind the principle that in fostering and adoption, as in residence in family break up, the interests of the child come first, that this particular couple, for this particular male child of a particular age, who might express doubts about sexuality, would in view of what they told social workers they would feel they had to say to him about lifetsyle choices and sexulaity, do more harm than good, and therefore the child should not be placed with them as it would not be in the best interests of that child.

 

They are not trhe subject of any blanket ban, they could still be considered for fostering short teerm younger childrn, although afetr all the adverse publicity it may not prove possibel as attitudes are now hardedned on both sides.

 

The case was taken up and funded by a right wing religious think tank, who have decided that the judgement is not appealable based on the careful wording and the facts as set out and the law as applied to the facts. The spin that group have put on the judgement is of course at odds with what it says and with their withdrawal of support.

[midnight]

As as been repeatedly repeated, just because somthing has not been PROVED it does not nessacerilly mean its not the truth! And vice versa!

 

What about when people who have had “near death experiences” and “ out of body experiences” ? and people report travelling thru a tunnel towards the light and theres always a trusted loved one there to greet them but who say its not there time to go yet ? and so they come back to earth.

 

Upon there “deaths” via surgery for example, people have been documented, to “travel” outside the operating theatre, down long corridors and into waiting rooms and recall word for word what there loved ones said and could recall that they happened to be wearing odds socks for example, how could they possibly recall all of this very specific information if they did not “travel“ there?

 

How can it be possible? Unless of course the impact of the surgery triggered a strong psychic connection, or sum other veriation of the theme!, to exchange information and meaning ect, maybe more powerfull than we wud normally have !

 

These out of body experiences are not rare isolated cases but very frequent experiences which have been documented properly, oftern to the amazement, by DRS and surgeons!

 

This doesn’t actually prove the existence of god, but to my mind its very convincing evidence, “proof” if you like, that when we die, its not the end, its mearly the beginning!

 

And what about when we “see” and “hear” and “smell” and “feel” and “touch” and “sence” ect our loved ones again, here on earth, but who have passed over?

 

Does this not tell you anything?

 

And before i pop off .... to &roid from midnight !

[ballaughbiker]

just because somthing has not been PROVED it does not nessacerilly mean its not the truth

 

That infinitesimally minute chance is often used by those with faith knowing that it can't really be argued against. You need facts to argue.

 

Does this not tell you anything?

No. Anyone's recollections of anything they dream in a state of semi-conciousness (or even 1% consciousness) has no relevance to anything. You could dream that at the end of that 'tunnel' was the lottery machine. Just because you dreamed that doesn't make it exist with your numbers were on the balls. It's just a ....dream!! Of course you can't prove you were or weren't about to win £7M so you might, just might have been about to. Or not.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

As as been repeatedly repeated, just because somthing has not been PROVED it does not nessacerilly mean its not the truth! And vice versa!

But unless something is proved or if good evidence exists, there is no good reason to think it is true.

 

Do you believe in unicorns?

 

What about when people who have had “near death experiences” and “ out of body experiences”...

 

How can it be possible? Unless of course the impact of the surgery triggered a strong psychic connection, or sum other veriation of the theme!, to exchange information and meaning ect, maybe more powerfull than we wud normally have !

Erm...maybe because they are near death their mental faculties aren't quite the same nor up to the job of perceiving things as they would normally do.

 

This doesn’t actually prove the existence of god, but to my mind its very convincing evidence, “proof” if you like, that when we die, its not the end, its mearly the beginning!

Then you have very low standards of evidence. As I said, their brains are very likely not functioning as well as when they were healthy. This has to be taken into account before running off with the assumption that their visions mean an afterlife.

 

And you're right. Even if it did prove there was an afterlife, it wouldn't indicate what it was and nor that there is a God.

 

And what about when we “see” and “hear” and “smell” and “feel” and “touch” and “sence” ect our loved ones again, here on earth, but who have passed over?

Hallucination? Have you accounted to this? Is the loved one really being seen or heard for certain? As for smell, hear, and sense, these are not going to be reliable ways of determining if a dead person is coming back to say hello.

[ScotsAlan]

The history of science is littered with examples of important theories, that were not proven or explained till decades or centuries later.

 

When Alessandro Volta and Luigi Galvanie were arguing about why a dead frog's legs move when connected to a cell of zinc and silver dipped in acid, could they explain it?

 

That argument took place over 200 years ago.

 

Newton derived his gravity equation even longer ago. And although his equation seems to be true from what we can see around us, scientists argue against it: inventing new matter types, the existence of which has not been proven definitively. The more we examine quantum physics, the more we have to invent new energies and matter to explain things. We spend billions, internationally building huge colliders to try to create single atoms or sub atomic particles to prove scientific theory. Science is always refining it's theories.

 

Why are we doing that? If as some people seem to think, we already have total and complete understanding of the universe?

 

Now, I am not suggesting for a moment we ask the international community to invest billions in building a "prove God exists" facility, because that is already being done. Cern for example, looking for the "God particle".

 

I mean, hey, it took us 100's of thousands of years to get to the point to discover a smart phone is useful !!!!

 

But there are plenty of anti-mobile Luddites about.....

 

Why the big hurry to disprove what has not been discovered?

 

Is it really so far fetched, that one day, maybe thousands of years away, science will discover and prove the existence of what believers feel in their hearts?

 

Great posts &roid. I am with you on this. Although I am Christian, I believe there is one God for all faiths.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I think you're getting very, very muddled up.

 

You're talking about theories as if they are the same as people's beliefs in God. They are not. Theories are just saying 'What might be'. People's beliefs are ideas of what really is the case, where someone has already made up their mind about what is true.

 

Let me ask you, should we believe (think that they are real) in unicorns, leprechauns, the tooth fairy, the abomindable snowman, aliens, and all the other Gods that people believe in today and used to believe in?

 

Now, I am not suggesting for a moment we ask the international community to invest billions in building a "prove God exists" facility, because that is already being done. Cern for example, looking for the "God particle".

Are you joking? Finding the "God" particle isn't about working out whether there is a God. Go and read up on the subject.

 

And by the way, your heart pumps blood. If it does something else then I'd keep it yourself lest you end up as some guinea pig in a lab. You don't have 'feelings' in your heart, but you do have ideas coming from your head. Just because you feel strongly because of those ideas do not mean those ideas are based on the truth.

 

And lastly, you might think you know that there is one God, but many millions of others people would argue there are more God's. Why do you think you're right? Just because you were brought up or live in a Christian belief dominated society?

[ballaughbiker]

The history of science is littered with examples of important theories, that were not proven or explained till decades or centuries later.

 

So? With that "logic" anyone can say anything as likely relying on the (no matter how faint or ridiculous) possibility of someone proving it at any time in the future.

I agree with LDV. You're getting very, very muddled up.

[Evil Goblin]

[such as a world shattering 'burning bush'.

I understand such a bush actually exists in the Sinai - totally natural occurence, though. Easy to see how the Israelites could take it for an action of God.

 

I thought you had given some definition or explanation as to what you understand as your God. And one attribute that I could discern from your rather nebulous description was intelligence/consciousness.

No, I have not given a definition of God - difficult for me to explain but the nearest I can come to it is that it is something arising in our minds out of our innate nature (not some physical/metaphysical being). Thus my concept of God is that which arises from within, not without. I do not, therefore, seek any proof of the existence of some external God.

 

And theists do require very good evidence in support of their claims where they relate to our world, considering their claims to KNOW that such things exists. More so when they say their God is loving, intelligent, intervenes in human life, etc. How do they KNOW?

As I've said before - faith.

[Evil Goblin]

Rather I think people should not attempt to give their beleifs more authority than they actually have.

That doesn't mean every belief has to be backed up by evidence and proof, but if it doesn't have that we should be honest enough to say so and not claim God has ordained this or that belief in his magic book!

But Theists have a different criteria for this "proof" than you do. And science itself is a set of beliefs about the Universe based on what we can observe and infer. Admittedly, science gives a much more rational and useful account of the physical world than religion but then I believe science and religion address different aspects of our existence and condition.

 

But there are some areas which do disturb me which do not fit in well with a diverse, tolerent, cosmopolitan society. To justify these beliefs by claiming they are ordained by God gives them a lot of authority - I very strongly feel that is not justified - I don't think you are going to particularly disagree with me, and so I'm not really sure why you are going on about scientism.

I am saying that science has its' place but in terms of people's lives it is not the be all and end all of things. Peoples' beliefs (supported by science or not) play a significant role in helping people come to terms with their lives, existence and purpose. You may have an ideal concept of a diverse, tolerant and cosmopolitan society but others may regard that as wrong e.g. radical Muslims. Science is not very helpful in resolving these sorts of matter but religious argument may be.

 

Evil Goblin are you happy for a Muslim to say apostates, adulterers and blasphemers should be stoned to death ... and to accept their evidence that this is a moral policy because it is ordained in the Koran?

Personally I am certainly not happy about it but many Muslims believe it right. We have to convince them it isn't and science will be of no help in that task.

 

Evil Goblin are you really such a cultural relativist to say their claim of authority should be unchallenged? Sure they belief its true, but must we just accept it too?

We should certainly challenge their claims where we believe they are wrong but until we convince them otherwise they will continue to believe and behave as they do - that's the real way of things. We believe our views are right - they believe their views are right. A fair degree of tolerance for other beliefs is called for, even when we don't like some opposing beliefs.

[Evil Goblin]

And how can theists claim to know, just on the basis that they have a formed a view of the world with a God in it?

Theists believe they see evidence for God in the World i.e they see proof of their hypothesis. You just have a different set of criteria for acceptable proof and hence think they are wrong.

 

If other people have religious views surrounding a God that only reveals itself to believers and cannot be demonstrated to non-believers then there is absolutely no reason why anyone should come to believe. They have been given no good reasons to.

Close to saying that only some Chosen People will come to see God - exactly as the Jews (and probably Jesus) saw it.

 

Although I wonder whether Evil Goblin would advance the idea of trying to work one's imagination to such an extent to reify a personal God.

As you will have gathered from a previous posting, my concept of God does not involve any reification.

 

I do think, Evil Goblin, that when you talk about your (almost) personal God that you have reified out of a desire for it, that you make the mistake of assuming that others have done the same. Christian beliefs are very different. Christians believe in a loving, merciful God that requires worship or adoration. That manifests in the real world by intervening. Created the universe, and all sorts of the other qualities and actions. That is quite different from the God you have, from what you have explained.

I accept that me concept of God is not the generally accepted one of established religions but then I believe that religion is an extremely personal business.