The Stage is Yours.

[fr0d0]

It is more likely that Allah deceived them (indirectly), but that might have been done for a good reason <snip>

Suffice to say... deception is the polar opposite of the Christian attribute of God: truth. There can be no deception in God, white lies included.

On a related note, I find the belief that an innocent man (or God?) was tortured and crucified just for the sins that other people committed morally unjustifiable. I mean, do you think that it is fair that Adam's sins are passed down to innocent babies, then those babies when they grow up commit sins, and their sins are passed onto the shoulders of others, and then all those sins are passed on to the shoulder of a single man who acquits them by dying on a cross?

Is it not the default state of human beings to be sinful? You are taking the text iliterally. The point of the metaphor is that... that man is fallable. That's the whole precent of Xtianity, and of Judaism. I'm surprised if your faith if Abrahamic opposes that.

And yes, it is the fulfilment of all previous texts that the messiah should bear the sins of all, in, like I said, the evolutionary next step for religious endeavour > the idea that humans can have direct assess to God.

Now, even if you believe in retributive justice, which is supposed to go against everything that Christianity teaches, it is still a basic fact of life which includes Christians, that, to put it in the form of a syllogism for the sake of clarity:

1. God never does anything evil.
2. It is evil to punish (or sacrifice, for that matter) one person for what another person did let alone the sins of millions of people.
3. Therefore, God does not, never has, and never will punish one person for what another person did, without changing so that He no longer has the characteristic mentioned in #1.

Do you agree with that logic or not? And if not, then why not? I would just like to hear from you what your thoughts are on that.

Ok thanks.

I vehemently disagree.

1. God is just.
2. God's punishments are just.
3. God is enacting justice in punishing evil
4. Therefore God doesn't do evil by punishing, but good.

People cannot know what God knows, so people can never enact true justice. I believe maiming by removing hands is in Islamic law. This I find contradictry to Gods law.

The punishment of Jesus isn't the punishment of Jesus, but the punishment that the world deserves forgiven. God is taking on this punishment, to make the bridge between God and human. Humans couldn't bridge the gap without full innicence which God freely grants. (In Xtianity God is directly and personally knowable)

This is how Xtianity is a release and not a duty. You don't have to do anything besides recognise your sinful state. No rituals, regulations or traditions have any consequence on your passport to holy.

The Quran states that Allah actually raises wicked individuals to deceive and scheme:

Even so have we placed in every city, ringleaders of its wicked ones, to scheme therein (liyamkuroo): but only against themselves shall they scheme (yamkuroona)! and they know it not. S. 6:123

What this means is that in every town Allah has made leaders, people who plan, who planned against Islam and the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). although the reality is that they didn't plan against anyone but themselves ("and they know it not") because in the end they always lost.

Yes. This is a corruption of the concept of God. People choose to be wicked, God doesn't make that so.

Allah commands people to do evil so that he can then have a reason to destroy them:

And when We would destroy a township We send commandment to its folk who live at ease, AND AFTERWARD they commit abomination therein, and so the Word (of doom) hath effect for it, and we annihilate it with complete annihilation. S. 17:16

No, that verse certainly doesn't mean that Allah commands people to do evil.

When the folk who live at ease become disobedient to Allah's message to them (i.e. where it says "We send commandment"), it is only then that they were doomed for destruction. So, it is quite obvious that when Allah says in the Quran, "When We decree that a habitation should be destroyed," it is not meant that Allah wanted to destroy them without any reason. Rather, He destroyed them after their disobedience to Him.

Well that's not what it says. Apparently there was no problem with these people until Allah caused there to be: by making them commit abomination.

Next word: "kayd": to deceive/beguile/circumvent, means of evading/eluding

Allah is portrayed as stooping down to the level of the deceivers and liars by acting like them in his use of guile:

They are devising guile (ya keedoona kaydan), and I am devising guile (Wa akeedu kaydan). S. 86:15-16

I find that perfectly moral because Allah is devising guiles only against evil people.
When others are devising guiles, Allah also devises guiles (or deceptive strategies) in order to outmaneuver their evil plans.

"The deciever" is another name for Satan. Allah cannot be truth and deceiver at the same time.

Next word: "khida/khuda/khada" : To hide/conceal, deceive or outwit, pretend

They (think to) deceive Allah (Yukhadiaaoona) and those who believe, while they only deceive (yakhdaaoona) themselves, and perceive (it) not! S. 2:9

And if they would deceive thee (yakhdaaooka), then lo! Allah is Sufficient for thee. He it is Who supporteth thee with His help and with the believers, S. 8:6

That verse simply means that those people thought that they could deceive Allah, but actually they only deceived themselves by thinking so, and they were unaware of it.

In other words, Allah did indirectly deceive them by derailing their evil plans of killing the Prophet but did not directly deceive them by making them, for instance, think that paganism is the truth. It is they who deceived themselves (as mentioned in Surah 6:123 as well). It was their own arrogance and their lust for power and worldly good that made them believe in paganism and it is precisely the same thing that made them deceived in the end.

Same again.

Satan accused Allah of misleading or deceiving him:

He said: Now, because Thou hast sent me astray (aghwaytanee), verily I shall lurk in ambush for them on Thy Right Path. S. 7:16

[Iblis (Satan)] said: "O my Lord! Because you misled me (aghwaytanee), I shall indeed adorn the path of error for them (mankind) on the earth, and I shall mislead (walaoghwiyannahum) them all. S. 15:39

What makes this last reference interesting is that Satan promises to do to mankind what Allah did to him, namely, pervert/deceive/mislead people.

That is not the point of that verse, because if you read the previous verses starting from verse 33 in Surah 15, you will know that the entire passage speaks about Satan's refusal in bowing to Adam because he was arrogant. So, only because of Satan's arrogance and for not bowing to Adam, Allah led him astray.

The problem is that you can't obtain the complete meaning and the context of those verses without looking at the previous verses in the same chapter.

You're embelishment makes it no better. Again, it's a perversion of the concept to endow Allah with the ability of deception.

Here is a text where the Quran acknowledges that the Devil was right in that last bit, since Allah does pervert/deceive/mislead people:

And my sincere counsel will not profit you, if I desire to counsel you sincerely, if God desires to pervert you (yughwiyakum); He is your Lord, and unto Him you shall be returned.' S. 11:34

No, there is nothing in it which implies that the Devil is right in misleading others.

The salient point is the cause of the devils actions, which it states is Allah.

In verse 34, Noah is telling the rejecters that even if he gives them good advice it will not help them if Allah leaves them to go astray. The reason Allah leaves them to go astray is because of their own rejection of the message of Allah and their evil deeds along with their rejection of the Prophet.

God never deserts people. It is people who have to reject God.

You may contend that Allah only deceives unbelievers who deserve it. The problem with this assertion is that Muslim scripture teaches that Allah doesn’t merely deceive unbelievers but also his followers.

eg: Allah deceived Muhammad into thinking that the fighting men at Badr were fewer in number than they actually were:

"When Allah showed them to you in your dream as few; and if He had shown them to you as many you would certainly have become weak-hearted and you would have disputed about the matter, but Allah saved (you); surely He is the Knower of what is in the breasts. And when He showed them to you, when you met, as few in your eyes and He made you to appear little in their eyes, in order that Allah might bring about a matter which was to be done, and to Allah are all affairs returned. S. 8:43-44"

Yes, and when Allah deceived his followers, He only did that for a positive outcome. It was something that helped and encouraged His followers during the battle (as opposed to harming them). As the verse says, Allah made the number of enemies at Badr appear as a few in the eyes of his followers, to boost their confidence and to encourage them to fight, because the Muslims have been the victims of constant persecution, slaughter, assassination, theft, attempted murder, captivation, and deception for about 13 years by the pagans, for no other reason than practicing and preaching Islam.

More deception. People must seek the truth of their own volition, or their motives aren't true.

So, this "deception" was actually a display of the grace and mercy of Allah toward the believers. This was more like an "illusion" that Allah created in the minds of the Muslim fighters so that they can enter and win the battle even though they were outnumbered by their enemies. This had a positive result in the end, for the Muslims, and that's why I do not think that this type of deception was a bad thing or something immoral, as you seem to suggest, fr0d0.

Wholly immoral, yes. Old Testament style war mongering serves only to show Gods standards amid sometimes opposite actions by his chosen people. That his people triumph is not always to his merit.

---

Question:
Don't you think that God indirectly deceived people in the Bible when He made Jesus appear as he was born of a father and a mother, while the Bible says that Jesus was born to a virgin? Why did God deceive the people then? I'm not saying that this deception was evil. I'm only asking you to tell me how you would explain or justify this. (Afterall, Muslims believe that Jesus was born to a virgin also).

Where is the deception? No one was fooled that I can see. If M & J or the people were deceived that was never revealed. What is concluded is the simple fact: that it did happen.

When Jesus was born, people at that time thought that he was an illegitimate child and that Mary was adulteress. In the Bible itself, there are verses which show that some people didn't believe that Jesus was born to a sinlge mother because they thought that he had a father. Jesus protested to them by saying "We are not illegitimate children. The only Father we have is God himself" (John 8:41). Here are some other verses in the Bible that speak about this:

“We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”

John 8:41
You are doing the deeds of your father." "We," they replied, "are not illegitimate children. We have one Father, namely God."

You are quoting the people who wanted to kill Jesus there, and not Jesus himself:

John 8:39-41
"“If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would[c] do what Abraham did. 40 As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. 41 You are doing the works of your own father.”

Hebrews 12:8
But if you are without discipline, of which all have been made partakers, then are you illegitimate, and not children.

The whole sentance:
7 Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as his children. For what children are not disciplined by their father? 8 If you are not disciplined – and everyone undergoes discipline – then you are not legitimate, not true sons and daughters at all.

An entirely different message

Deuteronomy 23:2
A bastard shall not enter into the assembly of Yahweh; even to the tenth generation shall none of his enter into the assembly of Yahweh.

There are many laws which Jesus presented correct interpretation. The tearing of the Temple veil abolished that hierarchical system of wealth and power.

This is my answer:
I think that one of the lessons of this particular deception in the life of Jesus goes something like this:

Don't rush to judgement too quickly. Jesus was born to a single mother, but the judgement by others was that she was an adulteress and that Jesus had a father. One time, Jesus saw people stoning an adulteress, but then he told them not to rush to judgement. He did not judge the Samaritan the way that people around him did and it keeps on going. The Islamic story continues the message of no judgement by saying: Just because you saw what you saw, it does not necessarily mean that it was true. Again, don't rush to judgement. Very much as when Jesus was born.

However, unfortunately, many Muslims and Christians and people of other religions have not paid attention to this message and are too quick in judging others.

I find it absurd that you factor in Jesus as deceiver to arrive at that conclusion. God would have to be ultimately corrupt, which is why your whole arguement fails for me.

Jesus wasn't the rich conquering king of the Jews dreams, but a true conquering king in reality. Sure, his message was not to judge. That people may think those who they consider morally inferior actually have as much chance of being the opposite.

[Reforged]

Out of interest, proof wise both of your religions would be about neck and neck wouldn't they? As in they're both as plausible as each other, right?
I mean what does one religion have over the other? Really?

Can we at least all agree the Southern Baptist interpretation of Christianity is complete nonsense? I mean thats some wacky bullshit right there.

[fr0d0]

RD: Proof wise both religions agree that there can be no empirical proof. Judaism too if you want the set. This is as perfectly correct as it gets on that subject. Logically bomb proof, if you like.

I've explained above why I think Christianity is an evolutionary next step over the rest.

Fred Phelps and gang are indeed on their own. Their hate speech is a million miles away from what christ stands for.

[Rayaan]

To clarify, fr0d0, the deception of Allah never lies in Him deceiving about His nature, about His existence, about the Quran, nor anything related to Islam. Those are the things that we regard as the truth. Allah is also the Truth (Al-Haqq). However, Allah never deceives us in those key matters nor in matters of faith and worship. Rather, His deceptions were only against certain people who wanted to commit acts of aggression against the Prophet Muhammad and/or those who wanted to stop the spread of Islam.

In other words, Allah's deceptions consisted of helping the Muslims to create their own schemes in order to derail all the other schemes made by their enemies. This was only to protect His followers from those who were attacking them. As I said before, deception and scheming by itself is something evil, but when they are done for the purpose of derailing or outmaneuvering the evil plans of others, then it is positive. To me, that is a justifiable deception.

So, justifiable deception goes along with one of Allah's 99 attributes which is The Just (Al-Muqsit), and being Just (Al-Muqsit) doesn't negate Truth (Al-Haqq).

I don't want to go into explaining the same verses all over again because then I would have to explain to you the Arabic, transliteration, and all that stuff, and I find that to be quite a tedious and a laboring task for myself. I already explained them to you one time. It seems to me that your problems are only a result of a lack of knowledge of some of the semantic aspects of the verses.

And still, even though I appreciate that you answered the question, I find it very irrational that God would punish Himself for the sins of others by hanging on a cross. What kind of a logic is it to think that God would punish Himself? I mean, did he commit any crimes? Is He guilty of our sins? No, so, I don't understand why He would have to forgive our sins by making Himself go through so much pain and suffering.

I don't mean to insult your intelligence when I say this, though. It's just that it doesn't sound reasonable to me that a God would punish Himself.

[Ryantology]

The keystone of my faith for a long time was the argument of apparent design, and it ended up being the last remaining vestige as the rest of it slowly dissolved.

I have to admit that, even now that I've come to accept that apparent design does not prove an intelligent designer, I understand well why this argument favoring intelligent design is attractive. I let that argument go only with the greatest reluctance.

[Epimethean]

"If God revealed Himself, then there wouldn't be any value or reward in believing in Him because He already showed Himself. It would be kind of like giving away the answer."

The "god as the puzzle of life that can't be solved by rational process" approach has always irked me. It allows dishonesty and the great cop-out.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

---

Proof wise both religions agree that there can be no empirical proof. Judaism too if you want the set. This is as perfectly correct as it gets on that subject. Logically bomb proof, if you like

Logically utterly bankrupt, you meant tp say.


Frodo picks up the comb, stabs himself in the eye with it. Score for Sauron!

[ElDinero]

The Christian God neccessarily exists as the only reasonable conclusion (world view). All other conclusions fail.

Out of interest, since I don't want to have to trawl through the entire thread, has fr0d0 offered up any further justification for his first post in this thread? Obviously the above 'answer' simply raises more questions, but rather than just elaborate on the statement at the time, dear fr0des needs to have his hand held. He knows the next question is obviously 'Why is it the only reasonable conclusion?' but he likes to be deliberately evasive, you see.

So fr0d0, be a dear and either point me in the right direction, or elaborate, sil vous plait.

[Epimethean]

Fr0d is up to his usual agitation for consternation, but as ever, he has no evidence.




It has been pointed out elsewhere: He is most likely an atheist who has fun playing with christian stuff.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

His deceptions were only against certain people who wanted to commit acts of aggression against the Prophet Muhammad and/or those who wanted to stop the spread of Islam.

What is so "wrong" about wanting to stop the spread of that malignant superstition?

---

And still, even though I appreciate that you answered the question, I find it very irrational that God would punish Himself for the sins of others by hanging on a cross. What kind of a logic is it to think that God would punish Himself? I mean, did he commit any crimes? Is He guilty of our sins?

'Tis a poor craftsman blames his tools. If anyone is to blame for our faults, if your myths were true, yes it should be your god punished on that cross.

In your hell, too.