why do we have to believe?
-
I didn't say hell isn't real. I said hell is not separation from God's power, because God's power permeates everything.
-
hell is not a place God resides. common sence
-
Why, do you think God's afraid of hell? Nothing can exist without God. If God ceased to reside in a place, that place would cease to exist. And God is not afraid of anything, he created everything.
-
demons are in hell and satan and God cannot live together. Light cannot live in darkness. and God is light. God created hell for satan and his angels but anyone who dies without Jesus will go there. It is not God's disire for anyone to perish bt come to repentance through His Son Jesus and hell is not a party place. God's Home is Heaven not hell. God is on His Throne in Heaven. what don't you understand about that? God created hell for satan and his angels but so many souls die and go there everyday for rejecting or turning away from Jesus. but I am not responsible for your salvation, if you end up in hell that is not my fault but rememeber you have been told. and you will remember this conversation in hell. I do not want you to go there but you have a choice and I am not going to make if for you.
-
But the Gospel of John says "The light shines upon the darkness but the darkness does not recognise it". Surely this means that darkness and light do coexist. Otherwise the light would not be shining on it.
I don't think you have any biblical basis at all for your claim that hell is the absence of God. You're taking the ideas of various philosophers and theologians and mixing them up with Gospel.
-
demons are in hell and satan and God cannot live together. Light cannot live in darkness. and God is light. God created hell for satan and his angels but anyone who dies without Jesus will go there. It is not God's disire for anyone to perish bt come to repentance through His Son Jesus and hell is not a party place. God's Home is Heaven not hell. God is on His Throne in Heaven. what don't you understand about that? God created hell for satan and his angels but so many souls die and go there everyday for rejecting or turning away from Jesus. but I am not responsible for your salvation, if you end up in hell that is not my fault but rememeber you have been told. and you will remember this conversation in hell. I do not want you to go there but you have a choice and I am not going to make if for you.
so you're saying that Moses and Abraham are in hell?! (God forbid)
peace
-
Um... I know quite a few moral/charitable/Godly atheists.
the old belief that atheists are all deviant and evil is just plain wrong. in this age of reason and science, some just do not see the proof there for God.
this is something I hated too, when I was a young boy. "If God is all loving and I can find no adequate proof for his existence, yet I am a exemplary person of honor and morality par excellence... I am still going to hell.. may as well believe in him..better than the fire."
this is the old mentality too which involves punitive justice as opposed to restorative. My celtic ancestors believed instead of forcing a physical discipline or injury on someone for say stealing.. they would put them to work as a bondservant to the one stolen from until the value of the item stolen was earned back. I see islam saying the same thing.
yet.. think about it for a second.. An all loving and knowing God would toss into hell a mother theresa (who happened to just be atheist) and yet some repeatedly stumbling and mean person to others but believed in God would get paradise. Things like this wreak of human morality and not what I would more think with an omnipotent deity.
-
^^
Exactly.
-
Um... I know quite a few moral/charitable/Godly atheists.
the old belief that atheists are all deviant and evil is just plain wrong. in this age of reason and science, some just do not see the proof there for God.
this is something I hated too, when I was a young boy. "If God is all loving and I can find no adequate proof for his existence, yet I am a exemplary person of honor and morality par excellence... I am still going to hell.. may as well believe in him..better than the fire."
this is the old mentality too which involves punitive justice as opposed to restorative. My celtic ancestors believed instead of forcing a physical discipline or injury on someone for say stealing.. they would put them to work as a bondservant to the one stolen from until the value of the item stolen was earned back. I see islam saying the same thing.
yet.. think about it for a second.. An all loving and knowing God would toss into hell a mother theresa (who happened to just be atheist) and yet some repeatedly stumbling and mean person to others but believed in God would get paradise. Things like this wreak of human morality and not what I would more think with an omnipotent deity.
I totally agree with you. If you believe God is our Father (and mother) and creator, then you have to believe that God is all knowing and all seeing. If that is the case, God will judge people on what they do, not what they believe. If you are Baptist, then you believe only Baptists go to heaven, if you are JW then you believe only JWs go to heaven, etc, etc. This is just their way of keeping their members loyal to that one religion. God does not have a religion, God does not hate, God loves atheists too.
-
The word originally mentioned in the opening post was "kufur" which principally means ungrateful, and concealment, and then the more well known meanings of rejecting and non-believer.
Why is "shirk" the unforgiveable sin while anything else can be forgiven? It is not harming anyone else?
And why do we have to believe? God always talks about almumineen/muslimeen/ahl alkitab as those who will know no fear while the mushrikeen/kuffar are the ones who will be hell-bound - if you are an atheist but a good person where does that leave you?If this question comes up in conversation, I often say "If you were in need and I gave you some food, would you say thanks?" If they say "yes", I then explain this implies they are being grateful and not ungrateful, this means they acknowledge rather than conceal/deny, accept rather than reject. I then say "In my view, that's the key to this life and if you understand that point, then you're half way there".
Of course, people show thanks in many ways, verbal is just one form. My understanding and preference can be found here.
-
Salaam,
I read that thread, and in it, I found your concern for what I can only assume to be your patients (since you are a clinician) to be admirable and noteworthy. However, I strongly disagree with your conclusion "...they were a necessary link in the chain leading to Him, by doing good, reducing the injustices/poverty/negativity/etc and trying to better myself through their betterment would allow me to uplift myself at the same time, and maybe that is why God put them there..." As someone who has gone through tough times, and as someone who sympathizes greatly with those who suffer, I find it offensive that you can even consider that God would "put them there" in that condition (which I assume to be quite bad) for the betterment of others, such as yourself.
-
JW,
Firstly, I was not referring to my patients specifically. Please do not assume unless it is clear. Secondly, I didn't really conclude anything, hence word usage such as "maybe". Thirdly, when I said "and maybe that is why God put them there" I was referring to those situations that require bettering, and this encompasses a huge variety of things, some of which directly involves people, some of which does not. I was not implying that their (I assume you mean people) sole purpose of being there was to better others. To be fair, I could have clarified this point but to be honest I wasn't expecting someone to take it the way you did. I was referring to the relationship or the connection between an individual's internal situation and their external situation. The link between the two, leading back to the opening post of the thread, i.e. to serve the whole = serving the God.
However, having said that, in part, "bad" things exist, as a means to test/distinguish us, according to AQ. One could say the same about "good" things however.
-
Why is "shirk" the unforgiveable sin while anything else can be forgiven? It is not harming anyone else?
And why do we have to believe? God always talks about almumineen/muslimeen/ahl alkitab as those who will know no fear while the mushrikeen/kuffar are the ones who will be hell-bound - if you are an atheist but a good person where does that leave you?You would be showing ingratitude towards God.
3040 God who created you, then He provided for you, then He puts you to death, then He brings you to life. Is there any among the partners you set up that can do any of this? Be He glorified and exalted above what they set up.
3045 So that He will reward those who acknowledge and do good works from His grace. He does not love the ingrates.
2266 He is the One who granted you life, then He puts you to death, then He brings you back to life. Surely, the human being is unappreciative.
-
Salaam farida
Actually this is from my post and alan is quoting me.
God never asked us to believe in His existance. In fact, the expression "existance" does not even exist in the qur'aan. How can one believe in the "existance" of God when we do not know what God is? That's why the old and still going on ddebate of whether God exists or not is still not won, and wont be one, by any one side. We only know His attributes, of which are "The Peace", "The Justice"; "The safety bestower"...etc If you study the straight path, which is the core of the message, it's all aiming at speading safety in the world through charity, justice and support of truth. It does not contain "believing in God" either, but not to set partners...not to follow commands other than those of God.
The qur'aan says it contains all examples. Do we have an example of a good, peaceful and charitable "non believer"? No of course, because a non believer is by definition a "non peaceful, non safety bestower".
I really enjoyed this post of Samia's and would like to discuss it further. Its theme is similar to FearfulofAllah's article 'Categories of People in the Quran' (http//www.free-minds.org/mumin2). In that article, FearfulofAllah states ?belief in god? as ?the conscious act of doing good, out of unselfish motives, even if it is at a personal cost?.
He further clarifies One may be publicly an atheist and reject completely the notion of any supernatural power but if that person consciously does good acts as a matter of principle in life, then for the sake of this discussion, that person will be considered as having ?belief in god?. By this definition, the opposite is also true that a person, who normally does only bad things, lacks ?belief in god?, even if that person claims to believe in god.
Samia seems to be implying the same thing (if I'm understanding her correctly).
In response to Samia's post, aalamakto posted the following
Salam Samia,
18103 Say ?Shall we inform you of the greatest losers??
18104 ?Those whose efforts in the worldly life were wasted while they thought they were doing good!?
18105 These are the ones who rejected the revelations of their Lord and His meeting. So their works were in vain, and We will not give them any value on the Day of Resurrection.
18106 That is their recompense, Hell; for what they rejected and for taking My revelations and My messengers for mockery!5646 And they persisted in the great blasphemy.
5647 And they used to say ?After we die and turn to dust and bones, we will get resurrected??
5648 ?As well as our forefathers??Works do not matter if they reject the revelations of God and his meeting.
What are everyone's thoughts on this response? Is 'belief in God's existence' actually prescribed upon us, or at least implied? Is 'belief in god' simply 'belief in doing good,' in a way that a staunch atheist can still have 'belief in god' ? If so, what of the verses aalamakto posted?
Peace.
-
I really enjoyed this post of Samia's and would like to discuss it further. Its theme is similar to FearfulofAllah's article 'Categories of People in the Quran' (http//www.free-minds.org/mumin2). In that article, FearfulofAllah states ?belief in god? as ?the conscious act of doing good, out of unselfish motives, even if it is at a personal cost?.
He further clarifies One may be publicly an atheist and reject completely the notion of any supernatural power but if that person consciously does good acts as a matter of principle in life, then for the sake of this discussion, that person will be considered as having ?belief in god?. By this definition, the opposite is also true that a person, who normally does only bad things, lacks ?belief in god?, even if that person claims to believe in god.
Samia seems to be implying the same thing (if I'm understanding her correctly).
In response to Samia's post, aalamakto posted the following
What are everyone's thoughts on this response? Is 'belief in God's existence' actually prescribed upon us, or at least implied? Is 'belief in god' simply 'belief in doing good,' in a way that a staunch atheist can still have 'belief in god' ? If so, what of the verses aalamakto posted?Peace.
Peace,
Welcome back!
I think you are on to something. I have been thinking about this, as well. Isn't belief more about what we do, then what we say? (612-3, 244-45, chapter 107). Are atheists denying The God, or an illogical view of a god? 678 is a good example of Abraham realizing what God is not.
I think, we aught to start with what is God? 226 says that God is the truth. I ,also, take God to mean our noble side (we all have the energy of God - 1529). 65 defines the rejecters/disbelievers/truth concealers as those, who deny/conceal the truth, when it comes to them. There is no example of them doing good things.
This is why we must condition our soul, and grow it (salat and zakat), because it yields to us doing good things. And, this is why satan is always used as a symbol for evil. Because, he tries to deter us from 'the path'.
If so, what of the verses aalamakto posted?
If we read carefully, it says they THOUGHT they were doing good. 211 mentions this, as well. 18105 mentions ayats/signs. These signs also exist in our own souls (4153, 5120-21).
-
Peace,
Welcome back!
I think you are on to something. I have been thinking about this, as well. Isn't belief more about what we do, then what we say? (612-3, 244-45, chapter 107). Are atheists denying The God, or an illogical view of a god? 678 is a good example of Abraham realizing what God is not.
I think, we aught to start with what is God? 226 says that God is the truth. I ,also, take God to mean our noble side (we all have the energy of God - 1529). 65 defines the rejecters/disbelievers/truth concealers as those, who deny/conceal the truth, when it comes to them. There is no example of them doing good things.
This is why we must condition our soul, and grow it (salat and zakat), because it yields to us doing good things. And, this is why satan is always used as a symbol for evil. Because, he tries to deter us from 'the path'.
If we read carefully, it says they THOUGHT they were doing good. 211 mentions this, as well. 18105 mentions ayats/signs. These signs also exist in our own souls (4153, 5120-21).
Thanks for the welcome back, it's been a while.
I agree with most of your points Jack. With regard to the verses aalamakto posted, though, you say it mentions they 'THOUGHT' they were doing good. True, 18104 says that. 18105, though, seems to imply that the works were 'good' but were ultimately 'in vain' because they rejected the revelations and mocked them. I say it seems to imply they were 'good' because 105 says "We will not give them any value on the Day of Resurrection" --because-- 'they rejected the revelations of their Lord and His meeting.'
Maybe it's a mistranslation issue. Maybe only the English appears to say that their works are in vain BECAUSE they rejected the revelations, not because they in actuality were not good (as you imply). Hopefully an Arabic speaker can clarify.
Or maybe, and I think this is the more extreme interpretation, their works are rejected because they were not actually objectively good (i.e. the works went against revelation, as well as common human decency). From the context of the surrounding verses, this seems not to be the case, but I am open to discussion on it.
Anyway, just thinking out loud.
-
this is sort of linked to my what does God get out of it question...
Why is "shirk" the unforgiveable sin while anything else can be forgiven? It is not harming anyone else?
And why do we have to believe? God always talks about almumineen/muslimeen/ahl alkitab as those who will know no fear while the mushrikeen/kuffar are the ones who will be hell-bound - if you are an atheist but a good person where does that leave you?thanks all!
Peace all,
Thanks for all your replies ... Im glad people went back to this question, since the debate died down for a while. I cant reply to everything now - since there was so much. But it seems that the words "amana" commonly translated as belief need to be examined deeper. Also, it still doesnt answer the question about WHY belief is so vital? I know many athiests who are more "muslim" than muslims. They do not ackenowledge or believe in God - so why should their good deeds go to waste as per 18.104-106. The rejection/kufr is punishable too.
Also - in terms of shirk - after talking to mum who's always wise - maybe shirk is unforgivable because of what it leads to - if you place anything above or equal to god - be that money, friends, your ego - it will lead to a downward spiral of selfishness in the world - which goes against everything God tells us to follow - ie. shirk is the root of all evil. So while you may do bad things - God is forgiving, but shirk cannot be forgiven because of the evil it leads to?
Ill write more later - im tired and am not sure my post is even coherent at the moment!
-
Thanks for the welcome back, it's been a while.
I agree with most of your points Jack. With regard to the verses aalamakto posted, though, you say it mentions they 'THOUGHT' they were doing good. True, 18104 says that. 18105, though, seems to imply that the works were 'good' but were ultimately 'in vain' because they rejected the revelations and mocked them. I say it seems to imply they were 'good' because 105 says "We will not give them any value on the Day of Resurrection" --because-- 'they rejected the revelations of their Lord and His meeting.'
Maybe it's a mistranslation issue. Maybe only the English appears to say that their works are in vain BECAUSE they rejected the revelations, not because they in actuality were not good (as you imply). Hopefully an Arabic speaker can clarify.
Or maybe, and I think this is the more extreme interpretation, their works are rejected because they were not actually objectively good (i.e. the works went against revelation, as well as common human decency). From the context of the surrounding verses, this seems not to be the case, but I am open to discussion on it.
Anyway, just thinking out loud.
Anyway, just thinking out loud.
Same here.
Works here, couldn't possibly mean good works; because they are contrasted with believers doing good work (18107). The word translated as 'works' is aamal ;which just means something one does. Same word is used in 18107, but this time it mentions good work, along side it.
Ayn-Miim-Lam, for those who wish to research it.
7147 is very interesting I think. It mentions the works being canceled, yet it also says that they are called to account for precisely what they did. 274, 358, and 2938 show how this work can appear good. 4037 shows this in action.
1115 also mentions the fairness in judgement.
-
Same here.
Works here, couldn't possibly mean good works; because they are contrasted with believers doing good work (18107). The word translated as 'works' is aamal ;which just means something one does. Same word is used in 18107, but this time it mentions good work, along side it.
Ayn-Miim-Lam, for those who wish to research it.
7147 is very interesting I think. It mentions the works being canceled, yet it also says that they are called to account for precisely what they did. 274, 358, and 2938 show how this work can appear good. 4037 shows this in action.
1115 also mentions the fairness in judgement.
7147 is a very important verse and merits further study.
Of the other verses you cited, I find 274 to be most illuminating "Those who do not believe in the Hereafter, we adorn their works in their eyes. Thus, they continue to blunder."
This seems to imply an active process by God (or as I like to think of it, a universal law as prescribed by god) that works to distort the value of one's action contingent upon the intention behind that action.
'believe in the Hereafter,' as we have come to learn through the rest of the reading, isn't simply a belief in a garden beneath which rivers flow. Rather, it is a belief in a system of requital in which intentions+actions yield consequences, negative or positive, for the intender/doer of said actions.
Each action is is actually a bifold occurrence an Intention behind an event {I}, and the Event Itself {EI}.
274 and the other verses seem to imply that an 'I' colors the value of an 'EI.' If one's I is misguided (i.e. if one 'disbelieves in the system of requital', the effect of one's EI is similarly misguided and ultimately rendered useless ('nullified' to use 7147's parlance).
335 sheds light on this I/EI idea "...You do not commit a sin if you make a mistake in this respect; you are responsible for your purposeful intentions. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful."
The verse, while referring specifically to the protocol of adopting a child, indicates that mistakes do not count against us. And of course this is common sense. One's EI, though presently negative in consequence, does not actually impact one's soul negatively if the negative I is absent.
Anyway, coming back to the original topic of actual belief in the existence of a god and whether a failure to do so results in the nullification of works. The best explanation I can come up with is that a belief in the Hereafter or a belief in an ultimate system of requital is impossible without an attached belief in 'the divine' who prescribed said system. This is the ancient Moral Lawgiver theistic argument.
An atheist, then, who does not believe in a system of requital has a distorted 'I' component behind his or her actions, which would render the effect of his or her EI's meaningless.
But we still come back to the question do atheists who continually do 'good works' (by which, I mean, works that on the outside appear good to us, e.g. giving to charity, honoring parents, etc., and not just works that they THINK are good a la Pharaoh's own self-deception) have their works nullified simply because their I is not rooted in a belief in a system of requital? Seems 'unfair.' I must be missing something here.
If an atheist gives to charity because he wants to alleviate a child's suffering FOR THE SAKE OF ALLEVIATING THE CHILD'S SUFFERING, and not because of a deeper belief in a system of requital, is that work rendered nullified? If so, why? Because the EI as practiced by the atheist doesn't impact the universe positively (hard to believe that's true; after all, the child's suffering has been alleviated)? Or is it because the atheist never intended to receive any reward/positive consequence for his action anyway because, by definition, he believes in no such thing and doesn't care, i.e. you get what you ask for?
Again, just thinking out loud.
-
Wanted to add one more thing.
In his article, FearfulofAllah states that the muslimeen follow the natural law of things, and do not necessarily need to believe in god. They simply do good, and do not harm others. Mumineen, on the other hand, have more responsibility and must 'believe in god.'
This muslimeen/mumineen distinction in terms of necessity of belief in god is an interesting one. I'm just not so sure it's true.
An example of a verse that seems at odds with that concept
1084 Moses said, "O my people, if you have really believed in GOD, then put your trust in Him, if you are really submitters (muslimeen)."
Seems like the concept of 'muslimeen' and 'believe in God' and putting 'trust in Him' are inseparable.
