tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post1351504333661851099..comments2023-08-08T04:19:26.974-07:00Comments on THE CALLADUS BLOG: What I believeCalladushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-81966026116251702822014-08-12T08:34:52.247-07:002014-08-12T08:34:52.247-07:00Well, I see that Paarsurrey has left without answe...Well, I see that Paarsurrey has left without answering how he knows that the Quran is "revealed" (whatever that means) in any way.<br /><br />I have yet another apologetics book to read. Not over Islam, but over a wildly different offshoot of Islam.<br /><br />Think of the relationship of the Mormon Church to Christianity. You already know that that Mormons are wildly different from Christians.<br /><br />Now imagine that the Mormons had a major schism into two different religions, one that more closely followed the Latter Day Saint movement, and a second, weirder one that said that James Strang was the next prophet after Joseph Smith, and that Jesus Christ was the adopted son of God.<br /><br />Weird huh?<br /><br />That's what Ahmadiyya Muslims are like. Christians don't recognize Mohammed, and Islam doesn't recognize Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, and Ahmad's followers have broken into two, one mainstream, and the other the "weird little brother".<br /><br />That's Paarsurrey's religion. The one that apparently I am at fault for not investigating when I was deconverting from Christianity.<br /><br />Sorry dude... but there are SO MANY cults. I couldn't get to ALL of them.Calladushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-18521257812009688422014-03-24T13:24:06.395-07:002014-03-24T13:24:06.395-07:00Have you proven that the Quran is a "Revealed...Have you proven that the Quran is a "Revealed" book, and not merely written by a person?<br /><br />Calladushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-80109118516254457592014-03-23T15:56:02.791-07:002014-03-23T15:56:02.791-07:00@ Calladus
Did you finish the book “The philosoph...@ Calladus<br /><br />Did you finish the book “The philosophy of teachings of Islam” by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad?<br /><br />Regardspaarsurreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02257904796070467509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-24360726178642359072014-03-13T17:20:05.960-07:002014-03-13T17:20:05.960-07:00Here's the Amazon link to, "The Philosoph...<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Teachings-Islam-Mirza-Ghulam-ebook/dp/B006OUFTEM" rel="nofollow">Here's the Amazon link to, "The Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam", so you can download it as an ebook too.</a>Calladushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-37111471964695676292014-03-13T17:16:15.344-07:002014-03-13T17:16:15.344-07:00I downloaded it via Kindle, as I've already sa...I downloaded it via Kindle, as I've already said. That means that I have it on my computer, my cell phone, and my Kindle e-book reader.<br /><br />Amazon has it on Kindle, for free, since it is out of copyright.Calladushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-74266422896075628132014-03-13T16:13:46.161-07:002014-03-13T16:13:46.161-07:00@Calladus :13/3/14 9:13 AM
The book I suggested y...@Calladus :13/3/14 9:13 AM<br /><br />The book I suggested you is available free online; I provided the link; I give it again.<br /><br />http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdfpaarsurreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02257904796070467509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-71864535647028094222014-03-13T09:27:48.431-07:002014-03-13T09:27:48.431-07:00Ah Paarsury, I see from your bio that you are an A...Ah Paarsury, I see from your bio that you are an Ahmadi, and not Lahoris. What "principle" do you follow to choose a sect?Calladushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-51041604278143928312014-03-13T09:13:49.549-07:002014-03-13T09:13:49.549-07:00I didn’t become an atheist for my own “convenience...I didn’t become an atheist for my own “convenience” – I really did NOT want to be an atheist. <br /><br />However, an atheist is someone who lacks a belief in a deity due to lack of evidence, or who disbelieves in deities due to evidence. I’m NOT the sort of atheist that believes evidence exists to prove that deities are impossible. I AM the sort of atheist who has discovered (against my will) that there is NO evidence that deities exist. Once someone provides me evidence that a deity exists, I will re-evaluate my position. And any insinuation that I am an atheist because it is “convenient” is just as insulting as me insinuating that followers of Islam do so merely because it allows them to have several wives at once.<br /><br />I’ve downloaded the Kindle version of the book you recommend from the Islamic heretic Ghulam Ahmad. I find it interesting that he proclaimed himself divine. I think I’ll find the book fascinating in the same way that I find the hundreds of different branches of Christianity fascinating. When different sects of the same religion denounce each other as “false” – this is evidence against that religion, not for it.<br /><br />Are you Ahmadi? Or Lahoris?<br /><br />You claim that since I lacked something in my study of religions (a “tool or principle”) that my deconversion from Christianity and my assertion that there is no evidence for God is false. Let’s examine this statement.<br /><br />From your quote, let’s look at this sentence: “I consider it essential that everyone who follows a book, believing it to be revealed,”<br /><br />I now think I understand what you mean by “tool or principle”. If I started my study of religions based upon the principle that the Qur’an is “revealed”, I would have then found the one true religion. Unfortunately, that religion would most likely have been mainstream Islam, and not based upon an Islamic heresy that suffered a schism almost immediately after Ghulam Ahmad’s death.<br /><br />There is a reason why I can’t consider the “principle” that the Qur’an is special in any way.<br /><br />I believe that the Qur’an was written in the same sort of fashion, and for the same purpose, as the Book of Mormon. It was used to create a religious structure that vastly benefited the creator of that book – Muhammad. And it did benefit him. For the first 40 years of his life he was an unimportant merchant and shepherd. After his so called “visit from Gabriel” and “revelation from Allah”, he started preaching and gathering a following. Perhaps Muhammad’s followers were gullible – I prefer to think that they just didn’t know any better, and that they were used to thinking “magically”. <br /><br />In much the same way that Joseph Smith did, Muhammad created an alternative social structure with him as the head of the hierarchy. This system allowed him to bypass the governmental bureaucracy of his time, and it allowed him to bypass any sort of meritocracy. Instead, he gained great power through an invented religious structure.<br /><br />There is nothing “revealed” about the Qur’an that is any more “revealed” in the Book of Mormon.<br />If you want me to believe that the Qur’an (or the Bible, or the Book of Mormon) is holy, divinely inspired, or in any way something other than the entire creation of a human (or humans), you will first have to demonstrate evidence that a deity exists. Then you will have to demonstrate that this deity is interested in writing, creating, or in any way inspiring a human to create a book.<br /><br />I take this position is because I have zero evidence that deities create books, and a great deal of overwhelming evidence that books are created by humans.<br /><br />This is what I learned in my comparative study of religions – books are created by humans. And humans have motives to create books.Calladushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-10917697294177891312014-03-05T12:36:28.099-08:002014-03-05T12:36:28.099-08:00Just had some stitches due to cutting my hand open...Just had some stitches due to cutting my hand open. Also busy with spring planting and long hours at work. <br /><br />Don't worry, I'll get to you. Calladushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-28523003705702136392014-03-05T04:08:37.246-08:002014-03-05T04:08:37.246-08:00Hi Calladus
How are you?Hi Calladus<br /><br />How are you?paarsurreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02257904796070467509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-54252055954685991672014-02-26T14:20:21.002-08:002014-02-26T14:20:21.002-08:00@Calladus : 25/2/14 9:21 PM: 26/2/14 8:07 AM
I wa...@Calladus : 25/2/14 9:21 PM: 26/2/14 8:07 AM<br /><br />I was not even implying at that. <br /><br />I know that you are an atheist, not a Christian. <br /><br />My point was that though you studied Christianity intensively and other religions not up-to that level; yet your study of or research of revealed religions was impaired only because you did not have a right tool or principle of comparative study of religions ; and then you all of a sudden decided to become an Atheist, just for convenience.<br /><br />I had suggested you to read a book “THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE TEACHINGS OF ISLAM” by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908- the Promised Messiah; I again give its link below:<br /> <br /> http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf<br /><br />This was an essay written by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908 read at a conference of great religions held at Lahore in the then British India, in the year 1896.<br /><br />The very first sentence of the essay reads “It is necessary that a claim and the reasons in support of it must be set forth from a revealed book.” <br /><br />I use to describe it as a “Golden rule for comparative study of revealed religions”; and this principle is explained in the next two pages by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad:<br /><br />Quote:<br />“In this auspicious Conference the purpose of which is that those who have been invited to participate in it should expound the merits of their respective religions with reference to the questions that have been formulated. I shall today set forth the merits of Islam. <br /><br />Before I proceed to do so I deem it proper to announce that I have made it obligatory upon myself that whatever I state will be based upon the Holy Quran which is the Word of God Almighty. <br /><br />I consider it essential that everyone who follows a book, believing it to be revealed, should base his exposition upon that book and should not so extend the scope of his advocacy of his faith as if he is compiling a new book. <br /><br />As it is my purpose today to establish the merits of the Holy Quran and to demonstrate its excellence, it is incumbent upon me not to state anything which is not comprehended in the Quran and to set forth everything on the basis of its verses and in accord with their meaning and that which might be inferred from them, so that those attending the Conference should encounter no difficulty in carrying out a comparison between the teachings of different religions. <br /><br />As all those who believe in a revealed book will also confine themselves to statements comprised in their respective revealed books, I shall not make any reference to the traditions of the Holy Prophet, inasmuch as all true traditions are only derived from the Holy Quran which is a perfect book comprehending all other books. <br /><br />In short this is the day of the manifestation of the glory of the Holy Quran and I humbly beseech God Almighty to assist me in this undertaking. Amin. “ Unquote<br /><br />Had one known this principle before; I think one’s decision would have been different.<br /><br />One is welcome to try it now; if one pleases.<br />paarsurreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02257904796070467509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-76594959699807113062014-02-26T08:07:09.628-08:002014-02-26T08:07:09.628-08:00The problem is that Islam believes that Jesus was ...The problem is that Islam believes that Jesus was just another prophet in a line of prophets that ends in Muhammad. The idea that there is more than one deity, or that there is a "Holy Spirit", is heresy to Islam. <br /><br />Islam accepts those parts of the bible that agrees with the Quran, and does not accept those parts that do not agree.<br /><br />You MUST take the Godhood of Jesus as a "parable", even though it is obvious that Jesus in the bible is speaking literally. You MUST believe this to be a parable, or else you are forced to accept that Muhammad has lied. And since you are Islamic, you cannot believe this without destroying your principle beliefs.<br /><br />When you ask me "what principle did you adopt" in my study, you are trying to discover how I am biased. <br /><br />But you are indeed biased, your "principle" in the study of the bible is that the parts of it that don't agree with your Islamic bias are automatically wrong, and should be reinterpreted until it does agree, or dismissed as a "parable".<br /><br />I used to be Christian. I can argue the bible from a Christian point of view. But I still believe it is merely mythology.<br /><br />I am reading the Quran, and some Hadith literature. I am eager to read Islamic apologetics. But everything that I've read so far demonstrates to me that humans have just as much evidence of Muhammad's miracles, as they do the miracles of Joseph Smith. <br /><br />In fact, I see Muhammad and Joseph Smith as brothers in the same sort of scam on humanity. They have both invented a religion that brings them either power, or wealth, or both. Calladushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-19376888061832208372014-02-25T21:21:34.793-08:002014-02-25T21:21:34.793-08:00Do you believe that Jesus was a god or son of god?...<i>Do you believe that Jesus was a god or son of god?<br /><br />I think you don't believe.</i><br /><br />Of course I don't believe in Christianity. As I've said in this blog, I'm an atheist.<br /><br />But that isn't a good reason for not understanding Christian beliefs. I should be able to entertain a thought seriously without accepting it.<br /><br />At the same time, I think that Muḥammad was nothing more than a man. A man just like Joseph Smith or L. Ron Hubbard, who found that he could use a religious infrastructure to create power for himself when other social structures didn't.Calladushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-58861465843236114352014-02-25T16:30:44.986-08:002014-02-25T16:30:44.986-08:00Do you believe that Jesus was a god or son of god?...Do you believe that Jesus was a god or son of god?<br /><br />I think you don't believe.<br /><br />Just access my blog ; it is written very clearly "I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim"; the link is given below:<br /><br />http://paarsurrey.wordpress.com/<br /><br />paarsurreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02257904796070467509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-79971008484553425282014-02-24T13:49:44.388-08:002014-02-24T13:49:44.388-08:00No, Jesus was being quite literal here, as is evid...No, Jesus was being quite literal here, as is evidenced by the multiple times that he referenced God as his father.<br /><br />Sorry that you have an incorrect understanding of the Bible. It's as if your understanding has been tainted by some sort of other cult re-interpretation.<br /><br />Are you a member of a religion other than Christianity? Because that would explain your willful misunderstanding.Calladushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-78155619248186789122014-02-24T12:27:01.502-08:002014-02-24T12:27:01.502-08:00@ Calladus:23/2/14 5:31 PM
I take your first quot...@ Calladus:23/2/14 5:31 PM<br /><br />I take your first quote of the Bible:<br /><br />Matt 11:27<br /><br />[26] Yea, Father; for so hath it seemed good in thy sight. [27] All things are delivered to me by my Father. And no one knoweth the Son, but the Father: neither doth any one know the Father, but the Son, and he to whom it shall please the Son to reveal him. [28] Come to me, all you that labour, and are burdened, and I will refresh you. [29] Take up my yoke upon you, and learn of me, because I am meek, and humble of heart: and you shall find rest to your souls. [30] For my yoke is sweet and my burden light.<br /><br />http://www.drbo.org/chapter/47011.htm<br /><br />Jesus was talking in parables and metaphors; as could be ascertained from the words “all you that labour”, “burdened”, “refresh”, “Take up my yoke”; so the words “Father” and “Son” are not literal but should be taken in symbolic form.<br /><br />Now, here, you should reflect that you took a wrong view of Christianity; which is only a misnomer only because it teaches the teachings of Paul and Church and has nothing to do with the real teachings of Jesus.<br /><br />You rejected the total picture of Christianity being irrational; and irrational it is for sure; this is because its many tenets that were invented by Paul and collaborated by the Church were irrational.<br /><br />The interpretation of your research is wrong; the total could not be wrong if many of its components were not wrong.<br /> <br />Your study of Christianity is intact; but you could not ascertain right in it from the wrong in it, only because you could not think of a true principle that could have lead you to the correct conclusion.<br />paarsurreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02257904796070467509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-10576008976762311152014-02-23T17:31:37.262-08:002014-02-23T17:31:37.262-08:00Yes, Jesus did affirm that he was the son of God. ...Yes, Jesus did affirm that he was the son of God. Matt 11:27, 16:15-16, Mark 14:61, and John 5:23-26, among other places.<br /><br />I'm sorry that your premise is incorrect.<br /><br /><i>So this sentence is not valid as a principle of research or criteria of search into the religion in the absolute sense.</i><br /><br />So what? You realize that I started this study to confirm that my Christian beliefs were true, but instead it did the opposite. It confirmed that they were no different from the cults and religions that I studied.<br /><br />You realize that I started with the belief that Christianity was true, and I was going to confirm this as True. I did not go into my study unbiased, or with a scientific purpose.<br /><br />In fact, while I was Christian, I never wanted to become an atheist, and took this position reluctantly, after my studies showed it to be false.<br /><br />Calladushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-83330803145157972242014-02-23T08:16:32.320-08:002014-02-23T08:16:32.320-08:00@Calladus : 22/2/14 7:48 PM
"The "princ...@Calladus : 22/2/14 7:48 PM<br /><br />"The "principle" that I started out with in my course of study was that God was real and Jesus is his son."<br /><br />We will first discuss you first principle that you have mentioned in you post.<br /><br />We find that this principle is not valid for other religions; Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster, Moses did not mention that Jesus was son of God. So this sentence is not valid as a principle of research or criteria of search into the religion in the absolute sense.<br /><br />I think with your study of Christianity you would have found that Jesus did not mention that he was a son of God in literal and physical terms in unequivocal words.<br /> <br />So, even Jesus never agreed with this statement or principle. Your study of religions notwithstanding, I think, it is not valid as a measure/standard/criteria of search or research of truth in religion/s.<br /><br />So, I think, your comparative study of religions does not make a comparison of them, not at all, to find the Truth.<br /><br />It was a wrong principle so it has in fact no bearing on religion.<br /><br />Am I reasonable? Please<br /><br />paarsurreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02257904796070467509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-8571082478728922912014-02-22T19:48:52.227-08:002014-02-22T19:48:52.227-08:00The "principle" that I started out with ...The "principle" that I started out with in my course of study was that God was real and Jesus is his son.<br /><br />That's what I believed when I started my study.<br /><br />The other "principle" that I tried to hold was to just learn all that I could.<br /><br />Is that what you are asking me, or have I misunderstood your question?Calladushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-58312746214016681922014-02-22T16:13:07.064-08:002014-02-22T16:13:07.064-08:00"The second point is ; what principle did you..."The second point is ; what principle did you adopt for your comparative study of religions (excluding Atheism)?"<br /><br /><br />I appreciate your study of different denomination of Christianity and other religion; yet I would ask the above question. Pleasepaarsurreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02257904796070467509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-56222846228129678322014-02-20T16:37:50.130-08:002014-02-20T16:37:50.130-08:00Completely forgot, I should add Islam in my "...Completely forgot, I should add Islam in my "since then" study.Calladushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-89772181652176161112014-02-20T13:49:09.792-08:002014-02-20T13:49:09.792-08:00Naturally, you would have not included Atheism in ...<i>Naturally, you would have not included Atheism in your study</i><br /><br />I included reading about the American Secular Union, and about Humanism, both secular and spiritual.<br /><br />These groups have quite a lot of insight in religion.<br /><br />I consider "religion" to be a hypothetical world view. And like any hypothesis, it can be tested.<br /><br />I studied Greek and Roman religions in high school, and still read them from time to time.<br /><br />In my deconversion study, I studied Jehovah's Witnesses, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Christian Science, Scientology, The Southern Baptist Convention, the Roman Catholic Church, Calvinism, the Brethren (Roberts), Calvary Chapel, the Unification Church, and the Branch Davidians. There are probably some cults in there that I don't remember.<br /><br />Since then, I've added Hindu, Sikhism, Taoism, the The Tibetan Book of the Dead, several cults of personality (Rupert Sheldrake, David Barton, James Dobson, and Tony Perkins for example), Family International, and I'm sure I've left out several.<br /><br />Currently I'm re-reading apologist William Lane Craig. And I've just started an apologist that is new to me, David Berlinski. I like that Craig works against both Calvinism and CS Lewis. Berlinski seems to work against Jonathan Wells.<br /><br />Matthew Henry is my favorite Bible Commentary. There doesn't seem to be as much Islamic Quran Commentary - maybe it is hazardous?Calladushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-40682660136048779072014-02-20T09:16:55.048-08:002014-02-20T09:16:55.048-08:00Calladus said:19/2/14 4:13 PM
"I started a s...Calladus said:19/2/14 4:13 PM<br /><br />"I started a self-guided course of comparative religion at the age of 32, in 1995." Unquote<br /><br />Thanks for your reply.<br /><br />I appreciate your search for truth; for which you started a self-guided course of comparative religion/s. Naturally, you would have not included Atheism in your study as they (the Atheists) don't consider that they are a "religion" in any meaning of the world.<br /><br />Please confirm that you did not include Atheism in your comparative study. Did you? Please.<br /><br />The second point is ; what principle did you adopt for your comparative study of religions (excluding Atheism)?<br /><br />What religions did you study, intensively, and from what sources?<br /><br />I think all above are very reasonable questions.paarsurreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02257904796070467509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-16575794917878177842014-02-19T16:13:13.032-08:002014-02-19T16:13:13.032-08:00I started a self-guided course of comparative reli...I started a self-guided course of comparative religion at the age of 32, in 1995.<br /><br />I started questioning my own religion in 2000, at the age of 36.<br /><br />By 2001 I was an atheist.<br /><br />In 2002, I started an atheist organization. I was 39.<br /><br />Before I was atheist, I was Christian.<br /><br />Is this what you wanted to know?Calladushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17620879847877868166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5736821.post-15752582709926586262014-02-19T09:17:23.795-08:002014-02-19T09:17:23.795-08:00@ Calladus:18/2/14 1:30 PM
"No, I would not h...@ Calladus:18/2/14 1:30 PM<br />"No, I would not have described my "position" as atheism at the age of 4 or 5"<br /><br />May be I could not express my thoughts properly.<br /><br />There must be a first stage at which you would have been able to name it as Atheism.<br /><br />At what age this happened?<br /><br />Before it; it was not Atheism.<br />paarsurreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02257904796070467509noreply@blogger.com