What causes muslims to be violent

[Belinda]

Veritas Aequitas, there are so-called "moderate" Muslims. These moderate Muslims are unlikely to break the laws of their democratic native land.

I wonder if you understand that Islam , unlike Xianity, is aimed not at individuals' ideas but ritualised belief. It was always possible that Xianity would change according to different perceptions of JC, whereas performance of set rituals as in Islam does not change but has the attraction of continuity with maintenance of law and order.Religions such as Islam and RC which are strong on rituals are strong on ritualised beliefs.Thus these religions are authoritarian, and individualism is not very desirable.(except for aristocrats of Church and sate)

Xianity does of course also have its ritualistic side but this side is not as important as its ideas side particularly the mind of Jesus Christ. The purpose of ritual is to bind people together for the sake of concerted action of collaboration. For instance at school the children have to attend some sort of morning assembly with or without prayer, or some other act of allegiance to a principle.

I am what you would probably call "atheist" however I can relate to both Allah and Jesus. I have not been trained much in ritualised beliefs and behaviours.

"Moderate" Muslims have learned to value and practice individuality. Individualism is contrary to old style law and order but capitalism and modern commerce thrive on individualism, Individualism is of quite recent dat. It began with Renaissance and finished with industrial revolution and urbanisation. Muslims in modern democracies have mostly learned individualism by now, but a few react to it and become fundamentally religious.

[Advocate]

Islam requires following the example of Muhammad <spit> which means jihad.

Jihad is of three levels, working quietly behind the scenes (having lots of babbies and moving everywhere), speaking up and trying to force change in their favor (the stage much of the world is experiencing now), and absolute subjugation of everything and everyone forever. Islam also requires making the most recent teaching in the Koran as most important and the most recent fatwas as most important if they're compatible with the Koran. The Koran literally requires taking over the world and retiring history.

This is the fundamentally accurate reading of Islam that fundamentalists follow and anyone who is not islamophobic is either ignorant or Muslim or both.

[gaffo]

still think you assume too much about what Atheism is (its just a rejection in a belief in any Gods - nothing more, its not a philosphy)

You must have missed my earlier discussion with AV.

She also agrees that that is the case, and I accepted her definition. But I pointed out that that "nothing-more-ness" of Atheism is its root problem. That is, it offers absolutely nothing by way of information on ethics, meaning, purpose, the direction of life, and so on.

precisely - and Thank you from one thinking gentleman to another!

i agree!!!! my Atheism does not have ANYTHING to do with my self identity - nothing nadda - in fact i advice all Hindus/Christians?Mulsims - etc to not become Athiests.

same for Solipism - this is esoteric, so 99.999 percent of Athiest are not Solipists.

BTW - when i say the same for Solipisism - i mean it is like Athiesm, in that it is not a foundation to live one's life upon.

I'm both! - but neither define my character.

do you understand Sir?

I do not go out of way talk about Solipsism as a bleak philosophy, because most never heard if it. I'm on the record here in this forum - and in the forum "snake" (I don;t like the guy - but we were on the same forum and posted with each other 12-3 yrs ago "Bible-Discussions" - that forum when belly up 3 yrs ago, but when i joined here i spotted "Mobley" the snake and so we knew each other since 2009. I was "Crusader Rabbit" on that now dead forum - not because i like Crusaders, but because i like the character of that cartoon - in learned of that cartoon 10 yrs ago and took his avatar in that forum. (Bert Ward (Billwinkel/Rocky series) was a cofounder i disscovered after learning about the 50's tv series via viewing on YT 14 yrs ago) - Crusader Rabbit loved his.my Constitution!!!!!!!!!

so - ya, what defines me is not Atheism, nor Solipism, but Patriotism (conformed to my Constitution - Rule of Law) - the fucking second (trump koolaid asshole zombies/etc........make my America from a proper Constutional Democratic Republic into a 1933 Germanic thuggery.................then fuck the "blood and soil" of America, and i no longer am a Patriot to that Land now ruined by zombie thugs.

= instead i look to other lands that have peoples that value what the US Constitution has to say! (for that THAT defines my character! not my Atheism nor solipsism).

If somehow the natives of New Guinea (not likely - but in the ideal - FUCK in the ideal the fucking asshole predient Rump would never have been elected in the US (but Rome fell - Caligula - only only unlike THEM - "we" elected him!!!!!!!!!!!!!

so in a way i affirm the nation i love, but no longer since it no longer love my constitution, and the electorate elected one like them - haters of my constitution!

so fuck em

i'll move to a land where they still value what i do and those values conform to the ideals written aobut in my Constitution.


fuck America - esp in 3 months when Rump is relected!!!!!!!!! (I know all about Biden - foot in mouth disease - his silence only helps his chances, but never under estimate Bidens mouth and the electorate idiocy.

BTW I'm going to buy some President Comacha and vise pres Not Sure yard signs - tomorrow.

along with a couple of bumper stickers.

[Immanuel Can]

still think you assume too much about what Atheism is (its just a rejection in a belief in any Gods - nothing more, its not a philosphy)

You must have missed my earlier discussion with AV.

She also agrees that that is the case, and I accepted her definition. But I pointed out that that "nothing-more-ness" of Atheism is its root problem. That is, it offers absolutely nothing by way of information on ethics, meaning, purpose, the direction of life, and so on.

precisely - and Thank you from one thinking gentleman to another!

i agree!!!! my Atheism does not have ANYTHING to do with my self identity...

Actually, that's not what I said.

I said that Atheism has no information about thing like a person's morals, identity, the meaning of life, or the purpose thereof. And if an Atheist turned to his Atheism to get any of these things, he'd find it says nothing.

But that is certainly not any stroke in Atheism's favour. It means Atheism is an empty belief, with no value in answering any of life's most important questions. It doesn't even get the one precept it stands for -- the non-existence of God -- from any rational or evidentiary basis.

[gaffo]

So any Atheist has to add some other philosophy to fill the emptiness created by Atheism.

indeed they do.

People still want to be good,

but your Paulist Religion (not the Judaic chistianity of Jude/James - they both lost the war of Christianity, so Saul rules your religion) - and so via original sin, man is a worm, and has no good nature to do good.

must have Jebus to be saved - just believe, that all you need!!!! - to be saved.

so one a worm always a worm, only difference is the worm that Beleives in your God is saved, the same worm that does not goes to Hell forever.

that is Saul's theology - who won the Christian Religion game.

James/Jude..........who? never heard of them.

find the meaning of life, head toward meaningful goals, and end up in the right place, and Atheism tells them nothing about how to do those things. So they end up embracing something else -- I pointed out that Communism is a popular "fix" for Atheism's emptiness.

I agree fully, but i see Saul's christianity - Works without Faith is dead, as good as my Athieism/Solipsism - bleak a hell (per your Saul i do to Hell forever - so oh well).

I much prefer the others authors in books now forgotten - where works matter and define character (and man by nature is not a worm, but only flawed) - but James and Jude were removed from your Reiigion, and i fear you are brainwashed as all other Christians 1900 yrs hence.

Saul won Jesus' brothers James and Jude lost.

oh well....

But you have chosen Solipsism instead, you say.

"instead" of what?

Solipism is a bleak as Athiesm, i am the former via logic - and if you actually understood it, you would be forced to affirm it via empircism.

per the latter Athiesm, not so, i cannot via logic empiricism prove your god does not exist (I just do not see him proving he does to me)

both things - Solipsism and Athiesm are bleak and offer nothing - but even you as a Christian, if you truely understood what Solipsism is would have to affirm it! ()yes i may be talking to myself - you cannot prove otherwise - and per my vantage i am!!!!!!!!! am i not? for when was the last time you experienced consciencness from some other's person head? - never).

so if you exist or not, may be important - or not - but in effect not relivent, since you can only expericene all reality from your own head anyway!

Still, the point is made. Solipsism is then your choice for fixing up the emptiness of Atheism, it seems.

don't follow - i like talking to myself and am my best friend (makes my life easier - to love myself and become my best friend even after being a loser vs what might have been - and vs being my own self enemy (self destruction - or via transurance - killing other but too cowardly/ignorant to take myself out instead - and spare the death count via criminals).

Solipsism (when did this forum auto correct spelling of Solipsism? - recently, noted by me) and Atheism offer nothing.

did i say otherwise?

But if your Solipsism includes any transcendent or metaphysical realities, then it contradicts Atheism.

But it does not!!!!!!!!!!! you know this surely!

Solipsism = I exist, this second.

no past no future assumed (just a concept/memories of the past half).

nothing more!!!!!!!!!

if there is a "next realm" GREAT!!!!!!!!!!

but Solipsism does not affirm it, nor Atheism.

Upon my "death" - then either i well continue to exist as a conscious being - and so remain a Solipsist (I'll not have to no longer be an Athiest BTW).

or i shall cease to exist.


--------

you really do not understand Solipsism!

if it turns out i am god - not saying i am - i am per my realm, in effect in this world - all live experience.all i know is via me and me, if in the next - assuming there is a next,

then i am still "god"!!!!!!!!

That would be a logical problem for you, if you want to consider it.

I'm an "old soul" and have considered this since the age of 16 - many decades ago.

just sayin you are not saying anything i've not thought about long ago.

per my answer - refer to above.

I agree, however the inverse i'd welcome, and i've not seen if from most Christians - including you.

Well, we'll see. I actually think I have a really good handle on what Atheism entails. After all, just as you said, it's a pretty simple belief. Practically anything else is more complex.[/quote]


agreed, my best friend *who sadly will be dead within a year due to drinking himself to death (for reasons i simply cannot understand and have tried - as you know i drink too, only not to self killing like him (he was not like this the first 34 yrs we are best friends). from the early 80's to today is a Christian (in fact when he learned i was an Athiest - we were both 14 at the time - he had to take some time to think over if i should be his best friend) - the thought it over for 2 weeks and we remained so since 1983.

he used to be a hardcore Pentocostel (never tried to convert him to my Atheism - he noted this and why should i? atheism offers nothing, and i love my best friend so only a dick would wish to convert to Athiesm.

he faith is now weak, not sure why - prob for the same reason he is drinking himself to death (we both had a 3rd party - Monty who(we were the musketeers - best buds - sadlt he died via alcoholism in 98, and i see him going the same way, my bubby Bob was not an alcholic 10 yrs ago, but is full bore now, and i pleed and pleed - in honour of the memory of monty to stop, but it does no good).

FYI - TMI, but after my friend Monty died in 98, it fell into the pure black hole of depression for 5 yrs, got so bad that i lost my job (mom's money kept a roof over my head, and too scared to leave my apartment out of depression/sham ).

I know what to expect, and so hope i can deal with the death of my best friend better than the death of our other best friend 2 decades ago.

I'll see.

Atheists are disparaged, that is a fact - even in 2020.

I have not disparaged Atheists.

I do disparage Atheism.

Because those are not the same things at all. An "Atheist" is a person; but "Atheism" is just a bad belief system.

I know you are a good man, so you do not, but in general folks disparage Atheists for thier Athiesm.

just like "muslims" today - and i am no fan of that religion, but i do not judge muslims per them being muslims, i get to know the person, and judge them as a person, not a muslim.

And a good person can believe bad things sometimes.

ones chracter is ten orders of mag under (more core) what they beleive (irrelevent IMOI).

plenty of asshole beleive in good things and more good folks beleive in bad things.

Atheism is a very bad thing, even if a very nice, pleasant Atheist, like yourself, happens to believe it.

I agree, Atheism offer nothing.


not sure why you thought i would dissagree - you've seen my posts here for the last 3 yrs here.

no not looking to be "saved" lol (just because i affirm that Athiesm offers nothing is not me calling out to find your god - i just never had your god show himself as existing for me).

and why i've never wished anyone to convert to Athiesm, including my best friend a former devout Pentocostel Christian --now in doubt and drink (over reasons only he knows - nor my wish).

most atheists hate your religion - and at the same time love all the others like islam.buddism.himduism

You've noticed that, too, have you? Very good.

of course i've noticed it, i can smell hypocrisy form a million miles away.

Yes, you're right. Atheists believe all religions are somewhat bunk, but they only really seem to hate Christians and Jews. I wonder what that should tell us about Atheism...and the truth.

I can't speak toward The Truth, but what i said about this forum being Western (and all the media you view - being Candadian and not say Indian) - your view of "what Athiests are" is via the western lense.

as i said last week, if this forum were based in Mumbi, then all the Athiests would be hating upon Hindus (and i bet there is such a forum out on the interwbs, and the Indian Athiests - like the Western ones - would fixate their hate upon the majority religion, and so not hate on Islam (making up 1/5 of Indians - and so fixate upon Hinduism).

BTW i think Modi is a DICK, and like Trump foster hate, Indian's inherited their Republic via English Colonialism (yes colonialism is bad!!!!!! - but the indians learned enlightenment ideals, and their Ghandi forced the hypocritical English to leave! while affirming those same concepts) - Modi is tearing those concepts down, we shall see if the Indian people will eventually affirm their 1/5th as equal indian persons with full rights as their hindu neighors of if they play the collonist game of hypocrisy).

I'm an Athiest, and do not hate your religion

I'm glad. But you're unusual in that, as you say.

yes i am, and thanks for that view of me.

the sad fact is most Athiests don't know anything about your religion, they are programed to hate it instead.

however, i do know quite a lot about your religion - and not bound to affirm all of your "Bible's" works as worthy and the word from your God.

i read each work, try to understand the theme of the work and its author, i.e. what he wished to say - his point, then reject books i think are filth.

Leviticus comes first and formost, about 1/3 of the Torah as well.

and most of Saul's letters.

but i'm just a atheist.

Mark is my fav in the NT, prefer the OT because i have 3 favorites in that work. Amos, Jonah, and Job.


those 4 works are worth more than the other 60 or so works in the entire bible - imo.

You will not find many Atheists who say, "I deny that God exists, but other transcendent/ metaphysical entities may exist." Because the minute they admit that transcendent or metaphysical entities could exist, they've made silly their own basic claim that God does not exist. Why arbitrarily exclude only one metaphysical entity, and believe in all the others? It doesn't make any sense anymore.

ok, i will grant you this, what you say is true.

I was thinking literally "atheist must be a materialist"

as you now know i am not one of them.

so i grant you the trend - prob 99 percent.

my mind is all of knowable reality - and so not material.

Well, the idea of "mind" itself does not fit with Atheism. Atheism has to hold that all that exists is the physical brain, of which any feeling of "mind" is just a sort of accidental byproduct. Because if minds can exists without brains, then we're back to metaphysical realities...and why then insist God cannot possibly exist?

but that not so!!!!!!!

i affirmed your trend per Athiesm, but there is not Athiesm Rule that one must be a materialist!!!!!!!!!!

so ya 99 percent ya,

but the other 1 percent - millions of us - assuming global pop of Atheists - are like me!

The statement, "I do not personally know (or "I lack") any evidence of God" is not a reason for anyone to say "God does not exist."

thats all i have to go by in this realm.

What it does justify is the claim, "...so I don't know whether or not any God exists." That would work. But to insist that nothing exists but what one already knows would imply that you were incapable of learning anything new, or taking in any evidence that might appear in future. And I think that's probably not true of you...you don't seem unable to process new evidence.

you are right, per logic i an an Agnostic, but am biased against that term, viewing them is fence sitters.

I do not "know there is not God/s", but prefer to label myself as Atheist over the wishy washy "agonostics".
even though technically i am the latter.

your point is bullshit, there is no link, as i stated i am an athiest and at the same time not a materialist.
Yes, I see. But those two beliefs contradict one another.

no they dont!

Atheism by defintion is a denial of any gods existing!! nothing more.

and as for me, as a Solipsist, by defintion that make my a "spirtualist"!!!!

it is that simple.

be honest sir! just because most all Athiests are materialists too, does not constrict the actual definition of Athiesm!

from my perspective it is equally likely that i made both you and your god, and i'm now just talking to myself/arguing with myself - playing some weird game of multiple personalities with myself.

I get that.

But that suspicion must also leave you feeling pretty lonely.

fuck ya it does, it realy does, and thanks for understanding what i an saying above.

one does not just get it, unless they are willing to think, and too many are not willing too, sadly,

thanks for thinking Sir.

If everything in the world is just your own mind playing tricks on your own mind, then the possibility of having any real friends, or anyone to really talk to, is gone.

yep, you never really know if they are a person like you with a mind/heart, or just a mirror of yourself.



https://archive.org/details/MindWebs_201410

episode 23 "they" by the great Robert Heinland.


the shorty story does not affirm Solipsism as a Truth, but the mindset of the protagonist/theme is similar.

I'm a contingent being, and He's an eternal one.

yes, and you "wear a loud tie" ..to prove you exist.

Sorry...I don't understand that response.

that is a reference to another great scifi writer (kow utterly forgotten) - Robert Sheckely (3-5 of Mindwebs are from his works), by his short story called "Warm" - which shared Hienland's story "They" perspective.

AFIAK there have not been any radioplays of "warm", though several of his other works are to be found via Mindwebs and the prior excellent 1950's series X minus one.

And I wonder: isn't Solipsism a pretty natural thing to feel, if you've spent your life "cut off" from people because they didn't understand you? And maybe they called you a "weirdo," or a "nerd" and kicked you around? Maybe you felt all your life that you were rejected, friendless, pushed to the margins and treated like a leper.

But you'll notice I haven't done that to you, have I? I've respected your differences, and even approved of them. And I don't dislike you...you know that, right? I get where you're coming from. And it's fine with me.

I'm dyslexic, you can tell from my poor spelling (you should look up that now 3 yr old thread under "language" where i thought out how to make english phonetic.) - you never made fun of me, so you are not a dick, but instead a nice guy, and i call you a friend.



per english being sane, and not insane, its simple really, but will never happen - though my "plan" solves all dyslexic's problems, not the prez and will never be even close.............so just a dream/solution from a nobody.



pr english being saan, and not insaan, its simpl reeli, but wil nevr hapen - tho mi "plan" solvs al dislexic's problems, not the prez and will nevr be even clos.............so just a dreem/solushun from a nobodyi.



you should look the thread up though, it solves all spelling problems and does make english 100 percent phonetic (fonetic).


viewtopic.php?f=21&t=26279&start=15

Now, of course, I don't know if any such bad experiences as I describe above have ever happened to you,

nope, thankfully i've had a good childhood - though did test myself with the psychology test NFDP? - or whatever it is. the four letters - to deermined if you are an extrovert/intro/emotional/reasional.

i ended up where i expected - full introvert/rational. good test (if i do say so myself being a sample of one - lol, and conferming my preconcieve bias - lol).

but that happens to lots of people "on the Spectrum" from ADD to Autism.

yep.

the weird thing is with me in can be social, and am quite good at it, but i do not enjoy it, and it seems like work and drains me.

i like to be alone, or with a close friend - or two (no more though).

more than 3 - at most is crowd and drains my spirit.

but i can play the "game" of mr social if forced to - never like to though.

give me a cabin for/my myself and i'm happy - and you or one others to talk about philosophy every once in a while .

Society is still only now figuring out what that is all about. And if you had had a bad time with such things, I would think Solipsism would become much more attractive. After all, to be inside one's own mind would seem to be the only safe place, then. That makes sense.

don't pychonanalize me, i'm an introvert, not an autistic.

i smell condescension/placation and you are better than that Sir.

Jesus said, "By their fruits you shall know them," meaning, "By what people do, you shall know whether they're God's or not."

yes, i always like your Jesus

Well, do you like what my Jesus said?

sure do.

The answer is clear.

yes it is - i burn forever

Well, if that is the answer you want, I guess...but it's not at all necessary.

Do you really want that answer?

that's your Saul's answer, not mine. i do not wish to burn in Hell forever with Ghandi/etc, but burn we will according to your Saul.

your saul denies that Faith without Works is dead, and claims the opposite, that Fatih without works is everlasting life in Heaven forever,

all others go to Hell forever.

[gaffo]

You must have missed my earlier discussion with AV.

She also agrees that that is the case, and I accepted her definition. But I pointed out that that "nothing-more-ness" of Atheism is its root problem. That is, it offers absolutely nothing by way of information on ethics, meaning, purpose, the direction of life, and so on.

precisely - and Thank you from one thinking gentleman to another!

i agree!!!! my Atheism does not have ANYTHING to do with my self identity...

Actually, that's not what I said.

I said that Atheism has no information about thing like a person's morals, identity, the meaning of life, or the purpose thereof. And if an Atheist turned to his Atheism to get any of these things, he'd find it says nothing.

But that is certainly not any stroke in Atheism's favour. It means Atheism is an empty belief, with no value in answering any of life's most important questions. It doesn't even get the one precept it stands for -- the non-existence of God -- from any rational or evidentiary basis.

well, i stand corrected i did not understand what you stated in your prior post.

what you say in this post i agree fully.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Veritas Aequitas, there are so-called "moderate" Muslims. These moderate Muslims are unlikely to break the laws of their democratic native land.

I wonder if you understand that Islam , unlike Xianity, is aimed not at individuals' ideas but ritualised belief. It was always possible that Xianity would change according to different perceptions of JC, whereas performance of set rituals as in Islam does not change but has the attraction of continuity with maintenance of law and order.Religions such as Islam and RC which are strong on rituals are strong on ritualised beliefs.Thus these religions are authoritarian, and individualism is not very desirable.(except for aristocrats of Church and sate)

Xianity does of course also have its ritualistic side but this side is not as important as its ideas side particularly the mind of Jesus Christ. The purpose of ritual is to bind people together for the sake of concerted action of collaboration. For instance at school the children have to attend some sort of morning assembly with or without prayer, or some other act of allegiance to a principle.

I am what you would probably call "atheist" however I can relate to both Allah and Jesus. I have not been trained much in ritualised beliefs and behaviours.

"Moderate" Muslims have learned to value and practice individuality. Individualism is contrary to old style law and order but capitalism and modern commerce thrive on individualism, Individualism is of quite recent dat. It began with Renaissance and finished with industrial revolution and urbanisation. Muslims in modern democracies have mostly learned individualism by now, but a few react to it and become fundamentally religious.

I am surprised you ask "I wonder if you understand that Islam ..." despite me giving you my credential and research on Islam earlier.
Based on the work done and time spent I am a reasonable expert on Islam and Muslims, thus I am VERY well versed with and understand Islam.

You cannot jump to your conclusion of 'Islam is ritualized' because you see and hear of them praying religiously every Friday and are expected to pray 5 times a day.

A Muslim is one who has entered into a divine contract [covenant] with Allah thus has to comply with all the terms of the contract which are in the Quran.

• Quran16:91:Fulfil the covenant [biʿahdi بِعَهْدِ] of Allah when ye have covenanted, and break not your oaths after the asseveration of them, and after ye have made Allah surety over you. Lo! Allah knoweth what ye do.

Therefore a Muslim as contracted must comply with all the terms stipulated within the 6236 verses of the Quran which contains rituals, doctrines, and the so identified evil laden elements.
A Muslims will gain qualifying merit points to heaven depending how much he has complied with the terms of his contract with Allah.

The rituals within the Quran are merely basic and starter requirements to be a Muslim which are codified as the 5 pillars of Islam. If a Muslim were to comply fully with the 5 pillars of Islam, he is like to get at most 5 merits points out of 100 as a Muslim. From there he can graduate to the next level to be a Mushin.

To gain more merits, one must comply with the 6 pillars of Imam/faith where one could gain greater merits, say 40 out of 100. Those who accomplish these are called Mushins. From here he can graduate to the next level of 'Taqwa'.

Higher up are the topping up merits of Taqwa which may up another 20 points;

• Taqwa (Arabic: تقوى‎ taqwā / taqwá ) is an Islamic term for being conscious and cognizant of God, of truth, of the rational reality, "piety, fear of God."[1][2] It is often found in the Quran. Those who practice taqwa — in the words of Ibn Abbas, "believers who avoid Shirk with Allah and who work in His obedience"[3] — are called muttaqin (Arabic: لْ المُتَّقِين‎ al-muttaqin).

The Taqwa are the "men of understanding" referred to in the quoted 3:7 you linked earlier.

Within the Quran there are individual actions that the Muslim can gain special bonus merits of twofold, tenfold where they could qualify to heaven instantly in some cases. This is where they comply with certain verses as stipulated by Allah and these are the ones where Muslims become martyrs by killing non-Muslims for being disbelievers and other reasons, note 5:33 and others.

Even if ONLY 1% of Muslims are inclined toward these bonuses, that is already 15 million and if only 10% that is a whopping 150 million quantum.
This is why the terrible violence by SOME Muslims is so glaring.

As for 'moderate' or whatever Muslims, the label is not important. What is critical is between them and Allah [omniscient] and how much of the terms they have complied with their contracted terms within the Quran.

Note how Allah rate the wandering Arabs [nomads] lowly because they merely comply with some of the 5 pillars of Islam;

• 49:14 Pickthall: The wandering Arabs say: We believe. Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Ye believe not, but rather say "We submit," for the faith hath not yet entered into your hearts. Yet, if ye obey Allah and His messenger, He will not withhold from you aught of (the reward of) your deeds. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Similarly by what is in the Quran, Allah will not be impressed with the majority of the so-called moderate Muslims [focused merely on the rituals from the 5 pillars of Islam] and they are not like to be highly rewarded in heaven.

Btw, whatever points I asserted of Islam above, I can produce the tons of necessary verses to support it if very need to, but I am not doing it here to avoid wasting time in a discussion of this sort.

Note the above points are very serious issues, I wonder you really grasp them or you are pretending they are not there.
If you disagree, provide the rational counters to them.

[Belinda]

Veritas Aequitas, there are so-called "moderate" Muslims. These moderate Muslims are unlikely to break the laws of their democratic native land.

I wonder if you understand that Islam , unlike Xianity, is aimed not at individuals' ideas but ritualised belief. It was always possible that Xianity would change according to different perceptions of JC, whereas performance of set rituals as in Islam does not change but has the attraction of continuity with maintenance of law and order.Religions such as Islam and RC which are strong on rituals are strong on ritualised beliefs.Thus these religions are authoritarian, and individualism is not very desirable.(except for aristocrats of Church and sate)

Xianity does of course also have its ritualistic side but this side is not as important as its ideas side particularly the mind of Jesus Christ. The purpose of ritual is to bind people together for the sake of concerted action of collaboration. For instance at school the children have to attend some sort of morning assembly with or without prayer, or some other act of allegiance to a principle.

I am what you would probably call "atheist" however I can relate to both Allah and Jesus. I have not been trained much in ritualised beliefs and behaviours.

"Moderate" Muslims have learned to value and practice individuality. Individualism is contrary to old style law and order but capitalism and modern commerce thrive on individualism, Individualism is of quite recent dat. It began with Renaissance and finished with industrial revolution and urbanisation. Muslims in modern democracies have mostly learned individualism by now, but a few react to it and become fundamentally religious.

I am surprised you ask "I wonder if you understand that Islam ..." despite me giving you my credential and research on Islam earlier.
Based on the work done and time spent I am a reasonable expert on Islam and Muslims, thus I am VERY well versed with and understand Islam.

You cannot jump to your conclusion of 'Islam is ritualized' because you see and hear of them praying religiously every Friday and are expected to pray 5 times a day.

A Muslim is one who has entered into a divine contract [covenant] with Allah thus has to comply with all the terms of the contract which are in the Quran.

• Quran16:91:Fulfil the covenant [biʿahdi بِعَهْدِ] of Allah when ye have covenanted, and break not your oaths after the asseveration of them, and after ye have made Allah surety over you. Lo! Allah knoweth what ye do.

Therefore a Muslim as contracted must comply with all the terms stipulated within the 6236 verses of the Quran which contains rituals, doctrines, and the so identified evil laden elements.
A Muslims will gain qualifying merit points to heaven depending how much he has complied with the terms of his contract with Allah.

The rituals within the Quran are merely basic and starter requirements to be a Muslim which are codified as the 5 pillars of Islam. If a Muslim were to comply fully with the 5 pillars of Islam, he is like to get at most 5 merits points out of 100 as a Muslim. From there he can graduate to the next level to be a Mushin.

To gain more merits, one must comply with the 6 pillars of Imam/faith where one could gain greater merits, say 40 out of 100. Those who accomplish these are called Mushins. From here he can graduate to the next level of 'Taqwa'.

Higher up are the topping up merits of Taqwa which may up another 20 points;

• Taqwa (Arabic: تقوى‎ taqwā / taqwá ) is an Islamic term for being conscious and cognizant of God, of truth, of the rational reality, "piety, fear of God."[1][2] It is often found in the Quran. Those who practice taqwa — in the words of Ibn Abbas, "believers who avoid Shirk with Allah and who work in His obedience"[3] — are called muttaqin (Arabic: لْ المُتَّقِين‎ al-muttaqin).

The Taqwa are the "men of understanding" referred to in the quoted 3:7 you linked earlier.

Within the Quran there are individual actions that the Muslim can gain special bonus merits of twofold, tenfold where they could qualify to heaven instantly in some cases. This is where they comply with certain verses as stipulated by Allah and these are the ones where Muslims become martyrs by killing non-Muslims for being disbelievers and other reasons, note 5:33 and others.

Even if ONLY 1% of Muslims are inclined toward these bonuses, that is already 15 million and if only 10% that is a whopping 150 million quantum.
This is why the terrible violence by SOME Muslims is so glaring.

As for 'moderate' or whatever Muslims, the label is not important. What is critical is between them and Allah [omniscient] and how much of the terms they have complied with their contracted terms within the Quran.

Note how Allah rate the wandering Arabs [nomads] lowly because they merely comply with some of the 5 pillars of Islam;

• 49:14 Pickthall: The wandering Arabs say: We believe. Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Ye believe not, but rather say "We submit," for the faith hath not yet entered into your hearts. Yet, if ye obey Allah and His messenger, He will not withhold from you aught of (the reward of) your deeds. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Similarly by what is in the Quran, Allah will not be impressed with the majority of the so-called moderate Muslims [focused merely on the rituals from the 5 pillars of Islam] and they are not like to be highly rewarded in heaven.

Btw, whatever points I asserted of Islam above, I can produce the tons of necessary verses to support it if very need to, but I am not doing it here to avoid wasting time in a discussion of this sort.

Note the above points are very serious issues, I wonder you really grasp them or you are pretending they are not there.
If you disagree, provide the rational counters to them.

Unlike you, I know about Islam from secondary sources, and a very little from my next door neighbours in two separate cities who are Muslims.I do respect your tenacity in studying the Koran and Arabic.

"Complying with the terms of the contract " is ritual and political, and unlike the sort of believing liberal Xians are expected to do. "Complying with the terms of the contract " is what God did for men after Noah's Flood, and is evidence that OT values are common to Islam and Xianity, except that Xianity has been influenced by the more humanistic Jesus. So the end result is Islam is a political regime which Xianity is not except in traditional vestiges of RC, and some minor Protestant cults.

"Islam is a political regime" is much diluted by modern individualism which young generations of urban Muslims can hardly avoid.

Liberalism and progressivism within Islam involve professed Muslims who have created a considerable body of liberal thought about Islamic understanding and practice.[1] Their work is sometimes characterized as "progressive Islam" (Arabic: الإسلام التقدمي‎ al-Islām at-taqaddumī); some scholars, such as Omid Safi, regard progressive Islam and liberal Islam as two distinct movements.[2]

Liberal ideas are considered controversial by some traditional Muslims, who criticize liberal ideas on the grounds of being too Western or rationalistic.[3]

The methodologies of liberal or progressive Islam rest on the interpretation of traditional Islamic scripture (the Quran) and other texts (such as the Hadith), a process called ijtihad (see below).[4][page needed] This can vary from the slight to the most liberal, where only the meaning of the Quran is considered to be a revelation, with its expression in words seen as the work of the prophet Muhammad in his particular time and context.

Liberal Muslims see themselves as returning to the principles of the early Ummah ethical and pluralistic intent of the Quran.[5] They distance themselves from some traditional and less liberal interpretations of Islamic law which they regard as culturally based and without universal applicability.[citation needed] The reform movement uses monotheism (tawhid) "as an organizing principle for human society and the basis of religious knowledge, history, metaphysics, aesthetics, and ethics, as well as social, economic and world order".[6]

Wikipedia

Do you agree that ijtihad(Gates of Ijtihad) is aligned with modern education? I think it is. It's hard to see how the many educated Muslims would not agree with ijtihad. I 'd like to see statistics that show comparisons of Muslims and infidels with regard to education in human sciences and humanities. There are many Muslim medics, and medics professionally combine humanistic communication plus technology.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Unlike you, I know about Islam from secondary sources, and a very little from my next door neighbours in two separate cities who are Muslims.I do respect your tenacity in studying the Koran and Arabic.

"Complying with the terms of the contract " is ritual and political, and unlike the sort of believing liberal Xians are expected to do. "Complying with the terms of the contract " is what God did for men after Noah's Flood, and is evidence that OT values are common to Islam and Xianity, except that Xianity has been influenced by the more humanistic Jesus. So the end result is Islam is a political regime which Xianity is not except in traditional vestiges of RC, and some minor Protestant cults.

"Islam is a political regime" is much diluted by modern individualism which young generations of urban Muslims can hardly avoid.

Liberalism and progressivism within Islam involve professed Muslims who have created a considerable body of liberal thought about Islamic understanding and practice.[1] Their work is sometimes characterized as "progressive Islam" (Arabic: الإسلام التقدمي‎ al-Islām at-taqaddumī); some scholars, such as Omid Safi, regard progressive Islam and liberal Islam as two distinct movements.[2]

Liberal ideas are considered controversial by some traditional Muslims, who criticize liberal ideas on the grounds of being too Western or rationalistic.[3]

The methodologies of liberal or progressive Islam rest on the interpretation of traditional Islamic scripture (the Quran) and other texts (such as the Hadith), a process called ijtihad (see below).[4][page needed] This can vary from the slight to the most liberal, where only the meaning of the Quran is considered to be a revelation, with its expression in words seen as the work of the prophet Muhammad in his particular time and context.

Liberal Muslims see themselves as returning to the principles of the early Ummah ethical and pluralistic intent of the Quran.[5] They distance themselves from some traditional and less liberal interpretations of Islamic law which they regard as culturally based and without universal applicability.[citation needed] The reform movement uses monotheism (tawhid) "as an organizing principle for human society and the basis of religious knowledge, history, metaphysics, aesthetics, and ethics, as well as social, economic and world order".[6]

Wikipedia

Do you agree that ijtihad(Gates of Ijtihad) is aligned with modern education? I think it is. It's hard to see how the many educated Muslims would not agree with ijtihad. I 'd like to see statistics that show comparisons of Muslims and infidels with regard to education in human sciences and humanities. There are many Muslim medics, and medics professionally combine humanistic communication plus technology.

You are not getting my main point.
I'll explain again;

• For example,
  Let say X signed a contract with School A as a teacher.
  The contractual terms comprised a list of 100 terms.
  In this case, X's obligation as teacher in School A is confined to the 100 terms of the contract you signed and nothing else.
  I presume X's would have studied the terms very carefully including all 'small prints' before X agreed to accept and signed the contract.
  
  Then there is a dispute and disagreements between X and the School regarding X's performance and X engage you as the lawyer to resolve the dispute.
  As an efficient lawyer, surely the first thing you do is ask for a copy of the contract signed and studied all the 100 terms therein thoroughly to understand your client's position on the contract.

The imperative compliance with any terms of a contract by the agreed parties is purely contract laws and is not specific to ritualistic, political nor anything else.

As I had stated, a Muslim is one who had signed a contract with Allah, wherein the list of contractual terms are in the Quran. In this case, let say, 5000 of the 6236 verses in the Quran are relevant to the contract while the rest are doctrinal notes.

My point is if we want to know the stance of who is a Muslim and what a Muslim ought to and can do, then we must study the specific 5000 terms of the contracts that the Muslim had signed with Allah.

Therefore if you want to inquire whether liberalism, progressivism, ijtihad and whatever has anything to do with Islam, the imperative criteria is whether the features of these subjects are provided for within the 5000 terms of the contract the Muslims entered into with Allah.

If you read all the terms within the Muslim's contract in the Quran, ijtihad [independent reasoning] is not permitted at all other than the literal compliance with whatever is in the Quran. This is why the issue of ijtihad is contentious.
Those who want to get into ijtihad has to proved that it is approved by Allah within the terms of the Muslims contract, but there are no such provisions for independent thinking.

There is also no room for liberalism, progressivism and anything else except for whatever is provided within the terms of the contract the Muslims had signed with Allah which is confined within the 6236 verses of the Quran.
Thus to be a Muslim, one must comply fully or solely with the contracted terms and not invent their own new terms. Such changes in accordance to ones' own or group interpretation outside the signed contract with Allah is bi'dah which is a sin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bid%CA%BBah

Nonetheless the modern Muslims do stretch from what is permitted from the terms of the contract by giving all sorts of justifications. But Islamic wise they are going against the words and the terms of the contract they have signed with Allah.

Thus my point again,
whatever Islamic issues that are to be considered/discussed by Muslims or non-Muslims, like a good lawyer, the first imperative consideration is to remind oneself of the terms of the contract the Muslim had signed with Allah. Then ensure the discussion is confined within the terms of the Muslim contract and nowhere else.

Where secondary sources are relied upon, the question that need to be asked is whether their conclusions are in accordance to the terms of the Muslim's contract as in the Quran.

This is why I spent so much time researching the Quran to understand all the relevant terms of the Muslim's contract with Allah.

Note this relevant article;
The Muslims' Covenant/Contract with Allah
https://submission.org/friday_covenant_trade.html

[Belinda]

Unlike you, I know about Islam from secondary sources, and a very little from my next door neighbours in two separate cities who are Muslims.I do respect your tenacity in studying the Koran and Arabic.

"Complying with the terms of the contract " is ritual and political, and unlike the sort of believing liberal Xians are expected to do. "Complying with the terms of the contract " is what God did for men after Noah's Flood, and is evidence that OT values are common to Islam and Xianity, except that Xianity has been influenced by the more humanistic Jesus. So the end result is Islam is a political regime which Xianity is not except in traditional vestiges of RC, and some minor Protestant cults.

"Islam is a political regime" is much diluted by modern individualism which young generations of urban Muslims can hardly avoid.

Liberalism and progressivism within Islam involve professed Muslims who have created a considerable body of liberal thought about Islamic understanding and practice.[1] Their work is sometimes characterized as "progressive Islam" (Arabic: الإسلام التقدمي‎ al-Islām at-taqaddumī); some scholars, such as Omid Safi, regard progressive Islam and liberal Islam as two distinct movements.[2]

Liberal ideas are considered controversial by some traditional Muslims, who criticize liberal ideas on the grounds of being too Western or rationalistic.[3]

The methodologies of liberal or progressive Islam rest on the interpretation of traditional Islamic scripture (the Quran) and other texts (such as the Hadith), a process called ijtihad (see below).[4][page needed] This can vary from the slight to the most liberal, where only the meaning of the Quran is considered to be a revelation, with its expression in words seen as the work of the prophet Muhammad in his particular time and context.

Liberal Muslims see themselves as returning to the principles of the early Ummah ethical and pluralistic intent of the Quran.[5] They distance themselves from some traditional and less liberal interpretations of Islamic law which they regard as culturally based and without universal applicability.[citation needed] The reform movement uses monotheism (tawhid) "as an organizing principle for human society and the basis of religious knowledge, history, metaphysics, aesthetics, and ethics, as well as social, economic and world order".[6]

Wikipedia

Do you agree that ijtihad(Gates of Ijtihad) is aligned with modern education? I think it is. It's hard to see how the many educated Muslims would not agree with ijtihad. I 'd like to see statistics that show comparisons of Muslims and infidels with regard to education in human sciences and humanities. There are many Muslim medics, and medics professionally combine humanistic communication plus technology.

You are not getting my main point.
I'll explain again;

• For example,
  Let say X signed a contract with School A as a teacher.
  The contractual terms comprised a list of 100 terms.
  In this case, X's obligation as teacher in School A is confined to the 100 terms of the contract you signed and nothing else.
  I presume X's would have studied the terms very carefully including all 'small prints' before X agreed to accept and signed the contract.
  
  Then there is a dispute and disagreements between X and the School regarding X's performance and X engage you as the lawyer to resolve the dispute.
  As an efficient lawyer, surely the first thing you do is ask for a copy of the contract signed and studied all the 100 terms therein thoroughly to understand your client's position on the contract.

The imperative compliance with any terms of a contract by the agreed parties is purely contract laws and is not specific to ritualistic, political nor anything else.

As I had stated, a Muslim is one who had signed a contract with Allah, wherein the list of contractual terms are in the Quran. In this case, let say, 5000 of the 6236 verses in the Quran are relevant to the contract while the rest are doctrinal notes.

My point is if we want to know the stance of who is a Muslim and what a Muslim ought to and can do, then we must study the specific 5000 terms of the contracts that the Muslim had signed with Allah.

Therefore if you want to inquire whether liberalism, progressivism, ijtihad and whatever has anything to do with Islam, the imperative criteria is whether the features of these subjects are provided for within the 5000 terms of the contract the Muslims entered into with Allah.

If you read all the terms within the Muslim's contract in the Quran, ijtihad [independent reasoning] is not permitted at all other than the literal compliance with whatever is in the Quran. This is why the issue of ijtihad is contentious.
Those who want to get into ijtihad has to proved that it is approved by Allah within the terms of the Muslims contract, but there are no such provisions for independent thinking.

There is also no room for liberalism, progressivism and anything else except for whatever is provided within the terms of the contract the Muslims had signed with Allah which is confined within the 6236 verses of the Quran.
Thus to be a Muslim, one must comply fully or solely with the contracted terms and not invent their own new terms. Such changes in accordance to ones' own or group interpretation outside the signed contract with Allah is bi'dah which is a sin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bid%CA%BBah

Nonetheless the modern Muslims do stretch from what is permitted from the terms of the contract by giving all sorts of justifications. But Islamic wise they are going against the words and the terms of the contract they have signed with Allah.

Thus my point again,
whatever Islamic issues that are to be considered/discussed by Muslims or non-Muslims, like a good lawyer, the first imperative consideration is to remind oneself of the terms of the contract the Muslim had signed with Allah. Then ensure the discussion is confined within the terms of the Muslim contract and nowhere else.

Where secondary sources are relied upon, the question that need to be asked is whether their conclusions are in accordance to the terms of the Muslim's contract as in the Quran.

This is why I spent so much time researching the Quran to understand all the relevant terms of the Muslim's contract with Allah.

Note this relevant article;
The Muslims' Covenant/Contract with Allah
https://submission.org/friday_covenant_trade.html

Since the OT prophets through Jesus and after, the individual's intention was relevant to whether or not he had disobeyed God.
I'd be surprised and disappointed if Islamic scholars were unaware of this important ethical development. Bid'ah is about more than superficial behaviours not so?

[Immanuel Can]

but your Paulist Religion (not the Judaic chistianity of Jude/James - they both lost the war of Christianity, so Saul rules your religion) - and so via original sin, man is a worm, and has no good nature to do good.

I don't agree. You will not find the expression "man is a worm" in Paul's writings, or in the words of Christ, either. In fact, you will find that the OT says that a "worm" is one of the things man is NOT.

Rather, mankind was made "in the image of God," capable of choice. People can indeed choose good..and sometimes they do. But the problem is that they also sometimes choose evil, and that's bad.

Some people think, therefore, that it's a question of weighing off the good and the bad. But it's not. For there are many cases where a little bit of evil destroys the good of the whole. Consider a delicious meal, but there is somewhere in it some cyanide. Would you eat it? Or consider a pane of glass; it if it has a little hole in it, is it good glass or faulty glass?

Just so, when men do a little evil, they taint their whole character. Considered individually, their deeds are both good and bad; but considered as total expressions of who they really are, the presence of evil means that they are sinners.

must have Jesus to be saved - just believe, that all you need!!!! - to be saved.

Well, you have that right. But you could know that from both Judaism and Christianity. The wages of sin is death. And without a sacrifice, there is no forgiveness of sins. What do you suppose the Temple in Jerusalem was all about?

James/Jude..........who? never heard of them.

They wrote two books of the New Testament. Have you not read it? Why not? I read both Torah and NT, and, for that matter, the entire Koran. Why not find out what the book says?

Solipism is a bleak as Athiesm, i am the former via logic - and if you actually understood it, you would be forced to affirm it via empircism.

Yes it is, yes I understand it, and no, I am not "forced to" affirm it at all, "via logic" or any other way. But especially not "via logic" or "via empiricism."

per the latter Athiesm, not so, i cannot via logic empiricism prove your god does not exist (I just do not see him proving he does to me)

That's your Solipsism speaking. So long as you believe you are the only mind that counts, what will happen is that you won't be able to consider any possibility there's anyone "out there" who genuinely knows something you don't.

But if you start to believe that, then you also have to believe it's impossible for you, yourself, to learn anything new. How could you, since only your own mind exists, and anything it throws up to you is as "real" as anything gets? You would not have any basis to disbelieve anything at all, or to know what to believe, so you couldn't learn anything.

Do you really believe that, too?

yes i may be talking to myself - you cannot prove otherwise

That is true. I could be a bot or a delusion. I cannot prove otherwise.

And yet, it's still untrue.

So you've fooled yourself about that. I can tell, from where I sit and type. I am here, and the fact that you don't know how to prove I am does not, even for a second, change the fact that I am.

And if I'm telling the truth about that, then your Solipsism is leading you wrong.

i like talking to myself and am my best friend (makes my life easier - to love myself and become my best friend even after being a loser vs what might have been - and vs being my own self enemy (self destruction - or via transurance - killing other but too cowardly/ignorant to take myself out instead - and spare the death count via criminals).

I get that. But it's a product of Autism, not truth.

It is much easier for a person who finds the world hurtful and alienating to retreat into himself. I get it.

But it's also the worst thing for him.

if there is a "next realm" GREAT!!!!!!!!!!

but Solipsism does not affirm it, nor Atheism.

On the contrary: Solipsism suggests it's impossible, since everything only consists in the mind. Any "next realm" would be only imaginary. And Atheism denies that it is even possible, because Atheism requires Materialism.

...my best friend *who sadly will be dead within a year due to drinking himself to death (for reasons i simply cannot understand and have tried - as you know i drink too, only not to self killing like him (he was not like this the first 34 yrs we are best friends). from the early 80's to today is a Christian (in fact when he learned i was an Athiest - we were both 14 at the time - he had to take some time to think over if i should be his best friend) - the thought it over for 2 weeks and we remained so since 1983.

It sounds like neither you nor your friend are very happy. Doesn't that suggest something's really wrong with how you're both addressing life?

he faith is now weak, not sure why

I have an idea. It may be that his faith was never intellectually sound, not logically mature. The denomination you mention, Pentecostalism, is peculiar for being very devoted to ecstatic, experiential, non-intellectual bursts of emotion. For some Pentecostals, those are the whole substance of their faith. And when their emotions get out of joint, their faith breaks down too.

It's an old story with Pentecostals. And I've known quite a few. There are some more logical, reflective philosophical ones, but for every one of that kind there are many who are more like I describe above. It's a liability of that denomination, in particular.

FYI - TMI, but after my friend Monty died in 98, it fell into the pure black hole of depression for 5 yrs, got so bad that i lost my job (mom's money kept a roof over my head, and too scared to leave my apartment out of depression/sham ).

That sounds really horrible. I'm sorry.

But if life is so sad, and it's working out so badly you need to drink, then is it time for a change? If not, what will happen?

A wise man once said to me, "If things around here don't change, they'll stay the same." That's clever. Because if you don't change anything in your own life, you can only expect more of what you already experience. And it seems to me you're saying you're not happy now.

Why not do something about that? What have you got to loose?

Atheists are disparaged, that is a fact - even in 2020.

I have not disparaged Atheists.

I do disparage Atheism.

Because those are not the same things at all. An "Atheist" is a person; but "Atheism" is just a bad belief system.

I know you are a good man, so you do not, but in general folks disparage Atheists for thier Athiesm.

I haven't found that very many do. Today, Atheists are one quite regular type in the West. Nobody says anything about them at all.

And a good person can believe bad things sometimes.

ones chracter is ten orders of mag under (more core) what they beleive (irrelevent IMOI).

Yes. That's what I was saying earlier about sin. It's a more important fact that people are sinful characters than it is how many particular sins they have done. Sinful characters have no relationship with God, you see. God has no partnership with sin.

Atheism is a very bad thing, even if a very nice, pleasant Atheist, like yourself, happens to believe it.

I agree, Atheism offer nothing.
not sure why you thought i would dissagree - you've seen my posts here for the last 3 yrs here.

I can tell you why. I can't understand why somebody who is clearly unhappy -- so unhappy he's drinking, and so unhappy he's retreated emotionally into himself to get away from the pain in the world -- would keep vainly repeating the same attitude that put him there, and that made him miserable in the first place.

no not looking to be "saved"

That's too bad. Because it's exactly what you need. I can't see that your Solipsism-Atheism is working for you, and I also think that on your own, you're never getting out of it. So somebody needs to save you, because you're in a death spiral all by yourself. And you're very unhappy.

i just never had your god show himself as existing for me).

I'm going to make a radical suggestion.

Try.

Call upon that God. You don't even need to believe yet. Just call out to Him and say, "IF YOU EXIST, please get me out of this hell-hole I'm living in. Show me that You care for me, and I'll follow You." And don't do it just once. Talk to God every day, for sixty days, and tell Him honestly everything -- what's really going on inside your Solipsistic experience.

And see what He will do.

After all, if He's not there, what could that hurt? But if He is...

If you're afraid that nothing will happen, then after sixty days you can have back your Atheism and despair, but this time with final assurance you could never have gotten out of it anyway.

Yes, you're right. Atheists believe all religions are somewhat bunk, but they only really seem to hate Christians and Jews. I wonder what that should tell us about Atheism...and the truth.

I can't speak toward The Truth, but what i said about this forum being Western (and all the media you view - being Candadian and not say Indian) - your view of "what Athiests are" is via the western lense.

No, that's clearly not true. There is no "lens" through which one has to see, in particular, one negative statement ("There is no God.") It's too simplistic to require any "lens." You've said so yourself...that's all it consists of.

I'm an Athiest, and do not hate your religion

I'm glad. But you're unusual in that, as you say.

yes i am, and thanks for that view of me.

Just giving credit where credit is due.

the sad fact is most Athiests don't know anything about your religion, they are programed to hate it instead.

That is also true. Though Atheists generally don't seem to think it's "sad" at all.

You will not find many Atheists who say, "I deny that God exists, but other transcendent/ metaphysical entities may exist." Because the minute they admit that transcendent or metaphysical entities could exist, they've made silly their own basic claim that God does not exist. Why arbitrarily exclude only one metaphysical entity, and believe in all the others? It doesn't make any sense anymore.

ok, i will grant you this, what you say is true.

See? I'm not so slow about this stuff as you might think at first.

The statement, "I do not personally know (or "I lack") any evidence of God" is not a reason for anyone to say "God does not exist."

thats all i have to go by in this realm.

Well, that's because of Solipsism. That's not because there's actually nothing else to go by. It's just that when you insist everything's "in mind," you can't find any other "realm" to consider.

I do not "know there is not God/s", but prefer to label myself as Atheist over the wishy washy "agonostics".
even though technically i am the latter.

I'm not sure that's a step up.

After all, the Agnostics are at least honest, which is good. To act as if one KNOWS there's no God, when one has no sufficient basis for such knowledge, may be less "wishy-washy," but it's also not honest.

But thanks for your honesty in pointing out that you're really agnostic, rather than genuinely Atheist.

your point is bullshit, there is no link, as i stated i am an athiest and at the same time not a materialist.
Yes, I see. But those two beliefs contradict one another.

no they dont!

Atheism by defintion is a denial of any gods existing!! nothing more.

and as for me, as a Solipsist, by defintion that make my a "spirtualist"!!!!

If "the spiritual" exists, then you would have lost any basis to make the claim "God does not exist," which is Atheism's claim. But now that I understand you're really an agnostic at heart, it makes more sense.

from my perspective it is equally likely that i made both you and your god, and i'm now just talking to myself/arguing with myself - playing some weird game of multiple personalities with myself.

I get that.

But that suspicion must also leave you feeling pretty lonely.

fuck ya it does, it realy does, and thanks for understanding what i an saying above.

I'm actually very sympathetic to your situation. And I have had many experiences with "spectrum" people, and with the depressed. I do have some idea of how awful that all is.

I haven't seen Atheism help anybody with that. More often, the Atheism is just a confirmation of anger and bitterness, not something helpful.

If everything in the world is just your own mind playing tricks on your own mind, then the possibility of having any real friends, or anyone to really talk to, is gone.

yep, you never really know if they are a person like you with a mind/heart, or just a mirror of yourself.

Well, you're exercising some faith with me. After all, we've been talking to each other for quite a while now. If I'm just some shadow in the mirror, then that would be rather odd, wouldn't it.

The thing about mirror reflections, though, is they always give back to you exactly what you put out to them, but in reverse. Nothing original. Nothing really unexpected. Nothing new.

Have I given you anything new?

And I wonder: isn't Solipsism a pretty natural thing to feel, if you've spent your life "cut off" from people because they didn't understand you? And maybe they called you a "weirdo," or a "nerd" and kicked you around? Maybe you felt all your life that you were rejected, friendless, pushed to the margins and treated like a leper.

But you'll notice I haven't done that to you, have I? I've respected your differences, and even approved of them. And I don't dislike you...you know that, right? I get where you're coming from. And it's fine with me.

I'm dyslexic, you can tell from my poor spelling (you should look up that now 3 yr old thread under "language" where i thought out how to make english phonetic.) - you never made fun of me, so you are not a dick, but instead a nice guy, and i call you a friend.

Likewise.

you should look the thread up though, it solves all spelling problems and does make english 100 percent phonetic (fonetic).

I know phonetics. And learning disorders.

but that happens to lots of people "on the Spectrum" from ADD to Autism.

yep. the weird thing is with me in can be social, and am quite good at it, but i do not enjoy it, and it seems like work and drains me.

I get that. It's because you have to make conscious choices about social niceties that others do automatically. It's exhausting.

Society is still only now figuring out what that is all about. And if you had had a bad time with such things, I would think Solipsism would become much more attractive. After all, to be inside one's own mind would seem to be the only safe place, then. That makes sense.

don't pychonanalize me, i'm an introvert, not an autistic.

Well, particularly with dyslexia and other such conditions, it's not unusual for somebody to be on "the spectrum." (n.b. "the spectrum" ranges all the way from mild conditions like ADD to extreme Autism). And being on "the spectrum" is hard and painful.

i smell condescension/placation and you are better than that Sir.

You should fix that nose. I have nothing but sympathy.

yes it is - i burn forever

Well, if that is the answer you want, I guess...but it's not at all necessary.

Do you really want that answer?

that's your Saul's answer, not mine.

Actually, it was Jesus' answer, and also John's. But neither said you had to be condemned. In fact, both insisted you DON'T.

your saul denies that Faith without Works is dead, and claims the opposite, that Fatih without works is everlasting life in Heaven forever,

Paul does not say works are not good. He certainly says you should do them. He says good works don't save. That's quite different.

But then, so did Jesus. He said that everyone who does not repent will perish (Luke 13:3, 5). And "repent," when you translate it, is "metanoia," meaning, "change your mind, and then change your action."

In that sense, there's something for a Solipsist in that. Jesus is saying, "Changing your mind matters most." And the Solipsist already thinks there's nothing but the mind to change, so you'd have to agree with Him on that.

[gaffo]

but your Paulist Religion (not the Judaic chistianity of Jude/James - they both lost the war of Christianity, so Saul rules your religion) - and so via original sin, man is a worm, and has no good nature to do good.

I don't agree. You will not find the expression "man is a worm" in Paul's writings, or in the words of Christ, either. In fact, you will find that the OT says that a "worm" is one of the things man is NOT.

Rather, mankind was made "in the image of God," capable of choice. People can indeed choose good..and sometimes they do. But the problem is that they also sometimes choose evil, and that's bad.

Some people think, therefore, that it's a question of weighing off the good and the bad. But it's not. For there are many cases where a little bit of evil destroys the good of the whole. Consider a delicious meal, but there is somewhere in it some cyanide. Would you eat it? Or consider a pane of glass; it if it has a little hole in it, is it good glass or faulty glass?

Just so, when men do a little evil, they taint their whole character. Considered individually, their deeds are both good and bad; but considered as total expressions of who they really are, the presence of evil means that they are sinners.

must have Jesus to be saved - just believe, that all you need!!!! - to be saved.

Well, you have that right. But you could know that from both Judaism and Christianity. The wages of sin is death. And without a sacrifice, there is no forgiveness of sins. What do you suppose the Temple in Jerusalem was all about?

James/Jude..........who? never heard of them.

They wrote two books of the New Testament. Have you not read it? Why not? I read both Torah and NT, and, for that matter, the entire Koran. Why not find out what the book says?

Solipism is a bleak as Athiesm, i am the former via logic - and if you actually understood it, you would be forced to affirm it via empircism.

Yes it is, yes I understand it, and no, I am not "forced to" affirm it at all, "via logic" or any other way. But especially not "via logic" or "via empiricism."

per the latter Athiesm, not so, i cannot via logic empiricism prove your god does not exist (I just do not see him proving he does to me)

That's your Solipsism speaking. So long as you believe you are the only mind that counts, what will happen is that you won't be able to consider any possibility there's anyone "out there" who genuinely knows something you don't.

But if you start to believe that, then you also have to believe it's impossible for you, yourself, to learn anything new. How could you, since only your own mind exists, and anything it throws up to you is as "real" as anything gets? You would not have any basis to disbelieve anything at all, or to know what to believe, so you couldn't learn anything.

Do you really believe that, too?

yes i may be talking to myself - you cannot prove otherwise

That is true. I could be a bot or a delusion. I cannot prove otherwise.

And yet, it's still untrue.

So you've fooled yourself about that. I can tell, from where I sit and type. I am here, and the fact that you don't know how to prove I am does not, even for a second, change the fact that I am.

And if I'm telling the truth about that, then your Solipsism is leading you wrong.

i like talking to myself and am my best friend (makes my life easier - to love myself and become my best friend even after being a loser vs what might have been - and vs being my own self enemy (self destruction - or via transurance - killing other but too cowardly/ignorant to take myself out instead - and spare the death count via criminals).

I get that. But it's a product of Autism, not truth.

It is much easier for a person who finds the world hurtful and alienating to retreat into himself. I get it.

But it's also the worst thing for him.

if there is a "next realm" GREAT!!!!!!!!!!

but Solipsism does not affirm it, nor Atheism.

On the contrary: Solipsism suggests it's impossible, since everything only consists in the mind. Any "next realm" would be only imaginary. And Atheism denies that it is even possible, because Atheism requires Materialism.

...my best friend *who sadly will be dead within a year due to drinking himself to death (for reasons i simply cannot understand and have tried - as you know i drink too, only not to self killing like him (he was not like this the first 34 yrs we are best friends). from the early 80's to today is a Christian (in fact when he learned i was an Athiest - we were both 14 at the time - he had to take some time to think over if i should be his best friend) - the thought it over for 2 weeks and we remained so since 1983.

It sounds like neither you nor your friend are very happy. Doesn't that suggest something's really wrong with how you're both addressing life?

he faith is now weak, not sure why

I have an idea. It may be that his faith was never intellectually sound, not logically mature. The denomination you mention, Pentecostalism, is peculiar for being very devoted to ecstatic, experiential, non-intellectual bursts of emotion. For some Pentecostals, those are the whole substance of their faith. And when their emotions get out of joint, their faith breaks down too.

It's an old story with Pentecostals. And I've known quite a few. There are some more logical, reflective philosophical ones, but for every one of that kind there are many who are more like I describe above. It's a liability of that denomination, in particular.

FYI - TMI, but after my friend Monty died in 98, it fell into the pure black hole of depression for 5 yrs, got so bad that i lost my job (mom's money kept a roof over my head, and too scared to leave my apartment out of depression/sham ).

That sounds really horrible. I'm sorry.

But if life is so sad, and it's working out so badly you need to drink, then is it time for a change? If not, what will happen?

A wise man once said to me, "If things around here don't change, they'll stay the same." That's clever. Because if you don't change anything in your own life, you can only expect more of what you already experience. And it seems to me you're saying you're not happy now.

Why not do something about that? What have you got to loose?

I have not disparaged Atheists.

I do disparage Atheism.

Because those are not the same things at all. An "Atheist" is a person; but "Atheism" is just a bad belief system.

I know you are a good man, so you do not, but in general folks disparage Atheists for thier Athiesm.

I haven't found that very many do. Today, Atheists are one quite regular type in the West. Nobody says anything about them at all.

And a good person can believe bad things sometimes.

ones chracter is ten orders of mag under (more core) what they beleive (irrelevent IMOI).

Yes. That's what I was saying earlier about sin. It's a more important fact that people are sinful characters than it is how many particular sins they have done. Sinful characters have no relationship with God, you see. God has no partnership with sin.

Atheism is a very bad thing, even if a very nice, pleasant Atheist, like yourself, happens to believe it.

I agree, Atheism offer nothing.
not sure why you thought i would dissagree - you've seen my posts here for the last 3 yrs here.

I can tell you why. I can't understand why somebody who is clearly unhappy -- so unhappy he's drinking, and so unhappy he's retreated emotionally into himself to get away from the pain in the world -- would keep vainly repeating the same attitude that put him there, and that made him miserable in the first place.

no not looking to be "saved"

That's too bad. Because it's exactly what you need. I can't see that your Solipsism-Atheism is working for you, and I also think that on your own, you're never getting out of it. So somebody needs to save you, because you're in a death spiral all by yourself. And you're very unhappy.

i just never had your god show himself as existing for me).

I'm going to make a radical suggestion.

Try.

Call upon that God. You don't even need to believe yet. Just call out to Him and say, "IF YOU EXIST, please get me out of this hell-hole I'm living in. Show me that You care for me, and I'll follow You." And don't do it just once. Talk to God every day, for sixty days, and tell Him honestly everything -- what's really going on inside your Solipsistic experience.

And see what He will do.

After all, if He's not there, what could that hurt? But if He is...

If you're afraid that nothing will happen, then after sixty days you can have back your Atheism and despair, but this time with final assurance you could never have gotten out of it anyway.

Yes, you're right. Atheists believe all religions are somewhat bunk, but they only really seem to hate Christians and Jews. I wonder what that should tell us about Atheism...and the truth.

I can't speak toward The Truth, but what i said about this forum being Western (and all the media you view - being Candadian and not say Indian) - your view of "what Athiests are" is via the western lense.

No, that's clearly not true. There is no "lens" through which one has to see, in particular, one negative statement ("There is no God.") It's too simplistic to require any "lens." You've said so yourself...that's all it consists of.

I'm glad. But you're unusual in that, as you say.

yes i am, and thanks for that view of me.

Just giving credit where credit is due.

the sad fact is most Athiests don't know anything about your religion, they are programed to hate it instead.

That is also true. Though Atheists generally don't seem to think it's "sad" at all.

You will not find many Atheists who say, "I deny that God exists, but other transcendent/ metaphysical entities may exist." Because the minute they admit that transcendent or metaphysical entities could exist, they've made silly their own basic claim that God does not exist. Why arbitrarily exclude only one metaphysical entity, and believe in all the others? It doesn't make any sense anymore.

ok, i will grant you this, what you say is true.

See? I'm not so slow about this stuff as you might think at first.

The statement, "I do not personally know (or "I lack") any evidence of God" is not a reason for anyone to say "God does not exist."

thats all i have to go by in this realm.

Well, that's because of Solipsism. That's not because there's actually nothing else to go by. It's just that when you insist everything's "in mind," you can't find any other "realm" to consider.

I do not "know there is not God/s", but prefer to label myself as Atheist over the wishy washy "agonostics".
even though technically i am the latter.

I'm not sure that's a step up.

After all, the Agnostics are at least honest, which is good. To act as if one KNOWS there's no God, when one has no sufficient basis for such knowledge, may be less "wishy-washy," but it's also not honest.

But thanks for your honesty in pointing out that you're really agnostic, rather than genuinely Atheist.

your point is bullshit, there is no link, as i stated i am an athiest and at the same time not a materialist.
Yes, I see. But those two beliefs contradict one another.

no they dont!

Atheism by defintion is a denial of any gods existing!! nothing more.

and as for me, as a Solipsist, by defintion that make my a "spirtualist"!!!!

If "the spiritual" exists, then you would have lost any basis to make the claim "God does not exist," which is Atheism's claim. But now that I understand you're really an agnostic at heart, it makes more sense.

from my perspective it is equally likely that i made both you and your god, and i'm now just talking to myself/arguing with myself - playing some weird game of multiple personalities with myself.

I get that.

But that suspicion must also leave you feeling pretty lonely.

fuck ya it does, it realy does, and thanks for understanding what i an saying above.

I'm actually very sympathetic to your situation. And I have had many experiences with "spectrum" people, and with the depressed. I do have some idea of how awful that all is.

I haven't seen Atheism help anybody with that. More often, the Atheism is just a confirmation of anger and bitterness, not something helpful.

If everything in the world is just your own mind playing tricks on your own mind, then the possibility of having any real friends, or anyone to really talk to, is gone.

yep, you never really know if they are a person like you with a mind/heart, or just a mirror of yourself.

Well, you're exercising some faith with me. After all, we've been talking to each other for quite a while now. If I'm just some shadow in the mirror, then that would be rather odd, wouldn't it.

The thing about mirror reflections, though, is they always give back to you exactly what you put out to them, but in reverse. Nothing original. Nothing really unexpected. Nothing new.

Have I given you anything new?

And I wonder: isn't Solipsism a pretty natural thing to feel, if you've spent your life "cut off" from people because they didn't understand you? And maybe they called you a "weirdo," or a "nerd" and kicked you around? Maybe you felt all your life that you were rejected, friendless, pushed to the margins and treated like a leper.

But you'll notice I haven't done that to you, have I? I've respected your differences, and even approved of them. And I don't dislike you...you know that, right? I get where you're coming from. And it's fine with me.

I'm dyslexic, you can tell from my poor spelling (you should look up that now 3 yr old thread under "language" where i thought out how to make english phonetic.) - you never made fun of me, so you are not a dick, but instead a nice guy, and i call you a friend.

Likewise.

you should look the thread up though, it solves all spelling problems and does make english 100 percent phonetic (fonetic).

I know phonetics. And learning disorders.

but that happens to lots of people "on the Spectrum" from ADD to Autism.

yep. the weird thing is with me in can be social, and am quite good at it, but i do not enjoy it, and it seems like work and drains me.

I get that. It's because you have to make conscious choices about social niceties that others do automatically. It's exhausting.

Society is still only now figuring out what that is all about. And if you had had a bad time with such things, I would think Solipsism would become much more attractive. After all, to be inside one's own mind would seem to be the only safe place, then. That makes sense.

don't pychonanalize me, i'm an introvert, not an autistic.

Well, particularly with dyslexia and other such conditions, it's not unusual for somebody to be on "the spectrum." (n.b. "the spectrum" ranges all the way from mild conditions like ADD to extreme Autism). And being on "the spectrum" is hard and painful.

i smell condescension/placation and you are better than that Sir.

You should fix that nose. I have nothing but sympathy.

Well, if that is the answer you want, I guess...but it's not at all necessary.

Do you really want that answer?

that's your Saul's answer, not mine.

Actually, it was Jesus' answer, and also John's. But neither said you had to be condemned. In fact, both insisted you DON'T.

your saul denies that Faith without Works is dead, and claims the opposite, that Fatih without works is everlasting life in Heaven forever,

Paul does not say works are not good. He certainly says you should do them. He says good works don't save. That's quite different.

But then, so did Jesus. He said that everyone who does not repent will perish (Luke 13:3, 5). And "repent," when you translate it, is "metanoia," meaning, "change your mind, and then change your action."

In that sense, there's something for a Solipsist in that. Jesus is saying, "Changing your mind matters most." And the Solipsist already thinks there's nothing but the mind to change, so you'd have to agree with Him on that.

thanks for long reply, but instead of replying it each part, will just make a summary of what i agree with and dissagree with:

1. you have a mind to understand both Atheism/Agnosticism, and Solipsism, so i know i have no need to school you on them - your prior post from last week also showed this.
2. My drunk self killing best friend - the former Pentocostal is emotional, but also intellectual in nature (so per your above post about Pentocostals - he is both (more emotional now a drunk, formerly more logical type thinker)
4. why he is a drunk has nothing to do with his Religion/former Religion - it goes back to something more core to his nature (maybe childhood? - no idea, but not linked to his Faith/former Faith) - seems now to vasilate between affirming your God/Hating him/denying him - depending upon the day (for the last decade or so).
5. ya I'm not happy (we can't expect to be all the time - without the despair one cannot value bliss - life is mixture of both, and an appreciation of both for both extremes are the flovor of life.
6. you are right, i probably should strive for more positive thinking in general, to be happier than i am.
7. i remember true depression - 20 yrs ago - that mem serves to allow me to be thankful i've not been that low since that time, and as a force to strive not to return to that mentality, and so far so good enough. (my buddy is now where i was 20 yrs ago, and only hoe he can crawl out of that same blackhole of depression) - but fear he is farther gone now then i was then, and do not think he will live much longer.
8. Judiasm differs from Saul's Chrstianity in that it is like Jude/James/Marks christianity - it does not view that man must be perfect in order to be saved - only be good enough, go to the temple went you sin, and repent.
9. per Saul 8 is not enough, one must beleive in Christ as your personal Savior in order to not go to hell forever.
10. #8 above is good enough to be saved via Judaism/Judaic christianity/Islam.
11. You say Saul valued good works, but that he did not think that was enough - i agree to the latter - but not the former (can you give a verse from Saul's letters claiming he value good works?)
12. Jesus never said "believe in me to be saved", he said believe in YHWH.
13. IMO from reading what others said of Jesus (since Jesus left no record himself, and may not have been literate - no reason to assume one way or the other - was that he did care about believing in YHWH over Belizibub, but cared moreso about Hypocrisy, and why he hated all hypocrites - from the Sedduchees, the High Priests, the money changers in the 2nd Temple, to the "beleiver" that shouts on the street corner for is own ego. and instead valued the self-honest and humble, including heathens of that mindset. Jesus would tell Ghandi "you are a good and humble man, and Heaven awaits you" - knowing he did not worship the same god (IMO - had the two men met, and via my understanding of the mentality/values of your Christ)

thanks for reply Sir. i agreed with 2/3'rds of it.

still loathe Saul the shyster, who took over and ruined your Religion.

oh well. Saul was a smart bastard, his results show that much.

[gaffo]

If you read all the terms within the Muslim's contract in the Quran, ijtihad [independent reasoning] is not permitted at all other than the literal compliance with whatever is in the Quran. This is why the issue of ijtihad is contentious.
Those who want to get into ijtihad has to proved that it is approved by Allah within the terms of the Muslims contract, but there are no such provisions for independent thinking.

There is also no room for liberalism, progressivism and anything else except for whatever is provided within the terms of the contract the Muslims had signed with Allah which is confined within the 6236 verses of the Quran.

so to clarify, Sufis do not exist.

nor do Reformed Jews, nor Roman Catholics, Southern Baptists, Lutherans, or Methodists.

---------

the only ones that exist are:

Wahabists, Salifists, Orthdox Jews, Independant Baptists, and Pentocostals.

---------

thanks for educating me on the 1/2 of the Earth population that do not exist as Muslims/Jews/Catholic - mainline protestant Christians.

i never knew.

now i do thanks!

[Veritas Aequitas]

If you read all the terms within the Muslim's contract in the Quran, ijtihad [independent reasoning] is not permitted at all other than the literal compliance with whatever is in the Quran. This is why the issue of ijtihad is contentious.
Those who want to get into ijtihad has to proved that it is approved by Allah within the terms of the Muslims contract, but there are no such provisions for independent thinking.

There is also no room for liberalism, progressivism and anything else except for whatever is provided within the terms of the contract the Muslims had signed with Allah which is confined within the 6236 verses of the Quran.

so to clarify, Sufis do not exist.

nor do Reformed Jews, nor Roman Catholics, Southern Baptists, Lutherans, or Methodists.

---------

the only ones that exist are:

Wahabists, Salifists, Orthdox Jews, Independant Baptists, and Pentocostals.

---------

thanks for educating me on the 1/2 of the Earth population that do not exist as Muslims/Jews/Catholic - mainline protestant Christians.

i never knew.

now i do thanks!

I did not state the above.

One is a believer as long as one has entered into a contract/covenant with God of the specific religion to comply with the terms of the contract.
The terms of the contract comprised obligatory ones and those that are allowed to vary.

It is the same with the contract/covenant that other religionists 'sign' with their God.

In Islam and the Quran there are unforgivable and forgivable sins.
Sufis are still Muslims as long as they had not committed unforgivable sins and contravened the obligatory terms of the contract Muslims had entered with Allah.
Sufis [still Muslims as contracted] by their traditions commit certain forgivable sins and they will be punished accordingly before they are sent to heaven with lesser rewards. [maybe only 1 virgin or none instead of 72 virgins].

I believe in Christianity, all sins are forgivable?? until one renounced [terminate the contract] the religion.

[gaffo]

If you read all the terms within the Muslim's contract in the Quran, ijtihad [independent reasoning] is not permitted at all other than the literal compliance with whatever is in the Quran. This is why the issue of ijtihad is contentious.
Those who want to get into ijtihad has to proved that it is approved by Allah within the terms of the Muslims contract, but there are no such provisions for independent thinking.

There is also no room for liberalism, progressivism and anything else except for whatever is provided within the terms of the contract the Muslims had signed with Allah which is confined within the 6236 verses of the Quran.

so to clarify, Sufis do not exist.

nor do Reformed Jews, nor Roman Catholics, Southern Baptists, Lutherans, or Methodists.

---------

the only ones that exist are:

Wahabists, Salifists, Orthdox Jews, Independant Baptists, and Pentocostals.

---------

thanks for educating me on the 1/2 of the Earth population that do not exist as Muslims/Jews/Catholic - mainline protestant Christians.

i never knew.

now i do thanks!

I did not state the above.

One is a believer as long as one has entered into a contract/covenant with God of the specific religion to comply with the terms of the contract.
The terms of the contract comprised obligatory ones and those that are allowed to vary.

It is the same with the contract/covenant that other religionists 'sign' with their God.

In Islam and the Quran there are unforgivable and forgivable sins.
Sufis are still Muslims as long as they had not committed unforgivable sins and contravened the obligatory terms of the contract Muslims had entered with Allah.
Sufis [still Muslims as contracted] by their traditions commit certain forgivable sins and they will be punished accordingly before they are sent to heaven with lesser rewards. [maybe only 1 virgin or none instead of 72 virgins].

I believe in Christianity, all sins are forgivable?? until one renounced [terminate the contract] the religion.

did not your Saul claim that there was one unforgivable sin? denying the Holy Spirit. whatever that means.