Net wolf,
consider the implications of your own statement:
Quote:
|
And why does man need to relate to God? Are we going to provide some comfort or empathy to God? This again is a human rationalisation there is not need to relate.
|
"There is
no need to relate" is at minimum just as presumptuous as saying there is a need to relate. Actually it is the Atheist who would most be expected to say there is no need.
Moreover if it is the creator who says it, not man, how is it you say it is presumption on man's part? This is not rational surely, unless you do not admit the possibility that it was actually said in the context of which it was said. Yet, you quote from the Qur'an as though it was given by divine disclosure,(yes, in this very thread) then you should admit such disclosure is not without precedent. Otherwise you must entertain the notion that mankind was left in ignorence for an awefull long time waiting for ad 610 to come along. So why then are you being so presumptuous (your argument line) as to disallow other literature from being given in a similar way? Why the monopoly? Every religion thinks they alone are the holders of truth; in what way do you differ from all the other religions? Atheists think they are right and everone else is crackers, Judaism says no it is not us, we're not crackers it is all the others, Zoroastrians ditto, Jws ditto Mormons ditto etc. etc. Well there are a few non conformists that take the less confontationist approach and say 'Everybody has the truth, it just varies from one to the next'.
(posted under the last part of the thread topic..............'a rant'
)
Doug