Batam Radio
Sep 14th, 2007, in News, by PatungThe Batam airwaves are often a mix of foreign and religious content.
What is broadcast on the radio stations of Batam island (map) has frequently been raised in the media of late, with specific concerns related to foreign use of Batam airwaves.
Falun Gong
In May of 2007 Chinese embassy officials complained that the station Radio Era Baru 106.5 FM (Xi wang zhi sheng, New Era Radio) was being used by members of the Falun Gong movement to spread criticisms of communism and the Beijing regime. The Indonesian Broadcasting Commission (Komisi Penyiaran Indonesia, KPI) vowed to monitor the station’s broadcasts.
One Hendryanto of the Riau branch of KPI said it appeared Radio Era Baru was done 90% in Chinese language, whereas the law stipulated that foreign languages could only be used on occasion, for the specific purposes of a segment, and, that Law No.32/2002 on broadcasting required stations to be neutral and forbade them from harming Indonesia’s relations with other countries. antara
In June Radio Era Baru, which seems to be connected to the “Epoch Times” group based in the USA, signalled an intention to sue the Chinese embassy. erabaru beritasore The station appears to be still operating as of now.
Mandarin & Nationalism
Later, in early August, the Director General of the National Unity and Politics Department of the Home Affairs ministry, Sudarsono, said in Jakarta that too many radio stations in Batam were using Mandarin in their broadcasts, and he questioned media companies’ commitment to being nationalistic generally.
He also worried that the content of the Chinese language broadcasts often focused on social conflicts that arose locally, that they repeatedly broadcast news of such sensitive and potentially explosive topics. What was worse, foreign news agencies often got involved once the local news spread outwards, and they tended to connect reports of current disturbances in society with past events, such as terrorist bombings, and all in a foreign language.
It has to be asked what kind of ideology do the press adhere to now. It’s all connected to the freedom of the press which they now enjoy.
The image of Indonesia and socio-economic conditions in the country could only suffer if the situation persisted, he said. antara
Religion & Singapore
Then on 13th September our friend Hendriyanto of the Riau province KPI stated that out of the 14 private stations in Batam five were selling air time to Singaporean religious groups, who broadcast sermons and such like in Mandarin or English, aimed at listeners in Singapore.
One hour is sold for 60-100 Singapore dollars….the broadcasts are of a Confucian, Christian, or other nature.
He said the law in Singapore forbade religious programs on radio stations, and that broadcasts in Batam could easily be picked up in Singapore.
Selling air time to foreign groups is humiliating, it’s like we’re selling our territory.
He said the law on such matters needed to be revised, particularly for the time allotted to foreign religious broadcasts, but that they should not be forbidden altogether. antara
71 Comments on “Batam Radio”
-
Hassan says:
Sylvester:
So what’s your take on those natural disasters that kills thousands of people worldwide (I’m not only talking about what happened in our country)? What’s the purpose for God in doing such things according to the teachings of Christianity and Buddhism?
-
Odinius says:
Hassan said:
Or Conclusion C: Because life is a test of one’s faith in Him, then God was merely giving a severe test of faith for the faithful. It was also a warning for those who had strayed from His way that death can reach them in anyway, to remind them to make amends before their turn finally comes. A good reason to keep the faith
The one thing that no essentialist interpretation can account for is the seeming lack of target selection in natural disasters. So since natural disasters, such as the tsunami, affect people of many faiths, then you agree God believes people in more than one flock to be his followers? Because if it’s a test of faith, there would be no reason to send disasters to those who have no chance of passing the test.
If this is the case, it’s just another argument in favor of pluralism and mutual respect…in other words, I like it, but tbh, I still don’t buy it. If disasters target those who have been bad, then everyone who lives near subduction zones, faultlines and huricane paths must have been bad, but not so much those who live far from them. If they target those who must prove their faith, then everyone who lives near subduction zones, faultlines and huricane paths must need to prove that faith more than people who don’t. But if they target no one in particular, and strike based on the basis of geology and meteorology, then it would account for why they seem to affect people more on the basis of where they settle than who they are. 🙂
-
Sylvester says:
Natural disaster can be categorized in two:
1. It is 100% natural. It is how the nature works and we have to live with it, no matter what we have done. For example: earthquake, tsunami, volcanic eruption, tornado.
2. It is partly caused by human. For example flood, drought. Global warming may be one too.Certainly none of them is a god punishment because of human sins. It is more about the consequences for having destroy the nature. So the rule is there already. It is not suddenly god feels that human is bad and decide to eliminate us. In other words, God set the rules of nature, human may play a little but if it is too far, human have to suffer the consequences. That’s simple.
I think moslem just copy what is written in the Old Testament. However, old testament was written according to the perspective of the people 2-3 thousand years ago. It is very wrong to understand it literally. Some parts of the Old Testament are just a fiction. For example, Daniel in the Old Testament did never exist. Also the story of Sodom and Gomorah may also be a fiction. Some fundamentalis Christian may disagree, but this is the thinking of the major groups such as Catholic, Lutheran, and Orthodox. The main thing is that the purpose of the Daniel’s or Sodom story is to let human learn good things from God. It is the way God speak to all the people. Personally God also speak to each of us in private, if you can listen.
Back to the Batam radio topic. I support the freedom of press as long as they are credible and objective. People have the right to know the truth unless it comes to the issue of national security.
-
Odinius:
If disasters target those who have been bad, then everyone who lives near subduction zones, faultlines and huricane paths must have been bad, but not so much those who live far from them. If they target those who must prove their faith, then everyone who lives near subduction zones, faultlines and huricane paths must need to prove that faith more than people who don’t. But if they target no one in particular, and strike based on the basis of geology and meteorology, then it would account for why they seem to affect people more on the basis of where they settle than who they are. 🙂
Ahh, but God’s wisdom is not a ‘flat justice’ sort of thing. He is not like humans, He knows each and everyone of His creations intensely, He knows which ones are faithful and which ones are not. So when natural disasters occur in a certain place, He was testing the faithfuls while warning and punishing those who have strayed simultaneously. He have different intentions for each and individual person.
Why didn’t He pick and choose? Because He wanted to mask His presence and His plans. If, say, He sends disasters only to places where a lot of people have sinned then people all over the world will surely notice that, and will refrain from committing sinful acts ONLY because they fear the next disaster will strike them. If, say, He sends disasters only to non-Christians, or non-Muslims, or non-Buddhists, etc. depending on which religion He favors, then people will flock to embrace that particular religion ONLY because they fear His wrath, not out of sincerity.
While doing such things is convenient for Allah SWT (God), it’s not the aim that He wants, that’s not this test of faith called life is all about. He wants us to find the truth, the right path, and then doing good deeds in life by using REASON, not out of fear of disasters, famines, miracles, etc. If physical persuasion is His intention, He could simply send angels that all humanity can see, and make those angels to tell humans everyday to worship Him and expose to us which religion to follow, then I reckon 100% of humanity will be a relatively devout follower of a particular religion. Again, that is not His plan. He wants us to use reason to ‘find’ Him.
Sylvester:
I think moslem just copy what is written in the Old Testament.
While skeptics will say Islam copied from Judaism, open minded people will say Islam is the continuation of the teachings of the prophets of old and the message they carry. That’s the reason why the teachings are similar, because a continuation changes not what the previous had revealed. Christianity, on the other hand changed a lot (‘merombak’) of the original message from God. Surely, that tells you something.
-
Totally agree on the links between Islam and Judaism. Having studied all three, i see many more fundamental links in belief and practive between Judaism and Islam than between either and Christianity, despite the common Old Testament in J and C. Historically, too, Muslims and Jews have gotten along much better with each other than either has with Christians. Just goes to show the current dislike and distrust is an inherently political and modern phenomenon…
My point here is that your PoV on disasters can’t be understood outside the framework of religious faith. It requires faith. Because of this, you can never demonstrate logically to the non-faithful that this is what happens, rather than natural disasters being forces of, well, nature. So it comes down to personal beliefs and behavior for spiritual reward or punishment in the afterlife. Another argument for religion being personalized rather than publicized 🙂
-
While skeptics will say Islam copied from Judaism, open minded people will say Islam is the continuation of the teachings of the prophets of old and the message they carry. That’s the reason why the teachings are similar, because a continuation changes not what the previous had revealed. Christianity, on the other hand changed a lot (‘merombak’) of the original message from God. Surely, that tells you something.
And why moslem hate jewish/israel? politics?
If moslem think Christianity change the original message from God, it is up to moslem. Speaking about “merombak”, certain passages in the Bible have been interpreted by some Islamic scholars as prophetic references to Muhammad, such as Deuteronomy 18:15-22.
Mention of Parakleitos (English translation commonly “Comforter”) in John 14:16, 15:26, 16:7 and John 18:36 have been taken to be prophetic references to Muhammad. Christian scholars, on the other hand, tend to interpret Parakleitos as the Holy Spirit.
Similarly, the Spirit of truth mentioned in John 16:12-14 has been interpreted as a prophetic reference to Muhammad.
So if is moslem think Christianity is a heresy then why take Bible as a reference to justify Muhammad?
Also, there is evidence from within the hadith that Muhammad had contact with Nestorian Assyrians, most notably, Bahira. Nestorian believes that Jesus exists as two persons, the man Jesus and the divine Son of God, or Logos, rather than as a unified person. However, it seems that Muhammad only believe the manly Jesus. What a modification!
Next,
Since Quran states that the previous scriptures are both extant and reliable then it means the Bible is not corrupted. It is weird if islamic scholars think that the Council of Nicaea (4th century) changed the Bible but the truth is there is no statement in Quran (7th century) says that the Bible (Injeel) has been corrupted even after 300 years. -
Sylvester said:
And why moslem hate jewish/israel? politics?
In a word, yes.
So if is moslem think Christianity is a heresy then why take Bible as a reference to justify Muhammad?
Muslims beleive Jesus was a prophet just not the son of god. They also think both the Torah and Gospel are legitimate messages of God, but that have been misinterpreted and mistaught by the human writers and followers. So the effect is “yeah they follow the right god, just not the right way.” Basically the same thing Christians think about Jews, and sometimes (if they’re learned enough) about Muslims.
Jewish, Christian, Muslim theological disputes are all about who’s got first position at the ear of God
-
Sylvester:
And why moslem hate jewish/israel? politics?
If Odinius’ answer is not sufficient, I’ll say it again: yes. 😀
It is weird if islamic scholars think that the Council of Nicaea (4th century) changed the Bible but the truth is there is no statement in Quran (7th century) says that the Bible (Injeel) has been corrupted even after 300 years.
I’ll answer your question by quoting a source in wikipedia (since I’m rather short on time at the moment):
Islamic scholars, such as Gary Miller, believe that Qur’an criticizes the handling of scripture by some Jews and Christians rather than their holy books. According to Gary Miller, Qur’an only makes the following three accusations:
* “The Quran says some of the Jews and Christians pass over much of what is in their scriptures.”
* “Some of them have changed the words, and this is the one that is misused by Muslims very often giving the impression that once there was a true bible and then somebody hid that one away, then they published a false one. The Quran doesn’t say that. What it criticizes is that people who have the proper words in front of them, but they don’t deliver that up to people. They mistranslate it, or misrepresent it, or they add to the meaning of it. They put a different slant on it.”
* “Some people falsely attribute to God what is really written by men.”
You can find the rest of the article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tahrif
And here’s the Quranic verses regarding the matter for you to consider:
Quran 5:14 “From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the day of judgment. And soon will Allah show them what it is they have done.”
Quran 5:15 “O people of the Book! There hath come to you our Messenger, revealing to you much that ye used to hide in the Book, and passing over much (that is now unnecessary). There hath come to you from Allah a (new) light and a perspicuous Book,”
-
The Christian sects that are considered heresy by Council of Nicaea found a safe haven in Arabs during Muhammad time. That is the main reason until today there are big differences between Islam and Christianity, which will last forever until the judgement day when Jesus comes.
-
Sylvester:
The Christian sects that are considered heresy by Council of Nicaea found a safe haven in Arabs during Muhammad time.
See the problem is the Council of Nicaea, it was not ordained by God but men, and men makes mistakes. Neither Jesus nor God ordered that the religious teachings should be scrutinized by men, leaving men (and not God) to decide which people are heretics and which ones are not. And calling others as heretics (while considering themselves as pious) is the easiest thing to do. What those men considered as heresy might actually be the truth.
Let me remind you that Constantine had other agendas in his mind than merely the purity of the Christian doctrines, when he held the Council. He needed to keep the peace in his empire (and in the long term, to keep his empire intact) in light of the ongoing Christians and Pagans disputes at the time. He wanted to make Christianity as the official religion in his empire, but does not want to upset the Pagan citizens who were still the majority during those days. So he needed a compromise in both religious doctrines (Christianity and Pagan) that both followers can accept in order to declare a unifying official religion in his empire.
Constantine needed a doctrine that is acceptable by and can accommodate both the Christian and Pagan citizens for this purpose (establishing a new official religion in his empire). Clearly he was in favor and supported the trinitarian doctrine more than the unitarian despite there were a lot of priests in the Council who still hold unitarian believe. Why? Because the Pagan polytheists part of the Roman citizens are more familiar with and will more likely to accept doctrines such as god incarnate and son of god, than the believe of an abstract single one true God, given their polytheist background.
That is why my friend, the Christian religious holiday is Sunday. Well, Sunday was also the religious holiday of the previous Pagans when they pay their respect to the Sun God, hence the name SUN day. And December 25th, was it the date of Jesus birthday? I don’t think so.
It was mentioned in: http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/newsletter/2000/dec08.htmlHere’s the excerpt:
The eventual choice of December 25, made perhaps as early as 273, reflects a convergence of Origen’s concern about pagan gods and the church’s identification of God’s son with the celestial sun. December 25 already hosted two other related festivals: natalis solis invicti (the Roman “birth of the unconquered sun”), and the birthday of Mithras, the Iranian “Sun of Righteousness” whose worship was popular with Roman soldiers. The winter solstice, another celebration of the sun, fell just a few days earlier. Seeing that pagans were already exalting deities with some parallels to the true deity, church leaders decided to commandeer the date and introduce a new festival.
Western Christians first celebrated Christmas on December 25 in 336, after Emperor Constantine had declared Christianity the empire’s favored religion.
The pagan origins of the Christmas date, as well as pagan origins for many Christmas customs (gift-giving and merrymaking from Roman Saturnalia; greenery, lights, and charity from the Roman New Year; Yule logs and various foods from Teutonic feasts), have always fueled arguments against the holiday. “It’s just paganism wrapped with a Christian bow”
That is just some examples of the result of the syncretism of the two ‘religions’.
-
Sylvester:
Here’s some more resources from wiki:
In the Nicene Creed adopted at the First Council of Nicaea in 325, wherein the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great got involved, the issue was considered settled and the adoption of Alexander’s view became the orthodox doctrine and all other views were considered heresy and officially suppressed.
It is in this light that the Nicene Creed is seen by nontrinitarians as an essentially political document, resulting from the subordination of true doctrine to State interests by the leaders of Catholic Church, so that the church became, in their view, an extension of the Roman Empire.
In addition, the Nicene Creed was established approximately 300 years after the time of Christ on Earth as a result of conflict within the early Christianity. Nontrinitarians also note that the Bible forewarned the reader to beware the doctrines of men.
Constantine exiled those who refused to accept the Nicean creed Arius himself, the deacon Euzoios, and the Libyan bishops Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais and also the bishops who signed the creed but refused to join in Arius’ condemnation, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea. The Emperor also ordered all copies of the Thalia, the book in which Arius had expressed his teachings, to be burned.
Unitarians trace their history back to the Apostolic Age and claim for their doctrine a prevalence during the ante-Nicene period. Many believe their Christology most closely reflects that of the “original Christians.”
Christians have long contended that the doctrine of the Trinity is a prime example of Christian borrowing from pagan sources. According to this view, a simpler idea of God was lost very early in the history of the Church, through accommodation to pagan ideas, and the “incomprehensible” doctrine of the Trinity took its place. As evidence of this process, a comparison is often drawn between the Trinity and notions of a divine triad, found particularly in Indo-European pagan religions and Hinduism. Hinduism has a triad, i.e., Trimurti.
As far back as Babylonia, the worship of pagan gods grouped in threes, or triads, was common. This influence was also evident in Egypt, Greece, and Rome in the centuries before, during, and after Christ. After the death of the apostles, many nontrinitarians contend that these pagan beliefs began to invade Christianity.
Read more on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism
-
Trinity is Christianity does not mean three Gods. Christianity is monotheism.
Jesus is son of GOD does not mean He is biological son of GOD. The term is used because He is a spirit of GOD, word of GOD. Quran also mentions about it.
However, islam always use this to attack, simply because they do not understand. Also the intention is bad already, no wonder they can not see anything good. -
Sylvester:
Trinity is Christianity does not mean three Gods. Christianity is monotheism.
Jesus is son of GOD does not mean He is biological son of GOD. The term is used because He is a spirit of GOD, word of GOD.Sylvester, I actually understand (basically) what Christians consider as the Trinity. My only question is why must it be only 3 personalities of God, why not 4, or 5, or 10? Because the Bible said so?
About the Bible, did you know that there are no Gospels written in Aramaic (Jesus’ original language), why are all the Synoptic Gospels originally written in Greek? Wouldn’t this fact make their authenticity doubtful?
Also why was it that there was no democracy in the Nicean Council of 325 AD? Out of a thousand participants, two thirds voted against the doctrine of the Trinity. But the Trinity was chosen as the official doctrine anyway.
-
It is 3. Study the Bible with faith, you’ll find 3 personifications of one GOD. In Torah and Bible, you can find a Father, Jesus, Holy Spirit.
Greek was an international language at that time in the Middle East, like English today.
I think Julita has answered most of the question in a different post.Finally, I believe Mohammad once said,” Your religion, my religion.
So as long as it does not harm other religions, every religion has to be respected. However, the problem is many radical moslem want to enforce the belief to non-Moslems. Religion will be corrupted once there is a radicalism within. -
Raden says:
Guys, the orginal topics were Batam Radio, with flavour of anti chinese speaking races in Riau province. You guys like to deflect & always quarrel between Muslim & Christian. What in the hell that God had created 2 versions of religion which never see eye to eye?
Then finally all of us eventually witnessed if non of them are relevant because our existance in the universe because of coincidently happening that way, HUA HA HA, who know 10000000 years later Mars will have human being like us while Earth dissapear slowly because of the global warming? Take it easy lah, don’t be so serious, your life is so short, why fighting each other? -
Raden:
And what will happen after you die, Raden? Did you think you’ll simply rot and then turned to dust? That’s a bleak future, don’t you think? Even bleaker for you if indeed religion is actually relevant. I’m imagining how surprised you’ll be when you are raised from death on Judgment Day. Good luck with your apparent answer, which is probably “but I thought you didn’t exist, God”. HUA HA HA. 😉
I had posted on another thread (“Live-in program” if I’m not mistaken) that today’s scientists had admitted that the possibility that the possibility that lifeforms and the universe was created because of coincidently happening that way is zero, yes it’s statistically impossible.
What if there is such a thing as hell, Raden? Would you risk an eternity of utter and unimaginable suffering in hell for your false convictions?
-
Janma says:
Hassan said; “that today’s scientists had admitted that the possibility that the possibility that lifeforms and the universe was created because of coincidently happening that way is zero, yes it’s statistically impossible.
What if there is such a thing as hell, Raden? Would you risk an eternity of utter and unimaginable suffering in hell for your false convictions?”
Give it a break hassan, what happens if you die and you find out all your convictions are wrong, that there is no hell and it’s just a scare tactic from political religionists, none of us know what will happen, it’s all speculation. and just because some people don’t believe your version of after death doesn’t mean they don’t have their own private speculations as to what will happen, and as to your remark about todays scientists admitting that the way the universe is created is statistically impossible???? Where is your references for that? Did I miss an episode? All the scientists in the world now have accepted god as the be all and end all? When? Who? Please cite your references on this matter. As for me, if I die and go to some heaven full of your ilk and virgins being deflowered by lusty arabs, I for one will be most disappointed and will do anything to escape that fate!
-
Hasan, the answer can be found in the Ebiet G Ade’s tanyakan pada rumput bergoyang or the John Lenon’s imagine, the chords & how the rhythm should be played can be downloaded for free from the net! I will not entertain this non-sense debate about christianity & muslim extremist.
-
Janma:
Give it a break hassan, what happens if you die and you find out all your convictions are wrong, that there is no hell and it’s just a scare tactic from political religionists, none of us know what will happen, it’s all speculation.
Then, I’ll have nothing to worry about since I’ll just rot and turn to dust. And I’ll die happy too, since I know I have lived my life in good manner, meaningful, morally upright, and have kept my religious integrity. Actually lot of people enjoyed to live their lives religiously, it felt more meaningful than the feeling that we are just passing time on this earth and make ends meet, or strive for things that will not have any effects after our death (i.e richness, happy life, career success) and will not have any meaning while we’re entombed on a solitary grave.
But on the other hand, if there is such a thing as hell (because if possibility A doesn’t happen, possibility B will) I just can picture myself facing my Creator to account for my behavior and only have “but I thought you didn’t exist, God” as a defense. That and the fact that I will have to make hell my home for eternity in such a case, is enough reason for me to strive for religious betterment.
To me, religion and the believe in God is a win-win solution. While if I disbelieve God, if that gamble didn’t pay off then I’ll loose big time and have to endure a huge amount of suffering and utter regret in the afterlife.
All the scientists in the world now have accepted god as the be all and end all? When?
No, I’m just saying that today’s scientists (not all of them, especially not in the case of the die-hard anti-Creationists) are starting to acknowledge that there are unsolvable problems with their no-God theory, and that it is statistically improbable that all things are created by random accidents. Which is easily translated into uncertainty on their part. The question is, should we follow such an uncertain doctrine?
As for me, if I die and go to some heaven full of your ilk and virgins being deflowered by lusty arabs, I for one will be most disappointed and will do anything to escape that fate!
Tell me Janma, is it possible that your visualization of paradise is incorrect (and far from the truth, actually)? I think that people that thinks about sex all the time and wants to enter paradise only for the sake of sex will find it difficult to attain it on the first place. And off course we know that in a religious sense, the other alternative than being close to God in the Garden of Eden is an eternity on a burning hell, the worst of abode.
And my ilk? Ah yes, you think that you are much better than me and you know me on a personal basis to be able to tell that I’m a bad person. It’s easy to generalize people, isn’t it?
Raden:
I will not entertain this non-sense debate about christianity & muslim extremist.
Right you are, my extremist atheist friend.
See, that’s how easy to call others with a different belief (and who strive for their belief) as extremists. And if you’re not an extremist because you never made death threats and bomb other people up, then neither do I. 😉
Janma:
Here’s an excerpt of the previous episode, in case you missed it (on the ‘Live in Programs’ thread):
Ilya Prigogine, chemist-physicist, recipient of two Nobel Prizes in chemistry, wrote: “The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero.” That’s right – zero!
The above quotation was taken from:
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/did-life-form-by-accident.htmIf the possibility of living organism generated by accident is zero, then what will be the chance of the entire universe being generated by a set of random accidents? On the contrary to your believe that God is an impossible concept, the science of statistics in fact proved that your ‘no-God’ theory is actually statistically impossible.
We don’t know all of science yet, we don’t have all the answers yet, still looking no?
First, anti-creationists usually use science in their argument to rule out the existence of God, using statements such as: science proved that religion is false, that God don’t exist, etc etc. But when science proved that the chance of living organisms being generated by accident is zero, then you claim that science still have flaws and is incomplete.
For me that’s an act of using double standard. If that’s the case, if science still have weaknesses and is still incomplete, then it shouldn’t be used to rule out the existence God on the first place. If you used contemporary science and scientific methods to rule out God’s existence, then you should use the same standard when assessing the origins of life: contemporary science. Contemporary science had now come to the conclusion that the no-God theory is statistically impossible.
God is a nice neat explanation that has even less evidence to support it.
If the Supreme Being wanted to mask His presence for a particular reason, what chance did we have to find those physical evidence? You said it yourself, science and human knowledge is limited, now if God is unlimited in nature, then how can our limited knowledge grasp His existence? Perhaps we should start searching for non-physical evidence”¦
It’s all too big for us to understand, maybe keep looking.
For how long? Well, we only have a possible mere 70-80 years to “keep looking”. Alzheimer and other degenerative diseases can cut those numbers even shorter.
I am of the opinion that the non-visible Being can only be found by searching for the non-physical evidence, if we were to have a chance of finding the answer within our short lifetime. God is not like humans, if we want to try to find Him we must use a different approach than when we want to try to find a human being. -
Raden:
I will not entertain this non-sense debate about christianity & muslim extremist.
Right you are, my extremist atheist friend.
See, that’s how easy to call others with a different belief (and who strive for their belief) as extremists. And if you’re not an extremist because you never made death threats and bomb other people up, then neither do I. 😉
-
Ok Hassan, point by point…. I understand where you are coming from, thousand and a half years of scare tactics don’t die easy.
You said: “Then, I’ll have nothing to worry about since I’ll just rot and turn to dust.”
It’s not a case of if one doesn’t believe in heaven and hell then the only other alternative is die and turn to dust. there are so many things that could happen. reincarnation, spiritual advancement that has nothing to do with the dogma of religion etc. I have never believed in heaven and hell, but I also don’t think I live once and die and turn to dust either. it’s not so black and white probably.“I’ll die happy too, since I know I have lived my life in good manner, meaningful, morally upright, and have kept my religious integrity.”
And so will I, and I might even get brownie points for not having to follow some religious dogma in order to live in a good and moral manner. I think integrity is possible (even more possible) without religion.“Actually lot of people enjoyed to live their lives religiously, it felt more meaningful than the feeling that we are just passing time on this earth and make ends meet, or strive for things that will not have any effects after our death (i.e richness, happy life, career success) and will not have any meaning while we’re entombed on a solitary grave. ”
Again, you are probably right, for many people they need religion in order to feel their lives are meaningful, but that doesn’t mean everyone does, and if someone doesn’t have a religion, it doesn’t mean that they live their lives just to make ends meet, or that they will be in a solitary grave. This life is temporary, this body is temporary, spirit is eternal. I don’t need religion to believe that.“But on the other hand, if there is such a thing as hell (because if possibility A doesn’t happen, possibility B will)”
Don’t you think you are thinking narrowly just a little bit? Can your mind only conceive of two possiblities? LIke the people of the book,there is only believers and non-believers? I don’t believe that.I just can picture myself facing my Creator to account for my behavior and only have “but I thought you didn’t exist, God” as a defense. That and the fact that I will have to make hell my home for eternity in such a case, is enough reason for me to strive for religious betterment.
What if you never face a creator? What if he’s not a judgemental human type being that judges good and bad in limited human terms? Can’t you think out of the box just a little bit? And if you do face your creator as you put it, what if he says you should have been a seventh day adventist? Or a scientoligist? I’m laughing as I think of that… I really can’t think of a supreme being in such limited terms. All through the Koran it is said that Allah is the most merciful… how does that fit in with an eternity of suffering in hell? Doesn’t sound merciful to me!
“To me, religion and the believe in God is a win-win solution. While if I disbelieve God, if that gamble didn’t pay off then I’ll loose big time and have to endure a huge amount of suffering and utter regret in the afterlife.”
Maybe you are right, maybe not…. maybe God will send you back to learn a more independent spiritual path, that depends on your own integrity, not on scare tactics.“No, I’m just saying that today’s scientists (not all of them, especially not in the case of the die-hard anti-Creationists) are starting to acknowledge that there are unsolvable problems with their no-God theory, and that it is statistically improbable that all things are created by random accidents. Which is easily translated into uncertainty on their part. The question is, should we follow such an uncertain doctrine?”
What makes you think your doctrine is any less uncertain, and I don’t think scientists are trying to disprove God or a creator, they could just be trying to discover his methods. why do religionists feel so insecure faced with science? If there is a personal God then he created science and the way.Tell me Janma, is it possible that your visualization of paradise is incorrect (and far from the truth, actually)? I think that people that thinks about sex all the time and wants to enter paradise only for the sake of sex will find it difficult to attain it on the first place. And off course we know that in a religious sense, the other alternative than being close to God in the Garden of Eden is an eternity on a burning hell, the worst of abode.
yeah….. I’m sure you’re right…….
And my ilk? Ah yes, you think that you are much better than me and you know me on a personal basis to be able to tell that I’m a bad person. It’s easy to generalize people, isn’t it?
No…… I just like using the word ilk. Makes me laugh. not meaning you’re a bad person, just limited.
-
“Ahh, but God’s wisdom is not a ‘flat justice’ sort of thing. He is not like humans, He knows each and everyone of His creations intensely, He knows which ones are faithful and which ones are not. So when natural disasters occur in a certain place, He was testing the faithfuls while warning and punishing those who have strayed simultaneously. He have different intentions for each and individual person.
Why didn’t He pick and choose? Because He wanted to mask His presence and His plans. If, say, He sends disasters only to places where a lot of people have sinned then people all over the world will surely notice that, and will refrain from committing sinful acts ONLY because they fear the next disaster will strike them. If, say, He sends disasters only to non-Christians, or non-Muslims, or non-Buddhists, etc. depending on which religion He favors, then people will flock to embrace that particular religion ONLY because they fear His wrath, not out of sincerity.
While doing such things is convenient for Allah SWT (God), it’s not the aim that He wants, that’s not this test of faith called life is all about. He wants us to find the truth, the right path, and then doing good deeds in life by using REASON, not out of fear of disasters, famines, miracles, etc. If physical persuasion is His intention, He could simply send angels that all humanity can see, and make those angels to tell humans everyday to worship Him and expose to us which religion to follow, then I reckon 100% of humanity will be a relatively devout follower of a particular religion. Again, that is not His plan. He wants us to use reason to ‘find’ Him.”
So Hassan, when did you get to be such an expert on what God is thinking and doing? Sounds like outright speculation to me, and so convoluted as to defy all reason. What about natural disasters that happen where there are no humans? Punishing the Grizzly bears hey? Or testing the icebergs?
Rationality took a holiday on that one! -
Janma, you quote text by clicking the “Quote” button, then copy pasting someone’s words into the middle, like this:
-
oh yeah! so obvious really. didn’t see the wood for the trees!
Janma
*suitably embarrassed* -
Right you are, my extremist atheist friend.
Hasan, it is your right to label me an atheist but I never put my measurement to others like you. If one day I will believe on one religion in order to seek for the God, it is unlikely I will follow your Quran, there are others like Budha, Hindu, Christian which are in higher list of mine. The reason is very simple, you guys are pathetic as seeing others as kafir & haram, beside my face is totally different than Arab, so why should I ? that’s why we label you as extremist.
-
Janma:
Here’s an excerpt of the previous episode, in case you missed it (on the ‘Live in Programs’ thread):
Ilya Prigogine, chemist-physicist, recipient of two Nobel Prizes in chemistry, wrote: “The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero.” That’s right – zero!
You might want to go to the source to mine quotes sir! you snipped that from a pro creationist website as they did clip a single sentence out of context on an extremely complicated theory of the systems of organization in our universe.
Another scientist who studied and wrote papers on the theories of Prigogine wrote:
Note, 17 April 2003: I’ve just discovered a Turkish creationist (and anti-Masonic conspiracy theorist) has linked to this page, and mined my quotations here, to try to make it sound like self-organization is a “myth”, and evolution is thermodynamically impossible. For the record, this is repugnant and I have nothing to do with it. His arguments about evolution and thermodynamics are century-old fallacies. And to go from the failure of Prigogine’s theories to explain self-organization, to claiming that self-organization doesn’t happen, is just (forgive me) bullsh*t. Self-organization can be demonstrated in the lab and in nature to anyone with eyes to see.
No picking and choosing…. keep an open mind sir!
-
I’m definitely not suggesting that science has all the answers, but at least they must provide some kind of basis for their theories that can be used as a reference for their suppositions.
you could read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_formation and at least try to understand how things could come about, or you could accept the wildly simplistic theory that God made the world in 7 days or whatever, by pointing his finger, on the say so of some unknown barely out of the caves dude from 3000 years ago.
I know which is easier for me, but then, I never liked easy. -
Quite frankly, I find it hard to accept the religionist theory that God made man out of clay. These creationist theories are symbolic and written by people who were still primitive and had no concept of science or the universe.
Though I still don’t understand why it’s impossible for matter to organize itself out of chaos according to you, but it’s not impossible that we are really just little clay dolls…..????
Science does not reject God, just because scientists don’t believe the clay story doesn’t mean that they don’t believe that God used thermodynamics and quantum physics to create the universe. -
Janma:
Though I still don’t understand why it’s impossible for matter to organize itself out of chaos according to you
Yes, I still dumbfounded by those who believe that matter can organize itself out of chaos. Even more so considering that those matter can maintain the form that they chose to be in such a perfect and balanced way. I mean look at the universe, are they in a state of chaos?
The universe is well balanced, from the rules of gravity that keeps heavenly bodies at their proper orbits, how light travels at a predetermined speed, how galaxies and solar systems works (the way that the stars and planets rotate and revolve to achieve balance), etc. We should consider that if the earth is just slightly larger in diameter then we can drift out of orbit or have an orbit which is too far or too close to the sun, which can make it inhabitable.
All I see Janma, is a perfect planning, organization, and system that even the smartest of humans will not be able to achieve, and I see it happening throughout the universe. And the anti-creationist are telling us, those atoms and neutrons do those things themselves? If that’s the case then the atoms are smarter than us, aren’t they?
Look at it this way, if the entire universe are created by atoms who combine themselves to make certain matters or things, then who gave them those orders? Who told them that some of them should become organic cells, some should be metal substances and others gaseous forms. The other possibility is that those atoms are very intelligent and are extremely organized to have figured out all those things themselves.
Do they have their own microchip or brain that can think of all that? Then perhaps they are the higher intelligence, obviously more intelligent and organized than humans. I mean look at how we – the supposedly intelligent humans – manage this small planet called earth, miserably poor isn’t it? But those atoms can achieve perfect orderliness and balance effortlessly throughout the vast universe.
There are two possibilities that can cause all that, Janma: 1. There’s a Supreme Being with the ultimate intelligence that had designed, planned, and maintained the perfect system called the universe 2. Or the atoms themselves are highly intelligent to have designed and executed the system, constantly. Which do you believe more? Chaos couldn’t have possibly create in such a perfect harmony.
Science does not reject God, just because scientists don’t believe the clay story doesn’t mean that they don’t believe that God used thermodynamics and quantum physics to create the universe.
Indeed so. Which raises the question, because thermodynamics and quantum physics are such an advanced form of knowledge, and their vast application in the workings of the universe, can that fact go along with the chaos theory or the no-God concept? Again, how did the respective atoms learn to behave according to the quantum physics and thermodynamics theory? Or indeed how can they behave exactly in sync with nature’s codification system called the DNA, for example?
FYI, unlike Christianity, Islam doesn’t consider science to be opposite of religion. We believe all knowledge are from God, if certain aspects seemed contradictive, then the possibilities are: a. We have mistakenly understood universal phenomenons in our scientific theories b. We have mistakenly understood God’s scriptures.
These creationist theories are symbolic and written by people who were still primitive and had no concept of science or the universe.
Actually, I think the wordings are supposed to be: the religious teachings are delivered by God to the people who were still and had no concept of science or the universe.
I can safely say that God knows about everything, even modern science and perhaps even future knowledges. But let’s imagine how the Jews and their Pharisee will react if the Bible talked about quantum physics? Or how would Muhammad (pbuh) will explain to his people if the Qur’an mentioned about the theory of relativity? Those medieval men (and women) are simply not ready! He chose wordings that those people can relate to in His revelations, hence some of His words sounded simplistic and filled with analogies.
Religious scriptures are meant as eye openers (and are not meant as a scientific tutorial book), that encourage humans to see the signs of God’s greatness that we can see throughout the universe, as well as to remember Him and thank Him for all those things. Even the Qur’an’s first verse began with the word “Read!”, an explicit order that we should always learn more of whatever knowledge that is available to us.
PS. I shall try to address your other posts when time permits, as the end of the Ramadhan is always hectic for a Muslim like me. Cheers! 🙂
Comment on “Batam Radio”.
Copyright Indonesia Matters 2006-2025
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact
This is a typical god seen in the book of Torah and al quran. A vengeace god, jealous, cruel. So the reason that moslem obey allah is fear. In Buddhism and Christianty, the God is full of love and compassion, even want to sacrifice for human. So Christian and Buddhis obey the rule because they love to, from deep inside the heart.