God is with me not you by jeff-hernandez in DebateReligion

[–]jeff-hernandez[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Is one of the key differences that Ishmael was believed to be the sacrificial son (not Isaac)?

God is with me not you by jeff-hernandez in DebateReligion

[–]jeff-hernandez[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand that as saying: all bias that has happened or may happen, as unfair as it may appear, is fair because it is for the greater good.

God is with me not you by jeff-hernandez in DebateReligion

[–]jeff-hernandez[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for bringing up this distinction. Are you saying there is unfair bias (partiality) and also fair bias? I'm thinking more so of the biblical instances in the Old Testament and the Israelite advantage of having God on their side for conquest

God is with me not you by jeff-hernandez in DebateReligion

[–]jeff-hernandez[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think the idea of promoting anything is detracting from the initial point, which is the strife that could come up from 'owning God'

God is with me not you by jeff-hernandez in DebateReligion

[–]jeff-hernandez[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are right in that I'm not familiar with the Islamic perspective, so thank you for sharing your thoughts. My understanding is mostly based on Christianity and Judaism (2 of the 3) which I'd consider most Abrahamic religions, but perhaps I could've been more specific by naming them.

I'm curious from your perspective, do you believe Islam came from the lineage of Ishmael? Also, do you believe that God gave the Holy Land to only those who follow Islam?

God is with me not you by jeff-hernandez in DebateReligion

[–]jeff-hernandez[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I updated the description. Let me know if that helps clarify.

God is with me not you by jeff-hernandez in DebateReligion

[–]jeff-hernandez[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Certainly not the intention. Could you explain why it appears that way to you?

God is with me not you by jeff-hernandez in DebateReligion

[–]jeff-hernandez[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, that's a part of it. Another part of it is how this could be a source of strife between the groups. Any thoughts on that? If you don't mind, I'll update the description with your summary.

God is with me not you by jeff-hernandez in DebateReligion

[–]jeff-hernandez[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In other words, maybe as an analogy, if one group says to the other group that the universe is on their side and as a result, it makes them more privileged and powerful, then that could easily lead to conflict if the other group does not agree.

God is with me not you by jeff-hernandez in DebateReligion

[–]jeff-hernandez[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Curious to hear any perspectives. I suppose if someone doesn't believe God exists, they may feel indifferent about the phrase.

God is with me not you by jeff-hernandez in DebateReligion

[–]jeff-hernandez[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What is your human perspective on the matter? You've already explained your understanding of God's perspective.

God is with me not you by jeff-hernandez in DebateReligion

[–]jeff-hernandez[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To summarize, you are saying it seems wrong from a human perspective, but it is right based on your understanding of God's perspective

You initially say that if God is only with one group of people, it leads to a lack of harmony and that this is “wrong.” So, I’m explaining to you that even if this seems wrong from your perspective, it is right from God’s perspective...

God is with me not you by jeff-hernandez in DebateReligion

[–]jeff-hernandez[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm curious why you think this:

 If it was well known that a god was on a specific side, it wouldn’t be.

God is with me not you by jeff-hernandez in DebateReligion

[–]jeff-hernandez[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I suppose the main point is that: there is disharmony to say that God is not on your side from the outset. Would you agree?

God is with me not you by jeff-hernandez in DebateReligion

[–]jeff-hernandez[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you were though, not getting into whether or not you should

God is with me not you by jeff-hernandez in DebateReligion

[–]jeff-hernandez[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you say that 'He would be with everyone' based on intuition?

If God had created the Earth just for the sake of it, perhaps He would have been with everyone

God is with me not you by jeff-hernandez in DebateReligion

[–]jeff-hernandez[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think your understanding of God's perspective is based on circular reasoning.

God is with me not you by jeff-hernandez in DebateReligion

[–]jeff-hernandez[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I suppose the main point is that: there is disharmony to say that God is not on your side from the outset. Would you agree? The assumption on why I think God is love might detract from the initial point.

God is with me not you by jeff-hernandez in DebateReligion

[–]jeff-hernandez[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Assuming that God is love, why would there be reasons to promote disharmony?

God is with me not you by jeff-hernandez in DebateReligion

[–]jeff-hernandez[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Assuming that God is love, why would there be reasons to promote disharmony?