BUDDHA HAS DEFINITELY NO CONNECTION WITH NON-THEISM, ATHEISM, AGNOSTICISM, SKEPTICISM

Please view Paarsurrey’s comments on the following blog for your valuable opinion:

“NonProphet Status (NPS)”
“KAREN STOLLZNOW INTERVIEW, PART TWO
FEBRUARY 20TH, 2014 | POSTED BY: CHRIS STEDMAN”

http://nonprophetstatus.com/

http://nonprophetstatus.com/2014/02/20/karen-stollznow-interview-part-two/#comment-1265013329

• PAARSURREY • A FEW SECONDS AGO
@KAREN STOLLZNOW
@CHRIS STEDMAN

“NONTHEISM IS ALSO COMPATIBLE WITH BUDDHISM”
MAYBE THE BUDDHISM IN AMERICA HAS SOME CONNECTION WITH NON-THEISM OR ATHEISM/AGNOSTICISM/SKEPTICISM; BUT BUDDHA HAS DEFINITELY NO CONNECTION WITH THEM (NON-THEISM OR ATHEISM/AGNOSTICISM/SKEPTICISM).

PAARSURREY • 12 MINUTES AGO
@KAREN STOLLZNOW:

“THE BEST WAY TO BE SENSITIVE TO THESE RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES IS TO GET TO KNOW THEIR MEMBERS PERSONALLY AND TO SEE THEM AS PEOPLE, NOT AS STEREOTYPES PERPETUATED IN MOVIES, BOOKS AND ONLINE. FOR EACH RELIGION PROFILED I HAD DIRECT CONTACT WITH MEMBERS OF THESE GROUPS. IT WAS ALSO IMPORTANT FOR ME TO WORK WITH EX-MEMBERS OF THESE GROUPS, TO GAIN INSIGHT FROM THOSE WHO ARE NOW OUTSIDERS, AND HAVE A UNIQUE PERSPECTIVE AS FORMER INSIDERS.”

I AM AN AHMADI PEACEFUL MUSLIM. I LIKE THE APPROACH OF KAREN STOLLZNOW. ONE MUST HAVE A PERSONAL CONTACT WITH THE COMMUNITIES TO WHOM ONE WANTS A MEANINGFUL DIALOGUES. I APPRECIATE IT. IT IS ETHICALLY GOOD.

http://nonprophetstatus.com/2014/02/20/karen-stollznow-interview-part-two/#comment-1265013329

“America’s ‘virgin births’? One in 200 mothers ‘became pregnant without having sex’ ”

“America’s ‘virgin births’? One in 200 mothers ‘became pregnant without having sex’ ”

DAILY INDEPENDET WEDNESDAY 22 JANUARY 2014

One may like to read the following:

“In short, they claimed to have conceived – yet had not had vaginal intercourse or in-vitro fertilisation (IVF).”
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/americas-virgin-births-one-in-200-mothers-became-pregnant-without-having-sex-9012360.html

Paarsurrey respects the people of Nation of Islam

I wrote posts on <http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/> under the topic <  Another Man of Allah (God) *after* Muhammad (so says hadith)>; the posts are given below for the viewers of this blog.

#2  #6 #21  #30   #37  #38 #41   #43   #46  #47  #49 #51 #55

(To see the context of a post, please, click the post #; that will take you to the full single view of the post in the forum, and then click the thread topic on the right upper corner, that will take you to the discussion that ensued in the forum.)

Paarsurrey wrote:

#38

Originally Posted by Yahyaa WaahidTo anyone else (besides Assad) reading this, first I am not a member of the Nation of Islam. My religion is Sabianism but I do believe in the Honorable Elijah Muhammad (the leader of the Nation of Islam,) who is represented to the world today by Minister Louis Farrakhan. The Honorable Elijah Muhammad & Minister Farrakhan are men who are very misrepresented in Western society & media; they are flat out LIED on sometimes. If you want to learn more about what the Nation of Islam teaches & believes, they have a website at http://www.noi.org. Here are two suggested links from that site: Brief history on origin of the Nation of Islam The Muslim Program (Wants & Beliefs) Peace. Yahyaa Waahid

Originally posted by Paarsurrey:

Did FARD MUHAMMAD,Elijah Muhammad and or Farrakhan receive any Word of Revelation (Wahee or Ilham) from the one true God. Please quote from each one of them in this connection individually in first person; not what others believe about them.

Thanks

#41

Now that is Farrakhan saying that Elijah Muhammad was a Messenger of Allah and the Christ.

Please quote from Elijah Muhammad where Elijah Muhammad says and quotes Wahee (Word of Revelation) descended on him that he is Messenger of Allah and the Christ, in first person.

#43

You could not quote from him; it seem to be your general impression.

So Elijah Muhammad did not claim to be what you think he was. He never was.

#46

I don’t judge anybody; I leave it to the Master of the Day of Judgement. I respect the people of Nation of Islam.

#47

I will some up the points of my some posts for friend Yahyaa Waahid here.

1. As per the principles of the interpretation of Hadith, Hadith should be interpreted within the ambit of Quran and not outside of it.

2. Nation of Islam people could not point out any verse of Quran under which their leaders claim to be a Messiah or Imam Mahdi. So their claim is just to be taken as a literary messiah, not strictly speaking of a religious Messiah, as sometimes a good doctor could be said to be a messiah by his patients.

They are social leaders of African people living in America; if they have uplifted their people from a low status to higher one and given them self-assurance, to that extent their services should be appreciated, and not out of that.

3. Even Sahih Hadith Muslim mentions that when the Messiah comes he would receive Wahee or Word of Revelation to guide him from the one true God.

4. The Messiah would be a successor of Muhammad and not a Christian; he will follow Quran and its commandments. He will bring no new teachings and will not cancel any teachings of Quran.

5. The Messiah will be a prophet messenger of God and an Ummati of Muhammad, a follower of him; he will be an Ummati Nabee, a follower prophet of Muhammad.

6. Since he will be guided by Wahee by God, hence, another title/name of him will be of Imam Mahdi.

I think the above do not fit on FARD MUHAMMAD,Elijah Muhammad and or Farrakhan, leaders of Nation of Islam.

There being no categorical and specific claim from them having been appointed Messiah or Imam Mahdi by express Wahee or Word of Revelation from the one true God and that is why you could not quote from him; it seem to be your general impression about them which has been found to be incorrect.

So Elijah Muhammad did not claim to be what you think he was. He never was.

I, however, respect the people of Nation of Islam as they say that they are Muslims and they believe in Quran.

#49

Sorry to repeat again; this might be your impression only and it might be shared by his other followers also, that does not make it a proper religious claim; for that many quotations from him in first person be given, please.

There are specific warnings about a false claimant one must be aware of in Bible and Quran.

#51

Originally Posted by Yahyaa WaahidYes Sir…I don’t remember his exact words with 100% recollection but if I remember correctly, during his (The Honorable Elijah Muhammad) Theology of Time Lecture Series, he was discussing Jesus of the Bible and he said words to the effect that those who were teaching American Blacks Christianity wanted Blacks to believe that the Jesus of the Bible (the Messiah) came 2,000 years ago. If he was not discussing that point about Jesus he was discussing something else about him, and all that I remember him saying in reference to Jesus is, “you’re looking at him.” His National Representative Minister Louis Farrakhan could probably quote his exact words if you ever listen to Minister Farrakhan, but if you want to hear the exact quote, you can hear it buy purchasing the Theology of Time Lecture Series which you can do at: HEM CD Messages. Minister Farrakhan, who again is the Honorable Elijah Muhammad’s National Representative declares that the Honorable Elijah Muhammad is the exalted Christ. As-Salaam Alaikum. Bro. Yahyaa

Originally posted by Paarsurrey:

This is an age of writing, if he spoke something; why did he not commit it to writing?

Muhammad perfected religion; hence he was given title of Seal of the Prophets by the one true God

I wrote posts on <http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/> under the topic <  Another Man of Allah (God) *after* Muhammad (so says hadith)>; the posts are given below for the viewers of this blog.

#2  #6 #21  #30   #37  #38 #41   #43   #46  #47  #49 #51 #55

(To see the context of a post, please, click the post #; that will take you to the full single view of the post in the forum, and then click the thread topic on the right upper corner, that will take you to the discussion that ensued in the forum.)

Paarsurrey wrote:

#30

Yahyaa Waahid wrote vide post # 27 :

“You are just quoting hadith that not all Muslims believe in…how can you just impose your beliefs on everyone? The only source that all Muslims believe in, the Holy Qur’an, says that for EVERY nation there is a messenger (Holy Qur’an 10:47.) America is a NEW nation on the earth. It never received a messenger (until the coming of the Honorable Elijah Muhammad.) If America is a new nation, and she deviates from pleasing Allah, will He raise up a messenger for America? According to Surah 10:47, yes He will…”

Paarsurrey responded:

(I did not quote Hadith; as could be seen I quoted Quran)

I think America is as old as any other continent on the planet Earth.

#37

I find it appropriate here that one should enlighten oneself as to how a Hadith is to be interpreted for a useful discussion on the topic.

Principles of interpretation of Hadith

Text of a Hadith

After investigating the chain of narration of a Hadith, the second thing which requires investigation is the text of a Hadith. Although scholars of Hadith have left no stone unturned in investigating the characters and biographies of the narrators and have spent a greater part of their lives in this research, yet like every human endeavour, the natural flaws which still exist in the narration of a Hadith requires that the following two things must always remain in consideration while investigating the text of a Hadith:

1. Nothing in it should be against the Qur’an and Sunnah
2. Nothing in it should be against established facts derived from knowledge and reason

Paarsurrey adds:

With Quran religion was perfected and named Islam by the one true God; Hadith only interprets a verse, if the chain is correct and the meanings derived or conveyed are correct; and that will .

Belief in one God is the original position or the Norm

Please view Paarsurrey’s four posts in the thread “The true religion invites comparison” in the discussion forum < http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/146855-true-religion-invites-comparison-11.html >

Paarsurrey says:

Post #96

Belief in one God is the original position.

Post #102

When they fall from the original position they resort to becoming mythical or superstitious and make many gods or they deny the one true God.

Belief in one God is the norm; it is the middle position or on the middle path.

Post  #104

Man has been created with a purpose of life; to that end God provided guidance through perfect men called messengers prophets; God conversed with them and told them about himself.

God could have different names in different people in their own languages with the same attributes; Allah, Yahweh, Brahma, Isana, Ahura Mazda etc. We find traces of such Converse in almost all regions of the world, even in the aborigines of Australia , America.
This is one true God.

Post  #107

Evolution of humans is with a purpose. When man reached a stage fit to receive express guidance from the one true God; man was bestowed Converse

with the one true God. “Adam” or whatever name of that human being in the language of the people; he was addressed by Him and told of that Being and His attributes.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

One could comment on the forum or here on this blog; my pleasure.

Jesus remained on Earth till his natural death

Bryan Says:

Mormon’s believe that Jesus went to America. Call me skeptical but I think these are instances where other religions want “Jesus” to “rubber stamp” their own beliefs. Why should I believe Jesus went to India rather than to America after his life in Israel?

Paarsurrey says:

I don’t understand your stance.

Simply if Mormons claim that Jesus went to America does not make their claim right. You have to look into the arguments one gives. If there are people who say that Jesus went to other places after the event of crucifixion in which he survived and was delivered in a near dead-position; that proves that Jesus did not ascend to the heavens; he remained on Earth till his natural death.

Mohawk people one of the “First Nations” of Canada/America, the natives, they believe in one Creator

Mohawk
Thayendanegea or Joseph Brant, painted by Gilbert Stuart, 1786
Mohawk are populated in
Canada (Quebec, Ontario),
United States (New York).
Courtesy Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohawk_people

Further to my post: Belief in one God preceded belief in many gods:
https://paarsurrey.wordpress.com/2013/04/03/belief-in-one-god-preceded-belief-in-many-gods/

I have to add that the first nation people or aborigines of Canada/America who live around lake Ontario and also scattered elsewhere in that region. They are sometimes known as Mohawk people. They also have a concept of one Creator God.
If one accesses one of their website @ http://www.turtleisland.org/news/news.htm one finds a sentence “This Is The Day The Creator Has Made” and when one clicks the sentence; one could observe several verses of thanksgiving; one of them reads:

1. “the Trees / Bushes

We will all join together in our minds,
and we give thanks to the Trees as they still do what the Creator asked them,
and the biggest tree is the Maple,
and we give thanks to them.

So our minds will continue to be.”

2. “the Winds

We will all join together in our minds,
and we will give thanks as the blowing winds still do what the Creator is depending upon them to do.

So our minds will continue to be”

3. “the Thunders

We give thanks to the Water bringers (Thunderers) as they still go along doing what the Creator is depending upon them to do.
They are looking after us living here on the earth.

So our minds will continue to be.”

http://www.turtleisland.org/news/news.htm

So, Mohawk believe in Creator very naturally.

Founder of “Unification Church” and his claims to be a Messiah | Reverend Moon | the Moonies

Question and Answer session with Hadhrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad, 5 November 1995

http://www.alislam.org/v/607.html

Please start viewing the video, setting play-head position, for the relevant Q #1 @ 00:00:56 His (Reverend Moon) people claim him to be promised messiah, and he claims to be the second coming, how do you see the Moonie people and what proofs he should bring with him self of being promised Messiah? Its answer ends @ 00:08:51: the answer is only: 7.95 in duration.

Paarsurrey says:

While I heard the video; I wrote down some hint words or syllables for my own use on the subject. Now I want to share them with the viewers of my blog, maybe it is useful for them, so that they could have an idea about the contents of the answer. Please correct me where there is some mistake.

Hint words or syllables:

Moonie people,Reverend Moon, his claims are contradictory, different things have been attributed to Moon, at one time he claims to be a personification of Krishna, at other times he claims to be Jesus, he says Jesus failed to perform his mission, he has come to accomplish that mission, he believes in Muhammad a prophet who came to prepare groundwork for Moon, idea of sin, he says story of Cane and Able is to be repeated, through alliance with America and Korea he is to work against North Korea, it is movement which cannot survive as a religious community for long, he has been in prison in USA, he did not pay millions of dollars in taxes, Jesus was a innocent person, Moon is partly blemished, Moon was to come, he has earned some sort of fame and some sort of notoriety, in Britain more investigation about Moon is being made, maybe his real true image come out, secret information, guilty of a criminal offence.

Note from Paarsurrey: one may like to know more about Reverend Moon and his movement by accessing the following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unification_Church

Galileo’s persecution by the clergy is deplorable

Herein below please view peaceful comments between a friend at the wordpress and me. I publish it as a new post for benefit of others.

Nick T Says:

April 1, 2013 at 10:37 am

http://endoskeptic.com/2013/03/30/astrology-militants-attack-my-blog/

Many thanks for the reblog, very much appreciated and great to know people are enjoying the read. Although, unfortunately, there are many examples throughout history where religious beliefs have directly opposed scientific endeavour; the case of Galileo and the Pope, for example.

But this post wasn’t written to evoke that discussion, but instead ensure that the facts of science are presented in the face of the supernatural belief that the celestial bodies can affect our behaviour; which they can’t!

Thanks again; looking forward to reading some of your writing in the future!

paarsurrey Says:

April 1, 2013 at 12:28 pm

https://paarsurrey.wordpress.com/2013/03/30/3349/

I thank you very much for visiting my blog; also for your comments.

I am of the view that there is no contradiction in Nature- Work of God- that corrects science; and a revealed Religion-Word of God- that depends on the Revelation from the one true creator God.
Coming to your other points:

1. Galileo’s persecution by the Pope was unjust. The pope or his associate clergy do not represent the truthful religion. Jesus, Moses, Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster, Socrates and Muhammad did not oppose any scientific endeavour or persecute any scientist. The above persons were the direct recipients of Revelation.

The acts of the clergy are wrongs done by man against man and it is sinful and deplorable. It is just like the secular rulers who do wrongs sometimes or often.

2. If a human word spoken can effect changes in the world; then I think Word of God could do much.
If for example, words spoken by the Head of State of America can make changes in the world; Word of the creator God could do much more.

Friendly discussion is always welcome.

Thanks again and regards

Christopher Hitchens had poor knowledge of Quran

Hitchens wrote:

Hitchens Book “God is not great”

1. In some cases—most notably the Christian—one revelation is apparently not sufficient, and needs to be reinforced by successive apparitions, with the promise of a further but ultimate one to come. In other cases, the opposite difficulty occurs and the divine instruction is delivered, only once, and for the final time, to an obscure personage whose lightest word then becomes law.—Page-97: Chapter-7: Hitchens Book “God is not great”

2. The syncretic tendencies of monotheism, and the common ancestry of the tales, mean in effect that a rebuttal to one is a rebuttal to all.

Page-98: Chapter-7: Hitchens Book “God is not great”

Paarsurrey comments:

Hitchens knowledge of religion is based on Bible; not on Quran, hence he hides behinds his own words “most notably the Christian” and then makes an unfounded and poor generalization in the second sentence given above.
Hitchens, as is evident, never read Quran intently, hence he did not quote from Quran, not even a single verse to substantiate his viewpoint.

Quran is the first and the foremost source of guidance of all Muslims, whatever their denomination. Had Hitchens been an honest research scholar with some scientific method of research he must have based his criticism of Islam primarily on Quran but that is not the case; he relied on the traditional source called Hadith which never existed in the time of Muhammad. Hadith was collected 200/250 years after Muhammad.

Hence, whatever is written in Hadith; Muhammad/Quran/Islam are not responsible for it. Criticism of Hitchens of Islam/Quran/Muhammad is therefore irrelevant and is of shallow significance.

Those who collected Hadith they had a clear principle in mind that Hadith should accepted if it is not against Quran or in other words, it is not validated by Quran. Due to the time lag after Muhammad, Hadith is engrossed in denominational feuds; hence if at all it quoted it should be done with caution; else it should be rejected. Quran absolutely rules the teachings of Muhammad/Islam and there is no other contestant to it.

If one wants to cut a tree; one should cut it from root or just uproot it from the earth that holds it firmly; if one tears some leaves from a tree and then claims; “lo! I have uprooted the tree” and in evidence he shows the torn leaves, the claim is not worthy of attention.

The skeptics who claim to follow reason should not follow a denominational line just because it suits their philosophy; this would be a biased approach on their part.

The Americans who are in search of God; they should reject this shallow research of Christopher Hitchens, in my opinion.