One God as Omnipresent

[Qu'otar]

OK. I presume we can also say in a way that does not offend a Christian?

OK

Yes, absolutely. Things I said in the ME were as follows, that I got 30-50% agreement on, by some very educated Muslims as well:

1. Allaah is consciousness (there are two ways to say this, implicitly and explicitly, in Arabic. I choose the explicit, as the implicit was understood to mean "God is with consciousness")
2. Allaah is in each of us (again explicit)
3. We are each Allaah, potentially (again explicitly)
4. Jesus is Allaah.
5. Allaah is NOT Jesus
6. We, our collective consciousness, is Allaah.
7. We are Allaah.
8. truth-consciousness-bliss / satchitananda / makhsuf moukhy yaba

4 and 5 are tricky. It is a meta problem where Jesus can be Allaah, not potentially, but Allaah is more than Jesus. This matches what is said in the Qu'ran, I believe.

The result is another spiritual principle, the Principle of the Part is the Whole, but the Whole is NOT the Part, to be added to the three additional principles I added to the Kybalion (I bold the original 7 principles):

1. The Principle of Love
2. The Principle of Mentalism
3. The Principle of Correspondence
4. The Principle of Polarity
5. The Principle of Vibration
6. The Principle of Rhythm
7. The Principle of Cause and Effect
8. The Principle of Gender
9. The Principle of All is None
10. The Principle of Giving
11. The Principle of the Part is the Whole, but the Whole is NOT the Part

I know. We're accused of either polytheism or tritheism. But it is not the case, the doctrine is quite clear on that.

So we could add to the first list:

1. Allaah is consciousness (there are two ways to say this, implicitly and explicitly, in Arabic. I choose the explicit, as the implicit was understood to mean "God is with consciousness")
2. Allaah is in each of us (again explicit)
3. We are each Allaah, potentially (again explicitly)
4. Jesus is Allaah.
5. Allaah is NOT Jesus
6. The Holy Spirit is Allaah.
7. The Father is Allah.
8. We, our collective consciousness, is Allaah.
9. We are Allaah.
10. truth-consciousness-bliss / satchitananda / makhsuf moukhy yaba

I would like to understand more of this doctrine. I ordered the book on Christianity and the Doctrine of Non-Dualism and I look forward to reading it.

I think if we're going to have a meaningful discussion, then one's views have to be shaped by scholarship, and not populist opinion. What many think of Islam today is not the view I hold of that Tradition, but I must admit that's founded more on informed discussions on comparative religion than on what the media or the man in the street thinks.

Agreed, but my objective is to provide messages that relate to those of populist opinion, in both Islam and Christianity. The reactions of message boards for both Christians and Muslims defy this, to my chagrin. This is why I am very enthused to find this board and your participation with me.

Do you agree that the populist opinion in many protestant circles are that Jesus is the Savior and that there is not much mention of God or the Father? It is like they forget that Christ is to show them the way to the Father and that there is no effort required on their part aside from belief? Quite the contrary, in my experience!

I found this for myself, even though I had a Catholic education! It's implicit in Scripture, and it was axiomatic for the Early Church. It's one of those things that later denominations lost sight of.

I did invite Christ after being infilled with the Spirit. My message to others is to invite Christ and Mary first, and then "talk" to Mary, which has led many to experience and be infilled by the Holy Spirit. This is why I see the Holy Spirit as the Mother and have inverted the hierarchy. My experience I have seen in others is that the invitation of Christ has released guilt and anxiety, while the invitation of Mary has infilled them with the Spirit.

 

[Qu'otar]

I would argue otherwise, as that's not what the doctrine says. There is no internal distinction in God. The Trinity is an analogous doctrine based on Revelation, but the more you go into it, the more it unfolds.

The thing is that the Bible is based on Gospels that may have been corrupted and there are missing gospels. So doctrine may be wrong and/or incomplete.

God had to have subdivided himself into creation.

So:
The whole Son and the whole Spirit are wholly and absolutely in the Father;
The whole Father and the whole Spirit are wholly and absolutely in the Son;
The whole Father and the whole Son are wholly and absolutely in the Spirit;

When we talk of relations between the Three Persons of the Trinity the term used is Perichoresis (Gk) or Circuminsession (Lt). An easier term might be 'indwelling'.

Ok and this is what I mean by inverting. One starts with a human self-centered consciousness of id. When one climbs the spiritual consciousness ladder to the Spirit, Son then Father, it starts off externally related then inverts to where it is indwelling (I have been using infilling).

Sorry, but you're wrong on this point. The Church in Corinth was riven by politics at the time, with factions within the community.

What corollaries?

Oh, there's always a spiritual reading — in fact there is a fourfold reading — but then there is always the literal ... that's fundamental to the reality of the Christian Mysteries.

When I said "I do not think so" I meant the literal meaning. Who cares if a community enforces the wearing of the hijab when it comes to spiritual meanings. Does it really make a difference, going to heaven or hell? There is always the result which is absolutely beautiful women in beautiful headscarves.

No question on the politics of Corinth, which is why the Bible must be cryptographically validated by the Qu'ran, along with the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi (as well as the Isha Upanishad and others).

The 4-fold reading? Please explain...

I am interested in the spiritual reading, alongside the Principle of Correspondence. Bump it to the other post you made...

That sounds quite inventive!

It must be so. I am woefully ignorant of things said in the OT about covered heads of women and uncovered heads of men. Are there such? Could you fold into the other thread I will start on 1 Corinthians 11, from your post? Shokran...

 

[Thomas]

The thing is that the Bible is based on Gospels that may have been corrupted and there are missing gospels.

Then you're completely in the dark aren't you? And what's the point of arguing anything from a flawed text as you suppose?

On the other hand, saints and sages of all traditions have spoken of the inexhaustible spiritual luminosity of the text, so I would suggest the Canonical Bible is more than amply sufficient for all man's needs.

God had to have subdivided himself into creation.

I think that's totally illogical.

There is nothing so unalike as God and creation ... so to assume that one is a derivative of the other seems nonsense to me.

Ok and this is what I mean by inverting. One starts with a human self-centered consciousness of id. When one climbs the spiritual consciousness ladder to the Spirit, Son then Father, it starts off externally related then inverts to where it is indwelling (I have been using infilling).

Don't see that at all, sorry. Way too mechanistic for me.

Who cares if ...

Well it's important if you want to distinguish between the real and the imaginary.

... which is why the Bible must be cryptographically validated by the Qu'ran, along with the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi (as well as the Isha Upanishad and others).

Nonsense. Who told you that?

The Bible contains data the other texts can hardly dream of.

The 4-fold reading? Please explain...

The Four Senses of Scripture:
The literal,
the moral
the spiritual
the eschatalogical.

I am interested in the spiritual reading, alongside the Principle of Correspondence.

Steady. The Principle of Correspondence (if we're talking the same thing) is low magic, it's all cosmology stuff. The spiritual content of the sacra doctrina of the world is way, way beyond low magic.

To assume that the sacra doctrina must correspond with each other, or the assumption that they must all say the same thing, is said by those who really don't know the texts.

God bless

Thomas

 

[Qu'otar]

Then you're completely in the dark aren't you? And what's the point of arguing anything from a flawed text as you suppose?

On the other hand, saints and sages of all traditions have spoken of the inexhaustible spiritual luminosity of the text, so I would suggest the Canonical Bible is more than amply sufficient for all man's needs.

It is both flawed and luminous.

I think that's totally illogical.

There is nothing so unalike as God and creation ... so to assume that one is a derivative of the other seems nonsense to me.

Are you saying that creation is outside of God? That some thing exists that is outside of God and did not come from God? You are quite wayward in that case.

Nonsense. Who told you that?

The Bible contains data the other texts can hardly dream of.

I am not saying that the Bible does not contain real truths outside of the Qu'ran, only that the Qu'ran can validate those things, such they do not oppose what is in the Qu'ran. Chief among these things is the way one thinks about the Trinity.

Steady. The Principle of Correspondence (if we're talking the same thing) is low magic, it's all cosmology stuff. The spiritual content of the sacra doctrina of the world is way, way beyond low magic.

To assume that the sacra doctrina must correspond with each other, or the assumption that they must all say the same thing, is said by those who really don't know the texts.

For one who speaks with such implicit authority, you have brought nothing to the discussion but criticism of my ideas. You provide no illumination yourself. I am done.

 

[Thomas]

It is both flawed and luminous.

Are you sure? Or perhaps the flaws are yours? I think, for all that, as a source of insight, inspiration and illumination it stands amongst the greatest texts the world has ever produced. I think this concentration on 'flaws' is naive and nit-picking.

It's like a man dying of thirst refusing a glass of water because there's a thumbprint on the glass.

Are you saying that creation is outside of God? That some thing exists that is outside of God and did not come from God? You are quite wayward in that case.

No.
I'm just not jumping to the 'obvious conclusions'.
Made by God, yes ... made of God, no.
Christianity is not an emanationist tradition.

I am not saying that the Bible does not contain real truths outside of the Qu'ran, only that the Qu'ran can validate those things, such they do not oppose what is in the Qu'ran. Chief among these things is the way one thinks about the Trinity.

Really? Then I think you've made a fundamental metaphysical error.

I think the Bible 'validates' the Qu'ran, as it seems to me the Qu'ran is founded on the Bible. The word of God does not need man to validate it.

For one who speaks with such implicit authority, you have brought nothing to the discussion but criticism of my ideas. You provide no illumination yourself. I am done.

Oh dear. I thought you were here to discuss, when it turns out you're here to tell me what I should believe.

I have offered objections to your ideas, and my reasoning. Not the least being your interpretations of Scripture are unbiblical. I would have thought the adult thing to do would be discuss the objections, and argue from your own reasoning?

It turns out you weren't here to discuss, but to educate me. Well I'm sorry, but I have over 2,000 years of some of the finest minds inside and outside Christianity (and Islam) to draw on, so you will excuse me if I am not in awe of yours.

God bless

Thomas

 

[Qu'otar]

Are you sure? Or perhaps the flaws are yours? I think, for all that, as a source of insight, inspiration and illumination it stands amongst the greatest texts the world has ever produced. I think this concentration on 'flaws' is naive and nit-picking.

It's like a man dying of thirst refusing a glass of water because there's a thumbprint on the glass.

The Council of Rome decreed the contents of the Bible to be 27 books, some 350 years after the the crucifixion. That was a political council. What was wrong? What was left out? Was it only to make the result with 99 books? Or was that the way the government excluded other books?

No.
I'm just not jumping to the 'obvious conclusions'.
Made by God, yes ... made of God, no.
Christianity is not an emanationist tradition.

What could possibly be in existence that is separate from God?

Really? Then I think you've made a fundamental metaphysical error.

I think the Bible 'validates' the Qu'ran, as it seems to me the Qu'ran is founded on the Bible. The word of God does not need man to validate it.

The Qu'ran is a DIRECT recording of REVELATION. The Bible is not.

 

[Thomas]

The Council of Rome decreed the contents of the Bible to be 27 books, some 350 years after the the crucifixion...

Actually the Canon of the Bible was declared at the Council of Trent in 1554.

Before then, there had been agreement about what books constituted the Old and New Testaments. The Reformers, however, wanted to alter the list, so the Church was required to affirm the list that had been the tradition up until that time ... but do not assume the list did not exist before then.

What could possibly be in existence that is separate from God?

Well man, obviously, else we would not need prophets, would we?

The Qu'ran is a DIRECT recording of REVELATION. The Bible is not.

Well if we're going to get partisan about it, the Qu'ran is an indirect revelation, it's the testimony of a prophet who was visited by an angel, with a message from God.

The New Testament is a Direct Revelation of God in and through the Incarnate Son.

As we're moving away from comparative religion to entrenched positions, I suggest we call it a day here.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Qu'otar]

Actually the Canon of the Bible was declared at the Council of Trent in 1554.

Before then, there had been agreement about what books constituted the Old and New Testaments. The Reformers, however, wanted to alter the list, so the Church was required to affirm the list that had been the tradition up until that time ... but do not assume the list did not exist before then.

Nice move to ignore the fact that the Council of Rome restricted what made it into the Bible. Nice move that both councils were political in nature. Where was God, the Son or Gabriel for that matter represented at those councils.

It is politics, dude.

Well man, obviously, else we would not need prophets, would we?

Man is outside of God?

Well if we're going to get partisan about it, the Qu'ran is an indirect revelation, it's the testimony of a prophet who was visited by an angel, with a message from God.

The New Testament is a Direct Revelation of God in and through the Incarnate Son.

Revelation is through Gabriel, always. The key of course is that the Qu'ran was immediately recorded whereas the Biblical scriptures were recorded a century later, after Christ. Lots of room for inaccuracy there. And you still have the Scriptures that were excluded from the Bible.

I do not know who is more resistant to combining Islam and Christianity, the Muslims or the Christians. I think it is the Christians. So dogmatic, whereas Muslims acknowledge Christ. I have no doubt that it was the Christians who started all the animosity between the 2 religions, back in the day.

Who's position is entrenched? Yours.