A Psalm of David

[donnann]

Every author of Abrahamic texts.

The basic premise they wish to prove and uphold is the oneness of God.

I say this very point is antagonistic.

Union includes everything or if isn't union.

What is the need to destroy every expression when each is saying the same thing?

They have too many stances, which shows they remain mental.

sometimes working backwards leads to union. I believe you should go back to the garden of eden to see how paradise is suppose to be. Sometimes looking back leads to leaps in progression.

 

[SatyamAbhidi]

Only if you're too dumb not to see it's false.
From where I'm standing, I can see your sophistry clear as day.

Likely, yet you take the Bible and Church Fathers as true.

I can tell you it wasn't even their intent to pretend this stuff was real until 300 years after Jesus' death. Most of the earlier texts seem to recognize it is allegory.

Indeed, one of the Church Fathers even said "if we are to understand the word as literal, we have fallen into a grievous blashphemy."

It is intended to teach, not be believed as actual fact.

 

[SatyamAbhidi]

sometimes working backwards leads to union. I believe you should go back to the garden of eden to see how paradise is suppose to be. Sometimes looking back leads to leaps in progression.

If you go far enough in any direction, you are going to meet unity.

Yet, union only happens here.

 

[donnann]

Likely, yet you take the Bible and Church Fathers as true.

I can tell you it wasn't even their intent to pretend this stuff was real until 300 years after Jesus' death. Most of the earlier texts seem to recognize it is allegory.

Indeed, one of the Church Fathers even said "if we are to understand the word as literal, we have fallen into a grievous blashphemy."

It is intended to teach, not be believed as actual fact.

that is because some of the texts are meant to be taken symbolically to represent something literal. a good example is beheading in the Koran. Its meant to really mean the removal of the carnal mind and replacement with the divine mind . It is something symbolic to represent something literal. Those who take it literally are people like the terrorists who have beheaded people. They are actually doing the opposite of what the Koran is telling them to do but because they take it literally it becomes wrong.

 

[SatyamAbhidi]

that is because some of the texts are meant to be taken symbolically to represent something literal. a good example is beheading in the Koran. Its meant to really mean the removal of the carnal mind and replacement with the divine mind . It is something symbolic to represent something literal. Those who take it literally are people like the terrorists who have beheaded people. They are actually doing the opposite of what the Koran is telling them to do but because they take it literally it becomes wrong.

This relates to the other conversation about knowledge.

They know too much, without understanding anything.

 

[donnann]

This relates to the other conversation about knowledge.

They know too much, without understanding anything.

I would say they don't know anything. They have a lack of understanding of their own texts. Well some do there are peaceful muslims.

 

[Thomas]

Every author of Abrahamic texts.

In your opinion.

This may well be your delusion, and I would be a fool to accept it based on nothing more than your say-so ... so again, can you demonstrate your assertion with logical argument?

 

[wil]

I would say they don't know anything. They have a lack of understanding of their own texts. Well some do there are peaceful muslims.

The vast majority of Muslims are peaceful....it is a very small minority that have warped views of the texts and are prone to violence against civilians...

If this were not so...we'd all have been dead already...

 

[SatyamAbhidi]

In your opinion.

This may well be your delusion, and I would be a fool to accept it based on nothing more than your say-so ... so again, can you demonstrate your assertion with logical argument?

I am not saying you should accept my words.

I am suggesting you concentrate on encountering union, living union.

I am suggesting that at best, the authors have known this.

I am saying that studying their words about it doesn't make it a reality for you.

I am adamant about the reality, words are only about.

If you had experienced union, you would recognize my words, you would understand that we are not talking about different things.

Communion could happen between us.

Instead, you are identified wholly with Catholicism.

There is no way to unite with stringent boundaries.

 

[SatyamAbhidi]

Truth is utterly impersonal, it doesn't care what you think is true.

Religion is utterly personal, and is taken as such.

There is no bridge.

The only way is to transcend personality.

Then you are already united.

 

[BigJoeNobody]

This relates to the other conversation about knowledge.

They know too much, without understanding anything.

I say this daily. I'm terrible at memorization, but I can hold a good argument with many of my religious brethren based on what the meaning is. I know men that have memorized the whole Quran, and recite it from memory 3+ times a year that can't formulate the understanding behind it. <<< different discussion for another day...

that is because some of the texts are meant to be taken symbolically to represent something literal. a good example is beheading in the Koran. Its meant to really mean the removal of the carnal mind and replacement with the divine mind . It is something symbolic to represent something literal. Those who take it literally are people like the terrorists who have beheaded people. They are actually doing the opposite of what the Koran is telling them to do but because they take it literally it becomes wrong.

I had to look up in an anti Islam site to find the verse you are referring to about beheading. And as nice as it sounds in your description, it is not right. (assuming you are referring to 8:12)

[Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, "I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip."

(or 47:4)

So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favor afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens. That [is the command]. And if Allah had willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them [Himself], but [He ordered armed struggle] to test some of you by means of others. And those who are killed in the cause of Allah - never will He waste their deeds.

They are both talking of wartime. A real world issue. The first is a reflection as a remembrance of the past and the help Allah gave during a battle. The second is one of a few verses showing that in battle killing your enemy is permitted and to keep fighting until the other side gives up or there are none left. and if they give up, offer them to pay a reasonable amount for freedom, or hold them until the conflict is over. While this is one of the verses used by terrorists incorrectly, it is not referring to anything symbolic either. Much of the Quran is not symbolic. Which is why most Muslims spend so much time making sure we understand the Quran as a whole, and not piece-milled as the opponents of Islam tend to. That's one of the reasons discussing topics on Islam is difficult. You need to know a lot of it to understand the reason for certain parts of it.

 

[donnann]

I say this daily. I'm terrible at memorization, but I can hold a good argument with many of my religious brethren based on what the meaning is. I know men that have memorized the whole Quran, and recite it from memory 3+ times a year that can't formulate the understanding behind it. <<< different discussion for another day...


I had to look up in an anti Islam site to find the verse you are referring to about beheading. And as nice as it sounds in your description, it is not right. (assuming you are referring to 8:12) (or 47:4) They are both talking of wartime. A real world issue. The first is a reflection as a remembrance of the past and the help Allah gave during a battle. The second is one of a few verses showing that in battle killing your enemy is permitted and to keep fighting until the other side gives up or there are none left. and if they give up, offer them to pay a reasonable amount for freedom, or hold them until the conflict is over. While this is one of the verses used by terrorists incorrectly, it is not referring to anything symbolic either. Much of the Quran is not symbolic. Which is why most Muslims spend so much time making sure we understand the Quran as a whole, and not piece-milled as the opponents of Islam tend to. That's one of the reasons discussing topics on Islam is difficult. You need to know a lot of it to understand the reason for certain parts of it.

In gods eyes a death is the death of sin not the sinner. The battle is saving the person by metaphysical means as well as psychological. My point about beheading is that scripture is usually misinterpreted and taken literally when its meant to be symbolic to represent something literal of a heavenly nature. And yes I am referring to that scripture. You can do the same thing with the bible. If you take things literally you come out with the opposing meaning. What I mean to say is we are talking about the kingdom of heaven and should not associate the scriptures with what it means in this world. You have to think with a divine mind because after all they are the HOLY scriptures not the Unholy scriptures.

 

[BigJoeNobody]

In gods eyes a death is the death of sin not the sinner. The battle is saving the person by metaphysical means as well as psychological. My point about beheading is that scripture is usually misinterpreted and taken literally when its meant to be symbolic to represent something literal of a heavenly nature. And yes I am referring to that scripture. You can do the same thing with the bible. If you take things literally you come out with the opposing meaning. What I mean to say is we are talking about the kingdom of heaven and should not associate the scriptures with what it means in this world. You have to think with a divine mind because after all they are the HOLY scriptures not the Unholy scriptures.

Islamic Doctrine says they are Gods word for mankind (and jinnkind but either way). There are points where an alternative meaning is meant, but the literal meaning must also make sense, otherwise you have to assume God is trying to trick people into thinking something incorrectly. Not something I would think many would attribute to God. Let's say you are right that the Holy meaning of the ones I quoted are what you said. And literally true the way I said. Does that mean either of us are wrong? Or does it mean that the "truth" is both? I seem to side more with the mindset that first you must understand the literal, but once you understand that then the "Holy minded" definitions should be thought upon and reflected upon the literal. If they contradict ideals, there is a problem. I follow the book I do because literally I cannot disagree with anything I read. And have found no reason to think that it is just another cleverly written "Prophet's Book" like the OT books or the Apostles/Disciples books of the NT. Do I discount your interpretation completely, no, but I do reserve it as opinion as that is all we can hope for as trying to think in a "holy" way is impossible as our minds are earthly.

 

[SatyamAbhidi]

Islamic Doctrine says they are Gods word for mankind (and jinnkind but either way). There are points where an alternative meaning is meant, but the literal meaning must also make sense, otherwise you have to assume God is trying to trick people into thinking something incorrectly. Not something I would think many would attribute to God. Let's say you are right that the Holy meaning of the ones I quoted are what you said. And literally true the way I said. Does that mean either of us are wrong? Or does it mean that the "truth" is both? I seem to side more with the mindset that first you must understand the literal, but once you understand that then the "Holy minded" definitions should be thought upon and reflected upon the literal. If they contradict ideals, there is a problem. I follow the book I do because literally I cannot disagree with anything I read. And have found no reason to think that it is just another cleverly written "Prophet's Book" like the OT books or the Apostles/Disciples books of the NT. Do I discount your interpretation completely, no, but I do reserve it as opinion as that is all we can hope for as trying to think in a "holy" way is impossible as our minds are earthly.

What are your thoughts on Muhammad removing some text from the Quran because he saw it was inspired by the devil? How do we know the rest is genuinely from God if he already makes it clear he can't tell the difference between the divine and the devil? I mean, it apparently took him several years to spot!

Sort of begs the question why Gabriel was giving him words from satan... unless that whole notion is crap.

Religion is fun.

 

[wil]

Can you provide some more info on what was removed and when?

 

[BigJoeNobody]

What are your thoughts on Muhammad removing some text from the Quran because he saw it was inspired by the devil? How do we know the rest is genuinely from God if he already makes it clear he can't tell the difference between the divine and the devil? I mean, it apparently took him several years to spot!

Sort of begs the question why Gabriel was giving him words from satan... unless that whole notion is crap.

Religion is fun.

Again, had to look up what you were referring to.
Satanic Verses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Beyond this, it is based on interpolation of weak hadith.

If it were true however, it would go to show more how influential the devil can be.

Past that, the statement goes against several other strong Hadith. Also the Hadith doesn't only imply Mouhammed couldn't tell the difference, but the angel Gabriel recieved them from Satan in heaven. A place he was banished.

Therefore, it doesn't make sense... I can use intelligence and reasoning to figure out the answer, rather than looking inward for a preissued answer.

 

[SatyamAbhidi]

Again, had to look up what you were referring to.
Satanic Verses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Beyond this, it is based on interpolation of weak hadith.

If it were true however, it would go to show more how influential the devil can be.

Past that, the statement goes against several other strong Hadith. Also the Hadith doesn't only imply Mouhammed couldn't tell the difference, but the angel Gabriel recieved them from Satan in heaven. A place he was banished.

Therefore, it doesn't make sense... I can use intelligence and reasoning to figure out the answer, rather than looking inward for a preissued answer.

I think that intelligence and reasoning would conclude that the whole grounds for the Quran is shaky if this is even possible for this messenger of God.

It goes to show that this God is not very powerful at all, because the devil has been able to trick one of his leading angels. The whole thing is quite laughable, but this is what you want to base your life on, the words of this figure?

Now, Muhammad was a Yogi, Tawhid expresses it, he has encountered union in the cave and has needed to share - perfectly good. A Yogi can understand, and in meetings with your Sufi's, there has been no dispute.

Why take his word for it though?

Do what he did and find out for yourself!

No intermediary is necessary at all, believing him doesn't help.

It is about you!

 

[BigJoeNobody]

I think that intelligence and reasoning would conclude that the whole grounds for the Quran is shaky if this is even possible for this messenger of God.

It goes to show that this God is not very powerful at all, because the devil has been able to trick one of his leading angels. The whole thing is quite laughable, but this is what you want to base your life on, the words of this figure?

Now, Muhammad was a Yogi, Tawhid expresses it, he has encountered union in the cave and has needed to share - perfectly good. A yogi can understand, and in meetings with your Sufi's, there has been no dispute.

Why take his word for it though?

Do what he did and find out for yourself!

No intermediary is necessary at all, believing him doesn't help.

It is about you!

I'm sorry, you say in Tawheed Mouhammed (PBUH) is a self enlightened "Yogi" yet there are hundreds of strong Hadith that say he and the other prophets are Muslims. Meaning those who submit to the will of God (Allah). So if you say God is in the mind, I'm sure they will agree. It isn't the notion of where God is that I find a flawed idea. But rather your path. openning your mind to new ideas, Great Idea! Closing your mind to thinking, not so good

 

[SatyamAbhidi]

I'm sorry, you say in Tawheed Mouhammed (PBUH) is a self enlightened "Yogi" yet there are hundreds of strong Hadith that say he and the other prophets are Muslims. Meaning those who submit to the will of God (Allah). So if you say God is in the mind, I'm sure they will agree. It isn't the notion of where God is that I find a flawed idea. But rather your path. openning your mind to new ideas, Great Idea! Closing your mind to thinking, not so good

The Yogi understands surrender, union cannot happen without surrendering the personal self. For me, as I've said before, Muslim is another word for Yogi.

God is not in the mind, that is a stupid notion. Mind is in God, all exists through God... we can find we are not separate too, through surrender this is apparent. When you disconnect from the mind, from the body and the world, you experience as God.

Ideas are only useful in that they cause you to question your current ideas, they bring you about a more universal vision.

Obviously, if you are not content, you cannot stop thinking.

I have said already I am not against thinking.

I am simply saying that the realized being doesn't think much, there is nothing to think about, he has no inner conflict, no problems to sort out, nothing.

Do not mistake this for being anti-thought.

Thought can be used to come to this state of contentment.

 

[SatyamAbhidi]

I would suggest thought is about confusion, it is a symptom of not knowing, not understanding.

When you understand, thought ceases about it, this is natural.