Was Muhammad Really Talking to Jibril? (CLOSED THREAD)

[RJM]

Not true, we have technology that enables us to 'expand' our limited senses. And you know what has been found in relation to something 'spiritual' going on?

SQUAT . . .

No, there is nothing beyond time and space that can be measured. That's where measurement ends. All the 'expansion' is as you say, really just an 'upgrading' of our human senses into extended ranges. But it does not encompass anything beyond

 

[talib-al-kalim]

Are you asking whether or not I've had bad experiences (ie,"bad fate")? Yes.

whether you also reflect more on your life if something goes wrong.

Jesus never wrote anything.

I wrote, that Jesus said somethng in the direction I wrote. It's Luke who wrote (Lk 13:1-5)

There were some present at that very time who told him of the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.

And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered thus?

I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen upon whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.”

The view that God is punishing the sins of the wicked in an immediate way through such events is often found in the historiography of religious Jews. It is also widespread in later Christian and Muslim societies. Jesus rejects this interpretation, saying that there are many other people who have sinned without seeing an immediate punishment. (Compare also John 9:1-7)

“unless you repent you will all likewise perish”: A possible interpretation would be that death can come suddenly and unexpectedly, so that it is good to repent in time, before death, because after death there would be no opportunity to repent until the Last Judgement. However, this interpretation ignores the word “likewise”. Jesus had received a vision of the destruction of Jerusalem, which formed the basis of his oft-expressed expectation that the end was near. Indeed, many Jews were killed during the uprising in the year 71 CE, when the Temple and a large part of Jerusalem were destroyed. From this point of view, Jesus does not categorically reject the idea of God's direct intervention and punishment in general, either.

God doesn't exist just because you imagine it. Stop imagining and start analyzing.

That's actually my belief, that God does not just exist because I imagine it. I am quite rationalist, and I do compare religious teachings with general or personal experience.

 

[RJM]

"Are you proposing that nothing exists but what can be directly measured?" No.

"Do you propose that the universe limits itself to what human beings and human senses are able to perceive and measure?" No, but we won't know about those things, since we can't perceive them.

Correct. So the proper scientific attitude is: 'Shut up and Calculate'

Science is not qualified to dismiss the existence of a higher power than man -- but merely to observe that science, by its limitations, cannot say yes or no.

Science has gone beyond the quite proper refusal not to allow religious belief to dictate the questions it may ask -- or to censor the answers it receives -- to actively and aggressively insisting: There is no God.

That is mission creep and quite beyond the remit, imo

 

['Amir Alzzalam]

No, there is nothing beyond time and space that can be measured. That's where measurement ends. All the 'expansion' is as you say, really just an 'upgrading' of our human senses into extended ranges. But it does not encompass anything beyond

Fair enough . . .

 

[Naturalist]

whether you also reflect more on your life if something goes wrong.

I wrote, that Jesus said somethng in the direction I wrote. It's Luke who wrote (Lk 13:1-5)

The view that God is punishing the sins of the wicked in an immediate way through such events is often found in the historiography of religious Jews. It is also widespread in later Christian and Muslim societies. Jesus rejects this interpretation, saying that there are many other people who have sinned without seeing an immediate punishment. (Compare also John 9:1-7)

“unless you repent you will all likewise perish”: A possible interpretation would be that death can come suddenly and unexpectedly, so that it is good to repent in time, before death, because after death there would be no opportunity to repent until the Last Judgement. However, this interpretation ignores the word “likewise”. Jesus had received a vision of the destruction of Jerusalem, which formed the basis of his oft-expressed expectation that the end was near. Indeed, many Jews were killed during the uprising in the year 71 CE, when the Temple and a large part of Jerusalem were destroyed. From this point of view, Jesus does not categorically reject the idea of God's direct intervention and punishment in general, either.

That's actually my belief, that God does not just exist because I imagine it. I am quite rationalist, and I do compare religious teachings with general or personal experience.

The "punishment later" is a convenient means of excusing the lack of an EXPECTED negative consequence that should follow a bad action. It was EXPECTED based on the wording of a holy text. The holy text's consequences didn't pan out, so concoct an excuse.

You wrote, "I am quite rationalist". "Rationalist" has the word "ratio" embedded in it. To be rational is to ratio the degree of your belief to the evidence. Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence.

What is your supporting evidence?

 

[Naturalist]

Correct. So the proper scientific attitude is: 'Shut up and Calculate'

Science is not qualified to dismiss the existence of a higher power than man -- but merely to observe that science, by its limitations, cannot say yes or no.

Science has gone beyond the quite proper refusal not to allow religious belief to dictate the questions it may ask -- or to censor the answers it receives -- to actively and aggressively insisting: There is no God.

That is mission creep and quite beyond the remit, imo

Yes, science is limited, but logic isn't limited to such a degree.

For example, how do you get intelligence without a nervous system? That is the only means of intelligence we know of. And we know intelligence is an evolved attribute, it comes much later than the Big Bang.

The fact that we can't sense and measure everything, doesn't mean that whatever we concoct in our brains actually exists. This is the Teapot Fallacy. If we can't measure it or sense it, it has no relevance anyways. It may as well not exist.

 

[RJM]

One of the benefits of polytheism is that different gods acting out would explain the many inconsistencies of life. In monotheism, one god behaving so inconsistently is incredulous.

Yes, but surely nobody actually believes in this.

The human words and scriptures are an explanation of the interweaving of Spirit and nature. Spirit is eternal, immaculate, unchanging -- but (for whatever reason we cannot know) when Spirit 'steps-down' and weaves the dimension of nature -- the pure, eternal vertical polarities of the Spirit dimension are shifted horizontally in nature, crossing and reversing and ever-changing, and ending in the death of all nature

Surely you do not want to talk about an old guy in the sky with a white beard around here?

 

[RJM]

If we can't measure it or sense it, it has no relevance anyways. It may as well not exist.

No. These are interfaith discussions, where material 21st Century scientific conclusions proposals are just one facet, imo

 

[RJM]

For example, how do you get intelligence without a nervous system? That is the only means of intelligence we know of. And we know intelligence is an evolved attribute, it comes much later than the Big Bang.

Spirit surrounds and contains and permeates the timespace dimension of nature, as a house contains a room. Nature is just one of perhaps infinite other rooms.

'My Father's house has many mansions'

Science ends at mathematical singularity.

 

[Naturalist]

Yes, but surely nobody actually believes in this.

The human words and scriptures are an explanation of the interweaving of Spirit and nature. Spirit is eternal, immaculate, unchanging -- but (for whatever reason we cannot know) when Spirit 'steps-down' and weaves the dimension of nature -- the pure, eternal vertical polarities of the Spirit dimension are shifted horizontally in nature, crossing and reversing and ever-changing, and ending in the death of all nature

Surely you do not want to talk about an old guy in the sky with a white beard around here?

Judaism began as a polytheistic religion, originally with El as the head of the Pantheon, until he got replaced by Yahweh. So if we're going to discuss religious history, I think it's appropriate to discuss the anthropomorphic gods.

The anthropomorphic view eventually morphed into the incorporeal god.

Christianity is a slight return to polytheism, with Jesus being the son of God. It was very common to have sons of gods in earlier polytheism.

I don't accept assertions of spirits, ghosts, goblins, angels, and the like.

 

[talib-al-kalim]

How did Muhammad know he was talking to Jibrīl? Mohammad himself believed he was possessed by a djinn.

You may read Wikipedia and on IslamWiki.
The Quran (16:102) says that the Holy Spirit inspired Muhammad (p.b.h.h).

Say, “The Holy Spirit has brought it down from your Lord, truthfully, in order to stabilize those who believe, and as guidance and good news for those who submit.”

It seems both in Islam as in Christianity, Jibril is a personification of the Holy Spirit.

This could have been the Christian Satan as well.

Not at all. Satan is definitely not the Holy Spirit. I don't understand your way of thinking and what Šayṭān is in your view.

 

[RJM]

I don't accept assertions of spirits, ghosts, goblins, angels, and the like.

That's your right.
But it doesn't make you right, imo ...

It's simply a proposal

 

[Naturalist]

No. These are interfaith discussions, where material 21st Century scientific conclusions proposals are just one facet, imo

You can discuss Dracula's personality versus Aquaman's. Or astrological predictions versus Tarot predictions.

Since you are not bounded by facts, your discussion can go anywhere.

 

[Naturalist]

That's your right.
But it doesn't make you right, imo ...

It's simply a proposal

There are an infinite number of invisible things you can propose.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Judaism began as a polytheistic religion..

That is purely an opinion, based on study of behaviour of Jews/people in ancient history.
What is often not taken account, is that there were only a few scribes back then,
so the masses were uneducated, and behaved accordingly.
eg. they followed cultural norms, despite being Jewish

It cannot be ascertained that Judaism "began" in polytheism .. it is no more than an opinion.

 

[RJM]

You can discuss Dracula's personality versus Aquaman's. Or astrological predictions versus Tarot predictions.

Yes but the millennia of wisdom literature (and tradition) in all great world cultures cannot be dismissed so lightly, imo

21st Century science hasn't simply pushed the 'erase' button

 

[Naturalist]

That is purely an opinion, based on study of behaviour of Jews/people in ancient history.
What is often not taken account, is that there were only a few scribes back then,
so the masses were uneducated, and behaved accordingly.
eg. they followed cultural norms, despite being Jewish

It cannot be ascertained that Judaism "began" in polytheism .. it is no more than an opinion.

All religion is an opinion.

Jews followed the Torah. If they couldn't read it, a rabbi instructed them in it.

It is clear from the Torah, that Judaism was polytheistic.

It evolved into monotheism later, when Yahweh replaced El. El was originally one of many Canaanite gods.

 

[Thomas]

In polytheism, many gods have offspring which are also deities. Jesus was the offspring of El (or Yahweh) and went to join his father. They are both deities, not the same.

One God, Three Persons ... quite different from polytheism.

Religious texts are self contradictory and contradict other texts. People interpret them differently. That's life.

Well they interpret them with more of less insight.

 

[Naturalist]

Yes but the millennia of wisdom literature in all great world cultures cannot be dismissed so lightly, imo

The literature is great reading and provides wonderful insights on how people thought back then.

 

[RJM]

Since you are not bounded by facts, your discussion can go anywhere.

It's not like that.

Buddhism, Hinduism, Yoga, Kaballah, the lived message of the Christ, are not at all about just going anywhere, imo