Was Muhammad Really Talking to Jibril? (CLOSED THREAD)

[Naturalist]

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


Well they interpret them with more of less insight.

Yes, Christianity is trying to have it both ways...they have to overcome the earlier Judaic view of monotheism without overturning it outright. And they also want to convert Romans, who were polytheistic. So bingo....1=3.

 

[RJM]

Yes, Christianity is trying to have it both ways...they have to overcome the earlier Judaic view of monotheism without overturning it outright. And they also want to convert Romans, who were polytheistic. So bingo....1=3.

In retrospect anything is plausible as conspiracy theory

 

[muhammad_isa]

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

A lot of people mistakenly hold that opinion..
They see Hebrew words as names of 'a god', as they do 'Allah' etc.

You confuse language with polytheistic names.
eg. Allah MEANS 'the G-d' - there is no more to it, really.

Same with El, Al, Yhwh, Dieu, Gott etc.

The word God was used in a polytheistic sense originally .. it is how we communicate .. language.
..and it continually evolves . De ye ken?

 

[Thomas]

Sure, if there's some new evidence I'd like to hear about . . . is that unreasonable?

As you might guess, my 'like' was an error!

What's unreasonable is pushing the same fallacy argument when it's been shown that your premise is flawed.

But that aside, what evidence can you present for the validity your own path?

A long time ago, in expressing gratitude for the LHP subforum, you expressed the view that 'this can be a great place for 'us' to talk without antagonizing non-left hand path religions' – yet you seem intent on antagonising non-LHP religions ...

"So, friends of the LHP please find your way here, and let's discuss our philosophies, practices, and beliefs. All non-left hand path religions are welcome to discuss our Path as well. Please keep it civil."

I would ask you to adhere to yourt own request, and keep it civil.

 

[Naturalist]

It's not like that.

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

You are welcome to your opinion.

 

[Naturalist]

A lot of people mistakenly hold that opinion..
They see Hebrew words as names of 'a god', as they do 'Allah' etc.

You confuse language with polytheistic names.
eg. Allah MEANS 'the G-d' - there is no more to it, really.

Same with El, Al, Yhwh, Dieu, Gott etc.

The word God was used in a polytheistic sense originally .. it is how we communicate .. language.
..and it continually evolves . De ye ken?

El means God. El was the Canaanite chief god, like Zeus was the Greek chief god.

El had deity sons in the Canaanite religion. He had a deity wife.

The cult of Yahweh within Judaism referred to a different god, one more hidden and warrior like. This god replaced El, and the Jews moved to monotheism.

 

[Thomas]

You are welcome to your opinion.

And you yours ... I find it remarkably ill-informed for someone who has a lot to say about what and how people believe.

Takes all sorts ...

 

[Thomas]

The cult of Yahweh within Judaism referred to a different god, one more hidden and warrior like. This god replaced El, and the Jews moved to monotheism.

Ever considered evolving insight?

 

[talib-al-kalim]

What is your supporting evidence?

To what?

Judaism began as a polytheistic religion, originally with El as the head of the Pantheon, until he got replaced by Yahweh.

The oldest scriptures in the Semitic cultures were polytheist.
Atrahasis alias Noah is reported to have chosen to serve only one God, EnKi (translated as Jahwe in the Taurat). He was probably a practising monotheist (only serve one god); the concept of the One God is younger.

So if we're going to discuss religious history, I think it's appropriate to discuss the anthropomorphic gods.

Better in a distinct thread.

The anthropomorphic view eventually morphed into the incorporeal god.

Yes.

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 agree that it is an error to identify a human with God. Reading the Gospel accounts carefully, I am convinced that Jesus would have discarded this. This has also been rejected in the Quran.

Son of God was a title for the Messiah. The meaning has not been understood by the polytheist Greeks, from there the confusion.

Not only Judaism, but also other religions have made the step from polytheistic concepts to a monotheistic and monistic understanding.

I mention "monistic" because the monotheistic concept is that all is connected. God is to be understood as this All. This is indeed very abstract compared to ancient polytheistic religions.

I can't explain all thoughts I have about that in this answer, else I wouldn't finish it this year.

 

['Amir Alzzalam]

As you might guess, my 'like' was an error!

What's unreasonable is pushing the same fallacy argument when it's been shown that your premise is flawed.

But that aside, what evidence can you present for the validity your own path?

A long time ago, in expressing gratitude for the LHP subforum, you expressed the view that 'this can be a great place for 'us' to talk without antagonizing non-left hand path religions' – yet you seem intent on antagonising non-LHP religions ...

"So, friends of the LHP please find your way here, and let's discuss our philosophies, practices, and beliefs. All non-left hand path religions are welcome to discuss our Path as well. Please keep it civil."

I would ask you to adhere to yourt own request, and keep it civil.

So, you're against freedom of speech and want to oppress even a simple question like "How did Muhammad know he was talking to Jibril and not Iblis? We should all keep to our little admin-made boxes and not venture out so as not to rain on the other little-boxes parade . . . gotcha

 

[Naturalist]

Ever considered evolving insight?

More like evolved story telling, in order to avoid rejection of the previous story.

 

[Naturalist]

And you yours ... I find it remarkably ill-informed for someone who has a lot to say about what and how people believe.

Takes all sorts ...

What I say is the same thing that is discussed in universities around the world. People study other people and describe it. That's the opposite of ill-informed.

 

['Amir Alzzalam]

Feel free to delete my post and thread. I'll repost it in the LHP Forum

 

[Naturalist]

To what?

The oldest scriptures in the Semitic cultures were polytheist.
Atrahasis alias Noah is reported to have chosen to serve only one God, EnKi (translated as Jahwe in the Taurat). He was probably a practising monotheist (only serve one god); the concept of the One God is younger.

Better in a distinct thread.

Yes.

I agree that it is an error to identify a human with God. Reading the Gospel accounts carefully, I am convinced that Jesus would have discarded this. This has also been rejected in the Quran.

Son of God was a title for the Messiah. The meaning has not been understood by the polytheist Greeks, from there the confusion.

Not only Judaism, but also other religions have made the step from polytheistic concepts to a monotheistic and monistic understanding.

I mention "monistic" because the monotheistic concept is that all is connected. God is to be understood as this All. This is indeed very abstract compared to ancient polytheistic religions.

I can't explain all thoughts I have about that in this answer, else I wouldn't finish it this year.

You wrote earlier.."

"That's actually my belief, that God does not just exist because I imagine it. I am quite rationalist"

I then responded with an explanation of rationalism, being based on evidence, and asked where is the evidence to support God exists.

In last comment you asked evidence "To what?"....Evidence to support that God exists which is needed to support your claim that you are a rationalist.

 

[Thomas]

So, you're against freedom of speech and want to oppress even a simple question like "How did Muhammad know he was talking to Jibril and not Iblis? We should all keep to our little admin-made boxes and not venture out so as not to rain on the other little-boxes parade . . . gotcha

Is that what you read into my comment? That's rather telling ...

Let me gently correct you ... if I may ... You pose the same question again and again, and wonder why you get the same answer.

You've made your point.
We've shown the point is insufficient argument
You keep making the same point, as if repetition makes it any more reasonable or rational.

But more to the point, when venturing into areas outside yours, it's only polite to observe the niceties you requested be observed inside yours.

I have significant issues with Buddhism, and karma ... and I've raised the point ... and the answers were unsatisfactory, but I don't see the need to continually tell everyone that.

The way you come across is as someone who's not really interested in understanding where the other is coming from ... so why should anyone bother with you?

 

[Thomas]

In last comment you asked evidence "To what?"....Evidence to support that God exists which is needed to support your claim that you are a rationalist.

Does that not suppose to be a rationalist is to be an atheist ... or at least agnostic?

And have you studied philosophy on this point?

 

['Amir Alzzalam]

Is that what you read into my comment? That's rather telling ...

Let me gently correct you ... if I may ... You pose the same question again and again, and wonder why you get the same answer.

You've made your point.
We've shown the point is insufficient argument
You keep making the same point, as if repetition makes it any more reasonable or rational.

But more to the point, when venturing into areas outside yours, it's only polite to observe the niceties you requested be observed inside yours.

I have significant issues with Buddhism, and karma ... and I've raised the point ... and the answers were unsatisfactory, but I don't see the need to continually tell everyone that.

The way you come across is as someone who's not really interested in understanding where the other is coming from ... so why should anyone bother with you?

Show me where else I posed the question of Muhammad talking to Jibril. I don't recall discussing this elsewhere.
You simply have a problem with me, and this hasn't changed for years.

Delete this thread please

 

[Naturalist]

Does that not suppose to be a rationalist is to be an atheist ... or at least agnostic?

And have you studied philosophy on this point?

No, a rationalist is anyone who ratios his degree of belief relative to the evidence. If that leads the rationalist to be an atheist or agnostic, so be it.

I learned of this view of rationalism from the philosopher A.C.Grayling.

 

[RJM]

Delete this thread please

No.

You started it, you live with it, bro

 

['Amir Alzzalam]

No.

You started it, you live with it, bro

You make it sound like it's something I am ashamed of? That couldn't be further from the truth. But as pointed out by the Powers That Be here, my post is not welcome . . . so, that said, it should be deleted, and maybe I'll repost it in the LHP Forum where my Little-Box is and where I belong.

An Admin could always move it to the LHP Forum but then all the Non-LHP peeps would need to be removed . . . after all, they are not welcome there just as I am not welcome here.