Was Muhammad Really Talking to Jibril? (CLOSED THREAD)

[RJM]

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.

If you would you like move this thread to the LHP forum, that can be done. But all the previous posts here will remain. Ok?

 

['Amir Alzzalam]

If you would you like move this thread to the LHP forum, that can be done. But all the previous posts here will remain. Ok?

Nope . . . if you're not LHP we don't want you in our forum . . . thems the rules!

 

[RJM]

Nope . . . if you're not LHP we don't want you in our forum . . . thems the rules!

Oh sorry.
Cool. You got it, lol ...

 

[muhammad_isa]

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.

You are just talking past me .. it is not a reply to the points I raised.

 

[Naturalist]

You are just talking past me .. it is not a reply to the points I raised.

I was just providing additional detail to the points you raised.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I was just providing additional detail to the points you raised.

I understand that .. but you didn't explain why the points I raised are not relevant.
i.e. the evolution of language, and lack of education as an explanation as to why it APPEARS that Judaism
started as a polytheist religion

Another way of putting it would be that many Jews were polytheists, but NOT a part of their religion.
Words are just that .. words. Any word can be used for 'a god', and it could evolve to mean the God of Abraham. It doesn't mean any more than that!

 

[Naturalist]

I understand that .. but you didn't explain why the points I raised are not relevant.
i.e. the evolution of language, and lack of education as an explanation as to why it APPEARS that Judaism
started as a polytheist religion

Another way of putting it would be that many Jews were polytheists, but NOT a part of their religion.
Words are just that .. words. Any word can be used for 'a god', and it could evolve to mean the God of Abraham. It doesn't mean any more than that!

I guess your language isn't being understood by my brain. I agree languages evolve, and our understanding grows with time.

This seems oxymoronic: "many Jews were polytheists, but NOT a part of their religion."

Their early religion described a belief in many gods, which evolved into a belief in the God of Abraham.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I guess your language isn't being understood by my brain. I agree languages evolve, and our understanding grows with time.

This seems oxymoronic: "many Jews were polytheists, but NOT a part of their religion."

Their early religion described a belief in many gods, which evolved into a belief in the God of Abraham.

..but as I say, you are ASSUMING that they were following the Jewish religion, and
not ignorantly worshiping idols.

It is YOU who are doing the 'describing', is it not?

 

[talib-al-kalim]

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.

So what I said is "I am quite rationalist".
"Rationalist" in the sense

- I accept observation, be it mine or general; I accept what is prooven and I reject what has been falsified.
- I ask the question "why" and try to find answers (although the answers need not be perfect)
This also in the religious context.

"Quite" in the sense that

- I do not reject everything that is not proven
- I know that I am not all-knowing, thus my understanding is not the measure of all, and I think about what I do not understand.

It makes sense to me to see all connected in God in the sense of the mature Monotheism, and I have experienced that there is a lot of wisdom behind what (in your terms: is said to be) the prophecy of God, which is what has been called the Holy Spirit, the inspiration that is valuable although it has not been deduced rationally.

 

[Naturalist]

..but as I say, you are ASSUMING that they were following the Jewish religion, and
not ignorantly worshiping idols.

It is YOU who are doing the 'describing', is it not?

The Jewish religion is based on the Torah. Within the Torah are many mentions of the existence of other gods, by God.

This is the polytheism I'm referring to.

Idols were representations of the gods. No one worshipped the object as an object, only what it represented.

Yahweh wanted to be hidden and didn't want to be represented by an idol.

 

[Naturalist]

So what I said is "I am quite rationalist".
"Rationalist" in the sense

- I accept observation, be it mine or general; I accept what is prooven and I reject what has been falsified.
- I ask the question "why" and try to find answers (although the answers need not be perfect)
This also in the religious context.

"Quite" in the sense that

- I do not reject everything that is not proven
- I know that I am not all-knowing, thus my understanding is not the measure of all, and I think about what I do not understand.

It makes sense to me to see all connected in God in the sense of the mature Monotheism, and I have experienced that there is a lot of wisdom behind what (in your terms: is said to be) the prophecy of God, which is what has been called the Holy Spirit, the inspiration that is valuable although it has not been deduced rationally.

Ok, so you have mentally compartmentalized your rationality (accepting observations, rejecting what has been falsified, etc.) with your irrationality ("not been deduced rationally").

I suggest thinking about why you would want to be irrational? Isn't society better off if citizens are rational? Won't you be better off knowing you tried to be as rational as you can?

"Monotheism" means one theistic god, and a theistic god is usually described as omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent. Based on your observations of the world, is it plausible this theistic god exists?

 

[muhammad_isa]

The Jewish religion is based on the Torah. Within the Torah are many mentions of the existence of other gods, by God.

No. The mention does not imply they actually exist.
That's the whole point .. they are idols invented by men.

This is the polytheism I'm referring to..

Not really .. you said "Their early religion described a belief in many gods" ..
Whose early religion?

Idols were representations of the gods. No one worshipped the object as an object, only what it represented..

..whatever..

Yahweh wanted to be hidden and didn't want to be represented by an idol.

YHWH/G-d is real ! G-d is not a person .. people are part of the creation.

It is not possible to describe G-d, except that He is Absolute, Eternal.
"He" gives the impression of a person, but it is again, a language construct that
implies respect, rather than "it".

I realise that your education is in the sciences, rather than the humanities,
but there is always time to change that.

 

[Naturalist]

Wrong.

In Genesis when God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness", "Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil"....the "us" & "our" refers to more than one god. Ashira is one god mentioned specifically.

We have archeological evidence of idols of El and Yahweh, as well as other gods. It makes ZERO sense to have an idol of a god who you don't think exists. It only makes sense to have idols of gods which you believe do exist.

When Catholics make figurines of Jesus or Mary, it's because they believe they existed.

I was referring to the Jew's early religion, which has evolved over the last 5000 years. It's different today.

God is called a he, because he was thought to be a male, anthropomorphic god, with body parts, including a penis. He had emotions, he would get angry and happy. He was a warrior type god.

You are basically repeating the revisionist view of Judaism, because the original view seems so silly today.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Wrong.

From an atheists viewpoint, maybe..

In Genesis when God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness", "Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil"....the "us" & "our" refers to more than one god.

I'm afraid you've been duped .. read the wrong articles .. talking to the wrong people.

The plural form of G-d, in Genesis, has nothing to do with "many gods".
Perhaps @RabbiO might explain..

I suggest you do NOT just read something in English, and then think you know it all.

We have archeological evidence of idols of El and Yahweh, as well as other gods. It makes ZERO sense to have an idol of a god who you don't think exists.

Tell me about it.
It reminds me of Abraham, who smashed the 'big' idol of a group of idols.
His father asked him who had done it?
..and He replied "Why don't you ask them?".
His father was not amused.

God is called a he, because he was thought to be a male, anthropomorphic god, with body parts, including a penis. He had emotions, he would get angry and happy. He was a warrior type god.

That is your BELIEF.
I have my beliefs. The thing is, you are convinced that you have facts .. but you most certainly DO NOT!
You cannot prove to me that prophets were not sent with the truth. You just CANNOT!

You are basically repeating the revisionist view of Judaism..

As I say, you THINK that you have the "facts", but you do not.
You merely have an opinion. An opinion of some writers, who claim to be experts and what have you.
Some sell lots of books.

 

[Naturalist]

From an atheists viewpoint, maybe..


I'm afraid you've been duped .. read the wrong articles .. talking to the wrong people.

The plural form of G-d, in Genesis, has nothing to do with "many gods".
Perhaps @RabbiO might explain..

I suggest you do NOT just read something in English, and then think you know it all.


Tell me about it.
It reminds me of Abraham, who smashed the 'big' idol of a group of idols.
His father asked him who had done it?
..and He replied "Why don't you ask them?".
His father was not amused.


That is your BELIEF.
I have my beliefs. The thing is, you are convinced that you have facts .. but you most certainly DO NOT!
You cannot prove to me that prophets were not sent with the truth. You just CANNOT!


As I say, you THINK that you have the "facts", but you do not.
You merely have an opinion. An opinion of some writers, who claim to be experts and what have you.
Some sell lots of books.

You don't know the difference between facts and opinions. Work on that.

 

['Amir Alzzalam]

So much to say . . . oh well

 

['Amir Alzzalam]

Come on over to the Left Hand Path Forum to discuss this subject matter . . . you are Welcome unlike here

Was Muhammad Really Talking to Jibril? LHP

Some information comes from the Quran, the Sahih Hadith Bukhari & the Hadith Muslim The initial revelation to Muhammad occurred in 610 CE, as per Islamic tradition. During this event, the angel Jibril (Gabriel) 'allegedly' visited the prophet, imparting the foundational teachings that would...

www.interfaith.org

Post edited by moderator to correct new thread title

 

[muhammad_isa]

You don't know the difference between facts and opinions. Work on that.

No content .. as you like..

 

[Naturalist]

No content .. as you like..

The Torah says what it says. Those are facts, not opinions. I've already written what it says.

You can't handle the truth.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The Torah says what it says. Those are facts, not opinions. I've already written what it says.

You won't learn anything like that.
You are "stuck" .. you can only hear your own thoughts.
There is no debate with such a person.

The word "facts" seems to impress you .. you read about "facts" and can no longer use
your own mind to reason.