Jump to content

discussion on the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth


Dawood

Recommended Posts

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
  • Replies 2.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Originally posted by Dawood@Jan 15 2006, 01:02 AM

And I'm amazed that people here keep accusing me of disrespecting and challenging peoples religions and this is the source of all the displeasure for me here.

 

 

 

didn't you ever stop to think that claiming the prophet of another religion was actually a prophet of islam

 

is disrespectful of other's beliefs

because that is blasphemous to them?

i would think you of all people would understand the power of faith

 

yeah, this thread is pretty much devoid of metaphysical debate and philosophy

i still think of it as dawood's soapbox.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that when dawood started this thread, he was looking for a christian vs. muslim discussion...but then it turns out most people on here (esp me) are WAY more anti-christian than even the most most radical muslim jihadists ever could be....

 

 

its easy to get a christian and muslim into a forum and let them discuss their "beliefs", but what about people who have no beliefs? Asking questions gets us accused of bashing islam and direspecting dude's beliefs? I call that shit debate. The socratic method if you will...

 

 

Anyway my take on religion is this: its basically an obsolete version and branch of metaphysics/philosophy, much like astrology is an obsolete version of astronomy/cosmology or alchemey is an obsolete version of chemistry/physics...

 

They served a purpose at one point and probably were in the vanguard of human knowlege/thinking during their time etc, but goddamn this is the 21st century now. Our culture and collective knowledge has advanced past the 7th or 2nd century.

 

 

If someone started an alchemy or even a phrenology thread, people would laugh them off the board, esp if someone started asking astronomy or behavioral questions to them in reply.

 

 

Personally I think folks have bent over backwards to accomodate religion ands its blind adherrents, esp on this thread...

 

 

Believe me if Dawood made a reply to my Neitszche quote by saying old Freddy was a nut and talked to his horse, I wouldn't send threatening PMs and cry about him disrespecting my thinking...I would instead ask what flaws do you find in this writers logic etc etc...

 

 

ok my rant for today...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by symbols+Jan 18 2006, 06:21 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (symbols - Jan 18 2006, 06:21 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Dawood@Jan 15 2006, 01:02 AM

And I'm amazed that people here keep accusing me of disrespecting and challenging peoples religions and this is the source of all the displeasure for me here.

 

 

 

didn't you ever stop to think that claiming the prophet of another religion was actually a prophet of islam

 

is disrespectful of other's beliefs

because that is blasphemous to them?

 

[/b]

 

I speak with christians all the time face to face and I mention that Jesus is a muslim. At first , they look surprised , then I tell them the lynguistic meaning of the word "muslim" (one who submits to the will of the creator) Then, I mention the many verses in the bible where Jesus submits to Gods will. They never seem offended, usually, they end up agreeing with me. How could they not if they beleive in the Bible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a cheap trick of symantics without context. I could pick words in circles, but it doesn't prove anything.

 

You are switching the popular conception of the word muslim, for its literal and translated meaning. In contemporary society, the word muslim predicates a practicing member of the religion of Islam. You can't bate and switch words with people when trying to have theological discussions. It comes across as an attempt to secure superiority in thought, but ends up failing due to its simple and misguided logic. I don't mean to rip on your discussions with people, but I just think you may be hindering them by replying in such a blanket and careless way.

 

Aside from that, I'll back you up on this little tiff with symbols.

Jesus is accepted within Islam as a prophet. Not the son of god, or the last prophet, but a prophet. Much like Judaism. Dawood is not being careless when he refers to Jesus as prophet, but would be to claim him as a prophet unto Islam alone. I haven't really seen that from his posts, so I won't say that he has.

 

While I respect your best intentions in this thread Dawood, I do not enjoy your habitual sidestepping of good discourse through anecdotal morals and infallable qoutes. You have to find a middle ground with which to communicate with people if you choose to focus on these topics. I could spend hours using mathmatical proofs and various scientific concepts to refute the possibility of your religion, but I don't because it has no value in our conversation. Thus the discussion goes on in your terms, symantic and otherwise. This makes it impossible to respond to you effectively.

 

 

I suppose thats why I support the end of this thread. If we could communicate with eachother effectively I would support its revival and continuation. Hopefully a new space for philosophy/theology/science will open up on the forum after this thread finally finishes. Perhaps I'll finally take the time to make one myself...

 

 

A good idea for tomorrow night.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"How do I tell them that due to the unfreezing process I have no inner monologue..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by shape1369@Jan 19 2006, 09:02 AM

That is a cheap trick of symantics without context. I could pick words in circles, but it doesn't prove anything.

 

You are switching the popular conception of the word muslim, for its literal and translated meaning. In contemporary society, the word muslim predicates a practicing member of the religion of Islam. You can't bate and switch words with people when trying to have theological discussions. It comes across as an attempt to secure superiority in thought, but ends up failing due to its simple and misguided logic. I don't mean to rip on your discussions with people, but I just think you may be hindering them by replying in such a blanket and careless way.

 

Aside from that, I'll back you up on this little tiff with symbols.

Jesus is accepted within Islam as a prophet. Not the son of god, or the last prophet, but a prophet. Much like Judaism. Dawood is not being careless when he refers to Jesus as prophet, but would be to claim him as a prophet unto Islam alone. I haven't really seen that from his posts, so I won't say that he has.

 

While I respect your best intentions in this thread Dawood, I do not enjoy your habitual sidestepping of good discourse through anecdotal morals and infallable qoutes. You have to find a middle ground with which to communicate with people if you choose to focus on these topics. I could spend hours using mathmatical proofs and various scientific concepts to refute the possibility of your religion, but I don't because it has no value in our conversation. Thus the discussion goes on in your terms, symantic and otherwise. This makes it impossible to respond to you effectively.

 

 

I suppose thats why I support the end of this thread. If we could communicate with eachother effectively I would support its revival and continuation. Hopefully a new space for philosophy/theology/science will open up on the forum after this thread finally finishes. Perhaps I'll finally take the time to make one myself...

 

 

A good idea for tomorrow night.

 

"How do I tell them that due to the unfreezing process I have no inner monologue..."

 

Thats exactly it, shape, Its not symantic wordplay, It is part of a muslims integral belief that Jesus is a prophet of Islam. As for christianity, or even Judaism. Nowhere in the bible did Jesus claim to be a christian, nor did he ask his followers to be christians. We actually beleive that the true followers of Jesus (in his time and before the coming of Muhammad) are in fact muslims. Not because of symantics, but by defenition. They submitted to God's will. Modern day christianity (as it is practiced today) is not the same religion that Jesus and his companions followed (according to Islam).

 

I apolagise for my habitual sidestepping of good discourse through anecdotal morals and infallable qoutes.

 

I usually do that when people start attacking Islam, there are appropriate verses of the quran that , if reflected upon, I think, people would benefit from. I'm dissapointed that religion has taken such a bad rap in this world (with some people) and thus, Islam is lumped in with the rest of the world religions that are viewed as being backward.

 

I feel fortunate , that I got to know about Islam before I found out how screwy some of the muslims are in this world. I can see how people are turned away from Islam (and other religions ,for that matter) in todays societal climate. When you look at religion (or any belief system) from a standpoint of what the people in that beleif system do and judge it solely on that , then youre bound to find discrepancies, because humans are going to screw things up no matter what it is and how pure it started out. In my opinion, mankind in general is in a state of loss except those people who adopt for themselves the qualities of doing righteousness on a consistant basis, patience and adhering to the truth.

Who knows, maybe by page 27 we can come to an agreement that none has the right to be worshipped except Allah and then all will be well in 12 land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest imported_El Mamerro

Since the thread seems to be steered into more theological/metaphysical discussion, I can always change the thread title a bit and we can continue on this thread. That way we can include the previous discussion about God, which is still relevant, within it, so that people can trace the evolution of the thread.

 

If that's OK with Dawood, that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by El Mamerro@Jan 19 2006, 02:00 PM

Since the thread seems to be steered into more theological/metaphysical discussion, I can always change the thread title a bit and we can continue on this thread. That way we can include the previous discussion about God, which is still relevant, within it, so that people can trace the evolution of the thread.

 

If that's OK with Dawood, that is.

 

I guess it depends upon what were changing it to,

I suppose something like

 

"Religion/Metaphysics/theory/spirituality"

and then the tag line can be....

just don't assume what you beleive is right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, ha, ha, what a gas...waiting for Godot? Seriously, man, I googled it....where did you say you were from again?

 

very strange, I don't know maybe I'm weird, but does anyone else here find this play odd? come to think of it, I'm not too fond of plays at all. I've never been to a play, Theyre usually pretty creepy. (just my meaningless post for the day)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Dawood@Jan 20 2006, 03:21 AM

John, ha, ha, what a gas...waiting for Godot? Seriously, man, I googled it....where did you say you were from again?

 

very strange, I don't know maybe I'm weird, but does anyone else here find this play odd? come to think of it, I'm not too fond of plays at all. I've never been to a play, Theyre usually pretty creepy. (just my meaningless post for the day)

 

 

 

 

have you actually read it? Its takes like 15 minutes.... I've never seen a play either you fuckin breakback...just read more, seriously....its fuckin beckett...what nigga hasn't read beckett? my grandpa graduated lynn classical and beat this shit into me, so don't act nukkah...lol

 

 

Just read more

 

 

 

do it

 

 

DO IT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read it.

 

 

 

No more Bush Laden Porn please,

 

Is that what youve been arguing with me in this thread so hard for ? To just post edited, (i won't even say photoshopped) rediculous pictures of two homo thugs dukin' it out??. C'mon man, Leave that stuff in your weirdo hangouts in crossfire ,man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Primer for Erisian Evangelists

 

from the Principia Discordia

 

-The Socratic Approach is most successful when confronting the ignorant. The ``Socratic Approach'' is what you call starting an argument by asking questions. You approach the innocent and simply ask ``Did you know that God's name is ERIS, and that He is a girl?'' If he should answer ``Yes.'' then he probably is a fellow Erisian and so you can forget it. If he says ``No.'' then quickly proceed to:

-The Blind Assertion and say ``Well, He is a girl, and His name is ERIS!'' Shrewdly observe if the subject is convinced. If he is, swear him into the Legion of Dynamic Discord before he changes his mind. If he does not appear convinced, then proceed to:

-The Faith Bit: ``But you must have Faith! All is lost without Faith! I sure feel sorry for you if you don't have Faith.'' And then add:

-The Argument by Fear and in an ominous voice ask ``Do you know what happens to those who deny Goddess?'' If he hesitates, don't tell him that he will surely be reincarnated as a precious Mao Button and distributed to the poor in the Region of Thud (which would be a mean thing to say), just shake your head sadly and, while wiping a tear from your eye, go to:

-The First Clause Ploy wherein you point to all of the discord and confusion in the world and exclaim ``Well who the hell do you think did all of this, wise guy?'' If he says, ``Nobody, just impersonal forces.'' then quickly respond with:

-The Argument by Semantical Gymnastics and say that he is absolutely right, and that those impersonal forces are female and that Her name is ERIS. If he, wonder of wonders, still remains obstinate, then finally resort to:

-The Figurative Symbolism Dodge and confide that sophisticated people like himself recognize that Eris is a Figurative Symbol for an Ineffable Metaphysical Reality and that The Erisian Movement is really more like a poem than like a science and that he is liable to be turned into a Precious Mao Button and Distributed to The Poor in The Region of Thud if he does not get hip. Then put him on your mailing list.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

AND WATCH THIS VIDEO FROM THE CHURCH OF THE SUBGENIUS OR YOU ARE GOING TO HELL, I DON"T CARE WHAT RELIGION YOU ARE, ALL OF YOU!!!!

*Preferably watch it with a very, VERY open mind....

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=ARISE+Subgenius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He means this thread has become a soap box for anyone extolling the virtues of extreme skepticism.

 

 

In hopes of creating relevance once again, I have a quesiton;

 

What do you all feel about our ability to controll our realities. Either through direct physical influence or through experiments in thought.

 

 

ELOCUTE!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok I spent this afternoon while shopping at safeway for green tea, red wine, and cranberry juice thinking about this...( I have a difficult time finding shit in supermarkets)...

 

 

 

In terms of controlling our realities, this is something I have been grappling with for a few years now. The concept of free will versus environmental determinism...but what is reality? Thats very subjective..

 

 

What is reality for a bee? a cat? a schizo? a retard? someone with brain damage? a woman, lol?

 

 

I understand, through communication, we have kind of come to a consensus that each human's sense of reality is similar, if not the same...

 

 

but was is reality to someone who is feral and never had social contact?

 

 

but to control reality? hmmmm. First we need to to try to understand what reality is. And what our concept of reality is...To this I would defer to the works of Dr. Husserl, Dr. Heidegger and Herr Kafka...I think they articulate way better this whole idea of reality...

 

 

or to eggroll this shit I could just add this picture:

 

 

200px-BlackSabbathMasterofReality.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I beleive that people are able to control their own realities or "destinies" so to speak. I beleive in cause and effect.

That every action you make has a reaction or a particular response to your action whether we notice it or not, or whether it happens right away or not is not within our control.

 

Here's an example in words.

 

We are in control of our actions because God gave us free choice. Although, we do not have free choice or ability to choose the consequences of our actions. This is something left up to the will of God. He does whatever he wills, while at the same time...We have free choice because we are'nt pre programmed like robots to do every single action we do. We choose our actions, Although God had knowledge of what we would do before we did it, we were not forced to do anything.

And because of this , we're responsible for our own actions.

Some people try to blame God for their wrong because they claim that God had knowledge that they would do this wrong thing so they were somehow "forced" to do this wrong action,

This type of logic is incorrect and immature because any sane individaul knows that in most cases, he has the ability to choose right or wrong and that either choice is just as readily available to him in most cases. There are exceptions to this rule, in my opinion, some people are coerced or forced to do things they may dislike or that can be considered wrong, but Allah will judge them based upon the reality of the affair and what was in their hearts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To dawood, I don't want my threads to keep running off on this subject so I'll post my sources here and we can continue it here.

 

All this is from "Hatred's Kingdom" the idea being that to understand middle eastern terrorism, we havae to understand the theological root of it. I still am going back and forth between whether it's truely necessary to go this far into religion to stop terrosim or not, but I suppose if an ultimate solution was ever needed it would certainly need to correct it.

 

 

Khaled Abu Al Fissile of the UCLA school of law has argued that "Al Qaeda Was anchored in a theology that was the biproduct of the emergence and eventual dominance of Wahhabism, and other recent militant islamic trends."

 

Shaykh Hisham Kabbani, the Lebanonese born chairman of the Islamic supreme council of America characterized wahhabism as the "modern outgrowth of a two century old heracy."

 

Cheychan government's special envoy to europe, Hedge Sali Brant, "The whole political agenda of Wahhabi fundementalism, what the west now calls Islamism, is a deviation of Islam taught in medina university in Saudi Arabia, sponsored by the Saudi government, and exported from there. Out of it have come Hamas, The Taliban, Osama Bin Laden, The FIS, Sadam, and now the gangs roaming Cheychnia and Dagistan."

 

After the 2002 bombing in Bali Indonesia, Indonesian comentator Yusuf Wanandi targeted the ideological threat Saudi Wahhabism in outlining the upcoming challenges of the Jicarta government, "Perhaps the most important thing is the idelogical struggle against radicalism and terrorism in the name of Islam. Although Muslims in Indonesia are mainly moderate, they need help and assistance in expanding their educational systems which have so far been able to withstand the extremist influences of Wahhabism from Saudi Arabia."

Afterwhich Indonesian police discovered the boming was by a member of a violent Wahhabi cell in East-Java that previously clashed with other muslims and even torched the tomb of a local muslim saint.

 

What these commentators are trying to say is that the problem isnt confined just to Wahhabism as a doctrine, but rather it extends to wahhabi institutions, educational networks, and channels of funding, the actual mechanisms that the Saudi state erected to give it world wide outreach. What they're saying to the West is that unless the saudi wahhabi influence is understood, it is impossible to explain how september 11 occurred, or to prevent a future one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...