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

[Auragod]

Originally posted by Dawood@Mar 28 2006, 08:06 PM

All praises and thanks be to Allâh, Who (Alone) created the heavens and the earth, and originated the darkness and the light, yet those who disbelieve hold others as equal with their Lord. (Al-An'am 6:1)

 

Is not He (better than your so-called gods) Who originates creation, and shall thereafter repeat it, and Who provides for you from heaven and earth? Is there any ilâh (god) with Allâh? Say, "Bring forth your proofs, if you are truthful." (An-Naml 27:64)

 

And indeed We have distributed it (rain or water) amongst them in order that they may remember the Grace of Allâh, but most men refuse (or deny the Truth or Faith) and accept nothing but disbelief or ingratitude. (Al-Furqan 25:50)

Quoted post

so u defend ur arguement w/ a book that is fiction. u are lost my friend. your ideas and conclusions work and make sence but only inside ur little box wrapped in religion. no one knows the truths of existence or creation. especially a religious text with agendas. i am not in anyway bashing islam. this is my opinion and it is worth just as much as yours because we both dont know shit except the feel good conclusions we have pulled out of all the lies and man made fact that surrounds us.

[shape1369]

Originally posted by Xeroshoes@Mar 31 2006, 09:10 PM

One question about the frisbee: weren't you watching the frisbee move through the air, as well as considering a lifetime of intimate interaction with wind, muscle movements, gravity, and the movement of objects near the surface of the earth in general? I'm not sure if one can completely separate oneself from interaction with something. I find the Platonic idea that intellectual consideration is sufficient to learn everything very difficult to accept.

 

I'll have more to say about this later, for sure.

Quoted post

 

 

I wasn't trying to seperate myself from the interaction, per se, but to suggest that I didn't need the actual experience of ultimate frisbee to become much better quickly. I agree that I did need all that experiencial data that came before. But they were not connected until I chose to figure out what correlative implications there could be for them. Anywho, I think we get the gist of that whole idea.

 

Again, I agree about the whole monk thing. I dont know enough, but my modmate studies neueropsychology and linguistics, and damn does he know a lot about it. We'll just sit with his bong and have hilarious conversations about all this shit.

 

Cosmic Eschatology. Look into it if you already haven't. Basically it's just scientest positing what will happen at the end of the universe. There was one really good article that proposed this idea of how conciousness will play out in the end of the universe. It made a couple of assumptions that I felt were ok for the sake of argument.

 

1. Conciousnes could and will be considered collective

2. Conciousness can be spoken of outside of extension

3. The universe will end in one of the two most commonly perscribed ways: the Desolate Universe of black holes and cosmic dust, or the SuperCompression of all matter into a single point.

 

 

Well, the main intent of the article was to show that at the end of the universe all conciousness would be omniscent. If the universe ended in a Void, conciousness would go through very very large bouts of deep sleep and randomly spark up with some new and intelligible thought. This of course would allow for conciousness to adjust to the timelessness and eternal nature of that end. Thus, given an infinite amount of time, conciousness would come to know all that is.

 

The second part is the one that I find more intriguing. If the universe collapses in on itself into a point, the conglomeration and compression of all matter and conciousness into a point would lead to all that ever was or could be occupying the same place and time. Once again leading conciousness to account for everything, thus implying its omniscence.

 

I feel like the second part is steeped a lot within Spinoza's metaphysics from The Ethics, but at that, most of what he said still fits with how contemporary physics seems to be finding things.

 

 

As far as the actual nature of qauntum theory and whatnot, I think thats one of the biggest steps contemporary normal science will have to make. Or something else will take over. Mam's said it best on here before, "quantum theory is the closest we have to magic in the world right now." I think one of the reasons I switched to philosophy was to answer those questions whithin Physics that seem utterly fucked. For example the concept of the role of the observer in quantum experiments. Why does observing the particle shut down the probability wave and eliminate its duality? I agree that those are the questions physics must answer, but I think a means to streamline attempts to answer them can be in philosophy. At least thats my hope with what I want to do.

 

be back later.

[Dawood]

Originally posted by Auragod+Apr 1 2006, 08:30 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Auragod - Apr 1 2006, 08:30 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Dawood@Mar 28 2006, 08:06 PM

All praises and thanks be to Allâh, Who (Alone) created the heavens and the earth, and originated the darkness and the light, yet those who disbelieve hold others as equal with their Lord. (Al-An'am 6:1)

 

Is not He (better than your so-called gods) Who originates creation, and shall thereafter repeat it, and Who provides for you from heaven and earth? Is there any ilâh (god) with Allâh? Say, "Bring forth your proofs, if you are truthful." (An-Naml 27:64)

 

And indeed We have distributed it (rain or water) amongst them in order that they may remember the Grace of Allâh, but most men refuse (or deny the Truth or Faith) and accept nothing but disbelief or ingratitude. (Al-Furqan 25:50)

Quoted post

so u defend ur arguement w/ a book that is fiction. u are lost my friend. your ideas and conclusions work and make sence but only inside ur little box wrapped in religion. no one knows the truths of existence or creation. especially a religious text with agendas. i am not in anyway bashing islam. this is my opinion and it is worth just as much as yours because we both dont know shit except the feel good conclusions we have pulled out of all the lies and man made fact that surrounds us.

Quoted post

[/b]

 

So, you call me lost and then you admit that you follow nothing but manmade lies in the end of your post.

 

 

And most of them follow nothing but conjecture. Certainly, conjecture can be of no avail against the truth. Surely, Allâh is All-Aware of what they do. (Yunus 10:36)

 

And if you obey most of those on earth, they will mislead you far away from Allâh's Path. They follow nothing but conjectures, and they do nothing but lie. (Al-An'am 6:116)

 

The quran is not just a book. it is the word of your creator. You don't have to beleive me, but you should read it for yourself without a pre conceived notion. read it with an open heart to what it is really saying and if you beleive in God , then ask him for guidance. (wherever that guidance may be.)

If you don't think you need guidance, then YOU are really lost, because I , for one need guidance every second of my life. If I was left to my own devices, I'd be destroyed, since God is the owner of everything, how can I think I am self suffiecient when i'm living on his earth, breathing his air, eating his food, and living in his body.

If you don't beleive in a God (or a higher power as some call it) , then what I'm saying probably won't make sense to you and my words are probably falling on deaf ears. The real objective is to seek the truth and when we find it, implement it , I don't like to debate much, I'd much rather that God put the truth in your heart so when you type me a message I can read you telling me the truth.

[SWIMS]

There are alot of ideas going around in this thread. It is good to see some well thoguht out opinions. I am not a faithful person, but i have always been interested in the way religion is incorperated into our society. I have a hard time placing belief in an idea, as one part, and an institution, as the other, that has developed over the course of our human history and underwent such developments as to legitimate itself through the proposed infalibiolity or pureness of the original message and experience of the earliest followers (those things which comprise the prescribed scripture)

I do have a genuine interest in what people have to say on here. My family has grown to include irish catholics, protestants, muslims, and fairly orthodox jews. I have come into contact with many reigious and cultural traditions. I hope I can contribute.

peace.

[Dawood]

Ever since people introduced the innovated dogma of joining others in worship along with the true creator, Allah had been sending Prophets and Messengers to His devotees in order to invite them to the worship of Allah and Allah Alone, to order them not to ascribe partners in worship with Him and bring them out of the darkness of polytheism and into the light of Monotheism. All the Prophets preached the belief in the Oneness of Allah. The following verses from the Noble Qur'an illustrate this fact:

 

"Indeed, We sent Noah to his people and he said: 'O my people! Worship Allah! You have no other Ilaah (God) but him. (Laa ilaaha ill Allaah, none has the right to be worshipped but Allah). Certainly, I fear for you the torment of a great Day!'" (Al-A'araaf, The Heights 7:59)

 

"And to 'Aad (people, We sent) their brother Hood. He said: 'O my people! Worship Allah! You have no other God but Him. (Laa ilaaha ill Allaah, none has the right to be worshipped but Allah). Will you not fear (Allah)?'" (Al-A'araaf, The Heights 7:65)

 

"And to the people of Midian, We sent their brother Shu'ayb. He said: 'O my People! Worship Allah! You have no other Ilaah (God) but Him. (Laa ilaaha ill Allaah, none has the right to be worshipped but Allah). Verily, a clear proof (sign) from your Lord has come unto you, so give full measure and full weight and wrong not men in their things, and do not make mischief on the earth after it has been set in order, that will be better for you, if you are believers.'" (Al-A'araaf, The Heights 7:85)

 

"And to Thamood people, We sent their brother Saalih. He said: 'O my people! Worship Allah! You have no other Ilaah (God) but Him. (Laa ilaaha ill Allaah, none has the right to be worshipped but Allah).'" (Al-A'araaf, The Heights 7:73)

 

"And verily, We have sent among every community or nation a Messenger (proclaiming): Worship Allah Alone and avoid or keep away from all false deities etc. do not worship Taaghoots besides Allah)." (An-Nahl, The Bee 16:36)

 

Every Prophet was sent unto his own nation for their guidance, but the Message of Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam - peace be upon him) was general for all mankind and jinn (a being created from smokeless flames).

 

"Say [O Muhammad (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam)]: 'O mankind! Verily, I am sent to you all as the Messenger of Allah.'" (Al-A'araaf, The Heights 7:158)

 

So the aim of sending these Prophets and Messengers to mankind and jinn was only that they should worship Allah Alone, as Allah said:

 

"And I (Allah) created not the jinn and men except they should worship Me (Alone)" (Adh-Dhaariyaat, The Winds that Scatter 51:56)

 

And to worship Allah means to obey Him and to do all that He has ordained, - and to fear Him by abstaining from all that He has forbidden. Then those who will obey Allaah will be rewarded in Paradise, and those who will disobey Him will be punished in the Hell-fire.

[Xeroshoes]

Originally posted by shape1369@Apr 1 2006, 06:12 PM

 

Cosmic Eschatology. Look into it if you already haven't.

 

As For example the concept of the role of the observer in quantum experiments. Why does observing the particle shut down the probability wave and eliminate its duality? I agree that those are the questions physics must answer, but I think a means to streamline attempts to answer them can be in philosophy. At least thats my hope with what I want to do.

 

Quoted post

 

Yeah I read a discussion of cosmic eschatology not too long ago that my astro professor recommended, and it presented, among others, the ideas you mentioned. The idea of the void still bothers me, though, because the point of omniscience is also one of stasis. The only rationalisation to this is that, at some point, consciousness will effect some vast change, simply to make things interesting. I always liked the model of repeated expansion and compression, like you said, but current research points pretty strongly against it. In either case I agree that it seems pretty reasonable to say that consciousness will be extremeley important in the future universe.

 

When I was in middle school I read Arthur C. Clarke's Rendezvous with Rama quartet of science fiction novels, and the ending of the final book expresses a similar idea about the fate of the universe. Basically, these people from earth travel aboard a spacecraft-habitat sent by some unknown aliens, until they arrive at an enormous space-station complex filled with millions of different species of conscious life from around the universe. The purpose of the universe, they are told, is to unite all matter in awareness and praise of the creator, who basically plays with variables in creating multiple universes and watches how they turn out. Forget about the religious suggestions and treat the idea loosely and I think you have a similar idea to what we've been talking about. A distinctive trait of intelligent life is the tendency to play, and to create. Now ascribe this to consciousness in the biggest sense you can imagine, as a pan-galactic phenomenon comprised of vast numbers of individual creatures, or whatever you imagine it to become in the future. Perhaps one can treat consciousness, in a more abstract, not-necessarily individual sense, as God. That is, without isolating it from everything involved in "creating" it, i.e. stars, water, lower animals, etc. It's difficult to explain, but what I mean to say is that consciousness participates in both the creation and definition of the universe. Not individual consciousness, but collective. From what I understand, this has been demonstrated already by quantum mechanics. This explains the power of observation in collapsing the quantum wave function and in retroactively defining particle trajectories (this second effect is almost stranger, since it implies a hand in defining the past.) I hope I explained that well, it's difficult to get the idea across in words.

 

I'm hesitant to prescribe to any kind of eschatological philosophy, but the arbitrariness of beginning and end bother me. I'm still trying to figure out what the "progress" we see around us and the collective increase in self-awareness really implies. In any case I'm kind of in the same boat as you, but I feel that physics is a better field from which to effect change. Both astro and quantum physics are heavily mathematical and I'm not sure that a mostly qualitative familiarity with them would be sufficient to fully understand the issues at hand and formulate new ideas and conceptual interpretations.

 

Hope all that makes sense, I tend to lose my train of thought when I get long winded.

[shape1369]

Well, its not exactly a blind thought on getting into philosophy of science. I have spent a long time doing research and reading about physics on my own, so I feel I have a good enough grasp to continue to focus on science from a philosophical perspective.

 

Anywho, I just think eschotology is interesting. I dont particularly ascribe to any of its ideas, just a cool aside within science.

 

Have you ever read the book, Stranger in a Strange Land? I sing its praises to everyone, but I'm gonna do it again. Great book for this kind of metaphysics.

 

 

blah, im tired, lack of sleep kicking in. i'll be back later.

[AerosolTerrorist]

Allah is god,allah is king allah is 360 degrees of life..

 

For allah is A.rm L.eg L.eg A.rm H.ead

 

my views on god and the first creation of religion,Is extremly sensitive.Know quite alot & people need to realize catholics/Christians were all part of one religion,One saw how much recognition the others getting they parted and the storys change,hmmm

 

If people believed if they didnt go to church every sunday,Or disobey there king they would go to an eternal firey pit called hell? Of course not,Minds were weak,but very open bacc then..

 

If daughters were told sex is a sin & If they had it before they were married,They would go to hell..would they?no..

 

Sounds more like an over-protective father if you ask me,And why marriage? To carry over the family,And marriage was "Loyalty"...

 

Get w/ this fact too, "Jesus" is A greek name meaning one whos anointed,Now we all know he wasnt greek his real name was yeshua ben yosef

 

And think whats ancient greeces main god? Zues...

(not ZOO-S it was pronounced Zes...Je-zues..jesus)......

 

Egyptian pharoahs knew this,but greed held it in...

[Dawood]

Originally posted by AerosolTerrorist+Apr 4 2006, 01:10 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AerosolTerrorist - Apr 4 2006, 01:10 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Allah is god,allah is king allah is 360 degrees of life..

 

For allah is A.rm L.eg L.eg A.rm H.ead

 

Quoted post

[/b]

 

Allah is not Arm Leg Leg Arm Head Aerosol Terrorist.

 

Allah is the Arabic word for God. It is compounded of "Al", the definite article 'the', and "illah", meaning "god". Therefore, Allah literally means "The God" -- somewhat parallel to the capitalized "God" in English. The name Allah is used by Muslims world-wide, as well as Arabic-speaking Christians, Jews, and others. It is written in Arabic as

الله

 

Since الله is an arabic word. It does not make sense to add an english acronym to the transliteration of it. I know this is something that the 5%er's do but it actually has nothing to do with the true religion of Islam and Allah ( the true god and creator of the universe).

 

Muslims beleive in the Quran and in surah al ikhlas Allah says "say, Allah is one, the self sufficient master, he begets not, nor is he begotten (meaning he does not have children nor was he born)and there is nothing co-equal or comparable unto him"

 

Saying Allah means Arm Leg Leg Arm Head is comparing Allah to his creation which is something that Islam totally rejects. Humans die, but Allah will never die.

 

Humans need food, air, water etc. to live, but Allah is self sufficient and is not in need of anything.

 

<!--QuoteBegin-AerosolTerrorist@Apr 4 2006, 01:10 AM

Get w/ this fact too, "Jesus" is A greek name meaning one whos anointed,Now we all know he wasnt greek his real name was yeshua ben yosef

Quoted post

 

Yeshua Ben Yosef means... Joshua son of Joseph.

Jesus's real name according to the QURAN was Isa Ibn Maryam.

Meaning Isa (jesus) Son of Mary. I'm not sure where you get this Yeshua Ben Yosef idea from, but it sounds like something from Judaism where Jews reject Isa (Jesus) as being born of the immaculate conception through mary. The Quran confirms this fact in Surah Al Anbiya

 

 

And (remember) she who guarded her chastity [Virgin Maryam (Mary)], We breathed into (the sleeves of) her (shirt or garment) [through Our angel­ Jibrael (Gabriel)], and We made her and her son ['Iesa (jesus)] a sign for the mankind and jinns. (Al-Anbiya 21:91)

[MAR]

Originally posted by Dawood+Apr 3 2006, 11:01 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dawood - Apr 3 2006, 11:01 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-AerosolTerrorist@Apr 4 2006, 01:10 AM

Get w/ this fact too, "Jesus" is A greek name meaning one whos anointed,Now we all know he wasnt greek his real name was yeshua ben yosef

Quoted post

 

Yeshua Ben Yosef means... Joshua son of Joseph.

Jesus's real name according to the QURAN was Isa Ibn Maryam.

Meaning Isa (jesus) Son of Mary. I'm not sure where you get this Yeshua Ben Yosef idea from, but it sounds like something from Judaism where Jews reject Isa (Jesus) as being born of the immaculate conception through mary. The Quran confirms this fact in Surah Al Anbiya

Quoted post

[/b]

 

Yes some Jews say his name was Yoshuah ben Yoseph and we do reject Jesus.

 

Just out of curiousity if he was a Jew why would he have an arabic name?

[Dawood]

Originally posted by MAR+Apr 4 2006, 03:19 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MAR - Apr 4 2006, 03:19 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>

Originally posted by Dawood@Apr 3 2006, 11:01 PM

<!--QuoteBegin-AerosolTerrorist@Apr 4 2006, 01:10 AM

Get w/ this fact too, "Jesus" is A greek name meaning one whos anointed,Now we all know he wasnt greek his real name was yeshua ben yosef

Quoted post

 

Yeshua Ben Yosef means... Joshua son of Joseph.

Jesus's real name according to the QURAN was Isa Ibn Maryam.

Meaning Isa (jesus) Son of Mary. I'm not sure where you get this Yeshua Ben Yosef idea from, but it sounds like something from Judaism where Jews reject Isa (Jesus) as being born of the immaculate conception through mary. The Quran confirms this fact in Surah Al Anbiya

Quoted post

 

Yes some Jews say his name was Yoshuah ben Yoseph and we do reject Jesus.

 

Just out of curiousity if he was a Jew why would he have an arabic name?

Quoted post

[/b]

 

I didn't know Isa Ibn Maryam was an arabic name.

[MAR]

Is it just a translation of the english/latin?

[Dawood]

Originally posted by MAR@Apr 4 2006, 03:35 AM

Is it just a translation of the english/latin?

Quoted post

 

no, Isa Ibn maryam is what arabs call Jesus. I don't think Isa is an Arabic name though, neither is Maryam. and Bin or Ibn means "son of" in arabic , just like in hebrew. So, I don't think the arabs tried to Arabize his name because they never claim that Isa (Jesus is an arab) Isa Ibn MAryam is how is appeared in the Quran.

 

just a question, you seem to know your religion pretty well and when you talk about judaism you seem to go from what judaism says and not just Mars own personal opinion on judaism (which is what most people who follow religion nowadays do) I don't want to know peoples opinions on reliion, I want to know what the religion says about A-B-C.

 

So, that said, why exactly do Jews reject Jesus and what do they say about Muhammad ?

 

peace be upon them.

[MAR]

Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth

 

just a question, you seem to know your religion pretty well and when you talk about judaism you seem to go from what judaism says and not just Mars own personal opinion on judaism (which is what most people who follow religion nowadays do) I don't want to know peoples opinions on reliion, I want to know what the religion says about A-B-C.

 

So, that said, why exactly do Jews reject Jesus and what do they say about Muhammad ?

 

peace be upon them.

 

 

 

Now, Israel, listen to the rules and laws that I am teaching you to do, so that you will remain alive and come to occupy the land that G-d, Lord of your fathers, is giving you. Do not add to the word that I am commanding you, and do not subtract from it. You must keep all the commandments of the Lord your G-d, which I am instructing you.

 

 

You should carefully observe the entire word that I am commanding you. Do not add to it and do not subtract from it.

If there should arise amongst you a prophet or a visionary, he may present you with a sign or miracle, and on the basis of that sign or miracle, say to you, "Let us try out a different god. Let us serve it and have a new spiritual experience."

Do not listen to the words of that prophet or visionary. G-d is testing you to know whether you love the Lord your G-d with all your heart and all your soul. Follow the Lord your G-d, remain in awe of Him, keep His mitzvahs, listen to Him and serve Him – and then you will be able to have a true spiritual experience through Him. That prophet or visionary must be put to death for having spoken rebelliously against G-d, who brought you out of Egypt and freed you from slavery. He was trying to make you leave the path that G-d commanded you to walk, and you must destroy such evil from your midst.

 

Essentially Jews believe that Jesus attempted to change the word of G-d, which as you can read above was not to be changed, and therefore was a false prophet. False prophets were killed, hense the story of the Crusafixtion, although that is not cosistant with the death penalty for herasy.

 

Most Jewish oppinions, most notably the Rabbi named the Rambam (Maimonides) believe that Christianity is idolitry because of the multiplicity of G-d, therefore not an acceptable religion for gentiles. However Islam is not considered Idolitry although we do not believe it to be true.

[Juan Fuentes]

Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth

 

if jews really would obey the torah,which it is word of God because it has happened as a prophecy,they would have not being jews,but believers itself,of course God didnt want that to happen because he knows what we do not know.but believing in talmud? word of God? it says in a part of it, that,if a jew removes a ladder off a hole while a gentile is in it,he is not responsible for his death,wow,word of God?more like fat vodka drinking rabbis sitting on expensive couches bought with the money of usury to me...

plus the repentance of their sins before they commit them,how can you trust a deal to them?,they have like a license to sin in their psychology.

you jews are witnesses of your own crime,someday youll be judge alone without the help and support of your families and will see all the evil youve done.

evil evil evil pure evil.

[MAR]

Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth

 

WHAT?!?! Write clearly! I have no idea what you are saying.

[Dawood]

Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth

 

Juan comes off crystal clear from my house.

I think what he is trying to say is that the fact that Jews can repent for sins before they even commit them proves the insincerety of their repentance.

Also, that the talmud is filled with injustice toward non Jews.

Also, one that always boggled my mind is that Jews can charge gentiles interest but not Jews (thus getting fat off the misfortune and poverty of some gentiles)

 

All of this that I wrote is (of course) hinging on the fact that these accusations are true or whether you will admit to them. Not to mention this post is a little off topic, I usually don't post anything in here except that I mention the greatness of Allah, and that he is the only true creator and sustainer of the universe, so that being said, he should be our only object of worship, right? I mean , forget the Jew / Muslim thing, if we can agree that none has the right to be worshipped except the true creator who does not die, who does not bear children, who is far above being compared to human beings and created things etc , etc,

then we can make some progress, other than that, we're just going to go around in circles arguing about who's imam or rabbi is better. Bump that, I'm for progress.

[MAR]

Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth

 

Juan comes off crystal clear from my house.

I think what he is trying to say is that the fact that Jews can repent for sins before they even commit them proves the insincerety of their repentance.

 

Where'd you get that idea? Because its not true.

 

Also, that the talmud is filled with injustice toward non Jews.

Prove it. I havent learned the whole talmuld but from what I've learned, with the acception of Avoda Zara, barely even discusses matters involving non-jews.

 

Also, one that always boggled my mind is that Jews can charge gentiles interest but not Jews (thus getting fat off the misfortune and poverty of some gentiles)

 

Would you charge your own brother interest?!?

 

If a jew were taking advantage of a gentile the gentile could take the Jew to a Bait Din (jewish court) where the elder would hear the issue and decide based on the law.

 

All of this that I wrote is (of course) hinging on the fact that these accusations are true or whether you will admit to them. Not to mention this post is a little off topic, I usually don't post anything in here except that I mention the greatness of Allah, and that he is the only true creator and sustainer of the universe, so that being said, he should be our only object of worship, right? I mean , forget the Jew / Muslim thing, if we can agree that none has the right to be worshipped except the true creator who does not die, who does not bear children, who is far above being compared to human beings and created things etc , etc,

then we can make some progress, other than that, we're just going to go around in circles arguing about who's imam or rabbi is better. Bump that, I'm for progress.

 

We believe in the same G-d and in my book thats what counts.

[Dawood]

Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth

 

I never even heard of Jews repenting for their sins before they commit them, I was just telling you what Juan said.

Same with the talmud. I personally don't know much about the talmud so I can't personally say anything about it.

As far as the interest is concerned, We don't charge ANYONE interest. Nor do we pay interest.

I know a lot of muslim oriental rug dealers who deal with Jews because the jews will not charge them interest, but still...Mar, charging some people interest and not others is wrong. I know that this society accepts paying and charging interest as part of their economic structure, but the reasons it was forbidden are many.

As far as beleiving in the same God, well, then I agree, If we beleive in the same God then that is what counts, provided that you beleive in the rest of the messengers also.

A person can't be counted as a beleiver and he rejects the messengers and prophets.

What if somebody told you he was a beleiver in God but that he only accepted the messengers up until Abraham and he rejected Moses and Jesus and Muhammad.

Would you still count him as a true beleiver in God if he rejected Moses but he followed the way of Abraham? (who was of course a true beleiver).

 

in order to be a true beleiver we have to accept ALL the prophets, not just some of them

Muhammad is the one of whom Jesus, son of Mary (peace be upon him) gave glad tidings. Jesus said, as His Lord states in the Quran, "O Israel, I am the Messenger of Allaah for you confirming the Torah (which came) before me, and giving glad tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name is Ahmad [one of the names of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him]. But when he came to them with clear proofs, they said, ‘This is clear magic.’" [as-Saff 61:6]

 

 

 

 

Also, Mar, between us is the issue of the names and attributes of God. Who is God? what does he say? what does he do? what are his attributes? does he wrestle with prophets and lose? does he bear children as some say he does? Is God everywhere? Does God know everything before it happens or after it happens? does God choose his followers through lineage or can a person turn to God easily?

(these are of course hypothetical questions, and I'm not trying to insult your intellegence, just making it clear for the casual reader who passes through here infrequently)

 

these are valid questions and some of the first things a muslim learns is about the nature of his creator....who is your Lord? what does he want from you etc.

So, In my view, it's not ok to just say "I beleive in God, you beleive in God, they beleive in God etc etc. because this beleif has to be follwed by speech and action. And this speech and action has to be preceded by clear knowledge of "Who your lord is", otherwise, If we only have sincere intentions , but no clear knowledge of our lord, then we will never reach the proper goal. Similar to the one who leaves Boston trying to find Los Angeles, but he has no directions, he doesn't properly prepare himself with the tools he needs, but he just leaves the house full of zeal to get to LA. Will he get there? Maybe, but his chances are slimmer than the one who maps out his path, prepares himself with everything he needs for the journey, then sets out with his navigational tools and his supplies.

We need sincerety of intention and clear knowledge on this journey. if we're lacking in either one, our journey will be full of potholes, pit stops and flat tires. We might make it, we might not. It's all about being prepared.

[MAR]

Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth

 

It is said that our forfathers followed the same torah as we (jews) do now. So a true follower in the ways of Abraham would be accepting the way of Moshe. But what you seem not to understand is Jews dont focus on the messanger, we are supposed to trandsend above the man behind the message, although we learn from their rights and wrongs, and recieve the torah directly from G-d.

 

By Sinai the Jews gathered around and heard the first two commandments directly from G-d each commandment was so powerful that it killed them forcing G-d to bring them back alive each time. The confusion, pain, and awe of each utterance of G-d was too much for them and they begged Moshe to ask G-d if he could relay the rest to them and so it was. It is said that every Jewish soul that was, is or will be was present at the giving of the Torah.

 

For a Jew a leader is a guide but all Jews must lead themselves. We are one nation with one heart, but we are individuals as well.

 

As far as understanding or know G-d it is impossible for a person today. G-d showed Moshe, the Greatest prophet to live, his back (whatever that truly means), when he asked for an explaination, and that was so glorious that his face was shinning afterward. It was so bright he had to wear a veil so the Jews could look upon him.

 

G-d was, is and always will be, He is all powerful, He knows everything and yet we have free choice? Things like this boggles the mind and yet we are to accept them. That is it. To know G-d is not to know him, to try to know him is to drive yourself crazy. The more you focus on his commandments the more you will understand. If you want to know G-d you must walk in his ways. We were created in his image and he gave us the map to walk on his path. This is the way to know G-d. In the words of the first commandment "Anochi HaShem Alokechah" I am Hashem your G-d.

[tabloid-]

Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth

 

The idea of God unites,but the execution of Religion divides.

[Auragod]

Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth

 

no way homie... the idea of god just separates us further... we believe the individual is special and unique so we believe we are different and separate from our fellow man and deserve special treatment to our personal situation. which just spirals down to corruption and control. no one is here for u man... just us on earth. we are alone together...

 

save the scripture dawood...

[Dawood]

Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth

 

Auragod, I was actually talking to Mar, but since your here....The idea that God seperates us is in fact true. It is supposed to. Although it unites us also. communities and brotherhoods are built on the "idea" (as you call it) of God. I have developed some of the best friendships with people because we beleive the same thing. As a matter of fact, I can go to any state in America and walk into a Mosque and the people there would give me the shirt off their back if I needed it. Actually, I'm limiting it. I should say almost any province of any country. So, your opinion that God seperates people is true in a sense that people are divided into beleivers and disbeleivers, yes. But it's not an absolute statement because billions of people are united under beleif in God.

 

don't trade in this life for a life that is much better and everlasting goodness, we are not alone with eachother, God does exist and someday youll know that with the utmost certainty

and regret.

 

check out this brother....

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2599088815335698363&q=turntoislam.com&pl=true

[Qawee]

Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth

 

Dawood, I dont know if its been addressed, but why do wahabis wear pants that dont rest on their shoes?

[Module X]

Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth

 

Well, its not exactly a blind thought on getting into philosophy of science. I have spent a long time doing research and reading about physics on my own, so I feel I have a good enough grasp to continue to focus on science from a philosophical perspective.

 

Have you ever read the book, Stranger in a Strange Land? I sing its praises to everyone, but I'm gonna do it again. Great book for this kind of metaphysics.

QUOTE]

 

Yo this is Xeroshoes, I lost my name when they changed the board up.

 

Yeah I don't mean to judge your decision, I'm just personally skeptical about the value of pure philosophy. Even though there are some aspects of physics that suck and sometimes seem kind of pointless to have to learn about (i.e. the nitty-gritty mathematics) I feel that the act of observation and appreciation of external phenomena has a lot of value, in a Daoist sense. Approached properly, it fosters an appreciation of the interconnectedness of the myriad things. So while I can consider more abstract philosophy on my own time, physics is, even if it never reveals any specific philosophical profundity to me, a worthwhile subject to study. That's just how I approach it.

 

I've read Stranger in a Strange Land. Definitely relevant here, especially regarding the potential of the mind. It's a fun idea to play around with; I'm still very curious about those studies of Buddhist monks.

 

Have you read much Aldous Huxley? Right now I'm reading The Perennial Philosophy. His stuff has definitely had a significant influence on me, especially The Doors of Perception.

 

...now I've got 30 minutes to finish a French essay. Better stop here for now.

[Dawood]

Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth

 

Dawood' date=' I dont know if its been addressed, but why do wahabis wear pants that dont rest on their shoes?[/quote']

 

Qawee, Are you muslim? with a name like Qawee I'd guess you were a muslim. Anyway

If you are, Asalamu Alaikum wa rahmatullah....and as for your question. Do you read Sahih Bukhari? Sahih Muslim? How about Riyadh As Saalihin? Go to the section about clothing in Riyadh Us Saalihin by Imam Nawawi.

[the.crooked]

Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth

 

Mod X- its shape, lost my name as well.

 

but i mean fuck it lets just take some soma and go to the smellies. Brave new world is one of my favorite books. I did a semester long meditation on futurism of the early to mid 20th century a while ago, and I had some pretty cool revelations during it. It forced me to look at a lot of people's perceptions of the future through the minutia of day to day life and how it would be impacted on the smaller scales by technological and societal advancement. The crazy shit that I was finding, however, was that most forms of continuing themes within the works that I was using as a base for the project have already in some form or another come to pass within our reality. Take for instance, the concept of "instentaneous information" that a lot of sci-fi stories talk about. It is already here. A couple weeks ago, I was on my friends computer and they had Trillian running. Now trillian acts as a third party host program for all communicative programs such as AIM, MSN Messenger, etc. But what I found most particularly fascinating about it was the script within the program that analyzes text, finds an appropriate entry within Wikipedia, about said phrase or text, and then displays it as a bubble when you run your cursor over the word. Now, at first glance, that may not seem like much, but if you really think about it, its fucking amazing. We can know any and everything one may like to at any point in time, given a connection to the net.

 

I was having a pretty long conversation with some friends last night about a sort of techno/informational induced neurosis that seems to be becoming more frequent if not actually emerging as a sort of social sickness. There is a kid that we know that just yesterday went to the hospital for going off the deep end a little. Before he left he had a very long conversation with my friend Mike. Mike and I began to discuss where the kid's head was at and how it came to be that he was in his current mental state. We figured that it was a combination of things, but that one of the more readily focused ideas that made this possible was the level of connection to the world, and its instantaneous nature, that he had through his computer. He got a bit lost in a lot of the philosophy he had been reading, but there was much more that had obviously been affecting him. He was so ready to adhere to the thoughts of someone else, and to acknowledge the positions of so many different people other than himself. His knowledge of actions happening on a global scale caused him to dissociate from the locality of himself. Every moment became encapsulated in this constant global view. I mean shit, I read google news probably at least four times a day. That shit is scary when you read it outright. Let the headlines sink in, and take them at face value.

 

One of the more disheartening things we came to last night when discussing this kid was that it was a familiar feeling, and that it is a lot more accesable to anyone than just a regular psychosis might. Hail to the new flesh right? The fact that this seeming pyschosis of his is predicated upon an awareness of the world and its happenings is a little fucked up. What happens when this shit starts popping up regularly with some random teenager who happens to stay up reading too much online...

 

 

Ill get some more stuff out in a couple days for you Mod X. Good conversation so far.

[The Man with the Answers]

Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth

 

Yeshua Ben Yosef means... Joshua son of Joseph.

Jesus's real name according to the QURAN was Isa Ibn Maryam.

Meaning Isa (jesus) Son of Mary. I'm not sure where you get this Yeshua Ben Yosef idea from, but it sounds like something from Judaism where Jews reject Isa (Jesus) as being born of the immaculate conception through mary. The Quran confirms this fact in Surah Al Anbiya

Quoted post

[/b]

 

Yes some Jews say his name was Yoshuah ben Yoseph and we do reject Jesus.

 

Just out of curiousity if he was a Jew why would he have an arabic name?

 

 

 

In aramaic, jesus' name was jeshua, which has evolved into Joshua.

 

"Jesus" comes from the hellenization of jeshua, which was common in those days, greek being the lingua frana, much as people latinized their names more recently

 

 

as all you folks who study lingustics know, the "sh" sound evolved into a hard 's" in greek, and the "a" had an "s" added to denote gender...

 

the current english pronunciation is the evolution of that through latin etc to modern english...

[Module X]

Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth

 

I don't doubt that almost everyone on these boards is effected by some degree of "information induced neurosis," as you said. I know I am. But it's difficult to say whether this, as well other results of the acceleration of technology, is really a "bad" thing. I mean, whether or not it's philosophically acceptable, the fact remains that human control over nature is increasing and will continue to increase until we either start colonizing further and further into space or destroy ourselves. I don't foresee any vast increase in self-awareness that will allow us to moderate our actions, and I'm inclined to believe that the simple fact that this technological revolution is occuring justifies it. I'm most of the way through The Perennial Philosophy, and Huxley comes down pretty hard on industrial technology and the whole notion of achieving mastery over nature; I really wish he had been around to comment on the information age. In any case, this has occupied my thinking lately.

 

I've come up with several different directions from which to approach the problem:

First, you could say that technological acceleration is simply the natural course of human development, and, like we discussed earlier, is necessary for the expansion of consciousness across the material universe. In this case we are simply going through a period of adjustment. This implies that free will does not count significantly (at this point) when speaking about humans on large scales.

 

Second, you could say that it is a result of the faulty, selfish aspects of Western thought running out of control, leading to the widespread acceptance of harmful behavior that will, if unchecked, eventually destroy us. For example, the common acceptance of material ambition and reckless meddling with natural processes as "good." I feel like this view implies a larger degree of free will, that it is perhaps possible for people, on a large scale, to change their ways, given sufficient philosophical intervention.

 

Third, you could see mankind as a natural anomaly or sickness, one that will inevitably destroy itself or its host, quickly fading into history as the ordinary chaos of the universe continues indefinitely. In this case free will is I suppose an illusion, and our imagined importance simply derives from a vain sense of uniqueness.

 

Of course, these are very general approaches; there are an impossible number of small issues and in-between possibilities to consider. In any case I personally think that the first explanation is the best. I think people give themselves to much credit; that is, we aren't really much in control of the progression of civilization. One can easily discern, looking broadly at history and even at the way people act on an individual scale, processes not much more complex, if at all, than processes that occur in nature. To be sure, I allow for free will and attaching a significance to consciousness; however, at this point in our development, we simply are not that self-aware. Possibly the fact that Aldous Huxley was himself an extreme example of conscious self-awareness and intelligence made him unable to see this. These ideas are still pretty nascent with me; I know that I intuitively mistrust the way so many philosophers decry the way the bulk of human kind lives and is progressing, but I'm still trying to figure out how to express why. It seems hypocritical to me that true knowledge of the unitive Godhead should foster this negative view of natural process.

 

Blah, done for now. I really need to stop drinking so I think more clearly. I feel like I have a bunch of leeches in my brain.

[Qawee]

Re: the nature of the creator of the heavens and earth

 

Qawee, Are you muslim? with a name like Qawee I'd guess you were a muslim. Anyway

If you are, Asalamu Alaikum wa rahmatullah....and as for your question. Do you read Sahih Bukhari? Sahih Muslim? How about Riyadh As Saalihin? Go to the section about clothing in Riyadh Us Saalihin by Imam Nawawi.

 

Nah dog, Qawee is an Oromo word meaning "rifle"

But yeah, the question still stands, I asked the homegirl at the job and she really didn't know, I thought it was a Wahabi thing, but she said Sunnis are supposed to do it as well, she just didn't know why