Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does God = Allah
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 241 of 302 (307620)
04-28-2006 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by lfen
04-28-2006 11:41 PM


call me a lumper
Now we have the classic lumpers vs splitters debate.
Thanks for the link Ifen. I hadn't heard of the lumper/splitter thing before. This is almost exactly what I meant in my last post to Faith. We pretty much have the same opinion on the situation, its just that I'm lumping and she's splitting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by lfen, posted 04-28-2006 11:41 PM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by lfen, posted 04-29-2006 12:33 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 242 of 302 (307628)
04-29-2006 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by Faith
04-28-2006 11:54 PM


By the holy books written for the purpose of elucidating their nature. The holy books contradict each other on crucial attributes and character of God. This is how they are proved to be different concepts and therefore the different religions are worshiping different Gods, and this is how it HAS been proved on this thread in a number of posts.
But the books are not god. They are books, written by men. All you've proven is that the religions worship god differently you haven't proven that its a different god.
edited to add: Say you have 3 witnesses to a car crash, they give you three different and partly contradictory accounts. What they say does not change what really happenned.
This message has been edited by DrJones*, 04-28-2006 10:34 PM

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Faith, posted 04-28-2006 11:54 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Faith, posted 04-29-2006 2:36 AM DrJones* has not replied

lfen
Member (Idle past 4678 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 243 of 302 (307629)
04-29-2006 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by Faith
04-28-2006 11:54 PM


This is how they are proved to be different concepts and therefore the different religions are worshiping different Gods, and this is how it HAS been proved on this thread in a number of posts.
You are asserting that God is concept? I wouldn't have thought you would believe that.
lfen
edit: "would haven't" to intended "wouldn't have"
This message has been edited by lfen, 04-28-2006 09:36 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Faith, posted 04-28-2006 11:54 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Faith, posted 04-29-2006 2:46 AM lfen has replied

lfen
Member (Idle past 4678 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 244 of 302 (307631)
04-29-2006 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by New Cat's Eye
04-28-2006 11:59 PM


Re: call me a lumper
I first heard the term from my brother about debates about whether different skeletons of early homo where different species or just variations within species.
Turns out lumpers and splitters are not just found in academic disciplines. The conflicts between these two approaches occur in lots of things, cuisine, dance, music, art, and on and on.
Some folks seem to naturally focus on the underlying principles and other focus on the distinguishing details.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-28-2006 11:59 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-29-2006 12:37 AM lfen has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 245 of 302 (307633)
04-29-2006 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by lfen
04-29-2006 12:33 AM


Re: call me a lumper
Some folks seem to naturally focus on the underlying principles and other focus on the distinguishing details.
And I like that I'm a person who focuses on underlying principles rather than distinguishing details.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by lfen, posted 04-29-2006 12:33 AM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by lfen, posted 04-29-2006 12:48 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

lfen
Member (Idle past 4678 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 246 of 302 (307635)
04-29-2006 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by New Cat's Eye
04-29-2006 12:37 AM


Re: call me a lumper
I am also. One thing I like about the nondual advaita concept of God which is sometimes called Brahman and other times the Self, the Tao, or Totality is that it is approached through paths that are adapted to different temperments.
These paths are assumed to be eventually transcended. Some people need to feel love and devotion to an image of God. Think Krishna or Jesus or even the Divine Mother, or Mary. Others are more intellectual and are interested in a God as a principle in the world.
Ultimately the path takes the ego from it's confusion in forms to a realization of that which is real before and beyond all concepts.
So in India a Sage like Shri Ramana Maharshi would be visited by Hindus, Muslims, Christians, aetheists, agnostics. He was fine with all of that. His function was not to provide content. Whatever content worked for a person, Jehovah, Jesus, Allah, Krishna was a conceptual path that worked. Ramana didn't judge the path but worked for the awakening of the individual.
One of my purposes on this board is to find a way to make the understanding and acceptance of Ramana clear at least to contrast it to the path of denominations stating that their conceptual content is what is real and only their conceptual formulation is correct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-29-2006 12:37 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-29-2006 1:32 AM lfen has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 247 of 302 (307638)
04-29-2006 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by lfen
04-29-2006 12:48 AM


Re: call me a lumper
I don't wanna get too far off topic, but I would like to read a reply, lets hope for a lack of moderation.
But, for me (and maybe this is because of how I was raised) I think Jesus' teaching hit the nail on the head. In his words, he was more than just a non specific path to god. He was the path to god, not too literally though. Its just that the truth he spoke seems all inclusive and I do think that he was god incarnate. Still though, I do not think that he is the only path. I do not think that opposing religions are destined for hell. I take a more lumper view of the idea, that if you do follow Jesus' teachings then you will get to heaven, but the path is not limited to his teachings. And some of the other religion's teaching look like they are compatible with Jesus' path.
Others are more intellectual and are interested in a God as a principle in the world.
The only problem with this that I have is that some of Jesus' teachings seem to go against the 'God as a priciple in the world' view that you have. (and please don't ask for specifics, I don't have the time this weekend to dig them up, just reply assuming that they exist). Its just that some of Jesus' techings get specific enough to limit the 'more intellectual princple of god', and becuase I feel that the truth of his teachings are all inclusive, I have a problem accepting this view.
His function was not to provide content. Whatever content worked for a person, Jehovah, Jesus, Allah, Krishna was a conceptual path that worked. Ramana didn't judge the path but worked for the awakening of the individual.
IMHO, some of Jesus' teaching get specific enough to go against this particular view. So at some point in my thinking I start to lose my lumper-ness, if you know what I mean. Its just that some of Jesus' teaching seem to suggest that his divinity was important and simply writing this off, and removing this specific aspect, goes against his teachings, which I'm assuming are all inclusive. On a personal note, he spoke so much truth that I believe it all to be true.
One of my purposes on this board is to find a way to make the understanding and acceptance of Ramana clear at least to contrast it to the path of denominations stating that their conceptual content is what is real and only their conceptual formulation is correct.
While I maintain that my denomenation is real, I concede that mine is the only correct one. In that sense I am still a lumper. But some of your view get specific enough to allow me a splitter's view. Still though, they are respectable and I won't claim that you are incorrect.
Am I making sense?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by lfen, posted 04-29-2006 12:48 AM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by lfen, posted 04-29-2006 2:08 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 248 of 302 (307640)
04-29-2006 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by Faith
04-28-2006 9:55 PM


quote:
El was the generic term for God in the Middle East in the time of Moses, which fits with the fact that most peoples had a general if often distorted concept of a Creator God over all gods, but it also got shrunk down to particular gods thanks to fallen nature and demonic activity.
That term dropped out of use as time went on. The God ofthe Jews specifically gave His personal Name and was no longer known as El.
You don't say when it dropped out of use. However we know that it was still in use in the time of Isaiah, and Christians still keep Isaiah's specific usage alive today - in the name ImmanuEl.
a

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Faith, posted 04-28-2006 9:55 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Faith, posted 04-29-2006 1:26 PM PaulK has replied

lfen
Member (Idle past 4678 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 249 of 302 (307641)
04-29-2006 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by New Cat's Eye
04-29-2006 1:32 AM


Re: call me a lumper
Bede Griffiths and Bernadette Roberts are two Catholic contemplatives who have an appreciation for the spirituality of the Hindu's and Buddhists while remaining within their own Catholic tradition.
I think it is the contemplative tradition in Catholicism that is most capable of appreciating contemplative love of God in other traditions. In Islam this contemplative traditon is called Sufism.
Today, however, many Muslims and non-Muslims believe that Sufism is outside the sphere of Islam. Nevertheless, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, one of the foremost scholars of Islam, in his article The Interior Life in Islam contends that Sufism is simply the name for the inner or esoteric dimension of Islam.
After nearly 30 years of the study of Sufism, I would say that in spite of its many variations and voluminous expressions, the essence of Sufi practice is quite simple. It is that the Sufi surrenders to God, in love, over and over; which involves embracing with love at each moment the content of one's consciousness (one's perceptions, thoughts, and feelings, as well as one's sense of self) as gifts of God or, more precisely, as manifestations of God.
http://www.arches.uga.edu/~godlas/Sufism.html
As for my personal views I think that all concepts ultimately fail. Lao Tzu opening in the Tao te Ching comes closest. I paraphrase to the best of my memory, "The Tao that can be named is not the true Tao. Nevertheless things have a mother. The true Tao is nameless but needing a name to speak of it I call it the Tao"
I don't imagine we would be in complete agreement.
As to Allah and God or Allah and Jehovah, YHWH etc. my view is that these are names and concepts that humans use to the best of their ability to address the fundamental mystery of exisence. With Ramana I am quite taken with the appropriateness of God's name being "I am that I am".
From the Hindu perspective Jesus saying "I am the way" points to the way as being our fundamental being, "I am". From my point of view Christianity is not well sourced in it's roots. The origins are layered over by the interpretations of various egos. If there was a historical Jesus and I think there might but find no persausive evidence that there was, he could well have been a Jew who awakened to this fundamental identity with all that IS, the Self, or Brahman, or divinity. But he was killed before he could bring his students to understand what he was talking about, it being very different then the existing religions.
Buddha had over 30 years in a supportive milieu to convey his teaching. Jesus would have had a few years in a politically oppressive and tumultuous milieu to attempt to impart his understanding.
I've read a little about Sufi's, mostly their poetry but know little about Islam. While conceeding the functions of religions were and remains important I have to admit to being dissatisfied with organized religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-29-2006 1:32 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 250 of 302 (307642)
04-29-2006 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by Buzsaw
04-28-2006 9:17 PM


Re: Allah Moon God
If faith's claim that this is a well-documented historical fact were true then why is the "best" source you can find a sectarian one ? Why not a respectable academic source.
Well having got to page 7 without seeing even one pro-source that looks at all reliable (although Jack Chick came up early on !) I have to say that sensible use of google does not appear to back up the view that there is anything solid and reliable here.
The counter-arguments on the whole seem to be rather better than the pro-arguments (the explicit Quranic condmenation of moon-worship itself is solid and hard to refute).-->http://

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Buzsaw, posted 04-28-2006 9:17 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Faith, posted 04-29-2006 3:01 AM PaulK has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 251 of 302 (307643)
04-29-2006 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by DrJones*
04-29-2006 12:26 AM


The contradictory written accounts of God amount to worshiping a different God. If one has a Son who is equally God with Himself but the other has no son, if one chose Isaac to father his chosen people and the other chose Ishmael, these are two entirely different Gods.
"What really happened" or what God is cannot be known apart from the written revelations of his character. If they contradict each other, they cannot all be true. We worship God as having the charater that is taught in these revelations, so if we are worshiping the false description we are worshiping a false God.
The book is the only clue to God. Of course it's not God. What an absurd idea. But it is the only way we have of knowing anything about his character.
Jar absurdly says that relying on the Bible is worshiping the map rather than the territory, but if it is a map it is to be followed because if it is a good map it will enable one to navigate the territory. If you ignore the map -- as he does, making up the territory from other sources and his own imagination -- you will only be totally lost as a result.
Now the map may be a false map, and certainly at least two of the three major religions have a false map since they all contradict one another, so whichever those two are mislead their followers into alien territory, territory that is not the true God. Logically there can only be one true map. Of course it is possible the third map is also false, but there cannot be more than one true one.
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-29-2006 02:39 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by DrJones*, posted 04-29-2006 12:26 AM DrJones* has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by lfen, posted 04-29-2006 3:02 AM Faith has replied
 Message 271 by ramoss, posted 04-29-2006 9:12 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 252 of 302 (307645)
04-29-2006 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by lfen
04-29-2006 12:29 AM


map and territory
No, God is not a concept, but the only way we can know God is through concepts. And for that reason it is crucial that the concepts be accurate.
As jar says, the Bible -- and by extension all the holy books of all the religions -- is the map to the territory. He says it implying that one worships the map if one takes it seriously, thereby ignoring the true God who is not the map. But this is absurd. He is the one who says the Bible is a map, after all, and maps are to be used to find the territory, but he sneers at it. Since there is no way to get to the territory without the map, the map is essential. He ignores it completely for fear of worshiping it, whatever that means, trusting in all kinds of other sources, and is of course lost as all get out.
Since the existent maps or holy books of the three major religions describe three different territories, contradict one another on the most important features of the landscape, at least two of them will lead you away from God. Logically the third one might mislead as well, but in any case only one of the "maps" could possibly be a true guide to God.
I said more about this in Message 251 to Dr. Jones.
Again, God is not a concept. But we can't find God just looking on our own, we can know him only through concepts -- if you really want to know God it's important to have an accurate conceptualization of Him.
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-29-2006 02:53 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by lfen, posted 04-29-2006 12:29 AM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by lfen, posted 04-29-2006 3:16 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 253 of 302 (307646)
04-29-2006 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by PaulK
04-29-2006 2:27 AM


Re: Allah Moon God
The counter-arguments on the whole seem to be rather better than the pro-arguments (the explicit Quranic condmenation of moon-worship itself is solid and hard to refute).http://
I haven't read the sites but you are wrong, it is not at all hard to refute this as supposed support for the idea that Allah was not originally the moon god. When Mohammed forced Islam on the people he insisted on throwing out all the other gods but the one god of Islam. Islam overthrew the pantheism of the region which had previously prevailed. Mecca was a major shrine to over three hundred idols before Islam came in and made the worshipers monotheists. Mecca became a major seat of Islam, replacing the pantheism, and the name of the moon god, a prominent god in the pantheon, became the name of the God of Islam, now conceived as the one and only God.
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-29-2006 03:03 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by PaulK, posted 04-29-2006 2:27 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by PaulK, posted 04-29-2006 3:11 AM Faith has not replied

lfen
Member (Idle past 4678 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 254 of 302 (307647)
04-29-2006 3:02 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by Faith
04-29-2006 2:36 AM


Jar's saying "the map is not the territory" comes from Korzybski. Korzybski was talking about remaining conscious that when using language, concepts, or maps we are abstracting from the thing as it is.
If a map of the earth were accurate to every detail it would be an exact duplicate of the earth. The value of maps is that they are abstractions. They have a functional level of detail. The user defining the function hence there are for the earth different projections for flat maps depending on the function.
"What really happened" or what God is cannot be known apart from the written revelations of his character.
This dependence on authority is a feature of mainstream religion and society. I understand how secure this belief is for you but it has no security for myself (and though most likely in the minority I'm not the only one). There are differing traditions that people depend on. You are mainly concerned with three that I don't find very persuasive:Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
The contradictory written accounts of God amount to worshiping a different God.
You are asserting that there are three Gods, Jehovah, Jesus, and Allah being worshipped by the three religions Judaism, Christianity, and Islam?
For me there is only one totality though it is variously conceived, misconcieved, understood, misunderstood etc. Although an advance over the polytheism they replaced I think the near eastern religions have generally a primitive understanding of God. I know you disagree. I just want to point out that one can take arrogantly critical positions without being a fundamentalist. Although I imagine it helps!
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Faith, posted 04-29-2006 2:36 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Faith, posted 04-29-2006 3:13 AM lfen has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 255 of 302 (307648)
04-29-2006 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by Faith
04-29-2006 3:01 AM


Re: Allah Moon God
I would say that the explicit refusal to worship the sun or moon clearly indicates that the Islamic God is not a moon-god.
If your story were true then there should be strong links between the concepts and mythology of the two Gods. How about showing some of that instead of making assertions ??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Faith, posted 04-29-2006 3:01 AM Faith has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024