My Final "God" Thread

Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by Yahunyahti, May 8, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    I'm not making anymore threads on God after this one. From now on, if the God subject comes up in another thread, I'm going to simply link people to this thread and they can discuss it in here. I've said many different things to create debates over the years but in this thread I will state my ACTUAL view on this subject and after this I will only speak on it in this thread and in no other.

    Atheists claim that there is no God. This is a leap of faith. To claim that something doesn't exist is to "believe" because one cannot prove that God does not exist.
    It is just as much a belief as the Theistic view that God definitely does exist. They are the two polarities. The Agnostic is in the middle. They do not declare that God exists nor do they declare that God doesn't exist. They admit that they do not know.

    I am not Agnostic.
    I am not Atheist.
    I am not a Theist.

    There is a Divine Order. There is a Divine One (Oneness) of all things. Nothing is beyond the Totality. I call that Totality "YAH" . . . Others call it the Tao, some call it the Won, Muslims call it Allah, Jews call it Hashem, etc.

    Atheist Scientists (such as Richard Dawkins) proclaim God does not exist.
    I use him as the example because he is well known and the most outspoken Atheist in the world today.

    Richard Dawkins, however, states that he became a Scientist because he is seeking the TRUTH. But, if there is no Divine Order and everything is momentary and meaningless and Modern Physics are completely confused and everything is NOT interwoven and photons are NOT influenced by human beings observing them and matter does not react as though it is "aware" or "conscious" . . . then what truth can any man or woman possibly expect to find? If everything is meaningless, there is no truth. The only truth you can possibly study is the divisions of meaninglessness.

    However, Atheists forget one thing . . . if we are animals, why are we seeking Truth? Why do we have Philosophy and Psychology? Why do we have Science and Knowledge? Why do we believe in Wisdom? Why is that INSIDE of us? Animals create societies . . . Ants form Governments. But they do not seek TRUTH. Where did that concept come from? Where did the questions come from? Why are human beings capable of even believing in TRUTH or MEANING?

    YAH does exist. There is a Divine One (Totality) and anybody who rejects that is simply ignorant or stubborn and a reactionary. Do I proclaim to have a definition for the Divine Totality or YAH beyond that? No. It is the complete and utter totality and interdependence of all formed and not-yet-formed things. That is the best that I can do as far as defining it. Anything beyond that is divisive.

    That's all there is to it.
    That is the only God that can possibly exist.
    Nothing can be outside of the Totality.
    Nothing can be independent from the Totality.
    End of story.
    test
  2. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    Also - Scientists can stop giving credit to Copernicus and Galileo for destroying the concept of the Flat Earth Theory. The Ancient Egyptians knew that the Earth was round when they formed their calendar
    (in 4,500BC) around 360 days, 12 months and 30 day months.

    It was the Greeks who took us backwards from the Round Earth to the Flat Earth. They took us backward and now they're trying to take credit for bringing us back to what we already knew.

    Here you can see Richard Dawkins getting owned at 23:55.
    He claims that there are PROBABLY super-evolved alien beings in the universe and he has not a shred of evidence or reason to believe it other than the fact that there are billions of planets in the Universe. Isn't that the same as believing that there is PROBABLY a God because of the infinite interworkings of the universe and the HIGHLY IMPROBABLE possibility (according to Einstein) that it can all be an accident?
    [youtube]C9HtY1chchM[/youtube]


    I don't suspect that Menaz will make an appearance in this thread and even if he does he won't have a valid argument and will instead break apart this post piece by piece and stretch it out into a very long winded response . . . but I'm very interested in how he justifies a search for Truth in a Universe that has no purpose or meaning.
    test
  3. UnbrokeN

    UnbrokeN Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2001
    Messages:
    22,568
    everything is too perfect to be by chance or an accident...there is definately soemthign smart within us all, that survives physical death..and it comes into physical form to perfect itself more and more..like an evolution or a..journey..all i know is to be happy and thankful for everything im able to see and learn in my life...we dont know how much we should value life and cherish..and make the best of it..and then move on to the next step..if we qualify..
    test
  4. x - calibur

    x - calibur Guest

    the anthropic cosmological principle, combined with the nature of the universe and its expansion, and the corollaries of that expansion...

    thats the closest thing ive heard to proof of a god, and it confirmed my natural belief
    test
  5. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    I don't have a problem with people being Atheists. If you're an Atheist, fine. But, I do have a problem with Atheists trying to convince people who have experienced God that they are all insane, simply because they have not been able to experience God.
    That is asinine. We base reality on whether the majority have had an experience.
    If the majority of people have had a common experience with God and the majority will all report very similar experiences then God (according to logic and reason used in other standards) must exist. We do not consider the crazy man's logic as reasonable if he is the minority in his schizophrenic voices . . . so why would we believe the Atheist minority? Why would we base reality on an Atheist's inability to perceive when they are the minority? Now, if the majority of human beings had not experienced God in one form or another . . . that would mean something. But that's not the case. It is the other way around and all we have to base reality upon is the shared majority experiences with it.

    If a person HAS experienced God, then believe in God.
    If a person has NOT experienced God, then do not believe in God.
    It doesn't make sense to believe in something you have not experienced.
    It also does not make sense to condemn something others have experienced.

    As long as everybody can agree to be peaceful and loving, kind and compassionate . . . I have no problems with it. Agree to disagree.
    But, when somebody tries to promote Atheism so that they can promote Eugenics and Ethnic Cleansing based on Pseduo-Science discoveries . . . then I step in.

    Atheists are not logical human beings. They are flawed human beings.
    Their logic amounts to nothing. They are lacking, even according to Atheistic Scientific Claims involving the Frontal Lobe. People who are found lacking have no right to make the rules for the world. They do not have the authority.

    The "flying spagetti monster" and "santa clause" are nonsense. People don't actually claim to have experienced them nor do they put faith in them. Comparing them to the tooth fairy is ridiculous for the simple fact that nobody has ever claimed to have actually experienced any of them.
    test
  6. Red1

    Red1 A Figure of Speech

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2000
    Messages:
    1,031
    Ok, I get that there is an x that includes everything. That is obvious, what makes that divine. There are really only a few definitions of divine and I want to first understand what you mean. Either you are referring to God, or of God, in which case the point that there is "everything" does not mean that that "everything" is God. Just because one points out that all things in the universe are... in the universe, does not somehow translate to something divine or special. It is logic. So in this final "God" thread, what makes everything=God? Furthermore, if God=Everything, what does that mean really? Does renaming everything as God, expand on the idea of what everything is or does it contract the traditional idea of God? And if it does neither, then what is the purpose of giving Everything a different name?

    You constantly interchange God and Tao and other religious ideas as if they are the same thing (especially when you throw in Buddhist and Hindu teachings) and while it is easy to superficially extract quotes from a variety of sources to show similarities most of these philosophies/faiths are different in fundemental ways. To say otherwise, is to cheapen what each has to offer in order to make a point. I know that you have studied a variety of sources, but if you go in thinking all the great thinkers/prophets of the past were essentially saying the same thing you will find what you are looking for even if by doing so you butcher the message. This is especially true of what we refer to as, eastern religions/philosophies partially because the subtleness of the differences and probably also do to our western biases.
    test
  7. Threshhold of intel

    Threshhold of intel cleveland is the city...

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2001
    Messages:
    3,526
    atheist are already in hell......
    test
  8. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    When I use the words "The Divine Totality" I mean, "The Intricately Interwoven, Perfectly Flawless Totality" . . .

    That help?


    I will answer this through Muslim terms, since you are Muslim, out of respect for you. If Allah is everywhere, then Allah is all things. If Allah is everywhere, then Allah must be in me and in you and in everyone else, as well as everything else.
    If Allah is in heaven, then Heaven is everywhere and in everything and Heaven is nothing more than a state of consciousness or awareness of the totality and one's connection to it.

    If Allah is not everywhere and Allah is not in everything, then Allah is separate from his creation and an individual. If Allah is beyond the infinite (somehow outside of it) . . . well, then there must be something greater than the infinite and Allah must be within it, which means that something is greater than Allah and that is impossible. Nothing can be outside of the infinite, for infinite means . . . "Endless"

    Therefore Allah must be the totality itself.
    If Allah is the Divine Totality, then we are the Divine Infinite in Finite forms.

    The Quran says that Allah breathed the breath of life into Man.
    This breath is called the Soul (if I'm not mistaken).
    The Quran also says that "All things come from Allah and to Allah is all return."
    If our soul comes from Allah and our Soul must return to Allah then this means we are infinite (or at least that part of us which is not finite). This means that the Soul can never die. If it comes from Allah and our breath is Allah's breath then we are Of Allah and it is our Divided Mind (Shaitan) which sees all things is divisions that blocks us from this awareness of the Divine Totality.

    The word "God" is generic. It means many different things to many different people who see through many different forms of divisions with their minds.
    The word "God" means nothing particular. If it becomes particular and it can be defined then it is not the total "God" or "Allah"

    Basically, Allah cannot be defined. If Allah is defined, then it is not Allah in Allah's totality, but is only an attribute or a division of Allah.

    The opening phrase of the Tao Te Ching is:

    "The Tao that can spoken is not the eternal Tao.
    The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
    The nameless is eternally real.
    Naming is the origin of all divided things."

    If Allah is everywhere, then all things are united with Allah.
    If Allah is not everywhere, then things can be separate from Allah.
    If there is even one thing separate from Allah, then Allah is not everywhere.

    See, we view the divisions as divisions because we see through divide eyes and judge through divided minds. However, if we could see the Infinite (somehow separated from it) then we could see how all things are intricately dependent upon one another, but we cannot because we are within the infinite (as all things are).

    For example . . . you cannot see how you are connected to a Chinese woman.
    You may be a Muslim in Yemen (rhetorical "you"). You may be living in the middle of the desert on a small farm and you may be thinking, "I am me and I am alone."
    You have children and your children move to Britain to go to school. They may meet a British Muslim and marry them. Then they have children and they may move to China and meet a Chinese Muslim and marry them. Now, that Chinese Muslim may be the grandchild of that Chinese woman who you think you are not connected to. You have never met her and you never will, yet your offspring and her offspring will unite and thus you and them are intricately joined together.
    This is one small direction. This is one minute connection, but all things are connected in so many infinite ways that it would be absolutely impossible to keep track of them. Your every single action sends out ripple effects (even your inaction created effects). Our Solar system does the same within our Galaxy and our Galaxy does the same within our Universe and our Universe does the same within the Multi-Verse and the Multiverse is just another fraction in the equasion of infinity.

    Psalm 82:6 (King David / Dawood Speaking): "The LORD says, 'I have said, Ye are gods (godlike beings) and all of you are children of the Most High.'"

    Everything is within the Totality (Allah), but the divisions are not the totality, they are within it. They are not the totality, but they are part of the totality. They are not to be worshiped as the totality but they are to be respected and honored as a portion of it (small as they may be). The Totality (Allah) is One and is the only One which should be worshipped, but the divisions should be honored for they all stem from Allah and return Allah. To hate a portion of the totality is to hate the totality. To hate the creation of Allah is to hate Allah.

    Different languages use different words to speak of this totality, because words are necessary for communication, but the words should not be divisive. Whether one calls The Divine Totality "Allah" or "Tao" or "Won" or "YHWH" . . . it makes no difference at all. What is being spoken of is the same. It is the Totality.
    test
  9. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    The Religions are different. The message is not.
    What Akhenaten taught, Krishna taught, Buddha also taught, Lao Tzu taught, Yeshua (Jesus/Isa) taught and Mohammed taught. They taught different people, at different times, in different cultures, through different words and terms using different allegorical comparisons . . . and they had very different minds and so the same message has taken on different forms as it passed down through different nations.

    I'm connecting the message, not the religions.
    The word "religion" comes from the word "religio" which meant "superstition."
    Religions, Traditions, Superstitions, Etc. ultimately mean nothing to me.
    They are the practices which help people focus on the Totality. If they do not help one focus on the totality and they cause one to divide, then they are useless.

    "There is no compulsion in religion" - Mohammed

    This means that nobody should be forced to accept a religion, for any reason. We do not see through the same eyes. We do not hear through the same ears. We cannot perceive in the same ways . . . and that is alright. We are fractions of the Divine Totality. We do not need to be the same. We cannot be the same. We are divisions. But, we must remember the Totality and worship the Totality.

    This is why Yeshua (Jesus/Isa) said: "The two most important commandments are these: The LORD (YHWH) your God is One. Love The LORD (YHWH) with all your heart, soul and mind. The second is similar to the first. Love your neighbor as yourself. If you do these two, all others will fall in place."

    If I were to translate this into my terms, it would say:
    "The two most important commandments are these: All things are One. Love the The Oneness with all your heart, soul and mind. The second is similar to the first. Love your neighbor as yourself. If you do these two, all others will fall in place."

    If a Taoist translated it, it would read:
    "The two most important commandments are these: The Tao is One. Love the Tao with all your heart, soul and mind. The second is similar to the first. Love your neighbor as yourself. If you do these two, all others will fall in place."

    The Muslim would translate it:
    "The two most important commandments are these: Allah is One. Love Allah with all your heart, soul and mind. The second is similar to the first. Love your neighbor as yourself. If you do these two, all others will fall in place."

    The Buddhist would translate it is:
    "The two most important commandments are these: The Buddha is One. Love the Buddha with all your heart, soul and mind. The second is similar to the first. Love your neighbor as yourself. If you do these two, all others will fall in place."

    Now, you may be thinking: "The Buddha isn't Allah!" . . . this is true, but Buddhists do not name the Totality. The Totality is simple "The One" or "The Won". They name only the one (man or woman) who is one with the totality a Buddha. The man known as Buddha is not his real name. He was not the first Buddha or the last. His name was Guatama and he changed his name to Buddha when he was enlightened. They name the one who is one with the One, 'Buddha' or 'The Awakened One'. They are not worshiping The Buddha, though it does appear this way . . . they are worshiping the One and meditating to become the Buddha 'The Awakened One' so that they may perceive the Totality.

    The term Buddha means: "One who is awakened to the totality"
    The term Messiah (Christ) means: "One who is anointed by the totality"

    They mean the same thing. They are just different words.


    They are all teaching the same thing. They are simply teaching different people from different mindframes.

    When Yeshua taught, he spoke to the poor. So did Mohammed. The people they taught were suffering. If you ask poor people that being poor is good, they will laugh at you. So Yeshua (Jesus/Isa) taught "Seek the Kingdom of God within you." ("The Kingdom of God will not come with your careful observation, nor will people say to you 'Here it is!' or 'There it is!' for the Kingdom of God is within you. It is inside of you and outside of you.") Mohammed taught very simple people who had previously been praying to statues. That is why his message is much simpler than Yeshua's message and the message of Lao Tzu or Buddha. Arabs could not possibly have understood Lao Tzu, Buddha or Yeshua and that is why they were given Mohammed. They had trouble understanding Mohammed and Mohammed spoke very plainly and in the most simple terms. Imagine if Lao Tzu has spoke to them. They would have said, "This man is mad! This man is crazy!" This is why Mohammed said, "No prophet is greater than another." Mohammed was the seal of the Prophets. The King Messiah to come is not a Prophet. He is not coming with a New Message. He will come to establish a New Law, Government and way of living by uniting all the people of the earth as One World. But he is not a prophet.
    There is no need for a New Revelation. The Revelations are complete.

    However, Buddha was a prince. He was filthy rich and could have lived the live of luxury. At that time India was EXTREMELY wealthy. India was the wealthies empire on earth, at that time. So Buddha abandoned his wealth and taught that wealth meant nothing. He was teaching wealthy people and Yeshua and Mohammed were teaching poor people. They needed different approaches. But the message is very clearly the same.
    test
  10. Red1

    Red1 A Figure of Speech

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2000
    Messages:
    1,031
    You did not get at the heart of the question. You can understand the interconnectiveness and totatily of everything without adding a divine element. It is what it is without fuzzy language and rearrangment of scripture. So why do it? What is the point of adding some magical element to it? If you strip out the God part, and just say everything with logic and science you will be both more clear, and probably more accurate. I am not saying there is no God, I am just asking why your argument feels a necessity to add something to an already understandable concept. Your argument appears to boil down to we are all made up of atoms and matter and that the lines between us are illusionary, person to person, person to plant or even on the scale of person to planet. Alright, check. Then you rename all of this (which already has a clear name) as the Tao, or God, or "The Intricately Interwoven, Perfectly Flawless Totality" . . . .
    why?
    What is the point of said world view?

    Buddha's philosophy is different than Hindu philosophy, the philisophical worldview presented by Krishna in the Gita later, both are different than the work we attribute to lao tzu. I am tentative to call the texts on jesus and the quran philisophical works since they are less coherent as such, but they do set up a world view and each has a set of moral codes that attempt to answer questions about the why and how of life... both have spawned rich philisophical traditions as well. The point is, while continuity and similarities can be found between major religions/philosophies many of them are fundamentally different.

    For instance, in the Upanishads, it is argued that our idividuality is an illusion because we all have a core atman which is Brahman. Our personalities and the other stuff that we feel make up the "me" are transitionary and not real. Our core is atman and that atman is Brahman or everything. So it correlates well with your argument about the totality of of all things. It says right there, great!

    Now the Dhammapada is also anti individualistic. So on the service it appears that they Buddha is saying something similar to the hindu text. However, Buddha was anti individualistic for a different reason. He rejected the idea of atman but saw that what made up the "me" was our thoughts. Since thoughts are arbitrary it is easy to concieve that the me could easily be something different. So the barriers that make the up the "me" are arbitrary and flexible. So again, it says could correlate with your argument that no "me" but it would correlate with your overall argument for different reasons than the reason found in the Upanishads and the two are not compatible in at least this regard.


    oh and the idea that Buddha means the one who is awakened is correct, but not necessarily to the totality. it has more to do with having freed onself from desires and reached a state of understanding on the self and all things and found the highest joy.

    On a side note, the idea that sufferring is due to desire and that we can rid ourselves of the former by doing away with the latter is a different concept than is found in the old testament where sufferring appears to just be part of life. In the new testament suffering becomes in part a deep spiritual experience though the idea of jesus on the cross. Again, different ideas that could be gleened from any comparitive religous studies book.
    test
  11. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016

    Like I said before, I am not connecting them with the things that make them different. I am connecting them with the end result that they all aim to achieve.

    What you are not taking into consideration is that the Eastern approach or technique (Tantric/Yogic Techniques) are not concerned with the truth of the path, they are concerned with the end result. When Gurus tells stories, the stories are not important . . . the meaning of the story is. This is similar to what Yeshua did when telling parables. The parables were not real, the message in them was. Aesop's Fables would be a good Greek comparison.

    It is the end result that I am concerned with, not the different approaches.
    They all taught the same result, through different ways and with different words.


    Yeshua's end result - Peace, Love, Compassion, Unity and Forgiveness
    Mohammed's end result - Peace, Love, Compassion, Unity and Forgiveness
    Buddha's end result - Peace, Love, Compassion, Unity and Forgiveness
    Lao Tzu's end result - Peace, Love, Compassion, Unity and Forgiveness
    Krishna's end result - Peace, Love, Compassion, Unity and Forgiveness
    The Hebrew Prophets - Peace, Love, Compassion, Unity and Forgiveness

    Sure they can be divided in their approaches. But, they are united in their goal.
    It is the goal that matters, not the approach. If you and I take two different roads through Los Angeles and both end up in Santa Monica at the Pier . . . it makes no difference which road we take. The destination is the Pier. Your path may be longer and more scenic than mine . . . mine may be more direct and stressful. The point is that we both get to the Pier by sundown.

    You are concerned with trivial differences.
    "What's in a name? That which we call a rose
    By any other name would smell as sweet." - Romeo and Juliet (Shakespeare)

    It is clear that new terms must be given, which do not belong to any of the divisions if there is any hope of uniting the divided. If you use scientific terms, then religions will resist. If you use religious terms, science will resist. The middle path is to conjure up new terms which encapsulate them both without already formulated associations to the words.
    test
  12. Red1

    Red1 A Figure of Speech

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2000
    Messages:
    1,031
    . . . . ?
    test
  13. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    I answered this.

    "It is clear that new terms must be given, which do not belong to any of the divisions if there is any hope of uniting the divided. If you use scientific terms, then religions will resist. If you use religious terms, science will resist. The middle path is to conjure up new terms which encapsulate them both without already formulated associations to the words."

    If you are asking another question then you're going to have to elaborate because I'm not sure that I'm with you.


    "What is the point of said world view?"

    Is that like asking, "What is the meaning of life?"

    If so, the point is to live. There is no other point. To live in peace. To live in unity. To learn how to appreciate all people and accept them. To teach people to be the best that they can be and provide them with a place in their world where they can give back to humanity.

    What other point are you looking for? Are you expecting some grandiose scheme and elaborate conclusion? I'm not sure what you're asking me.
    test
  14. Red1

    Red1 A Figure of Speech

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2000
    Messages:
    1,031
    the answer sounds like, because you think so. Understandable.
    test
  15. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    Perhaps it sounds like that because you choose to hear it like that.
    Is there another way? Are we to embrace one view and in doing so reject all others? Would that not be divisive? Would it not be more productive to establish new terms entirely new to all divisions, which may establish unity between all of the divisions instead of taking the views of one and dropping the views of all others?
    test
  16. Red1

    Red1 A Figure of Speech

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2000
    Messages:
    1,031
    What you choose to call something does not change it's essense. So far, what I gather from what you are saying is you want to call everything something with a divine hinge because you think it should be so. That is fine, you can name it whatever you want.
    Regardless how you name it or present it, the it does not change, so why even bother? The effort sounds noble, but a new name in any form is only more devisive. If you are trying to explain things, use as clear language as possible. Divine flawless rule, tao, or whatever, does little to add to what you are trying to express besides saying everything.
    trying to convince people or teach people would even be counterproductive to what you are even suggesting... if we are all one, then there is no reason for a teacher because there is no student that is seperate to learn said information.
    test
  17. M.Maestro

    M.Maestro Ghost

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2004
    Messages:
    12,124
    I actually agree with Az on this one.
    test
  18. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    We do. The world needs a unifying language. The divisions are fine when it comes to cultural or religious groups. This is not a problem. The problem arises not in the divisions themselves but when the divisions interact with one another.

    I believe that English would be a good unifying language since English has gone into great depth in defining fractions of fractions while other languages do not.
    The one thing that the Greeks, Romans and Europeans were gifted with is language. We need language to communicate. Since English defines the smallest of divisions, then the smallest of divisions can be communicated in English. If you try to communicate those same minute divisions in Arabic, you will fail. Arabic does not have words for all of these divisions. If you fail to communicate, you remain divided.

    There is nothing wrong with having cultural or religious divisions. That is not a negative thing. There is nothing "wrong" with the divisions themselves, but we must have something which does unite us as well. India alone has 22 different languages. Africa has an estimated 2,000 languages. There are 6,500 living languages in the world. There aren't even 6,500 countries in the world. We need a unifier. English is that unifier.

    The word "God" is too generic and means far too many things. When a Muslim uses the word "God" they mean Allah and they know what Allah means. However, if the Muslim is speaking to a Southern Baptist Christian and the Christian uses the word "God" it may mean an entirely different thing and thus neither one will be able to fully understand what the other is saying. There is a barrier between them.

    We (human beings) can only become aware or conscious of the totality by observing the divisions. Language is how we convey what we have observed.
    We need language that is not divisive among the different groups. I did not say that we need to eliminate the divisions of perception entirely. I was saying that we need to stop putting our faith in those divisions as actually being divisions. The divisions are a very useful tool, if used to observe the totality. If taken to be true divisions, they are divisive. If they are taken as aspects of the totality, they will unite.
    test
  19. Celtic Muslim

    Celtic Muslim New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    5
    As a Muslim I agree with you on the point of Gods evidence in the pattern of order in the universe. There is a saying in arabic that one philsopher came to a desert Bedouin and asked him wheres the proof Allah exists. The bedouin replied "you see the camel tracks in the sand and its dung? Thats the proof that the camel exists who created them. Likewise you see the Heavens and the Earth? Thats the proof that Allah exists". As Muslims, we believe Allah gave us logic to reason, and that his signs are to be found in His creation so that we may ponder over them and reflect on the One who created them.
    test
  20. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    Here is the question of questions . . . is Allah a He?
    If not, why do Muslims refer to Allah as a He?
    If Allah is a He, then does Allah have a penis?
    What would Allah need a penis for if there is no She version of Allah?

    Allah is not a He.
    Allah is the totality of all things.

    But we do agree, the totality is known through its divisions.
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)