Who Is Allah?

Who Is Allah?

There are 256357 comments on the The Brussels Journal story from Aug 24, 2007, titled Who Is Allah?. In it, The Brussels Journal reports that:

“Allah is a very beautiful word for God. Shouldn't we all say that from now on we will name God Allah? [...] What does God care what we call him?”

From the desk of Soeren Kern on Fri, 2007-08-24 11:56 Europeans love to mock the salience of religion in American society. via The Brussels Journal

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Brussels Journal.

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#183901 Jul 31, 2013
JOEL THUMBS UP wrote:
<quoted text>
Good and bad, that're aspects of the ordinary and exteriorized consciousness, are relative and interchangeable terms that have no fixed definitions since what's good under one set of circumstances may be bad in another situation.
Exactly what I have been asking you. Therefore, how would one know he is transcending goodness and badness unless he is somewhat in a vegetative state (or unconscious state)? And what is so beneficial about that? Further, if they are relative and subjective terms to the individual or outsiders, then there is no use calling someone good or bad. Because there is no standard other than one's own.

JOEL THUMBS UP

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#183902 Jul 31, 2013
CouldThisBeTrue wrote:
<quoted text>

You speak about good and bad yet do not define those words except to imply that actions may constitute what is bad or good.
Good and bad are products of limited understanding and rules and laws formulated by a feebly developed mind.

Besides, a thing may have both good as well as bad uses depending on the context.

Good and bad can apply to any situation depending on the circumstances but what is good today may not be good tomorrow.

For example, stealing is considered bad.

But, is theft really bad per se?

One may steal money, food, utensils, ideas and so on.

A man sees his son dying from cancer and cannot get him treated for lack of monetary means and charities have no more money to spare or give very little that's insufficient for the treatment and so the father has no means of seeking help for his dying child except to steal money and use it for the dying boy's medical treatment which could perhaps save his life.

So, in this circumstance, if the man gets caught stealing the money (that he intends using for his dying son's treatment) should he be sent to jail or have his right hand chopped off as it is done under Islamic law?

During a riot, a vulnerable family has no means of defense and is left at the mercy of rampaging mobs, so should they willingly submit to the violence and rape and die or should they submit to the mobs and be physically, emotionally and psychologically scarred for life? No. In such a situation, it is not wrong if the family lies and steals clothes, weapons, money or does whatever is needed - including beating and possibly killing those who prey on them - to get saved.

A woman gives $ 100,000 to a charity only to see it misused. She later regrets her action and stops donating and a year after that incident she realizes that philanthropy is mostly disguised egoism and sentimental weakness and is the prime cause of keeping indigent people poor that prevents them from manifesting their innate potential and that the money would be put to better use if educational and vocational training be given to the needy to make them stand on their own feet and fend for themselves when properly trained or in an extreme case she refuses to donate even for the education of the poor saying that people who have little or no means to feed themselves should behave in a responsible manner and should stop procreating or produce just 1 kid so that they don't sink deeper in the vicious cycle of poverty. Why should the mistakes committed by others be thrown on the shoulders of the more able and more sensible?

And more....

JOEL THUMBS UP

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#183903 Jul 31, 2013
CouldThisBeTrue wrote:
<quoted text>

Therefore, how would one know he is transcending goodness and badness unless he is somewhat in a vegetative state (or unconscious state)? And what is so beneficial about that? Further, if they are relative and subjective terms to the individual or outsiders, then there is no use calling someone good or bad. Because there is no standard other than one's own.
Unconscious?

There's nothing like unconsciousness.

We can say that the surface or frontal consciousness recedes or ascends as say during trance, stasis, sleep or coma into the subliminal depths or that it sinks into the subconscient or merges with the higher planes of consciousness that lie within the force fields of the body or in planes of consciousness above the head with each plane having its own degree of frequency and innate phenomena/laws.

Obviously, you've neither the understanding nor the direct experience of the yogic states of consciousness.

That is entering into yoga and the states of consciousness and the awareness, knowledge and power that're acquired on account of merging in each subtle plane...

I won't go into this profound subject. I've written pages on this discipline and yet the subject matter remains incomplete.

JOEL THUMBS UP

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#183904 Jul 31, 2013
CouldThisBeTrue wrote:
<quoted text>

I see you call certain persons bad but I have not seen the basis upon which you make that decision.
Tell me, who did I call bad.

I use a very different set of criteria when compared to ordinary or scriptural notions of the same in arriving at such conclusions.

JOEL THUMBS UP

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#183905 Jul 31, 2013
CouldThisBeTrue wrote:
<quoted text>

For instance, if I have a ruler that is one meter long, I can measure something with that as standard.
Only if that something is a gross physical thing that lends itself to rigid measurements.

JOEL THUMBS UP

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#183906 Jul 31, 2013
CouldThisBeTrue wrote:
<quoted text>

And what is so beneficial about that?
What?

A higher state of consciousness with its concomitant energy field can radically and permanently change conditions in nature and being if it is potent enough.

JOEL THUMBS UP

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#183907 Jul 31, 2013
CouldThisBeTrue wrote:
<quoted text>

Further, if they are relative and subjective terms to the individual or outsiders, then there is no use calling someone good or bad.

Because there is no standard other than one's own.
Not necessarily....

If you judge from the ordinary consciousness or from a higher state of consciousness that is not high enough or if you frame rules and regulations from this ordinary or not-so-high state states of consciousness, you're sure to err seriously and cause more loss than profit.

Besides, if you judge from a higher state of consciousness as did our prophets still colossal blunders can be made and much damage caused since that higher state of consciousness of the prophet is insufficient to perceive the causal chain in its entirety nor is that higher state of consciousness potent enough to regenerate and transform the unregenerate event or entity beginning from its roots and this is why these prophets have failed, their teachings debunked, their laws the cause of more harm than benefit and their egoism, megalomania and imperfections exposed...This only shows that the state of consciousness of Abraham, Moses, Elijah, Jesus, Rama, Krishna, Buddha, Mohammad, Zoroaster, Baha'ullah and others was not high enough which is why they committed serious blunders/errors.

Further, remember, the subjective has its objective aspects...
yehoshooah adam

Denver, CO

#183908 Jul 31, 2013
JOEL THUMBS UP wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell me, who did I call bad.
I use a very different set of criteria when compared to ordinary or scriptural notions of the same in arriving at such conclusions.
rabbee: well if you call buddah good, then everyone else is bad relative to that. and if you use that to call yourself good, then everyone else is bad relative to your own normal bias.

and since i call G-D The Only Good, then everyone else that deviates from G-D, is considered bad inversely proportional to their distance from THE POINT SOURCE of G-D. so therefor i have no reason to idolize any of you, who are a greater distance from G-D than i. and would only honor, someone who if any today were closer to G-D than i.
yehoshooah adam

Denver, CO

#183909 Jul 31, 2013
JOEL THUMBS UP wrote:
<quoted text>
What?
A higher state of consciousness with its concomitant energy field can radically and permanently change conditions in nature and being if it is potent enough.
rabbee: well so far all your, free will mental magic appears to be extremely impotent.
david

Minneapolis, MN

#183910 Jul 31, 2013
more lies and false math to mess with your head.
alpha is 1 and omega is 7 and 1 is 7.
and 3 digits represents the father the son and the holy ghost .

1 of 1 of 7.

(1)

(1_1_1)(1_1_2)(1_1_3)(1_1_4)(1 _1_5)(1_1_6)(1_1_7)

1_2_1 1_2_2 1_2_3 1_2_4 1_2_5 1_2_6 1_2_7

1_3_1 1_3_2 1_3_3 1_3_4 1_3_5 1_3_6 1_3_7

1_4_1 1_4_2 1_4_3 1_4_4 1_4_5 1_4_6 1_4_7

1_5_1 1_5_2 1_5_3 1_5_4 1_5_5 1_5_6 1_5_7

1_6_1 1_6_2 1_6_3 1_6_4 1_6_5 1_6_6 1_6_7

1_7_1 1_7_2 1_7_3 1_7_4 1_7_5 1_7_6 1_7_7

(2_1_1)
(3_1_1)
(4_1_1)
(5_1_1)
(6_1_1)
(7_1_1)
finish and have fun. if any one finish and post I will give thee the convertor. lol.
bmz

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#183911 Jul 31, 2013
Seeker wrote:
I'm not condemning Muhammad, I am merely saying that he cannot be the person mentioned in 18:18, and he himself never even said he was. Do you need for him to be propecised in 18:18 in order for you to believe he was a legitimate prophet?
On this, I cannot sit on the fence.

Deut 18:18 is definitely not about Jesus. Jesus does not fit the description at all in Deut 18:18, so you will have to look for him somewhere else.

Another point, Seeker. The Jews were waiting for a messiah, not a prophet. Also, the Jews were not present at the Mount.

If Jesus were that prophet, then he was definitely not the messiah at all.

This is an example of logical reasoning. Tell me why Christians cannot think logically?

Jesus cannot be everything. Right?

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#183912 Jul 31, 2013
JOEL THUMBS UP wrote:
<quoted text>
Good and bad are products of limited understanding and rules and laws formulated by a feebly developed mind.
Besides, a thing may have both good as well as bad uses depending on the context.
Good and bad can apply to any situation depending on the circumstances but what is good today may not be good tomorrow.
For example, stealing is considered bad.
But, is theft really bad per se?
One may steal money, food, utensils, ideas and so on.
A man sees his son dying from cancer and cannot get him treated for lack of monetary means and charities have no more money to spare or give very little that's insufficient for the treatment and so the father has no means of seeking help for his dying child except to steal money and use it for the dying boy's medical treatment which could perhaps save his life.
So, in this circumstance, if the man gets caught stealing the money (that he intends using for his dying son's treatment) should he be sent to jail or have his right hand chopped off as it is done under Islamic law?
During a riot, a vulnerable family has no means of defense and is left at the mercy of rampaging mobs, so should they willingly submit to the violence and rape and die or should they submit to the mobs and be physically, emotionally and psychologically scarred for life? No. In such a situation, it is not wrong if the family lies and steals clothes, weapons, money or does whatever is needed - including beating and possibly killing those who prey on them - to get saved.
A woman gives $ 100,000 to a charity only to see it misused. She later regrets her action and stops donating and a year after that incident she realizes that philanthropy is mostly disguised egoism and sentimental weakness and is the prime cause of keeping indigent people poor that prevents them from manifesting their innate potential and that the money would be put to better use if educational and vocational training be given to the needy to make them stand on their own feet and fend for themselves when properly trained or in an extreme case she refuses to donate even for the education of the poor saying that people who have little or no means to feed themselves should behave in a responsible manner and should stop procreating or produce just 1 kid so that they don't sink deeper in the vicious cycle of poverty. Why should the mistakes committed by others be thrown on the shoulders of the more able and more sensible?
And more....
If that is the case, you will never know what is good and bad. It seems to me that Nirvana is a state of nothingness, more or less.:-) Can't figure which -- more, or is it less nothingness. Frankly speaking, I don't see proof of this concept except as conjured up in the human, as you seem to say, highly subjective mind. Thus in any discussion of relative goodness and badness since you cannoot provide a definition yet of what is good or bad, there can hardly be any discussion. I do agree that what motivates a person is likely to influence his actions. But again -- who sets the standards for what is good and bad?
Alex123 WM

London, UK

#183913 Jul 31, 2013
El Cid wrote:
<quoted text>JOEL craves attention because he didn't get enough of his mama's teats.
It seems that way!

JOEL THUMBS UP

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#183914 Jul 31, 2013
Alex123 WM wrote:
<quoted text>

It seems that way!
LOL.

How's work going, dude?
susanblange

Norfolk, VA

#183915 Jul 31, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
On this, I cannot sit on the fence.
Deut 18:18 is definitely not about Jesus. Jesus does not fit the description at all in Deut 18:18, so you will have to look for him somewhere else.
Another point, Seeker. The Jews were waiting for a messiah, not a prophet. Also, the Jews were not present at the Mount.
If Jesus were that prophet, then he was definitely not the messiah at all.
This is an example of logical reasoning. Tell me why Christians cannot think logically?
Jesus cannot be everything. Right?
Jesus was neither a messiah, nor a prophet. He was never accepted and anointed as king of Israel. Messiah means anointed one. He was not a prophet either, what he prophesied did not come to pass. The test of a prophet is if what he says comes to pass.

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#183916 Jul 31, 2013
JOEL THUMBS UP wrote:
<quoted text>
Unconscious?
There's nothing like unconsciousness.
We can say that the surface or frontal consciousness recedes or ascends as say during trance, stasis, sleep or coma into the subliminal depths or that it sinks into the subconscient or merges with the higher planes of consciousness that lie within the force fields of the body or in planes of consciousness above the head with each plane having its own degree of frequency and innate phenomena/laws.
Since we are discussing these things, I see no benefit to be in that state. Obviously you do. I see a benefit to understanding the standards of what constitutes good and bad and attempting to live by the set standard as one sees it, of what is good and not what is bad. TM does not make the grade with me. I prefer living. Do you believe in reincarnation?
JOEL THUMBS UP wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously, you've neither the understanding nor the direct experience of the yogic states of consciousness.
I have little understanding and no experience except from what I've read about this, and I do not attempt to recede (my terminology) into a state of transcendental meditation with the proviso to overcome all sentient thoughts and desires.
JOEL THUMBS UP wrote:
<quoted text>
That is entering into yoga and the states of consciousness and the awareness, knowledge and power that're acquired on account of merging in each subtle plane...
I won't go into this profound subject. I've written pages on this discipline and yet the subject matter remains incomplete.
OK, no problem. However, from what I've gleaned from reading, Nirvana is a state of complete nothingness (life, if you call it, devoid of any feeling?) and that is not my idea of happiness, nor does it equate with anything to do with bliss as I see it. The more that I think about this, the attempt to get into a state of transcendence as if nothing matters, is beginning to sound very selfish to me. I would assume that a person who is highly into TM would try to help a child get out of the way of an oncoming truck. Thank you for expressing your thoughts.

JOEL THUMBS UP

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#183917 Jul 31, 2013
LIKE CAN EVALUATE LIKE & THE HIGHER CAN BETTER EVALUATE THE LOWER:

1) Each plane of consciousness in the cosmic hierarchy has its own innate set of laws and phenomena that apply only to that particular plane of consciousness.

2) A plane of consciousness that's higher up the cosmic hierarchy has a more refined or in most cases a totally different set of laws and phenomena than the lower planes.

3) An attempt to evaluate the laws and phenomena of a higher plane of consciousness from a plane of consciousness that is lower or inferior to it is absurd.

4) If at all I have to evaluate the laws and phenomena of say the gross physical plane of consciousness, then, this can only be done through the exteriorized consciousness that's enmeshed in matter, whereas, on the other hand, if the laws and phenomena of say the vital plane have to be analyzed then it cannot be done by applying gross physical yardsticks in the evaluation process as this would yield wrong results and so it is logical to say that the laws and phenomena of the vital plane of consciousness can only be evaluated by rising in consciousness into the vital plane and perceiving things from that standpoint.

5) The same analogy applies to every other plane of consciousness.

6) Like knows like.

7) A truer picture of the deeper causal mechanisms of the laws and phenomena of a lower plane can be had from a higher plane of consciousness since the degree of perception of the higher plane is more penetrating than the degree of perception of the consciousness that's native to the lower plane.

8) The higher the plane of consciousness, the better will be the perception of the root mechanisms of the laws and phenomena of the lower planes.

9) As one rises higher and still higher in consciousness, a progressive union of the subject with the object takes places and logically speaking knowledge acquired by identification in consciousness of the subject with the object is the surest and the most precise way of knowing the thatness or the essence of the object that otherwise would not be possible in the absence of the union in consciousness of the subject with the object.

10) In the absence of the union in consciousness of the subject with the object, knowledge acquired would be inferential, incomplete, superficial and highly questionable.
yehoshooah adam

Denver, CO

#183918 Jul 31, 2013
bmz wrote:
<quoted text>
On this, I cannot sit on the fence.
Deut 18:18 is definitely not about Jesus. Jesus does not fit the description at all in Deut 18:18, so you will have to look for him somewhere else.
Another point, Seeker. The Jews were waiting for a messiah, not a prophet. Also, the Jews were not present at the Mount.
If Jesus were that prophet, then he was definitely not the messiah at all.
This is an example of logical reasoning. Tell me why Christians cannot think logically?
Jesus cannot be everything. Right?
rabbee: well i hate to tell you this bmz, but seeker is much more correct than you.

since previously in Shofteem, previously to your discussion it states: "A Prophet from your midst, from your brethern, like ME shall HaShem, your G-D, establish for you - to Him shall you harken".

and there is no other person in all of Ysraelee History that can fit that "like ME" description of G-D other than Yeshooah Adam. but still verifies my point, that THE OUR IMAGE of Yeshooah Adam is Ye-Hoo V-Hee (YHVH).

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#183919 Jul 31, 2013
JOEL THUMBS UP wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell me, who did I call bad.
I use a very different set of criteria when compared to ordinary or scriptural notions of the same in arriving at such conclusions.
You said Krishna was bad. I do not know Krishna. But then you asked if Muhammad and Moses were as bad or worse than Krishna? My question is, how would you know what is good or bad? Do you set the standards? But I see this is getting to be pointless (too abstruse) because clearly you are looking at things from yourself as well as the promptings of your mentors, and that is all right, but it is not my way of life, because I believe as humans we do not set the standards for good and bad, as there is a Creator who differentiates for us what is good or bad. I did not ask you WHY you think Krishna was bad, I asked you from what vantage point do you set the standard. Thank you.
yehoshooah adam

Denver, CO

#183920 Jul 31, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>Jesus was neither a messiah, nor a prophet. He was never accepted and anointed as king of Israel. Messiah means anointed one. He was not a prophet either, what he prophesied did not come to pass. The test of a prophet is if what he says comes to pass.
rabbee: messiah's are not anointed by the world, they are anointed by G-D.

and i am sorry but They were too, appointed as King and the inobvious Queen of Ysrael by the alleged as pontius pilate, who had the power and authority to do so.

and the punishment for being a false prophet, is stoning to death. and that did not happen, the way they wanted either. conclusion is that They, were not false prophets.

if you try to stone a true prophet to death, and you can't do it. then you are, the false prophet. if they die any other way, besides stoning to death. then you have just murdered, a true prophet of G-D.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Archaeology Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Harding to open biblical archaeology museum Apr 15 Plunder 5
News Archaeologists Reconstruct Face of Medieval Man... Mar '17 kornadnez 1
News Blackbeard's anchor recovered off coast (May '11) Feb '17 Pretty Pharts 12
Fossilised tooth Feb '17 Navigator 1
News 700-year-old poop found, still reeks (Apr '14) Feb '17 Ancient Phart 27
News Aglukkaq re-announces Franklin Centre for Gjoa ... Feb '17 stand on guard 4 ... 1
News The struggle to preserve Gaza's treasures (Feb '11) Jan '17 Moses Kestenbaum ODA 2
More from around the web