Discussion in 'Belief and Spirituality' started by ScholarlySeeker, Mar 27, 2021.
I've edited and added to my post above.
OK well l've not seen anything so far. Just Thomas, juantoo3, and widowburner barracking him. Sorry for not agreeing with you.
You are invited to search @muhamnad_isa material for the last few months. Also, by the way, it was he who started and named the 'Islam is Nasty' thread in a petulant reaction to being warned against continuing to proselytise to the point of obsession
I really don't see how he differs from anybody else preaching their views. But anyway this is way off topic for me. I think spending too much time on a forum makes people hyper.
By the way, l welcome challenges. As long as they are sincere, intellectually honest, logical.
Yes, and it's a headache trying to maintain a standard here, that makes IO different from other argumentative and aggressive faith forums.
Obsessive proselytising is against our code of conduct because it brings down the entire level of mature interfaith discussion which is the purpose of these forums.
Again, good to have you here
Thank you again. I do see some very unpleasant attacks on Islam on these boards. Please see what l'm seeing. Of course it is mild compared to other websites.
Nevertheless, it is against our code of conduct.
Can you post examples? PM a moderator if you like.
You can even report them formally? If offensive, the posters will be warned
Swastikahead was slandering our religion's Prophet's marriages in every which way, without any basis. This is typical of his interfaith dialogue. He is lauded because he wisely goes easy on Christianity and is atheism-compatible being a Dharmist. But l feel the main thing is, it's only Islam so it is deemed fair.
Also, l believe one of your own moderators gave a pseudohistory of Islam ignoring the Islamic view of Islam's prophet, instead giving a view that he was pelted with rocks, got rescued by Christians, then teamed up with a warlord called Umar ibn al Khattab. To call Umar ibn al Khattab a mere warlord is sheer ignorance, he was an example of chivalry, and all the early Muslims were at least as good as Buddha, most of them renouncing and losing everything because they chose Islam in a sea of polytheism. I think people seem to think Islam began in a wild desert (they were actually cityfolk) by wild people with primitive minds, this racist bias is indellible in the orientalist approach which is always touted by non-Muslims. For once l request non-Muslims go by Muslim sources with the caveat put Ibn Ishaq away, not being frivolous but something odd about that writer, he's the Islamophobe's go-to, always.
By the way this is going way off topic now, but am happy to discuss it on the Islamic board .... @RJM Corbet
I am going into self imposed exile again by the way, l need to get work done, plus l don't want to become a deranged forum poltergeist (happens to the best of us if we're online too long).
@Aupmanyav is a 78(?)yr old Hindu atheist who lives in India and regularly accuses all religions, including his own. The swastika, as earlier observed, is an Hindu symbol. You are welcome to respond to him and correct him where you think he's wrong. Just saying? Expect back as good as you give though, lol. No offence.
Ok, but again you are welcome to respond to the person who said that? If I recall he was responding to repeated misconceptions and the failure to accept evidence about early (Arian) Christian history, which is his subject of expertise, by saying that Muslim history was not all sunshine either? I believe if it is the person I think it is, that you will find him to be a anything but a racist Islamophobe and amenable to learn more about Islam from an intelligent discussion with you -- either on that board, or you could take it to the Islam board and tag him?
I was just answering your question, not dwelling on it. But it is an absolute fact that Islamophobia is tolerated whereas similar attacks on other beliefs would not be tolerated.
I have taken a number of bigoted posters / postings to task here: https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/19607/page-8#post-345540
Feel free to list your criticisms of Islam in a thread on the Islam forum. I will try to answer. Don't hold back. Just do it in a sincere reasoned way and it won't be offensive then.
I will try to answer your critique in the following week if i'm still on this forum.
OK. we can talk with other members about your interesting idea of a structured no abuse one-on-one discussion area, in that thread you started?
Yep that'd be great! It'd put real sport into the forum, instead of idle posting.
Anyway l think l better chill now. My work life is suffering again. Peace. I may return next week. Feel free to post a heartfelt and reasoned critique of Islam in a relevant board. It'd be interesting to know how you see us. Be sincere but don't censor yourself out of politeness (notice the difference). Bye for now, genuinely going now.
Just wanted to highlight this piece of priceless wisdom.
All very excellent points! Yes, I did not mean to claim I myself have received secret traditions and therefore am in the know. God (and Jesus) obviously have not given out information all around. There is so precious little we actually know, and assuming God, as traditionally understood, knows everything, he obviously is not talking about much! There is nothing about the universe in any ancient text claiming to be a revelation from God concerning quasars, black holes, the speed of light, etc. God could tell us a whole lot more, but obviously doesn't want to. That's his business. What he does tell us is valuable, but it certainly is not everything like we would like to have. That was all I was pointing out. Yes secrecy implies someone is making false claims in many respects, sure, I agree with that. But secrecy from God can't possibly imply that without impuning God's character, so it would seem to follow that secrecy somehow from God is a good thing. Perhaps we can handle some truth, but cannot handle the whole truth. God has never revealed the same level of truth to prophets that he has to others. Not all revelations appear to me to have the same truth value and depth of vision.
It is such a fascinating concept when one stops to ponder eh? Just what is this "Christ within"? What does that asctually mean? Please notice, I am not arguing against it, I agree, yet probably more in ignorance of what it actually means... It appears to me that if it is the Christ within that was in Jesus, and that is what made him or at least gave him some divinity, it would mean the same for mankind to have the "Christ within" ourselves. A somewhat parallel thing would be pointing to the Gnostic concept of each human having a spark of the divine within them, truly meaning each human has the divine as part and parcel of their makeup. Certainly not in a full sense, no, but then like a seed can grow into something full and grand as an entire tree, just what would be the end of a divine aspect of ourselves? There is a lot to this that perhaps our eyes and minds don't take time enough to realize. Thanks for the highlight, it is...... truly........exquisite and worth seeing again.
Hi ScholarlySeeker –
From a pantheist/panentheist perspective it's simple. New Thought/Unity schools seem to view the whole thing as a psychodrama. Traditional Christianity it's the perspective of the Immanent Presence in and to the soul, but we would hesitate at saying of the soul, the logical conclusion of which is that the soul is by nature inherently Divine, which I don't think is an Abrahamic position.
Yes, that would put us on the same plane as Jesus, in effect we are all Christ, which itself leads, I would suggest, to complications. Again, I would be careful not to separate 'Jesus' and 'Christ' into two separate entities, that, it seems to me, would defeat the object.
This derived from Greek thought, although is probably universal. I have problems with it — how can the divine be kept in ignorance of its own nature by something lesser than itself? Questions like that. The gnostics tied themselves up in all sorts of knots explaining how their creator of this world, the Demiurge, was entirely unknowing of the worlds above him ...
To me, the Gnostics of the 2nd century come across like the cults in US/Europe in the 70/80s. Popular, syncretic, a mix-n-match of various currents, all built around the figurehead of a guru, upon which the disciple is ultimately dependent. Every gnostic master added his own twist.
Gnosis, as a process, is again universal, and something else, quite distinct.
As a second thought, something I wanted to express ...
In the world, there is always the dichotomy of the spiritual v the physical. The two are quite distinct, and sometimes in opposition. Although it is of course present in the Hebrew Scriptures, as I understand it, a Hebrew anthropology was always more holistic when compared to the dualism evident in Hellenic thought. Sadly the Hellenic has subverted the Hebrew in Western thought.
The Incarnation, it seems to me, is the archetype of the union of the two. In it, every spiritual principle is realised in the world, in its very physicality. In this, it did not follow a path, it is the path actualised in its fulness, body and soul – "I am the way, the truth and the life" (John 14:6).
The intuition of St John who saw the miracles of Jesus as 'signs' and not merely displays of divine power and authority; who saw the Son of God as exactly that, not analogically, not metaphorically, but actually that. As Logos, Jesus is not an example of, nor even the exemplar of, the Principle of Union between God and the World; Spirit and Matter. He is It.
Christ is the ultimate symbol because He is its principle. He is every spiritual symbol made real, every abstract spiritual teaching actualised.
The West (as our Eastern brethren tell us) is too focussed on the physical, the material, the mangled body on the cross, the wafer on the altar (I could write about this, a paradigm shift in Western theology around the turn of the first millennium). We accuse them of being too ethereal, too abstract, too cosmic ...
We look to the cross, but if we turn, and look towards the city, to the temple, and see there, at that moment, the 'veil of the temple' ripped apart from top to bottom (Matthew 27:51, Mark 15:38, Luke 23:45), a curtain on which was worked the pattern of the cosmos, there, too, is something to contemplate.
To me, the narrow path, the Middle Way, is spirit on one side, body on the other, you in the middle, keeping both in balance. We simplify the idea of the brain into left-brain and right-brain, and try to compartmentalise it accordingly, which we can do and there is some evidence for, but the fact is, when we think, and when we do, the whole brain thinks.
Same with the path, when we walk the way, it's not with the spirit, nor with the body, it's the whole person engaged.
Separate names with a comma.