A Few Questions for S.O.L. Adherents

lordfox

Perhaps in most (or all) religions, but ultimately it depends on what meaning one gives to it. Why would religions have monopoly of the meanings of words. It is not as well-definable as e.g. 'tree' or 'wheel' or 'blue'. The word 'God' will not turn over and change the meaning of a sentence that in meaning fully supports what you refer to as 'Allah'. It's semantics.question. I see this happen a lot in many threads in this forum. Deliberate semantic gaps.

I agree. And in the end, the important thing is not i) to use the correct words, or ii) to have the correct meaning for a word, but it is to be able to convey your message to the recipient. We need to willfully understand each other... not deliberately misunderstand each other by picking on words and refusing to understand what meaning the other person gives to the word in

Shit... it went classified

Peace All

Most linguists agree that the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European form * hu-t?-m was based on the root * hau(&#601-, which meant either "to call" or "to invoke".

The literal definition of a God is an idol that is worshiped, invoked and called upon. Furthermore, the definition of the Arabic word 'ilah' is "an object of worship". It is your choice to say that your creator is an 'ilah' while it calls itself 'Allah' (allathee LA ILAH - who is NOT God), but perhaps you know better than it. You can persist in trying to support your views falsely, I could care less, we will all face the creator one day. Let us not waste any more time and space on the server of free-minds by repeating the same things over and over again.

Shit... it went classified

The reason is that there are a lot of cheerleaders, who, without thinking, reject a view because it is alien to them, and they are too attached to their culture, religion and ego to put it to the test for a second. These same babblers annoy and say nothing intelligent, and so I prefer to discuss calmly with one.

Mr_Q

This is why I suggest to the religious, such as Mr.Q, to study Taoism.

Which is why I suggest you study and follow the Quran more than SOL.
We have cited for the people every kind of example in this Quran, that they may take heed. (3927)
And We have cited in this Quran every example for the people. But man was always most argumentative. (1854)

Despite your silly little straw man arguments and petty insults I still find you amusing. I simply asked you to use the Quran to justify your theologies and you instead insulted and made stuff up about things I never talked about. I do believe I stated in the first post, no red-herrings or personal attacks, did I not?

I asked you to use the Quran and you say you can't because you don't understand it and can't translate it, yet in the same breath comdemn those who do follow it as misguided, misinformed, "religious" and backward. Interesting. Wouldn't you have to understand it before you condemn others for wrongly following it?

Anyway, it is not as simple as you put it, a God is an external individual deity that the religious are required to worship. While Allah, or decomposed, allathee la illah (instead of the traditionalist comprehension and decomposition of the word - al ilah) literally who is not God, is an ever-living creative force who seeks nor asks worship, but servitude - not to it, as it is self-sustaining - but from one (human) being to the other (human, animal or/and nature).

You alone we serve, You alone we seek for assistance. (15)
And We did not send any messenger before you except that We inspired him that "There is no god but Me, so serve Me." (2125)
This is your nation, one nation, and I am your Lord so serve Me. (2192)
And your Lord said "Call on Me and I will respond to you." Surely, those who are too arrogant to serve Me, they will enter Hell, forcibly. (4060)
"And that you should serve Me? That is a straight path." (3161)

You can play semantics if you want and say "well by serving man and nature we are serving God" but why would you not say that to start with? Why not say we serve God by applying and upholding the Quran's teachings?

Lastly, you never did answer these verses below either. Please don't go back again and say you don't understand the Quran and can't translate it so you can't comment on the below verses, except of course to claim they are wrong, because you believe in a weak premise from Abdun Nur stated above. If you want to comdemn, mock and ridicule people for following the Quran, the least you can do is present the "correct" understanding, from the Quran, besides personal opinions and personal beliefs.

And He is the One who is a god in the heaven and a god on earth. And He is the Wise, the Knowledgeable. (4384)
Your god is Allah; whom there is no god but He. His knowledge encompasses all things. (209
And Allah said "Do not take-up two gods, there is only One god, so it is Me that you shall reverence." (1651)

"I wonder why some keep on believing things that are neither sustainable philosophically, linguistically nor quranically."

Bigmo

Did you not see Lordfox recommended studying Wicca?? Go ahead an google it. They call themselves pagans and witches and what not. Here is a wiki post on it;

Wicca (pronounced /wk/), is a modern pagan religion. Developed in England in the first half of the 20th century, Wicca was popularised in the 1950s and early 1960s by a retired British civil servant named Gerald Gardner, who at the time called it the "witch cult" and "witchcraft", and its adherents "the Wica". From the 1960s onward, the name of the religion was normalised to "Wicca".
There are many different theological positions within Wicca, such as monotheism, goddess worship (such as in Dianic Wicca), polytheism, and followers are encouraged to choose what they wish to seek, it being a form of mystery religion.

The religion also involves the ritual practice of magic, largely influenced by the ceremonial magic of previous centuries, often in conjunction with a broad code of morality known as the Wiccan Rede, although this is not adhered to by all Wiccans. Another characteristic of this religion is the celebration of seasonally-based festivals, known as Sabbats, of which there are usually eight in number annually.

Paul, on the other hand, believed Jesus was the literal Son of God with all the fullness of Deity residing in him. He preached that salvation is only attained by believing Jesus died for your sins and was your intercessor with God and that without Jesus as your Lord (in the deified sense) you couldn't get eternal life. His views and teachings led to the Trinity Doctrine. Luke shared his views and was Pauls disciple.

How is this NOT polytheism? Do I actually have to list the verses of Quran that condemn all this? I think you know them all Bigmo and appreciate the rest of what you said and welcome the Quranic study of shirk and polytheism.

Then on the other hand, one could make the argument that Pauls religion was Pagan. (pagan, noun 1. one of a people or community observing a polytheistic religion)

If you want to discuss polytheism and paganism I suggest a new thread?

What does Paul has to do with the Trinity. The Trinity is not even a concept in the Gospel. There is nothing wrong with Paul saying Jesus was the intercessor. Here lies the problem with youyr definition of shirk.

Anyways you seem not to understand how the Trinity concept was formed.

As can be seen in this article about the Trinity, Trinitarians quote many of Jesus's disciples when talking about the trinity and not just Paul. None of these quotes are explicit and are often taken out of context and avoid other quotes by the disciples.

References used from Scripture

Although the New Testament does not use the word "" (Trinity) nor explicitly teach it, it provided the material upon which the doctrine of the Trinity was formulated. Reflection by early Christians on passages such as the Great Commission "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" and Paul the Apostle's blessing "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all," while at the same time the Jewish Shema Yisrael "Hear, O Israel the Lord our God, the Lord is one." led the early Christians to question which way the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are in unity. Later, the diverse references to God, Jesus, and the Spirit found in the New Testament were systematized into a Trinity?one God subsisting in three persons and one substance?to combat heretical tendencies of how the three are related and to defend the church against charges of worshiping two or three gods.

In addition, the Old Testament has also been interpreted as foreshadowing the Trinity, by referring to God's word, his spirit, and Wisdom, as well as narratives such as the appearance of the three men to Abraham. However, it is generally agreed that it would go beyond the intention and spirit of the Old Testament to correlate these notions directly with later Trinitarian doctrine.

Some Church Fathers believed that a knowledge of the mystery was granted to the prophets and saints of the "Old Dispensation", and that they identified the divine messenger of Genesis 167, 2117, 3111, Exodus 32 and Wisdom of the sapiential books with the Son, and "the spirit of the Lord" with the Holy Spirit. Other Church Fathers, such as Gregory Nazianzen, argued in his Orations that the revelation was gradual

The Old Testament proclaimed the Father openly, and the Son more obscurely. The New manifested the Son, and suggested the deity of the Spirit. Now the Spirit himself dwells among us, and supplies us with a clearer demonstration of himself. For it was not safe, when the Godhead of the Father was not yet acknowledged, plainly to proclaim the Son; nor when that of the Son was not yet received to burden us further.

Some scholars dispute the authenticity of the Trinity and argue that the doctrine is the result of "later theological interpretations of Christ's nature and function." The concept was expressed in early writings from the beginning of the 2nd century forward, and other scholars hold that the way the New Testament repeatedly speaks of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is such as to "compel a trinitarian understanding of God".

References to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

Some biblical verses specifically reference the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as distinct entities in a single narrative. While trinitarians interpret these passages as support for the notion of a Trinity, because these verses speak of distinct entities mentioned by name, and not of a Trinity, non-trinitarians also appeal to these verses in support of their argument that a Trinity was not envisioned at the time of their authorship.

"As soon as Jesus Christ was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and landing on him. And a voice from heaven said, 'This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.'"

"The angel answered and said to her, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.'"
"How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!"
"But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God."
The eighth chapter of Paul's letter to the Romans, which contains many complex formulations of the relationship between God, Christ, and Spirit, including "the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead," "all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God," and "the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God."

Some verses also reference the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as part of a single formula, which trinitarians view as support of a Trinity, though not explicitly stated. Non-trinitarians argue that because these verses are conclusions to their respective books, they may be later trinitarian formulaic additions to the original works, which were added after the doctrine of the Trinity had begun to be debated and accepted as dogmatic.

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (see Trinitarian formula). It has been claimed that writings of Eusebius show the mention of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to have displaced a request by Jesus that his disciples baptize people in his name. However, all extant manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew unanimously contain the trinitarian baptismal formula without variation at 2819.
"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with all of you."

Comma Johanneum

In addition to these, 1 John 57, which is found in the King James Version but not in modern English translations, states "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost and these three are one." However, this Comma Johanneum is not considered to be part of the genuine text. It is not included in the official Latin text of the Roman Catholic Church, nor in Vulgate manuscripts earlier than about AD 800. Jerome, the author of the Vulgate, seems not to have known the text. The earliest undoubted reference to it is by 4th-century Priscillian, but some hold that it was referred to by 3rd-century Cyprian. It is commonly found in Latin manuscripts other than the earliest, but is absent from the Greek manuscripts except for a few late examples, where the passage appears to have been back-translated from the Latin. Erasmus, the compiler of the Textus Receptus, on which the King James Version was based, noticed that the passage was not found in any of the Greek manuscripts at his disposal and refused to include it until presented with a manuscript containing it, while still suspecting, as is now agreed, that the phrase was a gloss.

Jesus as God

God the Father (top), the Holy Spirit (represented by a dove), and child Jesus, painting by Bartolom? Esteban Murillo
As opposed to the Synoptic Gospels, the Gospel of John has been seen as aimed at emphasizing Jesus' divinity, presenting Jesus as the Logos, pre-existent and divine, from its first words, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John also portrays Jesus as the creator of the universe, such that "without him was not any thing made that was made." Some render John 11 as "the Word was a god", "the word was godlike", "the word was divine", denying that the doctrine of the Trinity is supported by the verse.

The Gospel of John ends with Thomas's apparent confession of faith to Jesus, "My Lord and my God!" There is no significant tendency among modern scholars to deny that John 11 and John 2028 identify Jesus with God.

Other passages of John's Gospel interpreted in this sense include, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.", "I and the Father are one.", "....the Father is in me and I am in the Father.", and "....he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." John is also seen to identify Jesus as the Lord whom Isaiah saw, while other texts are also understood as referring to Jesus as God.

There are also a few possible biblical supports for the Trinity found in the Synoptic Gospels. The Gospel of Matthew, for example, quotes Jesus as saying, "all things have been handed over to me by my Father". This is similar to John, who wrote that Jesus said, "All that the Father has is mine". These verses have been quoted to defend the omnipotence of Christ, having all power, as well as the omniscience of Christ, having all wisdom.

Expressions also in the Pauline epistles have been interpreted as attributing divinity to Jesus. They include "For by him all things were created things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him" and "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form", and in Paul the Apostle's claim to have been "sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father".

http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

All implicit verses and all taken out of context and all selective quoting and nothing explicit.

Kaiokenred

Where did lordfox's comment replying to Mr.Q go?

Bigmo

Where did lordfox's comment replying to Mr.Q go?

I guess things were getting personal so someone deleted both their post.

Mr_Q

None of my posts have been deleted. Why would they be? I am simply using the Quran to support my view without insults and what not while fox's last post, especially, was just a juvenile rant of petty insults. No harm done to me of course. That stuff doesn't bother me but maybe he calmed down and thought better of himself and deleted it himself or maybe one of the mods removed it for obvious reasons. Either way, it doesn't matter to me.

From the forum rules;

2] Please note that this forum is primarily dedicated to God and the study and understanding of His Scripture (The Quran). Thus, mocking/ridiculing/insulting God and/or the Quran, and/or not being able to back-up claims against the Quran with specifics may result in deletion of such posts and/or removal of topic and/or disciplinary action being taken against the offending member.

3] Respect other users of the forum. Language and/or material of vulgarity, obscenity, harassment, profanity or insulting nature, whether it is direct or suggested, will NOT be tolerated. Any messages containing such language or material will be moved to the trash section or deleted, without notice and may result in disciplinary action being taken against the offending member.

Kaiokenred

If he deleted it himself it would say so here

Zulf

Peace Kaio,

Yeah but shouldn't you look at the original meaning of god?
Also god for worship was first used by the Queen of Babylon.
God is an idol and will stay an idol.

Yes that helps of course... but no-one can impose a meaning into my mind of a word. To the person using the word, it will mean exactly what he/she thinks it means.... the problem arises when you communicate with others. The message must come first, otherwise communication is useless... so as long as the meaning is clear it's ok.

If Mr. A chats with Ms. B about Allah, the creator of all... but no nothing about arabic, but both are still blessed by Allah with a great understanding of things... and they use the word 'God' in lack of any other word, then it will not become an idol. Only what they think when they say 'God' decides if it is an idol or not. No?

Allah literally means who is not god ( deity for worship and adoration )

Assuming this is correct, I mean considering the shaddas and what not, Allah can correctly be a compaction of alladhi la ilah, then that's great. I love this way of seeing it myself. But I cannot verify it's soundness "grammatically"... but I do love the concept!

Kaiokenred

Peace Kaio,

Yes that helps of course... but no-one can impose a meaning into my mind of a word. To the person using the word, it will mean exactly what he/she thinks it means.... the problem arises when you communicate with others. The message must come first, otherwise communication is useless... so as long as the meaning is clear it's ok.

If Mr. A chats with Ms. B about Allah, the creator of all... but no nothing about arabic, but both are still blessed by Allah with a great understanding of things... and they use the word 'God' in lack of any other word, then it will not become an idol. Only what they think when they say 'God' decides if it is an idol or not. No?

Assuming this is correct, I mean considering the shaddas and what not, Allah can correctly be a compaction of alladhi la ilah, then that's great. I love this way of seeing it myself. But I cannot verify it's soundness "grammatically"... but I do love the concept!

Peace Zulf

God means " that which is invoked "
It only makes sense that Allah means " Not God "

No matter what meaning you or another individual give to the word God, it's not official or true.
I used to think like you once though, that Allah was like Abdun Nur described him but could still be called god, but today I read an old post (not that old) from Abdun Nur which he explains why Allah shouldn't be called a god

p.s You call me Kaio, that brings me back... my old runescape friends used to call me so ( Ah the nostalgia

Zulf

Peace lordfox

Most linguists agree that the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European form * hu-t?-m was based on the root * hau(&#601-, which meant either "to call" or "to invoke".

The literal definition of a God is an idol that is worshiped, invoked and called upon. Furthermore, the definition of the Arabic word 'ilah' is "an object of worship".

I understand. What about the case when you have people discussing life, and the only word they have in their vocabulary is 'God', but they don't use it in the sense of an external recipient of worship.... then how would it be? I don't think that only those who have 'Allah' in their vocabulary are the ones able to stay away from idol worship. It wouldn't make sense that it is language determining if we take something as an idol or not... it is rather our inner understanding.... our heart. I think it is more important what we actually mean when using a word.. and not the literal, historical and linguistic definition. Language is a tool of expression and language is many times limited.

It is your choice to say that your creator is an 'ilah' while it calls itself 'Allah' (allathee LA ILAH - who is NOT God), but perhaps you know better than it.

Yea perhaps I do )

Although I don't call Allah by ilah.

You can persist in trying to support your views falsely, I could care less, we will all face the creator one day. Let us not waste any more time and space on the server of free-minds by repeating the same things over and over again.

So can we all.

But rather I'm exploring viewpoints, that's all. I'm not debating and not trying to convince or defend anything. I totally understand your viewpoint about 'God', 'ilah', 'Allah', and do not need further repetition of it, but I would just like discuss topics in an effort to understand things further, like your thoughts on 'invoking'. I think fora are good for exchanging ideas.

By all means, let's not waste more time... but I'd still like your input on the invoke thing I mentioned above.
Basically I'm trying to understand how you think about 'addressing' Allah. Like for example if you wish to gain a better understanding on a certain surah of the quran, or if you would like to gain more patience... then how would you express this to Allah. Would you? Most people would say they would 'pray' to Allah by using words expressing their desire.... but let's not go there, I know what has been said before about 'pray/prayer' etc. I'm wondering if you entertain this idea of "addessing" Allah, or whether you do nothing since Allah already knows all (omniscient D). Would you stop at just realizing your desire and trust Allah to follow up on it. I just want to see your ideas about this.

Remember, this is just a friendly exchange of ideas. If you do not wish to elaborate on this, or you think it has already been answered somewhere else at some other point in time... then I'll not bother you anymore.

The reason is that there are a lot of cheerleaders, who, without thinking, reject a view because it is alien to them, and they are too attached to their culture, religion and ego to put it to the test for a second. These same babblers annoy and say nothing intelligent, and so I prefer to discuss calmly with one.

Fair enough

Zulf

Peace Kaio

God means " that which is invoked "
It only makes sense that Allah means " Not God "

Alright.

You can also check my recent post to lordfox on this. If you like you can respond as well. Like I have mentioned to you, him and others... I'm interested in expanding my views and understanding, not to promote or defend any current view of mine.

No matter what meaning you or another individual give to the word God, it's not official or true.

Sure, it might not be official.... but officiality has nothing to do with truth.

The true meaning is the meaning given by the user, regardless of how wrong it is linguistically. This works as long as the user doesn't talk to others who have a different understanding of the word.

I used to think like you once though, that Allah was like Abdun Nur described him but could still be called god, but today I read an old post (not that old) from Abdun Nur which he explains why Allah shouldn't be called a god

I see your point. I too feel Allah is better to use than God, but there can be many different reasons for that buried in my psychology that I don't see. It could have to do with historical associations and experiences with those two words.

Basically I was thinking of how people who do not have the word Allah in their vocab would denote Allah in spoken or written language.

Could you pm me that post, or send a link?

p.s You call me Kaio, that brings me back... my old runescape friends used to call me so Ah the nostalgia

sun

Mr_Q

God means " that which is invoked "
It only makes sense that Allah means " Not God "

No matter what meaning you or another individual give to the word God, it's not official or true.
I used to think like you once though, that Allah was like Abdun Nur described him but could still be called god, but today I read an old post (not that old) from Abdun Nur which he explains why Allah shouldn't be called a god

Where did you get the bolded definitions above?

Lets assume your first definition is accurate, then that which is "invoked", "implored" and "called upon" is a "god". (Those 3 terms are synonymous) Also then, are you saying you do not call on Allah for anything? You do not ask Him for help? Forgiveness? Guidance? Would you doing so make Him a god according to your definition?

And your Lord said "Call on Me and I will respond to you." Surely, those who are too arrogant to serve Me, they will enter Hell, forcibly. (4060)

It was then that Zachariah called on his Lord, he said "My Lord, grant me from You a good progeny, You are hearer of the prayers." (33

"No, it is Him alone you will call on; and He will remove that which you called Him for, if He wills; and you will forget what you set-up."
And We have sent others to nations before you. We then took them with adversity and hardship, perhaps they would implore. If only they had implored when Our punishment came to them; but their hearts hardened, and the devil adorned for them what they used to do.
(641,42,43)

Say "Shall we call upon other than God what cannot benefit us or harm us, and we turn back on our heels after God Has guided us?" This is like the one whom the devils have managed to mislead on earth, he is confused, having friends who call him to the guidance "Come to us!" Say "The guidance is God's guidance, and we have been ordered to surrender to the Lord of the worlds." (671)

You called on help from your Lord and He answered you "I will provide you with one thousand Angels as defenders." (89)

And if any adversity inflicts mankind, then he calls upon Us on his side or sitting or standing. But when We remove his adversity from him, he goes on as if he never called upon Us to an adversity which touched him! It is such that what the carefree do was made to appear good to them. (1012)

And Noah called on his Lord, and he said "My Lord, my son is from my family, and your promise is the truth, and you are the Wisest of all Judges." (1145)

He said "My Lord, my bones have gone frail, and my hair has turned white, and I have never been mischievous in calling to You my Lord." (194)

And Job when he called his Lord "I have been inflicted with harm, and you are the Most Merciful!" (2183)

And Zachariah when he called out to his Lord "My Lord, do not leave me without an heir, and You are the best inheritor." So We responded to him, and We granted him John, and We cured his wife. They used to hasten to do good, and they would call to Us in joy and in fear. And to Us they were reverent. (2189,90)

He said "He has wronged you by asking to combine your sheep with his. And most who combine their properties take advantage of one another, except those who believe and do good works, and these are so few." And David guessed that We had tested him, so he implored his Lord for forgiveness, and fell down kneeling, and repented. (3824)

And when the human being is afflicted with adversity, he implores his Lord, sincerely devoted to Him. But then, when He grants him a blessing from Him, he forgets his previous imploring, and sets up equals with God, in order to mislead others from His path. Say "Enjoy your disbelief for a while; for you are of the dwellers of the Fire." (398 )

So when the human is touched by adversity, he implores Us, then when We bestow a blessing upon him, he says "I attained this because of knowledge I had!" Indeed, it is a test, but most of them do not know. (3949)

"We used to implore Him; He is the Most Kind, Most Merciful." (522

There are so many other examples given in the Quran of people verbally calling on God, imploring Him, invoking His blessings and protections so what's wrong with doing that?

We have cited for the people every kind of example in this Quran, that they may take heed. (3927)

Allah calls Himself a god in the Quran.

And He is the One who is a god in the heaven and a god on earth. And He is the Wise, the Knowledgeable. (4384)
Your god is Allah; whom there is no god but He. His knowledge encompasses all things. (209
And Allah said "Do not take-up two gods, there is only One god, so it is Me that you shall reverence." (1651)

Kaiokenred