Gods "Arsh" - Throne
-
yes because we are infact slaves of God... 1/5
its another thing if a deluded person(kafir/mushrik) think he is a part of God. going against 112...
Yes, it is another thing. That person is independent and uses the capability "God" bestowed him/her with rather than is a useless pet.
-
Salam,
I think we should enjoy what we are granted from God, this will lead to being thankful.
Solomon enjoyed horses (racing?).There are some verses though about indulging. Indulging so much in what we are granted that we forget the remembrance of God. This is danger.
Salam
One can be thankful without enjoying. But of course it depends on whether one perceives the world as a gift or not. I consider it being offered as a gift to be a trial. I try to be restricted in how much I accept it and I focus on immaterial elevation.
Be well
Amenuel -
on other words you cannot limit your understanding in the worldy way with man made grammer and point out mistakes and misunderstandings like most of the times our fellow brother MOF do it with the gymnastics of words....
Again you opinion, I move within the boundaries of available definitions in ancient lexicons and it would appear to be sensible logic that one word does not have two utterly conflicting definitions that are true except to one who is gullible.
-
but you always choose the wrong defination lol just kidding sometimes it may work but we need to make sure one thing always
any lexcion or anything in the world cannot tell the real nature of something which is beyond the perception of human mind...
example is the nature of God..
-
but you always choose the wrong defination lol just kidding sometimes it may work but we need to make sure one thing always
any lexcion or anything in the world cannot tell the real nature of something which is beyond the perception of human mind...
example is the nature of God..
Lexicons can show how a language was used in the past. It is a collection of a corpus of the language. It cannot tell what is written in Quran unless there are extracts from it, and even if it has they can be wrong. It is a constant search for whatever definition is most plausible given a context.
Quran does reveal the nature of "God" in a way of metaphorical language since it is very esoteric. One parable (which I have not linguistically verified) says "God" is like a lamp shining in the darkness. There are multiple parables about the nature of "God". And that is taken from a sectarian interpretation of it. I cannot comment any other interpretation here since an need to respect this sect.
Be well
Amenuel -
Quran does reveal the nature of "God" in a way of metaphorical language since it is very esoteric. One parable (which I have not linguistically verified) says "God" is like a lamp shining in the darkness
nope
2435 God is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The parable of His light is, as it were,that of a niche containing a lamp; the lamp is in glass, the glass like a radiant star lit from a blessed tree - an olive-tree that is neither of the east nor of the west the oil whereof would well-nigh give light even though fire had not touched it light upon light! God guides unto His light him that wills ;and God propounds parables unto men, since God has full knowledge of all things.
-
Salam,
we aren't slaves, but servants.One important difference between these two words is that slaves have no choice while servants do have a choice, which goes in line with this verse;
2256 There is no compulsion in the system; the proper way has been
clarified from the wrong way. Whoever rejects evil, and believes
in God, indeed he has taken grasp of the strongest hold that will
never break. God is Hearer, Knower.Salam
We are property of God, we are certainly slaves. God kan kill us whenever He wants, or resurrect us, and we can do nothing, bsolutely nothing about it.
Another, quite different thing, is freedom. A slave is free, you can own him, but you cannot dictate his or her thoughts, you cannot make a slave accept or not accept even if he obeys. Exactly like we are with respect to God. We will do whatever he wants us to do, we may agree or not, that is all, and even that if he wants us also to agree He dan do that. Complete slaves and even more than slaves.
A slave can hate his master and there would not be much a master could do to change that, save of course try by all means, God can have us love Him whenever He wants.
More than slaves. But yes, because He wants us so, we think and we may feel that we are free, just as free as He wants us to be at any given moment.
Slaves and more than slaves.
Salaam
-
Quran does reveal the nature of "God" in a way of metaphorical language since it is very esoteric. One parable (which I have not linguistically verified) says "God" is like a lamp shining in the darkness. There are multiple parables about the nature of "God".
in case if you forget this...
1124 "and there is nothing that could be compared with Him.
how many times you will get confused even this elektro cannot help you from times to times...
methphorical mean meatphorical... not any of your weird lexicon explain what methaphor is in reality... even language borrowed words of other features that distinguish or explain specific words...
her lips are as beautiful as red roses...
MOF run as fast as lion...now in the above statement both methphor and similie are imaginable...
but whats happen when there is nothing to imagine apart from ideas and qualites...
how can you explain the eyes that are everywhere on everything at everysingle second...?
lets try to give it a sentence..the eyes of God are as accurate as cctv camera... jedi
the advance form of camera did not cover the nature of God eyes.... even if you multiply these cameras with million times... they still not cover just the boundaries of solar system... and u know how vast this universe is... so what we feel even the methaphors cannot make us understand the nature of God... we can only understand the qualities of God.. the quality like ever watchful... the nature of eyes is methphorical.. on other words literature is helpless in explaining by words...
whereas on other hand the
red roses and lion cover much more than the ability of actual subject...did you see the difference or i have to tell you the difference between these grammatical terms all my life.. ?
-
DIFFERRENCE BETWEEN THE GOD SLAVERY OR ANYBODY ELSE SLAVERY
SOMETIMES i just think in my mind... if somebody put a gun in my head and order me to serve him as lord /boss /master
what would i do...
options are
i will listen .. cleverly so that i will save my life...
i will listen him as he got gun in the hand...
i will listen him becoz infact i know he is not lord...
most of the cases i still not listen him as i know my lord will save me if he already decide to save me.. as i have a firm beleive on God... or (whoever) is controller of my life and death...what will happen when i get a gun in hand.. i will make him draw lines on floor from his nose...
but the beauty of the real God is , your innerself wanted to serve him , and while serving him , heart get relax mind get peaceful , self/spirit get happy , what a wonderful master/lord is he... uncompareable... and interestingly i dnt know why.. even its against the human nature to obey something like that ..
on vice verse the people who are not the lovers of God /servers of God/beleivers of God.. they still cant harm God. they still cant escape from death . how helpless.. even they know it...
God deserved that we serve him .. he is above whatever we associate with him...
-
If you were a goldfish inside a fish tank, and you thought you were actually an octopus, and I thought you are a tuna fish, would it be right for me to tell you that you are a tuna fish ? Considering I'm also inside the fish tank.
Reading this bickering while listening to Schubert's Ave Maria is absurdly hilarious.
-
in case if you forget this...
1124 "and there is nothing that could be compared with Him.
how many times you will get confused even this elektro cannot help you from times to times...
methphorical mean meatphorical... not any of your weird lexicon explain what methaphor is in reality... even language borrowed words of other features that distinguish or explain specific words...
her lips are as beautiful as red roses...
MOF run as fast as lion...now in the above statement both methphor and similie are imaginable...
but whats happen when there is nothing to imagine apart from ideas and qualites...
how can you explain the eyes that are everywhere on everything at everysingle second...?
lets try to give it a sentence..the eyes of God are as accurate as cctv camera... jedi
the advance form of camera did not cover the nature of God eyes.... even if you multiply these cameras with million times... they still not cover just the boundaries of solar system... and u know how vast this universe is... so what we feel even the methaphors cannot make us understand the nature of God... we can only understand the qualities of God.. the quality like ever watchful... the nature of eyes is methphorical.. on other words literature is helpless in explaining by words...
whereas on other hand the
red roses and lion cover much more than the ability of actual subject...did you see the difference or i have to tell you the difference between these grammatical terms all my life.. ?
"Nothing could be compared with Him" does not say you cannot explain the nature. You cannot compare a Fiat Multipla and a Ferrari either.
My "weird lexicons" are the same lexicons that your friends sectarian interpreters have used and helped recording.
-
yeh but your and their definations are not same either...
you take haram as blessed they take haram as forbidden... its mean you need to understand lexicon first then you can understand how to use that lexicon...
how will you teach somebody driving when you dnt even know how to drive...
-
No, because I looked a little further and found what the words really mean.
-
Salam,
we aren't slaves, but servants.One important difference between these two words is that slaves have no choice while servants do have a choice, which goes in line with this verse;
2256 There is no compulsion in the system; the proper way has been
clarified from the wrong way. Whoever rejects evil, and believes
in God, indeed he has taken grasp of the strongest hold that will
never break. God is Hearer, Knower.Salam
Ikrah doesn't mean "compulsion". It's something people don't like in "deen", so Allah's telling that there can't be anything in deen we can dislike.
All the people should obey (Allah's or from Allah) deen, and no "orders" can be disliked, it's not allowed.
We don't like something from deen mostly because we don't have knowledge about it and tefsirs/lexicons... are leading us to not know, even easy to know things, as this word.
We're slaves, even we don't like it. Nothing happens by our will, only if He wills so.Allah's bless and selam.
-
No, because I looked a little further and found what the words really mean.
yeh some examples...
according to you wahid mean not one , but lot of ones or plural of ones...
according to you haram is not forbidden but its blessed...
according to you ibless is not real its desires ...
according to you what really means is only in your head...and you are also failed in proving anything what does that really mean.. its mean you are same like 1000 of service providers of same thing like Internet service providers... but problem with your service is , its faulty service which nobody will gona buy..but you are free to market your service its your right....
-
http//orig00.deviantart.net/ae3e/f/2010/291/e/d/please_wait_by_naolito-d311p2z.jpg
-
Cerberus,
What are you waiting for?
I am not reading any more posts of imran because it is just a waste of time, so I do not know what if it is any expected answer from me to him you are awaiting. I see no efficiency in replying to him as I probably could reply with hundreds of elaboration efforts without improvement to his understanding since he is not forethoughtful enough. And there is absolutely no need of convincing him either. It is a test of intelligence and the majority fails at that and quantity is not the expected result.
Quran's case is just that, a test of intelligence. No more said, because the administration of this forum dislikes my contribution on that.
Be well
Amenuel -
I am not reading any more posts of imran because it is just a waste of time, so I do not know what if it is any expected answer from me to him you are awaiting. I see no efficiency in replying to him as I probably could reply with hundreds of elaboration efforts without improvement to his understanding since he is not forethoughtful enough. And there is absolutely no need of convincing him either. It is a test of intelligence and the majority fails at that and quantity is not the expected result.
usually test of intelligence is achieved by evidence/reasons not by wishful thinking..
if i claim something my first strategy should be to give all the answers with reasons and proofs which convince the people about my claim , if i feel i m getting fail again and again then its mean my claim is not true ...
philosphy vs science vs religion...
if philosphy claim something its mean philosphy need to bring an evidence in hand...
due to the era between last 100 years it seems philosphy get ripped apart infront of science...
first philosphy asked about existence of matter , when science find out the properties of matter then philosphy is asking about the reality of matter...
when we bring religion inside the philosphy and science... we are infact going on wrong direction both have different paramenters..
religion will not tell you how to make atom bomb..
religion will not tell you the nature of God..religion will simply tell you there is one God who created all this and one day we will accountable for all this..
now science is asking about the proof of God whereas philosphy deal religion with different approach..
science first thought universe itself a creator of all this creation by "coincidence" on other words the creator of uniiverse is universe itself soon they find out naa universe itself is created by an accident called bigbang... so there is some force beyong this universe..now philophsy ask who created God then ?
religion give answer the universe is telling it is created and there is a creator behind it...
about God how can you say somebody created God while he is not a creature ... creation word we used for universe or any created thing that give proof that its created by someone.. like when we see a table we automatically assume its is created by carpenter... coz we know the process ..we cannot grasp the nature of God becoz our minds are limited to understand created things.. due to our reality we are also created...
we can only think and programmed that way... so by default philosphy /science and anything cannot grasp /understand anything which is not programmed in our mind...if Mof fully understand all this its mean he must not be a human being , he is some next level creation of God who is able to understand the nature of God... bravo
NOTE he also claim moths ago that he saw God,,, and it was something like bright light that broke the bulb of his house something like that if i recall.. so i feel this fellow is living in state of insanity .. what else i can say .. becoz i m not saying this guy is lieing but what i understand from quran that even the prophet moses cant see God... may b he also have some different interpretation of this event.. God knows best...
here i disagree with him .. thats y he is unable to convince me , and obviously my intelligence is very little to understand even the hint of God nature... apart from methaphorical qualities of God... creator, designer,controller,watcher and so on...
may God bless us all to understand things ...