Gods "Arsh" - Throne
-
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 ...
-
"Nothing could be compared with Him" does not say you cannot explain the nature.
now look at this childish reply.. first i thought never give reply but i feel to tell him what actually he is saying...may b it will help him rethinking again all this...
so according to him nothing could compare to him mean that we can explain the nature of God...
how unrealistic/illiogical/flasehood/trcikery is this to claim something which you actually cant ..
example there is nothing like him mean there is nothing that MOF can see as well as what MOF can imagine ...
even if he manage to imagine God and the thing what he imagine is alien to this universe ... still then it didnt really cover the claim... nothing mean nothing not even the imagination and ideas...
whatever MOF me or anybody will imagine its not more than imagination and definately whatever we imagine is the product of mind what if the understanding nature of God is not installed in us to see or understand god.. example is the event of moses...
so again we come at the very first point nothing can compared to him... or there is nothing like him.... 112/4
now if you already imagine God in your mind then tell us what you imagine.. make sure not bring the vibrating strings in it lol
-
Quiet frankly, I find your constant picking on MOF in your multiple long charades very unproductive and overwhelming, Imrankhawaja..(I'm sorry but I had to let it out lol, don't hate me pr)
handshake i dnt beleive in hate lol..
so if you think anything unproductive in all of it you better clarify it... may b i will learn something from it...
dnt forget once you also assume me as a flat earth believer lol
-
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.
Cerberus,
Yes, it is a sectarian interpretation parable of "God's" nature. But I am not sure whether there is any reason to comment it in any way.
It was mainly a counter-argument towards imran and his claim about God's nature and I say God is explained in metaphorical ways in the sectarian interpretation (too).
Another is that everything is contained within the palm of God's hand, which is in the sectarian interpretation of Quran and not my words. It is though similar to my argument that creation is an expression within the consciousness of "God" which is not taken from the sectarian interpretation of Quran.
In many ways the sectarian interpretation of Quran does not make sense because the interpreters contradicted themselves because they failed to decipher the language properly, in my opinion. In my opinion, a fragment of Quran is adequately translated to helpfully convey its meaning, but usually the whole perspective is conveyed in the wrong light.
I am quite well-versed about everything that the sectarian interpretation of Quran says and I used to study what every word said in the sectarian interpretation of things. It is of little meaning to quote verses for me since I know what it wishes to say.
Be well
Amenuel -
Quiet frankly, I find your constant picking on MOF in your multiple long charades very unproductive and overwhelming, Imrankhawaja..(I'm sorry but I had to let it out lol, don't hate me pr)
Unfortunately I am quite limited in giving my view of things as I was warned by the administration, so if I give any kind of own comment I write it is "in my opinion" and hope it is enough to avoid prosecution.
They said I do not give enough proof, this is something very much in the eye of the beholder, but I do usually post several paragraphs of elaboration of what I mean and why, and I do refer to definitions found in old lexicons such as Tay Al-Aroos interpreted by Edward Lane when referring to interpretation in English. Yet they are the administrators and have the last say in the interpretation of their rules since they own the forum or are closely related to the owner.
In fact I do, or did, go well deep into the linguistics when laying forth what I have/had to say, but apparently it is not sufficient. I suppose it is more an excuse because I am annoying.
Often I am more interested in discussing the logic behind sectarian interpretation points and how they hold water. The one about "God" creating a pet farm, i.e. a useless and unproductive phenomenon with no purpose, and in fact for those who believe in it "God" is more of a servant who comes with fruit on a platter when the paradise days come about. It is often easier to refute something by delving into its probability. Objectively speaking with a distance to it, it is quite pathetic actually and "God" is degraded into some grandfather abused by his grandchildren. And then people talk about who associate themselves with God.
Be well
Amenuel -
It was mainly a counter-argument towards imran and his claim about God's nature and I say God is explained in metaphorical ways in the sectarian interpretation (too).
2435 God is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The example/allegory of His light is like a concave mirror within a lamp, the lamp is within a glass, the glass is like a radiant planet, which is lit from a blessed olive tree that is neither of the east nor of the west, its oil nearly radiates light even if not touched by fire. Light upon light. God guides to His light those whom He pleases. God sets forth parables for mankind; God is aware of all things.
if anybody can focus on highlighted part its enough to understand how the interpretators are dealing here...
what is so different what i said...
we can explain and understand the qualities of God , but we cannot figure out the physical nature of God... thats what my counter argument is with you brother...
even in this ( 24 35 ) methphorical light there is nothing in whole universe ,we can assume about the light that describe above feature... wht i understand about that light in my weak understanding is this light did not need a fuel for giving light...
even we know the light of sun and stars are due to the chemical process/fuel/nuclear fussion due to which they perform light...
and same goes with eyes of God, hands of God, throne of God... all are methaphorical you cannot imagine even the metaphorical in full sense if i ask you to give me an example of (anything) from above metaphorical qualities from this universe ... then you are most welcome ...
a light without fuel..( imagination = sun or sun like stars) imagination did not cover the quality
eyes with lenses allover the universe on past present future ..( big camera with advance lens) did not cover the qualities of eyes..
a throne that extends over heavnes and earth... ( a throne that is still expanding ) and what is all the heavens and earths? i dnt know the edge of lower heaven...?i will look forward to see it ,
when we come at this point all your reasonings/understandings/imaginations get silent.
anyway i make it very simple in brackets my imaginations are there , you can also tell me anything in universe that you can imagine and it will cover all the features of your methphorical claim...
as i know you always get quiet at this point... but i m giving you another chance ...
if you cannot provide anything its simply mean you are arguing with me on logical fallacy ...
-
and please dnt bring the topics which are not relevant here... like purpose of life (useless pets) and admin stuff...
if you have some issues from admins , say them directly in PM.
stick on the topic please and solve it what i left for you in brackets its your turn now..
thanx in advance..
-
4211 Originator of the heavens and the earth! He has given you mates of your own kind; and mates among the cattle. By this means He multiplies you (creation). However, there is nothing whatsoever like Him, not even a similitude that would come close. And He is the Hearer, the Seer.
the evidence of what i am claiming ...
peace
-
I meant that God and the nature of God are not separate in my opinion. In what you said, you seemed to refer to the verse as if it was speaking of the "nature" of God through the parable..while I believe it's giving the parable of how God guides people and affects their soul with His "Light".
The "Light" isn't any light but we had the very complex parable to have a small idea of the Light and how it is way beyond our imagination.But overall, I don't think we should speak of "God" and the "nature of God" as two different entities. God is God, the nature of God is Himself.