Gods "Arsh" - Throne
-
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.
-
When you speak of nature of something you speak of its origin, constitution or functionality. This can be spoken about in allegorical ways. Of course the origin is an extremely esoteric topic and it is not likely we get anywhere other than speculation. We can speak of the constitution in ways and this was the lamp parable and obviously the light is only a resultant phenomenon and in the parable it is not even a real light but it is a similitude.
Be well
Amenuel -
1 (make-up, structure, organization, construction, arrangement, configuration, framework, form, formation, anatomy, shape, design) = constitution
or
2 constitution = social code, canon, body of law, system of laws/rules
and also
origin = beginning, start, origination, genesis, birth, dawning, dawn, emergence, inception, launch, creation, birthplace, cradle, early stages, conception, inauguration, foundation, outset
word origin is not suitable to use for God , as we know these are possible meanings of this word...
word consitituion is also not appropriate to use for God in first meanings ,
where as you can use that word for the laws that are designed by God... in the second meanings..
like laws that are governing this universe , even these laws are getting discovered after ages and ages... still we cannot understand that laws of god some of them are also unable to see like gravity and dark matter ,dark energy... but the laws of everything have nothing to do with the nature of Godso by definations MOF is claiming origin/constitution of God can be explained but first he need to check the meanings of these words before he can able to use it for God...?
origin /time / space /constitution these all words we use for universe or something that have creator...
brothers are using wrong words for God nature ,
yeh but for the nature of anything else you can use these words... -
If I did not know the meanings of those words I would not be using them.
Constitution is the arrangement of something, in this case innately. "God" does have a functional integrity.
One example is that you could talk about "God's" constitution as destructive which it is not true. Therefore its constitution is constructive, developmental.
Please use your brain before typing on your keyboard, imran.
Be well
Amenuel -
well you also need to use your brain while using words for God nature..
look now again you dnt have any idea what you are talking about... if i wish i can fill all this with different arguments but leave it...
just one time again i will improve your knowledge about the God who i know... look everytime there is something in your post that push me to tell/share something with you...
destruction infront of you is not destruction infront of God....
on other words the destruction of one thing is the development of another thing...
supernova , the death and birth of stars..
fire , the destruction of woods , but development of getting energy..
day of judgement the destruction of this system for the development of another system..
water eveporation the destruction of water but development of clouds to bring fresh water that make dead land alivce again...see your words and claims actually hold no water , advise for you ,you need to use your brain not for typing keyboard but for understandings words and their meanings first and then grammer and also need to understand the word use for one month old is kid not old man...
one month old man is playing with piano... wrong using of words but a right sentence
50 years old kid is playing with lexicon/grammer ... peace