Having a unique insight into things...
-
Salaam,
If I were to have a unique insight into things then I would have endevoured to realise that this may not be apparent to others and would approach them from their perspective as oppossed to mine which could be interpreted as arrogance and cause my insight to be dismissed.
Since my insight would give me a command over their understanding, in theory I should be able to put it in terms that they can understand.
If I failed in making a case and was perceived as arrogant then I would have to take responsibility for my own actions and not blame others.
If I couldn't be bothered in engaging, then I could hardly be serving my duty, goals.
Does anyone relate to this?
Salaam
-
Peace be upon you,
Well said.
-
peace,
a similar thing happens with books, especially academic books. the author usually knows a lot about the subject but translating that into something a student of the same subject can understand is tricky. it can lead to a student dismissing that book for their study.
same thing with lecturers at university.
Wakas
-
a similar thing happens with books, especially academic books. the author usually knows a lot about the subject but translating that into something a student of the same subject can understand is tricky. it can lead to a student dismissing that book for their studysame thing with lecturers at university. .
That's why the phrasing in al-quraan is 'when AL-HAQQ comes to them'...'ja'aakum al-haqq'. So u can only deliver, whether Allah reveals Himself in the ayaat, that's not up to you. Al-Quraan is being revealed on us all the time.
Wakas, you should draw up diagrams of all these concepts, man! It'll help us get a clear picture of the conceptual relationships
-
I can't relate to that fully. While an author has to write in such a way such that his intended audience understands his views, he should not be held responsible for the general public's ignorance. After all, there's only so many perspectives one can take before he's forced to start writting on a kindergarden level.
I've known many students who dismiss a lot of material that they do not understand it and I think this is a futile approach. It's not up to the lecturer to ensure we learn, it's up to us. The lecturer relates to us the necessary material and that is all. The academic world does not operate like the spoon-fed schooling system people are used to.
Moreover, active learning is more productive than passive learning any day of the week.
-
Salaam,
If I were to have a unique insight into things then I would have endevoured to realise that this may not be apparent to others and would approach them from their perspective as oppossed to mine which could be interpreted as arrogance and cause my insight to be dismissed.
Since my insight would give me a command over their understanding, in theory I should be able to put it in terms that they can understand.
If I failed in making a case and was perceived as arrogant then I would have to take responsibility for my own actions and not blame others.
If I couldn't be bothered in engaging, then I could hardly be serving my duty, goals.
Does anyone relate to this?
Salaam
Hello Ash,
I think we should encourage individuals to find their own truths rather than teaching them our own version of the Truths. This way individuals can grow in understanding rather than accepting our own understanding...
Regards,
-
Peace be upon you Lote Tree,
I think we should encourage individuals to find their own truths rather than teaching them our own version of the Truths. This way individuals can grow in understanding rather than accepting our own understanding...
There is no such thing as each having thier "own truth". Truth is Truth. In order for something to be truth, it must be objective so that all MUST agree, if something is subjective, then it is only conjecture/guessing.
For example, we can argue all day about if it is hot or cold outside(subjective), but if we use a thermometer to determine the temperature(objective), then we both must agree that it is 65 degrees(for example).
The messenger would be the one debating for 65 degrees, not for hot or cold.
-
-
There is no such thing as each having thier "own truth". Truth is Truth. In order for something to be truth, it must be objective so that all MUST agree, if something is subjective, then it is only conjecture/guessing.
You mean like you can have objective proof of God?
With due respect to you Idol, your version of the Truth, the kemetic philsophy is not for everyone. People have to develop their own understanding of that truth. What ever understanding they have it will always be their version of that understanding.
I am not talking about measuring temperature outside, thats physics. You can send neo to measure that for you. We are talking about religious insights here...
Regards,
-
Hello Ash,
I think we should encourage individuals to find their own truths rather than teaching them our own version of the Truths. This way individuals can grow in understanding rather than accepting our own understanding...
Regards,
"Own truth"?
Lol.
Premise 1 the Qur?an is the irrefutable word of Allah
You mean like the above? LOL who has not claimed that their scripture is the irrefutable word of God?
Regards,
-
Peace be upon you Lote Tree,
With due respect to you Idol, your version of the Truth, the kemetic philsophy is not for everyone.
I havent said anything about Kemetic Philosophy here, we are having a discussion about truth and understanding.
People have to develop their own understanding of that truth.
No such thing. Thats like saying everyone has thier own thermometer wih different readings.
What ever understanding they have it will always be their version of that understanding.
Only if it is subjective, which is guessing, and is not a substitute for the truth. Objectivity can be proven.
I am not talking about measuring temperature outside, thats physics. You can send neo to measure that for you.
There is nothing outside the realm of God.
We are talking about religious insights here...
I am not into religion(sects), I am talking about Truth vs. Falsehood. D
-
Peace be upon you Lote Tree,
Sorry, I skipped your first question
You mean like you can have objective proof of God?
Yes, absolutely, just like the objective proof for gravity. Things that are objective can be MATHEMATICALLY proven. The mathematical ratios of creation proves the exsistence of a bodiless intelligence that exsisted before creation.
Everything is created according to a mathematical pattern, and that is the objective proof.
Same way Gravity, which cannot be seen, is proven. This way, we can mathematically create a way to escape gravity and fly into space.
-
Peace be upon you Lote Tree,
Please take time to think about what I have said regarding KNOWING about God rather than just believing in the God.
There is a power that comes from KNOWING, because believing leaves room for doubt.
When there is no doubt, then the foundation is strong.
-
Peace be upon you Lote Tree,
Sorry, I skipped your first question
You mean like you can have objective proof of God?
Yes, absolutely, just like the objective proof for gravity.
Lets have your objective proof of God Idolfree?
Regards,
-
I havent said anything about Kemetic Philosophy here, we are having a discussion about truth and understanding.
what truth and what understanding if not about God here?
People have to develop their own understanding of that truth.
No such thing. Thats like saying everyone has thier own thermometer wih different readings.
We are not measuring temperature here Idolfree. You have your understanding of God, Hindus have their understanding of God, Christians have their understanding of God. Every individual has their own understanding of God. For some God is a dimension of humanity. For some God is a great father figure who sits on the throne etc.
There is one absolute but how we understand this absolute is dependent on our understanding of that absolute. You will say we are part of God, for for neo God is a logical entity, which a seprate being from us.
What ever understanding they have it will always be their version of that understanding.
Only if it is subjective, which is guessing, and is not a substitute for the truth. Objectivity can be proven.
Have you changed your views recently idolfree?
If so why made you change your mind?I am not talking about measuring temperature outside, thats physics. You can send neo to measure that for you.
There is nothing outside the realm of God.
How does measuring temperature prove existence of God?
We are talking about religious insights here...
I am not into religion(sects), I am talking about Truth vs. Falsehood. DWhat Truth and What Falsehood, if not about God?
Regards,
-
Peace be upon you Lote Tree,
Please take time to think about what I have said regarding KNOWING about God rather than just believing in the God.
There is a power that comes from KNOWING, because believing leaves room for doubt.
When there is no doubt, then the foundation is strong.
How do you KNOW this KNOWING?
Measuring temperature outside?
or Knowing it within yourself?Regards,
-
Peace be upon you Lote Tree,
Let me start again so we can remain on the same page.
There is nothing subjective that we are being asked to believe in blindly.
When we are asked to have trust in al ghayb(the unseen) it does not mean believe in somethnig subjective(blind belief). It is the same as trusting in wind or gravity. We can trust in these things OBJECTIVELY because we can draw up mathematical equations to explain them.
When we look at how the elements were formed from the big bang, according to a mathematical formula(which s how we have the table of elements), and how ALL OF CREATION is based on mathematical formulas, this is proof of a bodiles intelligence that existed before creation.
If you went to Mars and found the table of elements drawn on a wall, what would be your thoughts?
It should be that an intelligent being was there before you.
We have to apply the same logic when dealing with the creation.
How do you KNOW this KNOWING?
I cannot repeat this enough, the ONLY way to KNOW something is to verify it. So study creation and its mathematical formulas to KNOW the God D
P.S. I am not talking about any 19 code either D
-
Peace be upon you Lote Tree,
Let me start again so we can remain on the same page.
There is nothing subjective that we are being asked to believe in blindly.
When we are asked to have trust in al ghayb(the unseen) it does not mean believe in somethnig subjective(blind belief).But "God" has always been a subjective experience of the individual. Have you changed your mind on that?
It is the same as trusting in wind or gravity. We can trust in these things OBJECTIVELY because we can draw up mathematical equations to explain them.
No, Idolfree. There are no Equations for God.
or have you found an equation?When we look at how the elements were formed from the big bang, according to a mathematical formula(which s how we have the table of elements), and how ALL OF CREATION is based on mathematical formulas, this is proof of a bodiles intelligence that existed before creation.
Big Bang? Big Bang is not a proof of God. Some Big Bang theories even cuts out the need of a Creator.
If you went to Mars and found the table of elements drawn on a wall, what would be your thoughts?
It should be that an intelligent being was there before you.There are elements drawn on Earth on a wall. It does not prove anything.
We have to apply the same logic when dealing with the creation.
But logic can't prove God, can it?
How do you KNOW this KNOWING?
I cannot repeat this enough, the ONLY way to KNOW something is to verify it. So study creation and its mathematical formulas to KNOW the God
But it will not prove God will it Idolfree?
P.S. I am not talking about any 19 code either
But I see you had a rethink of your previous ideas.
Care to tell us why have you changed your mind?Regards,
-
Peace Lotetree,
A logical demonstration of the existance of the god the creator can be done as follow
Demonstration by the absurd
We suppose that "there's no creator", it implies that there's no creation, which is absurd because we know that we exist and other things (stars, planets, trees...) exist.
So our initial supposition is false, and it follows that there is a creator.
I hope it is a satisfactory reasonning for you.
--
