Origin of Religions?

Ahmad_Bilal

Peace, FreedomStands.

I find it curious that you would somehow feel that you didn't do the thing when you are the one doing the thing? Do you have any experience contrary to that? It is you who is doing the thing, you are the one, those are your hands moving, your body doing it, whatever else. Just like if a tree catches on fire, it is the tree that is burning.

It might help you to understand what I was saying if you think of a book in which things are written yet the characters in the book are the ones doing the things, they have no idea that they are in a book and it is being written. Yet if this is too mind-boggling and offensive to you, then don't concern yourself with it at all, and concern yourself only with the immediate level of awareness where you are clearly doing the things.

This is ultimately what my issue is, given the concept you presented. I would, of course, only concern myself with my immediate actions and activities, because I'm not consciously aware of other factors acting in accordance with a predetermined purpose and set of values. However, in reality, is it really ME acting at all? If God is the One Who made the decision that I'd do whatever I would do, and I have no power to usurp God's decree, then how am I in control of my actions? Logically, I have no choice but to do the thing that God ordained for me to do, whether I know these "plans" in advance or not. I'm not actually acting in accordance with anything I've decided, whether it seems to be so or not; I'm merely doing what God has dictated that I do, whether I'm consciously aware of His plans or not.

There is no freedom of choice as far as humans are concerned - there is only God's choice and determination.

So, if we view this rationally, how can I be held accountable for my (seeming) choices? For instance, if I choose to murder someone in cold blood, and I act according to this decision, how do we perceive this? Have I really made the decision to murder someone, or did God actually devise the plan? When I (seemingly) decided to take someone's life, is it based on a notion that I've executed? Or, am I merely acting according to "the plan" that's already been devised for me? And, hypothetically, if God decides that I will brutally murder someone in cold blood, but I don't want to be a murder, is there any way for me to go against His plans and avoid killing?

God is the only power, the power in and behind everything, but if that is where you find some objection, then there are many options of Shirk that are welcoming and ready to associate with God other creators. As for me though, I can not ever claim any other power or creative ability attributed to any but God, and this is a religion called Islam.

It is a religion that believes that deaths are not accidental even if they appear to be, but they are all precise and not even a minute of difference can be made in them.

These ideas are present in both the Bible and the Qur'an and elsewhere.

I'm not negating any of that, nor am I asserting the existence of another power beside God. I'm solely talking about control. God is certainly in control, but I think we disagree on the degree of control He exhibits.
Peace,

Ahmad

Man_of_Faith

Satan is given respite, so why is not all of the flesh also given respite?

Salaam

FreedomStands

Peace, FreedomStands.

This is ultimately what my issue is, given the concept you presented. I would, of course, only concern myself with my immediate actions and activities, because I'm not consciously aware of other factors acting in accordance with a predetermined purpose and set of values. However, in reality, is it really ME acting at all? If God is the One Who made the decision that I'd do whatever I would do, and I have no power to usurp God's decree, then how am I in control of my actions? Logically, I have no choice but to do the thing that God ordained for me to do, whether I know these "plans" in advance or not. I'm not actually acting in accordance with anything I've decided, whether it seems to be so or not; I'm merely doing what God has dictated that I do, whether I'm consciously aware of His plans or not.

There is no freedom of choice as far as humans are concerned - there is only God's choice and determination.

So, if we view this rationally, how can I be held accountable for my (seeming) choices? For instance, if I choose to murder someone in cold blood, and I act according to this decision, how do we perceive this? Have I really made the decision to murder someone, or did God actually devise the plan? When I (seemingly) decided to take someone's life, is it based on a notion that I've executed? Or, am I merely acting according to "the plan" that's already been devised for me? And, hypothetically, if God decides that I will brutally murder someone in cold blood, but I don't want to be a murder, is there any way for me to go against His plans and avoid killing?

I'm not negating any of that, nor am I asserting the existence of another power beside God. I'm solely talking about control. God is certainly in control, but I think we disagree on the degree of control He exhibits.
Peace,

Ahmad

What is the degree of control you think God exhibits and how is it possible that anything else has control that God has not designed, or put into action? Is there another power called "Chance" that God doesn't control and is also not programmed by God?

God has said in the Qur'an that the deaths of people and the spans of their life are specific, even the location in which they die is specific, so if you murder someone then how can it be said they died before their determined place and time?

The Qur'an at least seems to strongly point to total control of God.

One says then, why should we be punished for what God made us do?

It isn't like that though, its that God has created this concept called "punishment" or suffering and then designed some stories or individuals who are supposed to go through that, it is God freely creating whatever God wills. So God creates "kaffirs" and "muslims" and every detail of their life stories, they are just like works of art.

Jafar

Religion = Tradition
The origin of tradition is as old as human civilization itself.
And tradition evolved over time.. up until now it's still evolving..

Islam, Christianity, Judaism is not merely a Tradition it is an ORGANIZED TRADITION.
Invented by politician / the powerful to maintain tight control over the society and expand their realm.

With world domination as it's ultimate goal it gives a good justification on why the society need to sacrifice their life in a war for the sake of the politician.

To achieve such justification each of the tradition mentioned above need to have a claim of SUPERIORITY.

Islam/Christianity/Judaism uber alles..
We are the choosen people
Others are inferior (kuffar/goyim/pagan etc..)

Yet it also ironically portrait an INFERIOR deity..
The fight / war is for the glory of the deity.. to help Him fight the other deities from other tradition and proved their deity is superior than other deities..

Salam / Peace

FreedomStands

Religion = Tradition
The origin of tradition is as old as human civilization itself.
And tradition evolved over time.. up until now it's still evolving..

Islam, Christianity, Judaism is not merely a Tradition it is an ORGANIZED TRADITION.
Invented by politician / the powerful to maintain tight control over the society and expand their realm.

With world domination as it's ultimate goal it gives a good justification on why the society need to sacrifice their life in a war for the sake of the politician.

To achieve such justification each of the tradition mentioned above need to have a claim of SUPERIORITY.

Islam/Christianity/Judaism uber alles..
We are the choosen people
Others are inferior (kuffar/goyim/pagan etc..)

Yet it also ironically portrait an INFERIOR deity..
The fight / war is for the glory of the deity.. to help Him fight the other deities from other tradition and proved their deity is superior than other deities..

Salam / Peace

Though it may end up like that, all the various religions, even Hinduism and stuff seem to generally be talking about the same concepts or God pretty much.

Jafar

Though it may end up like that, all the various religions, even Hinduism and stuff seem to generally be talking about the same concepts or God pretty much.

The Indus civilization introduce the conception of "Asakhyata" and "Ananta" to the world.

An originally religious / traditional concept which now commonly taught in 5th grade Math class around the world.
http//mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/infinity/numline.gif

Asmkhyata is countless / cannot be counted but we know the value must be finite.
Ananta is endless or begin-less, a truly infinite

23432942308490^1000000000000 is Asmkhyata for those without computers

While Brahman is Ananta
No beginning, no ending in all dimension, a true infinite.
In Yangtze civilization they recognized something called Tao which also possess Ananta characteristics..

It's however not a 'deity'.. one that can be "persuaded" through ritual or sacrifice...

Man_of_Faith

The very word Rahman itself means fullness or absoluteness. Brahman is likely having its etymological roots from that.

The "Rabb" is the sustainer or platform for such absoluteness. And the "Rabb" is not really a deity in traditional terms being separate but the one who is in it is it, and thus only the (allah) rahman is there.

That is the only way you get Oneness. The traditional sectarian Islam is actually dualistic even if those deluded will call it monotheism, since there is only one thing in existence and that is this Rabb and only those under its umbrella are existent who become Rahman (absolute). In that regard Hinduists are right. The rest Quran calls Al-mowt, i.e. lifeless, even if they appear to be alive in their bodies.

Jesus in the Biblical Gospels actually taught Hinduism even if the fools will not see it. He said one thing that can make people wake up "Let the dead bury their dead" implying that they were "al-mowt" and without any kindled spirit. I feel the comment was a bit sarcastic myself, but Jesus was only human. He meant it as a parable.

There is a point in the Biblical Old Testament when Moses meets "Rabb" and asks for the nature and the Rabb replies "I am that am I". Furthermore, the Rabb says to Moses to go to the Bani Israel saying "I AM has sent me", i.e. the reflexive form of himself. The text gives away even there about the integral part the Rabb has in humans rather than the Rabb being a separate deity for worship. Such practice is Paganism and banned in the "Ten Commandments" which message the malicious clerics did away with when interpreting them.

The second statute said "Do not take ANY image of anything in either Heaven or Earth and worship it". It is explicit, i.e. worship is not a question. That means also making the so-called Allah god into an image of worship (the word Allah comes from the root Alif-Lam-Lam. Look it up. Allah is root + ha )

Furthermore the malicious clerics changed what the first statute said "Serve/keep to inseparably (Elohi) uniquely (ahad)". Wahad means uniquely or in unity. The command says to BE IT. It does away with a separate god entity to worship but for the person to be symbiotic.

And when done this they reinforced the third statute "No vain talk!" That means do not question the doctrine or conjecture.

This made the separate god delusion to survive through the centuries.

Be well

FreedomStands