Islam = SUBMISSION

seth 2006-09-21 08:10:29 4468

M 2006-09-21 07:50:12 4468

source: ... Submission" is the religion whereby we recognize God's absolute authority, and reach an unshakable conviction that God ALONE possesses all power; no other entity possesses any power that is independent of Him. The natural result of such a realization is to devote our lives and our worship absolutely to God ALONE. This is the First Commandment in all the scriptures, including the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Final Testament (Quran).

... What else would you expect from a religion named SUBMISSION ?

It appears to be quite consistent with my attitude twards God.

    BTW, from the Zen perspective sumission to everything is the same perspective as submission to nothing! Everything & nothing are pretty much the same thing! Would it make any difference to submission whether it is by the sword or by choice ?

    I think mankind has moved on from the age of the Archangel Gabriel now to the Age of the Archangel Michael. It's now individual choice & consciousness rather than atavistic clairvoyance & submission.

Comments

Seth says

M 2006-09-21 08:47:25 4469

So the next question is with submission only how do you know the difference between an hallucination or a flashback & the real Allah when you run into him along the road of life ?

If Allah is everything, then that cannot be a problem. If it is, then it is Allah. Hallucinations are also things that are, but they are things that are only in your head.

Mark de LA says

humble (adj.)

c.1250, from O.Fr. humble, earlier humele, from L. humilis "lowly, humble," lit. "on the ground," from humus "earth." Senses of "not self-asserting" and "of low birth or rank" were both in M.E. The verb is c.1380 in the intrans. sense of "to render oneself humble;" 1484 in the trans. sense of "to lower (someone) in dignity.""Don't be so humble; you're not that great." [Golda Meir]submission

1411, "act of referring to a third party for judgment or decision," from O.Fr. submission, from L. submissionem (nom. submissio) "a lowering, sinking, yielding," from submissus, pp. of submittere "lower, reduce, yield" (see submit). Sense of "humble obedience" is first recorded 1449. Mod.Fr. submission has been replaced by doublet soumission. Submissive "inclined to submit" is recorded from 1586.I usually go to the etymology of the words to see the distinctions. One is derived from the thought on the ground or Earth or lower & the other is to lower (send under for you Latin enthusiasts). Similar concepts from their origins. Now you have to put them in the context of modern times & the memes & social networking of the day. Submission & Dominance comes to mind as well as Humble Pie. A humble person is thought of as nice!

Mark de LA says
Second question - given that God is all powerful (at least Allah) - what then does he(?) need puny human's submission for ?

Mark de LA says

M 2006-09-21 08:42:51 4469

OK, I will accept that Islam means submission to God - given from the etymology described in the Wikipedia article on Islam here .
So the next question is with submission only how do you know the difference between an hallucination or a flashback & the real Allah when you run into him along the road of life ?

This question might also have been asked of Mohammed .

Seth says
Where B represents everything; i find it impossible to distinguish between these two asymetrical relationships: (A submitsTo B), and (A isHumbleTo B). Frequently i am awed and humbled by everything that is. When caught up in some petty little though about some petty little thing of which i am currently possessed and then when considering some other thing that happens to pop into my pee mind, how frequently have i said to myself: "Oh my god, then there is that too!". Any man or woman who is not humbeled daily by the vastness of that which is, must be a haughty, arrogant, and small man indeed.

Mark de LA says

seth 2006-09-21 09:08:22 4469

M 2006-09-21 08:45:37 4469

Second question - given that God is all powerful (at least Allah) - what then does he(?) need puny human's submission for ?

Who says it does?

Then why found a religion on "submission to Allah" ?

Seth says

M 2006-09-21 09:13:58 4469

seth 2006-09-21 09:08:22 4469

M 2006-09-21 08:45:37 4469

Second question - given that God is all powerful (at least Allah) - what then does he(?) need puny human's submission for ?

Who says it does?

Then why found a religion on "submission to Allah" ?

Well i can only speak for myself and not for Islam. We are humble to all that is simply because it feels better than being arrogant and haughty twards it. This would be something that we would do for ourselves and our community, not something that is required by God. If God had required it, then there would not even be a question. Notice the beautiful consistency in my theology here. Like i said, i do not claim that this has anything to do with Islam. Though it might be interesting to find how a real Muslim jourists would answer your questions.

Mark de LA says

seth 2006-09-21 09:22:16 4469

- snip -

We are humble to all that is simply because it feels better than being arrogant and haughty twards it. This would be something that we would do for ourselves and our community, not something that is required by God. If God had required it, then there would not even be a question. - snip -

Well, if God is all-powerful then we can't help but submit. Not being humble does not necessarily mean you are arrogant & haughty.

There are a lot of Islamists who think that Allah needs them to go around and inforce his will or else.

Mark de LA says
Hallucinations are also things that seem real. You just bypassed the question.

seth 2006-09-21 09:15:55 4469

M 2006-09-21 08:47:25 4469

So the next question is with submission only how do you know the difference between an hallucination or a flashback & the real Allah when you run into him along the road of life ?

If Allah is everything, then that cannot be a problem. If it is, then it is Allah. Hallucinations are also things that are, but they are things that are only in your head.

Seth says

M 2006-09-21 09:33:39 4469

Hallucinations are also things that seem real. You just bypassed the question.

Most people who hallucinate know at some level that they are dealing with a hallucination. But, yes, if you are truly completely deluded, then you do not know. Then the answer to the question, "How do you know the real Allah when you run into him along the road of life?", in my theology, is that "the real Allah" is a catagory error. Nobody knows what the real Allah is. Nobody but God can take a God's eye view. Nothing short of everything (eg you) can function like everything. Everyting within everyting is smaller than the whole everything. Note again the beautiful consistency of my theology.

Mark de LA says

seth 2006-09-21 09:47:50 4469

M 2006-09-21 09:32:36 4469

Well, if God is all-powerful then we can't help but submit. Not being humble does not necessarily mean you are arrogant & haughty.

I am taking arrogant and haughty as exemplar characterictics of not being humble; but i did not mean to imply that all that is not humble is all that is arrogant and haughty.

There are a lot of Islamists who think that Allah needs them to go around and inforce his will or else.

Perhaps there are, or perhaps you have gotten their justifications wrong. What we need to find is the Islamic jourists who have provided this alleged theological justification for enforcing Allah's will, if that is what it is. Get them to explain it to us. Personally i do not understand it as you have presented it. This is the very kind of dialogue that needs to happen between the belief mems of the West and those of Islam.

This comes down to one of the root problems in the Pope's address. Why would you need to spread Islam by the sword ?

Seth says

M 2006-09-21 09:55:21 4469

seth 2006-09-21 09:47:50 4469

M 2006-09-21 09:32:36 4469

There are a lot of Islamists who think that Allah needs them to go around and inforce his will or else.

This comes down to one of the root problems in the Pope's address. Why would you need to spread Islam by the sword ?

Well, even according to the Qur

Mark de LA says

seth 2006-09-21 09:59:46 4469

M 2006-09-21 09:33:39 4469
-snip-

Then the answer to the question, "How do you know the real Allah when you run into him along the road of life?", in my theology, is that "the real Allah" is a category error. Nobody knows what the real Allah is. Nobody but God can take a God's eye view. Maybe (does God have eyes?)

Nothing short of everything (eg you) can function like everything. Maybe, there are other scenarios.

Everything within everything is smaller than the whole everything. Note again the beautiful consistency of my theology. (PS everything within everything is everything)

This may be consistent, but deluded or consistently deluded - I don't know which. It sounds like word-salad.

Seth says

M 2006-09-21 10:50:53 4469

Everything within everything is smaller than the whole everything. Note again the beautiful consistency of my theology. (PS everything within everything is everything)

Sorry, let me be more precise: For every S ( (S subset E) => S smaller than E)). It has been a while since i've written first order qualification, but i think you should be able to parse that. And, sorry, there was nothing in your other comments that i could take seriously. If i missed something important perhaps you could rephrase it in a more precise manner.

Mark de LA says

seth 2006-09-21 11:06:08 4469

M 2006-09-21 10:50:53 4469

Everything within everything is smaller than the whole everything. Note again the beautiful consistency of my theology. (PS everything within everything is everything)

Every set is a subset of itself. (Wikipedia) - you are (probably) in yourself as well as being yourself & probably all the pieces of yourself are in you.

(Leaving out for the moment that you draw a bigger circle for yourself than just the boundaries of your skin.

)

Seth says

M 2006-09-21 11:25:24 4469

seth 2006-09-21 11:06:08 4469

M 2006-09-21 10:50:53 4469

Everything within everything is smaller than the whole everything. Note again the beautiful consistency of my theology. (PS everything within everything is everything)

Every set is a subset of itself. (Wikipedia) - you are (probably) in yourself as well as being yourself & probably all the pieces of yourself are in you.

Yes that is the whole Russell's paradox quibble that logicians become obsessed with. Let me simply exclude it by restating: (for every S (S proper subset of E) => S smaller than E).

(Leaving out for the moment that you draw a bigger circle for yourself than just the boundaries of your skin.)

Yes i do

Mark de LA says
Well, everything minus one thing short is like infinity - 1 & still is exceedingly a lot - so I still don't see your point in:

source: Nobody knows what the real Allah is. Nobody but God can take a God's eye view. Nothing short of everything (eg you) can function like everything. Everyting within everyting is smaller than the whole everything. Note again the beautiful consistency of my theology.

...I will concede that Nobody incarnate is God or has God's entire point of view (if he has one)! That is more the definition of what humans call God that any reality. What is the rest of the word-salad there for & why is word-salad consistent with the rest of your theology? And why isn't just some of God's point of view enough ?

Mark de LA says

seth 2006-09-21 13:04:34 4469

In other words, you cannot "know the real Allah" so your question is unanserable and or meaningless. As to me thinking this theology is beautifully consistent, well that is not something that i can explain. At the moment it just feels that way. The trick, of course, was to just call God everything and strip out all the dogma that world religions attach to it. Consistency is a logical property of a context. It will be hard to break that consistency without breaking logic itslef. Of course, that is what Faith does ... but then we haven't gotten that far yet.

A lot of your premise I do not accept. I got your trick though!

Mark de LA says
Enough to know God or grok the point of view of God which is relevant to my own being.

seth 2006-09-21 13:05:17 4469

M 2006-09-21 11:52:42 4469

And why isn't just some of God's point of view enough ?

Enough for what?

Seth says

M 2006-09-21 11:52:42 4469

The rest of my words are there to answer your question. Here is that point in the dialogue:

seth : 2006-09-21 09:59:46

the answer to the question, "How do you know the real Allah when you run into him along the road of life?", in my theology, is that "the real Allah" is a catagory error. Nobody knows what the real Allah is. Nobody but God can take a God's eye view. Nothing short of everything (eg you) can function like everything. Everyting within everyting is smaller than the whole everything. Note again the beautiful consistency of my theology.

Seth says

M 2006-09-21 11:52:42 4469

And why isn't just some of God's point of view enough ?

Enough for what?

Mark de LA says

Anyway the conversation for this node has strayed!

- go fork yourself

Seth says

M 2006-09-21 14:48:49 4469

Anyway the conversation for this node has strayed!

Well i have no adgenda here, i was just answering your questions, so wherever we went that is where you took us. We covered Islam = submission = humility pretty well. Did we not? What you probabaly didn't realize is that when i discovered some days ago that Islam meant submission, i got to thinking about my own concept of God , and decided that it did include the concept of submission, and consequently had updated my item. It was interesting that, there for a while, we were getting pretty close to starting to track the Pope's lecture. He moved from "faith and reason" to "There is no compulsion in religion" to "Not to act reasonably is contrary to the nature of God" in some baffling complex manner. I had though that you were tracking your questions to that train of though, but perhaps you had your own adgenda.

Seth says

M 2006-09-21 14:43:09 4469

seth 2006-09-21 13:04:34 4469

A lot of your premise I do not accept. I got your trick though!

You emphasize that i called it a trick, but hopefully you did not miss the essence of the new move. I have had this for quite some time, it was not just contrived for the sake of this one dialogue. It seems to me that most Western religions, and certainly the Christian mysticism of Rudolph Steiner in which we grew up, put God outside of the relm of the mundane processess with which we surround ouselves day to day. In those religions the physical processess are in one sphere and the spiritual processess are in another. I believe that schesim was first articulated by Descartes Dualism, but i may be wrong on that. But i don't accept this dualism, i don't accept that schesm. So where do you put your God? If you don't accept a spiritual domain, where do you put God? Well the attitude that i have learned from religion of myself to God, is the same attitude that i have learned to the universe - sans the dogma. Hense Bozo's trick - God is the Universe.

Mark de LA says
I switched topics that's why I created a new item. This item has been all about the submission thing. It was inspired by my find this morning of the Hirsi Ali Submission movie. There are a lot of people who call everything God & then move on with the materialism of life. There are a lot of people who call themselves spiritual but recreate the spiritual in a materialistic manner. I am neither. RS was not a dualist. Some around us growing up seemed to be dualists. I don't think GW was. "In the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king" is the operative metaphor. It's all one but if you are without hearing or ears music just seems to be in a different world. Until you have discovered your consciousness soul you are likely to identify only with the "story" of your life & a somewhat hypnotized life. I lean more to Zen than anything else at the moment. I don't think Zen says much about God or spiritual or after-life nor anything much more than being-Being .

Seth says
I hope you will not be taken aback if i refer to the argument you mark with, "In the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king", which i have heard many times, as Magor's trick.

Mark de LA says

seth 2006-09-23 10:11:03 4469

I hope you will not be taken aback if i refer to the argument you mark with, "In the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king", which i have heard many times, as Magor's trick.

The quote is from an HG Wells story. I remember it from the old radio show series called "Escape". Otherwise the quote is variously attributed to Erastmus

source: ... 'In the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king', Erasmus (1466-1536)

...

You should read the story because it is a nice metaphor & you apparently never got the point if you call it a trick. You self-identified your "everything is God" concept as a trick.

Seth says

M 2006-09-21 21:47:13 4469

if you are without hearing or ears music just seems to be in a different world.

Actually what i call "magor's trick" is better identified by the passage quoted above. It is just as much a trick as what i refered to as Bozo's trick. Both of these kind of theological arguments share similar characteristics. They are things that we tell ourselves and each other that seem "just true". You, and Elaine, have stated Magor's trick to me on numerious occasions ... and i have heard it from RS, GW, etc as well. You trick does not convince me. I suspect that mine does not convince you.

Mark de LA says

seth 2006-09-23 12:41:42 4469

M 2006-09-21 21:47:13 4469

if you are without hearing or ears music just seems to be in a different world.

The metaphor works for most of the ears & eyes equally. NOTE to SETH it is a metaphor for something you probably can't experience. It's NOT an argument. Try reading my comment again:

source: ... You should read the story because it is a nice metaphor & you apparently never got the point if you call it a trick.

Seth says

M 2006-09-23 12:47:53 4469

seth 2006-09-23 12:41:42 4469

M 2006-09-21 21:47:13 4469

if you are without hearing or ears music just seems to be in a different world.

The metaphor works for most of the ears & eyes equally. NOTE to SETH it is a metaphor for something you probably can't experience. It's NOT an argument. Try reading my comment again:

source: ... You should read the story because it is a nice metaphor & you apparently never got the point if you call it a trick.

The point is not whether you classify it as a arument or a metaphor. The point is that i am classifying both of these as a "trick". Both of these are things that people say to other people to convince them of some theological premis. They are not statements of dogma. They are things that draw on a person's experience to convince them of some theological premis. There are many of these, not just yours and mine. I am saying nothing against yours. It is what it is. Perhaps you can take mine with the same attitude. There is no need to resort to authority. All theological tricks are designed to convince by dint of personal experience only.

Seth says

What might be interesting is to go through the Pope's reasoning and note which areguments are (1) reasoned from tricks, and which are (2) reasoned from Christian dogma, and (3) which are reasoned from Islamic dogam.

Mark de LA says

seth 2006-09-23 13:45:19 4469

Sounds line an invitation to yet another TRICK!

Mark de LA says

seth 2006-09-23 13:04:26 4469

M 2006-09-23 12:47:53 4469

seth 2006-09-23 12:41:42 4469

M 2006-09-21 21:47:13 4469

if you are without hearing or ears music just seems to be in a different world.

The metaphor works for most of the ears & eyes equally. NOTE to SETH it is a metaphor for something you probably can't experience. It's NOT an argument. Try reading my comment again:

source: ... You should read the story because it is a nice metaphor & you apparently never got the point if you call it a trick.

YET another BOZO TRICK! Perhaps you haven't quite experienced what it is like to have your argument's called just a TRICK! It is dishonoring & disrespecting my time spent trying to convince you that there is another point of view other than yours. I think I will just label all your arguments as tricks from now on! Basically, you have reaffirmed that I had things right in 4267 and you should probably reread 4115.

Seth says

M 2006-09-23 14:54:42 4469

Me thinks you take offense too easily. Note that i called my argument a "trick" as well. You can call this classification of arguments whatever you want ... for example could be termed "theological argument from personal experience". The point is that it is not a scientific argument, one is convinced based upon personal experience. Consequently what you have done is to divert attention from my point to somthing that does not make any difference. Any, bro, don't forget who started it. I called my argument a trick, and then you picked up on the derogative meaning of the word and emphasized it. Now we are in full right-wrong game mode and have abandoned all though of the original message.

Mark de LA says
Because you might call your wife a whore does not give me the right to do the same. As a matter of fact that is the argument about the N-word in some circles. I simply do not think of my argument as a trick of any kind. I think you should reserve that label for your own words. If you limit all your arguments to that which is scientific you will miss the whole world of Art & many others. There is nothing scientific about religion anyway. It exists in a different realm. There is little scientific about psychology - rat experiments notwithstanding. It is just another trick to focus upon what you call science. I consider most of your arguments on the climate & global warming as not tricks but politricks.
Anyway this item is now closed .

Mark de LA says

seth 2007-05-07 06:01:29 4469

M 2007-05-07 05:45:59 4469

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,270377,00.html - somebody else thinks so.

Fox is behind, even Azzman had this story 3 days ago. Actually i would have been surprised had Muslims not gone after Christians in Iraq. I wonder if Jordan offers a more hospitable place for Christians in the ME ... or perhaps even Lebanon, lots of Christians there.

So what do we have here, ethnic religious cleansing?

Seth says

M 2007-05-07 07:10:56 4469

seth 2007-05-07 06:58:22 4469

M 2007-05-07 06:38:58 4469

seth 2007-05-07 06:01:29 4469

M 2007-05-07 05:45:59 4469

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,270377,00.html - somebody else thinks so.

So what do we have here, ethnic religious cleansing?

Nope, me thinks the insurgents fight civilization itself.

That would be more like anarchists wouldn't it?

Yep, quite literally these guys are anarchists. Revolutionaries usually start with bringing down the existing establishment ... that is the rhetoric of "the revolution" ... remember the 60s. Should their dasterdly deeds pan out according to their plan, then, supposidly they will establish the afeared Califat. I wonder if said Califat is Sunni or Shia ... doesn't matter much to us, but it might just matter to the Muslims. Me thinks that, perhaps, their plan has embedded within the seeds of its own demise.

Mark de LA says

seth 2007-05-07 06:58:22 4469

M 2007-05-07 06:38:58 4469

seth 2007-05-07 06:01:29 4469

M 2007-05-07 05:45:59 4469

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,270377,00.html - somebody else thinks so.

So what do we have here, ethnic religious cleansing?

Nope, me thinks the insurgents fight civilization itself.

That would be more like anarchists wouldn't it?

meca says
They are going to Lebanon http://iraqsolidaritycampaign.blogspot.com/2007/05/iraqs-christians-flock-to-lebanon-time.html

Islam = SUBMISSION

Tags

Comments

See Also