The Original Sin: who is to blame?

[sooda]

You're accusing me of exactly what you are doing. Therefor I sense enmity - agreeable with the rhetoric of your initial comment.

They were grapes in Syriac, consistent with the other imagery you mentioned: green and lush, rivers of wine and vines of grapes etc.

But when Islam entered the picture and rendered this into Arabic, these new "transparent companions" (which they never were in the first place) and/or association to "divine beings" is what lead to the further degradation of the reading "virgin women" so horribly abused by jihadists for recruiting militia men. The original meaning was simply "pure ones" in the original language until it degraded over time - ending up in what it is used/abused for today, and it reflects the predominantly sex-based worldview of Muhammadan men. This all relates to the balance of man/woman in the Edenic state: disrupted by Islam making 1:4 permissible, 1:11 for Muhammad himself. This is infidelity and Allah is made in the image and likeness of such a degeneracy, only attracted by the similarly degenerated.



That is the purpose of the fascist "Islamophobia" campaign: Islamophobia is generated within Muslims themselves and they label/smear everyone else as being "Islamophobic" only because they are stirring up the "Islamophobia" within their own selves. This is the extend reason why china declared Islam a mental illness: truthophobia regarding the illegitimacy of Muhammad, the Qur'an and Islam.

It is (at) the root of (along with Judaism) the roots of toxic marxism, racial profiling, fascism, socialism, "believer" vs. "unbeliever" etc.

It's not about "making everyone else wrong" it is about: I don't care about being right, I only care about what is right. I don't come up with what I want to be true, I start from scratch and follow successive questions. That is what a 'conscience' does: it asks questions and seeks to answer them.

I know the Qur'an is forged and Islam is a humanitarian crisis. Any many others "know" this, but are suppressed by being called "Islamophobic" because people like me speak things to be "true" (ie. the Qur'an is forged) but because an attached Muhammadan who worships the Qur'an and their idol Muhammad can't "accept" that worldview, they begin slandering and attacking. Remove the problem. Same as Muhammad did - even killed the news/poets of his day for criticizing his hypocrisy. 1400 years - same male dictator warlord archetype derived from a male dictator religious figure which can not be ridiculed lest one be an "Islamophobe".

"Belief" is not a conscious process - there are not questions to be asked, only projections of what one "wants" to be true, such as what they themselves "believe"to be true. People take this "belief"-based worldview as their identity (wherein the "belief" is not true) and this is why people suffer: their own ignorance.

WAR=IGNORANCE
IGNORANCE=WAR

When faced with this (as identified with their own "beliefs") they endeavor to protect their small identities which arises in the form of "taking offense": small identity syndrome. From here, the deathly and fatal "us" vs. "them" attitude is adopted, and death manifests shortly thereafter.

Mark Twain didn't know anything about Islam either but he was a humorist.

Muhammed was a merchant not a warlord.

 

[dybmh]

That is the purpose of the fascist "Islamophobia" campaign: Islamophobia is generated within Muslims themselves and they label/smear everyone else as being "Islamophobic" only because they are stirring up the "Islamophobia" within their own selves.

Is this a fact or is it belief?

 

[dybmh]

I know the Qur'an is forged

Is this a provable fact?

 

[dybmh]

@9-18-1,

On Dec. 2nd 2018, less than 6 months ago you said:

I can not properly consider the global conflict(s) as they relate to Judaism/Christianity/Islam (Torah) with no knowledge of the Hebrew language.

And now you are saying this:

72 "pure ones" in Hebrew

How are you able to translate Hebrew with such authority if less than 6 months ago you had "no knowledge of the Hebrew language" ?

An accurate statement about "pure ones" above would be "I believe 72 is 'pure ones' in Hebrew"

 

[dybmh]

This entire OP and concept of this thread is a farce. The arguments presented by the OP are almost all belief.

The OP claims ALL belief is not a virtue and is using belief in an attempt to prove it.

One simply cannot use belief as evidence in a debate attempting to discredit belief.

 

[9-18-1]

Source?

The problem I'm having is that the case you are making is full of beliefs. The quote about the moon goddess above is a perfect example. The claim that Sin is the Moon goddess is a belief.

It's necessary in this debate with the claim you're making to be extremely regimented about presenting only facts and no beliefs.

Everytime a false claim based on belief is exposed it refutes the central point of your claim.

Like I said before. I have been refuting your central claim all along, but you hadn't seen it yet.

They are not "beliefs" - they are knowns. You do not know them, but I do. If you want to know how I know them, you would ask. You don't just say "belief".

What is my central claim you "believe" you are refuting (which you are not by the way).

We want to dissuade self-appointed geniuses from co-opting Meru's work by imposing their own ideas on it, and by inappropriately quoting from and incorporating our findings in their proposals. This is a significant problem, because later, third parties criticize what Meru is actually proposing based on misrepresentations by people who have imposed themselves on us. This is not just a matter of our having to deal with the copyright infringement and disparagement of the individual referred to in the boxed notice at the bottom of our home page at www.meru.org.

While this individual is clearly "over the top", many others, certainly less crazy and bizarre but often no less insistent, seem to have taken an undue interest in the Meru proposals.

Great ideas are not uncommon. What makes the difference is what is done with them, and this depends on integrity, caring, humility -- and competent management and adequate resources. In order to mature and be healthy and productive, a great idea requires the same nurturing and nourishment as a child.

Meru Foundation Research: Secrets of the Hebrew Letters by Cynthia Gage for Atlantis Rising magazine

Just to clarify: the individual being spoken of from the Meru website is not me, but someone else entirely. User is being deceptive by associating/linking it to me to reflect only their own sentiment and how they want others to see me: the same way they themselves do. It is enmity again - person can not drop it.

The only point I made with it was that the entire language system is derived from a single form. That's it. I gave Meru credit so people wouldn't complain like they did last time for not citing where I got an image. The only important thing is the form itself serving the purpose to understand how language evolved from it in serving the point I had made.

These games are petty and pathetic - it seems all people care about is attacking, attacking, attacking etc.

One thing I don't know: how people become angry at what *other* people say and feel the need to attack them. This is a strange thing - like a compulsion to attack, attack, attack.

I actually really on hope for world peace, which I know will require a consolidation of the Abrahamic religions to filter out the... falsities and complete misunderstandings. This is required unless people are complacent with Islam ruling the planet under Islamic Sharia, which is based on a 7th century warlord that turned women into "property" like/as a spoil of jihad.

Lol... this is a religion internet forum, I suppose. People seem to be easily offended.

I'm not really offended by anything except... men treating women poorly. Women are the key to world peace, but people don't realize it yet. That is why there is a war/dysphoria of genders (I made a thread about it) to make people not realize women are disappearing everywhere because... what is a woman anymore? Can't talk about gender anymore? Why?

Women are under attack globally. That is the only thing I am offended by, and really work to resolve: restoring women to "sovereign" as opposed to "dominated by men". It really would fix the planet - I know this.

But, of course... I am not allowed to know things! Because they "offend" people's "beliefs".

Reconcile with POTUS "NO COLLUSION" result.

Who tried to nail DTJ by projecting their own deeds on him? (ie. Russia collusion, harming children, being an idiot, being racist, being Islamophobic etc.) and people still don't see the root of fascism?

It is the Judeo-Islamic "BELIEF" based series of faiths, and people who use projection smear-based attacks (similar to above) are essentially doing everything they can to silence people who... they just don't need to listen to and can go walk away. Instead, they have to attack.

This is the difference between Cain and Abel btw. Latter grows enmity/attack/kill instinct. Animal nature. No peace.

 

[9-18-1]

@9-18-1,

On Dec. 2nd 2018, less than 6 months ago you said:



And now you are saying this:



How are you able to translate Hebrew with such authority if less than 6 months ago you had "no knowledge of the Hebrew language" ?

An accurate statement about "pure ones" above would be "I believe 72 is 'pure ones' in Hebrew"

I claim no authority. What authority did I bestow myself with? I am just one 'man' - that is all. I don't care about other authorities - or for being one.

That said, I say things, if no likey, no listen.

Very simple.

And no - I don't "believe" that, I know that. You never asked me for proof, you projected a "belief" again. Not the first time.

You're about <> close to getting an ignore from me - your desire to just attack me instead of <listening> is nonsense.

This entire OP and concept of this thread is a farce. The arguments presented by the OP are almost all belief.

You are the "believer" - not me. You "believe" I "believe" these things and did not ask how I "know" them... you simply said I "believe" them.

It is your "belief"... not mine.

One simply cannot use belief as evidence in a debate attempting to discredit belief.

That's what you do lol. Look in the mirror. You "believe" I only "believe" such things. You can't know what I know unless you see it for yourself, and you can't see it for yourself if you're instead looking for ways to attack me. This is all you do is personal attack - without understanding.

C'est la vie lol.

 

[dybmh]

They are not "beliefs" - they are knowns. You do not know them, but I do. If you want to know how I know them, you would ask. You don't just say "belief".

Oh dear... lack of attention to detail. I **did** ask.

See below:

Source

What is your central claim?

THIS IS WHY "BELIEF" IS NOT A VIRTUE

@9-18-1,

You most certainly did claim authority. And now you are denying it. See below:

Sooda says:

72 virgin women is not Islamic.

9-18-1 says:

Yes it is.

Then you proceed to make various claims. You state them as fact authoritatively to prove your point about the number 72 as it relates to a word in Arabic.

Please provide proof showing this evidence you brought is fact not fiction.

This imagery was further borrowed from Jewish mysticism wherein the 72 "pure ones" were the 72 names of god (hence: pure) which is the tetragrammaton YHVH writen numerically:

Y - 10 = 10
H - 5 + 10 = 15
V - 6 + 5 + 10 = 21
H - 5 + 6 + 5 + 10 = 26

= 72 "pure ones" in Hebrew
= 72 "grapes" / in Syriac - grapes were considered of highest delicacy
= 72 "virgins" in Arabic which lead to the interpretation to women after you add the sexual degeneracy of Muhammad's "example".

Every piece of evidence you present is a belief. it is not fact. How do I know? Because I have researched this material.

You made the claim.

The burden of proof is on you.

If you cannot prove it, it is a belief. It is a belief used as a virtue to prove a point.

And... in the same post... please help to explain this.

9-18-1 said: "How do I **know** ..." "I read the early Torah"

This is how *I know* the Qur'an is a complete forgery: I read the early Torah

But I repeat less than six months ago you had no knowledge of Hebrew. By your own admission.

I can not properly consider the global conflict(s) as they relate to Judaism/Christianity/Islam (Torah) with no knowledge of the Hebrew language.

How can you **know** that the Qur'an is forged, based on "reading the early Torah" without some authority.

You most certainly are claiming authority. And this is another false claim.. an opinion, a belief, presented as fact, in a Thread claiming:

THIS IS WHY "BELIEF" IS NOT A VIRTUE

Note: The quote above was BOLD when it was posted by 9-18-1. This indicated emphasis on it as the central claim.

 

[9-18-1]

That's a belief. Belief used as a virtue.

I didn't "believe" to sense it, I did, in fact, sense it.

Is this a fact or belief?

Neither.

Mark Twain didn't know anything about Islam either but he was a humorist.

Muhammed was a merchant not a warlord.

He was both - a merchant of people/women, the warlordy to collect more.

He was a slave trader.

Is this a fact or is it belief?

Neither.

Is this a provable fact?

Yes, it is. However that is not the problem - the problem is the idol worshiping Muhammadans (who treat the Qur'an/Muhammad as both infallible) would much rather (as historically) spill blood than consider questioning the integrity of their own book. This has proven itself time and time again.

Did you know Saudi Arabia declared atheism as terrorism? Yet the idol of Islam was a terrorist?

Both facts - Muhammad boasted his victory owing to terror:

"I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them." This because they contended against Allah and His Messenger: If any contend against Allah and His Messenger, Allah is strict in punishment. (8:12-13)

This is where the fascist supremacist nature of Islam comes from "believing" one as being of the highest possible authority: Qur'an, Muhammad, everyone else is an "unbeliever" eventually to be subject to the (man-made) Sharia: Muslims "believing" this to be God's laws, when in fact it is man-made.

7th century man-made laws imposing themselves over 21st century man-made laws.
The former "believing" they are the "solution" to "peace", rather than knowing they are the obstacle to the problem.

When problem acts as solution = cancer, hence China declaring Islam a mental illness. They are 100% factually correct about this: it is a mental illness. Judaism has a bit of it too re: the "divinity" of the Torah and Canaanite scapegoating (ie. messiah complex). It is (at the very least) man-handled and not a "perfectly preserved" work. Judaism and Islam are fundamentally guilty of the same: imbuing manhandled books with divine authority, and man-made idols (ie. Moses, Jesus, Muhammad) as having authority when, in fact, they create nothing but suffering/death.

THIS IS WHY "BELIEF" IS NOT A VIRTUE

"Belief" can be used as a source of confidence. But if the "belief" is not true, confidence without clarity is a disaster in the making. If you're driving a car - confident driver - but don't bother clearing the window, one is more liable to crash than clear visibility.

The further one gets from a state of "belief" to "knowing" the less the fear of suffering. There is nothing to fear when in a state of "I know..." and 'I AM' is completely peaceful within themselves. People often fear what they don't know - a noise in a lit room is less liable to be alarming than in a dark one wherein one knows not whence it came.

The same is true for "belief" - like a darkness wherein once something stirs, people react to their own inner fears. However in knowing, there is not fear, just compassion for those who don't see their own internal binds that causes them suffering. I don't blame others for my own suffering because that leads to socialism / shared loserism.

I learned the secret of aur, ein soph. It is actually related to the shared will to bestow/receive, because I realized the 'object' shared between the two is only limited to what the two can "imagine" in sharing. Hence, 'light' without boundary (that is not self-imposed by identity) which brings us to keser/chokmah/binah.

That whole process starts with UNDERSTANDING: not "belief". And UNDERSTANDING 'I AM' has nothing to do with "belief": it has to do with knowing 'I AM'.

Why don't you try just (instead of attacking me) asking question that begin "do you know if...". You will get much clearer responses from me reflecting what I actually know.

Don't ask me "do you believe..." because the answer is no - I do not "believe". If you "believe" I "believe" things, that is YOUR "belief"; not mine.

 

[dybmh]

You're about <> close to getting an ignore from me - your desire to just attack me instead of <listening> is nonsense.

It doesn't matter if you ignore me.

I will still be refuting your claims and showing that they are false.

Whether you read them or not is irrelevant to me.

You have already said that you do not listen.

See below:

So you are right: I would not listen.

Again... I am simply pointing out the many and varied flaws in the words you have said.

Just like all the others who have done so; you perceive it as an attack. The word you have used so many times, in one form or another, is "Project".

I am not attacking you.

You have made a ridiculous claim. A claim which, in a way, invites ridicule.

But I am not ridiculing you. I am showing how your argument is flawed.

This is why I said, in my very first reply, your OP is sloppy.

It is sloppy because you do not isolate your words so that they all support your claim.

The OP flip-flops between arguing against the Torah, to using it as evidence. It flip-flops between a religious claim to a political claim. It flip-flops between criticizing Islamic belief while using beliefs as evidence.

That is why the OP is sloppy; It's a flip-flopper.

And virtually every reply posted in support of the OP flip-flops in one way or another.

Please consider my suggestion, in this thread. I suggested you start over because this thread was spoiled. I suggested that you take your central claim and isolate your words so that each piece of evidence supports that 1 claim. While at the same time not starting a war with your audience.

Your reply was, in fact, not focused at all. It was still very very sloppy.

Look, you want to ignore me... fine.

Most people are ignoring you already. whether or not they have you on the official ignore list or not:

I think most people are ignoring you or are reading your words as comedy.

Why? Because this thread and several of the others are flip-floppers.

 

[dybmh]

Yes, it is. However that is not the problem

You are avoiding the burden of proof. Why?

The rest of your reply is just political talking points.

You have claimed you can prove that the Qur'an is a forgery.

And now you have confirmed that you think can prove it.

Please do.

 

[9-18-1]

You are avoiding the burden of proof. Why?

The rest of your reply is just political talking points.

You have claimed you can prove that the Qur'an is a forgery.

And now you have confirmed that you can prove it.

Please do.

I will use this to address why I ignore you.

YOU are avoiding the burden of proof.

If the Torah/Qur'an has anything to do with god, that is the claim that needs proof according to the burden it carries.

What is the burden of a Hebrew Moses not having been delivered a Torah?
What are the implications if false?
What are the implications that the Torah suffered a manhandling recompilation under Ezra wherein multiple, distinct authors (reflecting rivaling worldviews) are definitely present?

What is the burden of an Arabian "mercy upon mankind" Muhammad being the best example for all of humanity to emulate, according to Islam?
What are the implications if false?
What are the implications that the Qur'an suffered a manhandling recompilation under Arabic scribes wherein multiple, distinct sources (reflecting heretical worldviews) are definitely present?

You see, you can't understand the weight/gravity of these questions, because your entire world-view is itself rooted in "belief" re: the Torah.

State your knowledge, understanding and/or "belief" regarding the nature of Torah. Did a god have something to do with it, yes or no?

If yes, that is where YOUR "belief" will be your obstacle, because that in and of itself is a "belief".

I don't "believe" the Torah came from any god - that is not a "belief", for one need not adopt/accept such as claim as "plausible" until the one claiming it has proven it to be so.

You can not prove that the Torah came from any god. That is your "belief". I know the Torah has multiple authors, therefor did not come from any god.

You are the one on meltdown because what you "believe" is being undermined. That is what happens to people who identify with/as their "belief" - they protect/attack whatever undermines it. Same Canaanite nature.

I don't perceive everyone as attacking me - but those who do, I will call them out.

It is funny because your responses are one giant projection of you trying to dump your own nature on me: all of the accusations reverse polarity once it is understood that Torah is man-made.

You can't assert the divinity of Torah/Qur'an then request people "disprove" that. It is the same stupidity the Muhammadans try to employ: prove it is not godly!

Backwards and pathetic - so until you fix that issue within yourself, you're just going to continue to project your own nature onto me because I am the one stirring it up in you (and it is easy because you are obviously insecure).

I don't need others to validate anything I do or say - if they attack me, fine, but I will call them out for it whenever it happens, including you while pointing out the faulted logic is inside of you, based on your own "beliefs" - not mine.

IF:
There was no potent delivery by a Hebrew Moses.
THEN:
There is no potent god of Abraham.

The rest is mind-maze mist and clouds: "belief"-based identity protection.

This is why 'I AM' is superior to all - no limitations adopted by identity.

I see you can not see past certain internal obstacles that seem to be related to childhood. Like... something bizarre that sets you off and turns you into a frenzy - a kind of madness. I do feel this madness is latent in the "belief"-based Semitic religions.

By the way, the fear of god is the beginning of wisdom. Apply to the Edenic Adam and Eve story (which is a beautiful and potent story, but was not written by Moses. Moses didn't even write/receive the Torah - and if one says "prove he didn't!" they are the same as Muhammadans) in the way of Adam being afraid for shame of his nakedness. Understanding the source of shame and "nakedness" is the beginning of wisdom.

See how easy that was? Start from the beginning... whence fear (according to Torah)? It is present in the 4th day.

Please start from the top and work the way down. You perceive me flip-flopping because you don't understand I am using Torah to try to help you see your own blind spots. I don't "believe" it came from a god (I know it did not) but that does not mean it does not contain truths. I find it a fascinating collection of books, but certainly not from a god.

I will do a separate thread on the viability of "belief" as a virtue - perhaps we are to pick up there. In the meantime maybe you can solidify your knowledge/belief in/of the nature of Torah: where did it come from and/or what kind of authority does it have (ie. divine? direct from god)? Please state these things so people know your lens through which you perceive creation. I will probably be able to point out after why you see things the way you do (ie. dumping your own nature onto me).

 

[dybmh]

@9-18-1

Most respectfully: When have I ever presented my beliefs, or made any claim that they were rational, relevant, or useful for anyone but myself?

Please consider what I said previously in this thread:

you don't know my beliefs. and even if I shared them with you; i don't think you would listen.

And I repeat your reply:

So you are right: I would not listen.

If I create a thread, and claim that the Torah is G-d's word transmitted to Moses and it has been preserved perfectly to this very day, then, all of those words about the Torah in your most recent reply are valuable.

But in this context, they are spam, talking points.

I have never made the claims you are assigning to me.
It's just another example of misquoting me.

Please do not assign beliefs on me. I do not appreciate being mislabeled. OK?

--------------------

edit: I'm going to go thru and read what you wrote in your most recent reply. I will read it with an open mind. OK?

--------------------

OK: I read it. And, I'm sorry, i think you have me confused with someone else. I simply have never made the claims you are assigning to me.

And the beliefs you are assigning to me, I think you are confused somehow.

Please, @9-18-1, I never made the claims you are assigning to me.

Garbage in >>> Garbage Out.

It really is that simple.

 

[Bethsheba Ashe]

Hi Bethsheba, quick question.



What does the hyphen denote?..and if it does have any significance, why
isn't it there in the English translation

That's called a maqaf. Its slightly different from a hyphen.
Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar/16. Of Maqqēph and Mèthĕg - Wikisource, the free online library

One reason its not in the translation is that biblical translations are rarely word for word although interlinear texts are composed that way. A further reason is that the hyphen is surplus to requirements in this instance of English translation. You have two words that are hyphenated that mean "in the middle of the garden"; בתוך ־ הגן. It would be strange english to see "in the middle-of the garden" and strictly speaking it would be wrong too because the words "Middle" and "Of" are not the ones originally hyphenated.

 

[9-18-1]

Please do not assign beliefs on me. I do not appreciate being mislabeled. OK?

I asked you to define your knowledge/understanding/"belief" regarding the nature of Torah... twice.

That is the opposite of assigning... I am requesting.

Do you know the difference between requesting (twice) and "assigning"?

State your knowledge, understanding and/or "belief" regarding the nature of Torah. Did a god have something to do with it, yes or no?

In the meantime maybe you can solidify your knowledge/belief in/of the nature of Torah: where did it come from and/or what kind of authority does it have (ie. divine? direct from god)? Please state these things so people know your lens through which you perceive creation. I will probably be able to point out after why you see things the way you do (ie. dumping your own nature onto me).

--------------------

edit: I'm going to go thru and read what you wrote in your most recent reply. I will read it with an open mind. OK?

Start with the biggest claims:

Who is making them?
What are they?
What is their weight/gravity?

I asked questions relevant to this for a reason - think of the GRAVITY of the claims surrounding Torah/Qur'an and Moses/Muhammad. Forget Jesus - I will just state the Jews/Muslims are correct to reject him. Will clarify why if needed.

--------------------

OK: I read it. And, I'm sorry, i think you have me confused with someone else. I simply have never made the claims you are assigning to me.

And the beliefs you are assigning to me, I think you are confused somehow.

Please, @9-18-1, I never made the claims you are assigning to me.

I asked you to state them... twice.

I assign nothing to you and simply await for you to clarify.

In the meantime, I have a challenge for you. Because I've not actually seen you make a meaningful thread advancing any discussion, I challenge you to compose a thread outlining the Ten Commandments (provide unmarked Hebrew and English translations) in reverse order. I will review, and if/when agreeable between both we will use this as a shared point of reference.

I will also use this experiment to elaborate how/why Christianity and Islam are inherently severed from the (what we will explore) god of Abraham (granting for sake of argument there could be one) and the Christians/Muslims can use for reference as they evaluate their "BELIEF" in their respective one-and-only god (ie. Jesus the son of god; Muhammad's Allah). I am curious to see if we will find that both religions will/do collapse upon measuring them against the ten commandments - rather profusely.

This in and of itself can not prove my "BELIEF IS NOT A VIRTUE" statement, but it will advance it further by demonstrating that the two "belief"-based institutions of Christianity and Islam do more to advance my argument than in-any-way strengthen your contention to it.

Next will be the integrity of the Torah itself - if that falls, the whole Abrahamic house falls with it, advancing the "BELIEF IS NOT A VIRTUE" even further. From here I will be able to further associate "BELIEF" itself to the very thing: sahten.

If it is true that sahten endeavors to makes people "BELIEVE" (erroneously) that it is god (even being the adversary to the real it) then "BELIEF" is what is required for sahten to have a hold on both individual people and the globe as a whole. I will argue from here that sahten is the beast of the book of Revelation. I know the answer, but for the sake of this experiment, you can assume I "believe" I know - though again this is your "belief".

All we need: 10 commandments in unmarked Hebrew with English translations, reverse order (I will make the argument Torah can be read backwards to see the future). We will agree on translations/words and compact an agreement that the result is the single reference point.

Everyone else can grab popcorn!

'"BELIEF" is not a virtue' can't really be dis-proven any more/less than it can be proven to be one.

Sure, people can use "belief" as a motivation/crutch and perceive a good result (esp. relating to feeling themselves satisfied they remain strong in their faith in the face of all hardships they endure) but that doesn't necessarily make it a virtue.

In fact it is the opposite - a bind that naturally blows up later (if not true). As such any "belief" that is held, but turns out to be false, becomes an eventual source of suffering as its falsity reflects the binds in/of that individual.

I may do a book: 72 Reasons Why 'BELIEF' Is NOT a VIRTUE.

I'll do one for every of the "pure ones": the four worlds -

10 of Aziluth
15 of Briah
21 of Yetzirah
26 of Assiah

What are the first 10?

I'll draw from whatever comes of the thread (if it is made) and you can buy my book

 

[sooda]

I didn't "believe" to sense it, I did, in fact, sense it.



Neither.



He was both - a merchant of people/women, the warlordy to collect more.

He was a slave trader.



Neither.



Yes, it is. However that is not the problem - the problem is the idol worshiping Muhammadans (who treat the Qur'an/Muhammad as both infallible) would much rather (as historically) spill blood than consider questioning the integrity of their own book. This has proven itself time and time again.

Did you know Saudi Arabia declared atheism as terrorism? Yet the idol of Islam was a terrorist?

Both facts - Muhammad boasted his victory owing to terror:

"I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them." This because they contended against Allah and His Messenger: If any contend against Allah and His Messenger, Allah is strict in punishment. (8:12-13)

This is where the fascist supremacist nature of Islam comes from "believing" one as being of the highest possible authority: Qur'an, Muhammad, everyone else is an "unbeliever" eventually to be subject to the (man-made) Sharia: Muslims "believing" this to be God's laws, when in fact it is man-made.

7th century man-made laws imposing themselves over 21st century man-made laws.
The former "believing" they are the "solution" to "peace", rather than knowing they are the obstacle to the problem.

When problem acts as solution = cancer, hence China declaring Islam a mental illness. They are 100% factually correct about this: it is a mental illness. Judaism has a bit of it too re: the "divinity" of the Torah and Canaanite scapegoating (ie. messiah complex). It is (at the very least) man-handled and not a "perfectly preserved" work. Judaism and Islam are fundamentally guilty of the same: imbuing manhandled books with divine authority, and man-made idols (ie. Moses, Jesus, Muhammad) as having authority when, in fact, they create nothing but suffering/death.

THIS IS WHY "BELIEF" IS NOT A VIRTUE

"Belief" can be used as a source of confidence. But if the "belief" is not true, confidence without clarity is a disaster in the making. If you're driving a car - confident driver - but don't bother clearing the window, one is more liable to crash than clear visibility.

The further one gets from a state of "belief" to "knowing" the less the fear of suffering. There is nothing to fear when in a state of "I know..." and 'I AM' is completely peaceful within themselves. People often fear what they don't know - a noise in a lit room is less liable to be alarming than in a dark one wherein one knows not whence it came.

The same is true for "belief" - like a darkness wherein once something stirs, people react to their own inner fears. However in knowing, there is not fear, just compassion for those who don't see their own internal binds that causes them suffering. I don't blame others for my own suffering because that leads to socialism / shared loserism.

I learned the secret of aur, ein soph. It is actually related to the shared will to bestow/receive, because I realized the 'object' shared between the two is only limited to what the two can "imagine" in sharing. Hence, 'light' without boundary (that is not self-imposed by identity) which brings us to keser/chokmah/binah.

That whole process starts with UNDERSTANDING: not "belief". And UNDERSTANDING 'I AM' has nothing to do with "belief": it has to do with knowing 'I AM'.

Why don't you try just (instead of attacking me) asking question that begin "do you know if...". You will get much clearer responses from me reflecting what I actually know.

Don't ask me "do you believe..." because the answer is no - I do not "believe". If you "believe" I "believe" things, that is YOUR "belief"; not mine.

Either you have no clue what you are talking about or you are on a deliberate hate mission. Muhammed taught that when a slave is freed Allah smiles.

Children born of a Muslim and a slave woman had all the rights of his other children..

 

[dianaiad]

Sure. But "not believing in god", is not the motivation of these people. Their motivations are other things.

Yes. They have other motivations. However, that they have other motivations does NOT mean that one of them isn't 'getting rid of theism."

Y'know, the kings who sent their barons and knights out on crusade had other motives for doing that than 'in the Name of God." In fact, those motives included ridding themselves of men who wanted to take the throne for themselves, who were fighting among themselves for land and power that was in shorter and shorter supply, and to open up the silk road for themselves. "Freeing Jerusalem" and "In the Name of God" were excuses, not motives.

But their other motives do not mean that some of them weren't honestly out to 'free Jerusalem,' as well.




Yes it is.[/quote]

No it's not, any more than 'atheism' is. Both terms are 'catch all' buckets in which ideologies and opinions regarding deity...which DO have 'positive' claims, exist.

No, atheism doesn't.
Atheism is a single stance on a single issue. It's not an ideology by itself, nore are any claims an inherent part of it.

See above. You are now committing the 'no true Atheist' fallacy. PLENTY of atheistic ideas have definite stances that differ from other atheists. "Strong' atheism vs. 'weak' atheism is just one division, and they have very different stances on this single issue.

Both are atheism + additional stuff

That 'additional stuff' depends upon atheism to hang upon. Just like Mormonism and Hinduism are both theism + additional stuff.

And even then, I still don't agree that such things form a basis for a state model and a motivation of policy. If such things are part of some state's narrative, then it can only be only a part of it. The bigger picture will always be something else (like communism). The "raison d'être" of such states never is "anti-theism" or "strong atheism" or whatever.

Well, the reason for being for nations with state religions never is whatever the religion is, either, but you guys sure love to attribute all the violence committed by such states to the religion. What I am seeing here is an amazing double standard.

I don't think I ever said otherwise.
My point isn't about what does and does not qualify as atheism.
My point is about their policy not being done "in the name of" or "motivated by" atheism.

There's always a bigger picture.
Nobody does things in the name of "i don't believe in X".
That just doesn't make any sense to me.

I am simply using your standards of judging things here. Would you like to tell me the difference between a theistic nation which uses religion as an excuse....and an atheistic nation which uses 'get rid of religion and "imagine' the world we'd have" as an excuse?

I see none.
snip to end, to be visited later.

 

[dybmh]

I asked you to define your knowledge/understanding/"belief" regarding the nature of Torah... twice.

I'm sorry, I missed it.

I respectfully decline this. My beliefs are influx. I am a work in progress.

I simply cannot define it, and why would I.

In this way, I feel like the conversation is shifting its focus to me. Isn't that ad hominem? Literally?

I challenge you to compose a thread outlining the Ten Commandments (provide unmarked Hebrew and English translations) in reverse order.

Why would I ever do this?

I just don't follow you, I am very sorry. Why should I start a thread about something that is not my focus nor is my interest?

Looking at the 10 commandments backwards? If you find something valuable in that, please start the thread yourself.

I will read it with an open mind.

If what you find is valuable, interesting, and fact based, then I think you should post it.

But I think, if you do that, be careful not to overstate the confidence of your claims because that will dilute your message and degrade the quality of your writing.

 

[dybmh]

I assign nothing to you and simply await for you to clarify.

Please forgive me for the second post right in a row.

But you did... multiple times. All you need to do is scroll up and read your own words. I will drop it unless you want to continue with repeating the assertion: "I assign nothing to you"

You did. You have repeatedly. Why are you denying it? Why not just say, "sorry" and "i was wrong"?

 

[sooda]

They are not "beliefs" - they are knowns. You do not know them, but I do. If you want to know how I know them, you would ask. You don't just say "belief".

What is my central claim you "believe" you are refuting (which you are not by the way).



Just to clarify: the individual being spoken of from the Meru website is not me, but someone else entirely. User is being deceptive by associating/linking it to me to reflect only their own sentiment and how they want others to see me: the same way they themselves do. It is enmity again - person can not drop it.

The only point I made with it was that the entire language system is derived from a single form. That's it. I gave Meru credit so people wouldn't complain like they did last time for not citing where I got an image. The only important thing is the form itself serving the purpose to understand how language evolved from it in serving the point I had made.

These games are petty and pathetic - it seems all people care about is attacking, attacking, attacking etc.

One thing I don't know: how people become angry at what *other* people say and feel the need to attack them. This is a strange thing - like a compulsion to attack, attack, attack.

I actually really on hope for world peace, which I know will require a consolidation of the Abrahamic religions to filter out the... falsities and complete misunderstandings. This is required unless people are complacent with Islam ruling the planet under Islamic Sharia, which is based on a 7th century warlord that turned women into "property" like/as a spoil of jihad.

Lol... this is a religion internet forum, I suppose. People seem to be easily offended.

I'm not really offended by anything except... men treating women poorly. Women are the key to world peace, but people don't realize it yet. That is why there is a war/dysphoria of genders (I made a thread about it) to make people not realize women are disappearing everywhere because... what is a woman anymore? Can't talk about gender anymore? Why?

Women are under attack globally. That is the only thing I am offended by, and really work to resolve: restoring women to "sovereign" as opposed to "dominated by men". It really would fix the planet - I know this.

But, of course... I am not allowed to know things! Because they "offend" people's "beliefs".

Reconcile with POTUS "NO COLLUSION" result.

Who tried to nail DTJ by projecting their own deeds on him? (ie. Russia collusion, harming children, being an idiot, being racist, being Islamophobic etc.) and people still don't see the root of fascism?

It is the Judeo-Islamic "BELIEF" based series of faiths, and people who use projection smear-based attacks (similar to above) are essentially doing everything they can to silence people who... they just don't need to listen to and can go walk away. Instead, they have to attack.

This is the difference between Cain and Abel btw. Latter grows enmity/attack/kill instinct. Animal nature. No peace.

LOLOL.. Sharia isn't going to rule the planet.. There is NO place in the Muslim world that is ruled by Sharia.

We have had Beit Din in the US for 250 years and its not a problem.

I find it suspect when people are so focused on trashing the other guy whether they are Muslim, Christian, Jew or other.

Do you know what Sharia means? It means the well worn path to lifegiving water. How bloody sinister is that?