I agree. It's a GREAT quote! Francis
On 2 Jun., 00:14, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > That, dear Ash, was unabashed glee. I'm going to have to steal her quote, > methinks. > > > > On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Ash <[email protected]> wrote: > > Now I am still a little new here, was that glee or condescension? Depending > > on who I am that question may be revealing, or not at all what one > > expects... 'do you think that is air you are breathing?' :p > > > On 6/1/2010 12:09 PM, Chris Jenkins wrote: > > >> I love you, Rigsy. > > >> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 8:56 AM, rigsy03 <[email protected] <mailto: > >> [email protected]>> wrote: > > >> God is an invention of mankind. Nature invented itself. > > >> On May 27, 6:36 am, Pat <[email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> > On 26 May, 17:30, Molly <[email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > >> > > It is very interesting, Vam, that Pat's view arouses such such > >> emotion > >> > > in you. I also (along with DWB) find his posts fascinating, his > >> > > knowledge of scripture deep, and his view interesting. > >> Surely, not > >> > > ALL of his view can be wrong, if being wrong is possible (in > >> any way > >> > > but relative), and that you continue to state that it is - well, I > >> > > find it interesting and will leave it at that. I also had the > >> thought > >> > > that it might be golden shadow at work, as Pat stated > >> previously. I > >> > > wonder if you confuse his relay of scripture with his view, as > >> with > >> > > your statement, "you may have the need for the protection of > >> Quran and > >> > > adherents." Pat's statement was that according to the Quran, > >> Islamics > >> > > were not to fight with Christians and Jews. He used this > >> statement to > >> > > support the view that Islamic scripture is misinterpreted by many > >> > > factions today. I don't see this as irrational or rable rousing, > >> > > quite the opposite! > > >> > Yes, thanks Molly. That was EXACTLY what I was intending to say. > >> > Thanks for pointing it out. I was going to do it myself (and would > >> > have by now, had I access to the Internet at home), as I think that > >> > part of my message was completely lost on Vam, as (I think!?) he > >> took > >> > offense to the fact that Islam protects some people and not > >> others--in > >> > particular, Hindus. But Shari'a DOES accept 'Brahman' as being an > >> > equivalent name for Allah, as both are monotheistic Gods and Shari'a > >> > does accept Advaita Vedanta (the particular Hindu faith to which Vam > >> > ascribes) as being the 'proper', originally intended Hindu viewpoint > >> > and recognises that the polytheistic views were a later 'dis- > >> > integration' (literally) of the original concept. Yet, God moves us > >> > in various ways for His own end, not ours. So I accept Vam's > >> actions > >> > as being actions of The One and, therefore, necessary, even > >> though I, > >> > for the moment, can't fathom the exact reasons. God's ways are NOT > >> > like our ways and are, at times, very tricky to understand. Of > >> > course, reconcilliation is never possible without, first, having a > >> > 'separation'; may be that's the key. Time will tell and only God > >> > knows His goals in full. > > >> > > I know that you are both bright and generous people, so I find > >> this > >> > > clash a real puzzle. One thing I know, we all don't need to > >> agree, > >> > > but respect keeps the peace. I respect you both, and hope you can > >> > > come back to some kind of compassionate communication. > > >> > I'm always open and am as puzzled as you are at Vam's reaction. > >> > Especially in light of the fact that he was trying to put himself > >> > forward as a rational man (which he IS 99% of the time). But we all > >> > have our off days and, for all I know, his take on my statement was > >> > just another straw in a basket that had been filled by things > >> totally > >> > un-related to me. As far as Vam's and my beliefs go, we agree that > >> > there is only one God, so, if I'm ALL wrong, he must be wrong in > >> those > >> > areas where we agree. Not exactly a rational/logical > >> standpoint, from > >> > my point of view. > > >> > > On May 26, 9:07 am, vamadevananda <[email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > >> > > > Pat, its over. As far I am concerned, you've got it ALL > >> wrong. Period. > > >> > > > Forget polytheism, I find infinite value and God's own > >> beauty even in > >> > > > idolators, pork eating blasphemes and beef eaters, the > >> unschooled > >> > > > aborigines who'd spit and piss on all scriptures of the > >> world, and the > >> > > > cartoonists for whom nothing is sacred enough to distort or > >> twist in > >> > > > order to derive some fun or communicate some message. I have > >> no sense > >> > > > of localised holiness whatever, in this world or your next > >> world. You > >> > > > might have the need for the protection of Quran and > >> adherents, but I > >> > > > only see you as a rabble rouser. > > >> > > > That is only to lay out how far we are from each other's > >> paradigms. To > >> > > > me, you are just a great blabber, who knows nothing even > >> remotely true > >> > > > and can add nothing whatsoever for even your own well being, > >> leave > >> > > > aside the world. If the reductions are reciprocal, between > >> you and me, > >> > > > I consider myself blessed ! > > >> > > > On May 26, 5:38 pm, Pat <[email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > >> > > > > On 25 May, 21:35, ornamentalmind > >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > > > Vam, your request is noted and appreciated. For now, I > >> for one, will > >> > > > > > allow a little more rope. Long ago we ceased being rigid > >> when it comes > >> > > > > > to rationality, so unless we return to the days when any > >> other view > >> > > > > > was shouted down (and/or banned), while at the edge, I > >> don't believe > >> > > > > > that Pat has crossed over any line that we have accepted > >> in the last > >> > > > > > couple of years. > > >> > > > > > Of course, I would have no problem with a new topic > >> discussing such > >> > > > > > things. In fact, it may be time for us all to review our > >> standards > >> > > > > > around such issues. > > >> > > > > Thanks!! Is the issue quoting scripture? Or is the issue > >> mentioning > >> > > > > topics derived from scripture? Or is the issue mentioning > >> something > >> > > > > that someone else gets their knickers in a twist over? To > >> me, this > >> > > > > last issue is the most important one as it seemed that Vam > >> took > >> > > > > offense to the Qur'an not protecting Hindus. Actually, I > >> think > >> > > > > Hinduism generally prospered under Moghul rule except, of > >> course, at > >> > > > > the very beginning. The Muslims certainly put no lasting > >> dent into > >> > > > > the Hindu population base, as modern numbers bear out. The > >> issue the > >> > > > > Qur'an has with Hinduism is that most of it is > >> polytheistic and, of > >> > > > > course, the premiss of the Qur'an is that it is a > >> revelation by the > >> > > > > One True God, who could not accept polytheism, as He knows > >> better. > >> > > > > However, Vam is an adherent of Advaita Vedanta, the > >> non-dual view, > >> > > > > i.e., old school Hinduism. Islam (and by that, I mean the > >> current > >> > > > > mainstream Shari'a interpretation) has always viewed that > >> the Advaita > >> > > > > approach was the correct one and that it would NEVER have > >> a problem > >> > > > > with a person who, if asked what God's name was, they replied > >> > > > > "Brahman". As long as the word has an 'N' at the end, it > >> implies a > >> > > > > God that is One and that is completely compatible with Islam. > >> > > > > Therefore, there was no reason for Vam to take that statement > >> > > > > personally, as he is NOT a polytheist. And, surely, he > >> knows the > >> > > > > difference between non-dual and dual? The statement was a > >> statement > >> > > > > of fact in that I expressed a fact (that the Qur'an > >> mentions protected > >> > > > > people), it was not intended to slur anyone or degrade > >> anyone. And I > >> > > > > would hope that people, by now, would know me better than > >> to think I > >> > > > > was trying to stir up trouble in 'Little Google'. > > >> > > > > > On May 25, 7:10 am, vamadevananda <[email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > >> > > > > > > " According to the Qur'an, Christians and Jews are > >> 'protected people' > >> > > > > > > who should not be fought ... " > > >> > > > > > > What's wrong with non - Christians and non - Jews, > >> that actually > >> > > > > > > constitute more than half of the world population ? > >> Why are they any > >> > > > > > > the less deserving of peace ? > > >> > > > > > > It's precisely because of such indefensible ' > >> tribalism ' and divisive > >> > > > > > > crap that the scripture should be rejected by all > >> rational people of > >> > > > > > > the world ! It's a sham, to be speaking of One in the > >> same breath. > > >> > > > > > > Pat, you should thank the mods for allowing your > >> defense of such > >> > > > > > > irrational, divisive and inflammatory stance, on a > >> rational forum that > >> > > > > > > Minds Eye is. > >> > > > > > > And, if you disagree with it, as any rational mind > >> would, the > >> > > > > > > appropriate constituency to address your opposition > >> would be found on > >> > > > > > > an Islamic forum ! > > >> > > > > > > Through this post > > ... > > Erfahren Sie mehr »
