Islam's Fatal Denial of the Trinity?

[9-18-1]

You would need, I suppose, the kabbalah to explain this to you? Because the Hebrew scrolls in existence today have four, not three letters for the divine name. And sometimes they were described as all vowel sounds.

I study kabbalah and am aware of the name.

YHVH has a heh repeated - as such only three letters are used; one of them repeated. The final heh connects YHV (ee; ah; oo) to ain soph through da'at. Da'at is the hidden sephiroth wherein aba (father) and ima (mother) are united. This is the same as the tree of knowledge (da'at) of tob and ra people read about in Genesis. It is the marriage of the two polarities as one - the same as the name Elohim.

this is virtually incomprehensible except for the ones that may have been on a mystical trip perhaps?

I'm sorry if it is incomprehensible to you.

Most people associate the Trinity with some form of worship.

I'm not advocating for any Trinity associated with any form of worship. The Trinity I am arguing has nothing to do with theology or worship.

The Trinity: man, woman and child?

No; however this is a natural product of the 'Trinity' I am arguing. For example, again to use kabbalah, the Triunity used there is Kether (Father) Chokmah (Son) Binah (Holy Spirit). Through Binah (which contains the polarity of masculine/feminine) a second "trinity" emerges in accordance with above: father/mother/son. The relationship father and mother have is in da'at whereas the child is any given being (malkut).

The 'Trinity' I am arguing for in its most simple aspect is:

g. Will to Bestow
o. Shared Will
d. Will to Receive

Man and woman (masculine and feminine) relate to one another via either a shared will or an unshared will. When a man controls/forces a woman (or vice versa) to engage in something that he/she does not desire, this is the (what I must term) "First Principle" which leads to suffering/death. In extreme cases this is physical/emotional/psychological abuse, sexual abuse(s) (pedophilia, rape) etc. If a will is wholly shared between man and woman, they become "like" Elohim and have the same capabilities to "create" whatever they wish because the will is shared.

Some of the reason(s) I am arguing for this 'Trinity' are:
1. The Genesis account uses it to perform the creation of Six Days
2. Elohim is a word describing the unity of masculine/feminine as one
3. This 'Trinity' can not be broken down into simpler terms either inside or outside the 'God of Abraham'
4. Religious institutions (Judaism/Christianity/Islam) destroy the feminine aspect of Elohim
5. Rape and pedophilia; human trafficking, abuse of women, war/genocide etc. is widespread on the planet and many people (even on these forums) support these things to some degree.

In the case of Islam (which is wholly belief-based) we have an entire generation of people who are using the "example" of a man as the highest authority (which is idol worship) that engaged in:
1. Pedophilia (A'isha)
2. Infidelity / polygamy (multiple women contrary to the primordial Edenic state)
3. Killing of women's husbands and having sex with unwilling women
4. Waging of war / genocide

And these are the sorts of activities that are embedded into such institutions by virtue of the fact the central idol (Muhammad) actively engaged in them which has set a precedent for Muslims to follow suit in proper idol worship fashion.

 

[YoursTrue]

I study kabbalah and am aware of the name.

YHVH has a heh repeated - as such only three letters are used; one of them repeated. The final heh connects YHV (ee; ah; oo) to ain soph through da'at. Da'at is the hidden sephiroth wherein aba (father) and ima (mother) are united. This is the same as the tree of knowledge (da'at) of tob and ra people read about in Genesis. It is the marriage of the two polarities as one - the same as the name Elohim.

If you believe that, it is one reason why the Kabbalah is not from God. It is a made-up doctrine. Assuming that is what is written in the Kabbalah.

 

[YoursTrue]

I study kabbalah and am aware of the name.

YHVH has a heh repeated - as such only three letters are used; one of them repeated. The final heh connects YHV (ee; ah; oo) to ain soph through da'at. Da'at is the hidden sephiroth wherein aba (father) and ima (mother) are united. This is the same as the tree of knowledge (da'at) of tob and ra people read about in Genesis. It is the marriage of the two polarities as one - the same as the name Elohim.



I'm sorry if it is incomprehensible to you.



I'm not advocating for any Trinity associated with any form of worship. The Trinity I am arguing has nothing to do with theology or worship.
.

So if it's not from a higher source than human, why are you explaining it in such detail like you are?
.

 

[9-18-1]

If you believe that, it is one reason why the Kabbalah is not from God. It is a made-up doctrine. Assuming that is what is written in the Kabbalah.

1. I don't "believe" anything - "believe" means one does not "know". What I know, I know. What I do not know, I do not know. Recognition of what I don't know makes me ask questions that will lead from a state of "not knowing" to "knowing" which is precisely the same activity of the first day of creation: let there be light, there was light, and let it be separated from the darkness. Moving from a state of "not knowing" to "knowing" is precisely what:

2. "Kabbalah" means:

'kab' - to receive
'alah' - (from) god

It is not a "belief". It is not a "thing". It is an action undertaken: one receives. Therefor to state "Kabbalah is not from God" is to state "To receive from God is not from God" which is self-contradicting and nonsensical.

So if it's not from a higher source than human, why are you explaining it in such detail like you are?
.

I don't understanding what you are referencing when you say "it". What are you referencing specifically?

I attempt to explain things in detail because language is important. Even reading the gospel of John as a non-Christian it is stated very clearly: "In the beginning was the WORD (logos), and the WORD (logos) was with GOD, and the WORD (logos) was GOD." This is a profound statement - that all of creation happens through (to use the original word) 'LOGOS'. I therefor endeavored to understand what this 'LOGOS' is which can be synthesized into the following: use of language, use of "words", use of speech, use of dialogue, expression, argument, juxtaposition of differing views etc. Therefor I endeavor to utilize all faculties to the extent to which I am capable of "explaining" things in detail. The frustration is engaging with people who do not share a similar respect for the 'LOGOS' or language in general.

Behold the degradation of language globally: nothing is "illegal", it is "irregular". "Peace" means "war"; "division" means "unity"; "belief" is a "virtue" etc. The corruption of language is exceeding great and highly related to the confounding of languages alluded to in the books of Moses.

I try to respect 'language' as much as possible, for if 'GOD' is anything, it is perfect in language which I argue is 'true' for the 28-letter string of Genesis 1:1. It perfectly describes creation as it actually exists.

 

[YoursTrue]

1. I don't "believe" anything - "believe" means one does not "know". What I know, I know. What I do not know, I do not know. Recognition of what I don't know makes me ask questions that will lead from a state of "not knowing" to "knowing" which is precisely the same activity of the first day of creation: let there be light, there was light, and let it be separated from the darkness. Moving from a state of "not knowing" to "knowing" is precisely what:

2. "Kabbalah" means:

'kab' - to receive
'alah' - (from) god

It is not a "belief". It is not a "thing". It is an action undertaken: one receives. Therefor to state "Kabbalah is not from God" is to state "To receive from God is not from God" which is self-contradicting and nonsensical.



I don't understanding what you are referencing when you say "it". What are you referencing specifically?

I attempt to explain things in detail because language is important. Even reading the gospel of John as a non-Christian it is stated very clearly: "In the beginning was the WORD (logos), and the WORD (logos) was with GOD, and the WORD (logos) was GOD." This is a profound statement - that all of creation happens through (to use the original word) 'LOGOS'. I therefor endeavored to understand what this 'LOGOS' is which can be synthesized into the following: use of language, use of "words", use of speech, use of dialogue, expression, argument, juxtaposition of differing views etc. Therefor I endeavor to utilize all faculties to the extent to which I am capable of "explaining" things in detail. The frustration is engaging with people who do not share a similar respect for the 'LOGOS' or language in general.

Behold the degradation of language globally: nothing is "illegal", it is "irregular". "Peace" means "war"; "division" means "unity"; "belief" is a "virtue" etc. The corruption of language is exceeding great and highly related to the confounding of languages alluded to in the books of Moses.

I try to respect 'language' as much as possible, for if 'GOD' is anything, it is perfect in language which I argue is 'true' for the 28-letter string of Genesis 1:1. It perfectly describes creation as it actually exists.

Regarding your first statement, I really can't figure if you believe what you post in great detail.

 

[9-18-1]

Regarding your first statement, I really can't figure if you believe what you post in great detail.

Perhaps it is linked to why I stated I don't "believe" anything as "belief" is not a virtue. Any that "believes" anything means they don't "know"; they just "believe".

 

[YoursTrue]

1. I don't "believe" anything - "believe" means one does not "know". What I know, I know. What I do not know, I do not know. Recognition of what I don't know makes me ask questions that will lead from a state of "not knowing" to "knowing" which is precisely the same activity of the first day of creation: let there be light, there was light, and let it be separated from the darkness. Moving from a state of "not knowing" to "knowing" is precisely what:

2. "Kabbalah" means:

'kab' - to receive
'alah' - (from) god

It is not a "belief". It is not a "thing". It is an action undertaken: one receives. Therefor to state "Kabbalah is not from God" is to state "To receive from God is not from God" which is self-contradicting and nonsensical.



I don't understanding what you are referencing when you say "it". What are you referencing specifically?

I attempt to explain things in detail because language is important. Even reading the gospel of John as a non-Christian it is stated very clearly: "In the beginning was the WORD (logos), and the WORD (logos) was with GOD, and the WORD (logos) was GOD." This is a profound statement - that all of creation happens through (to use the original word) 'LOGOS'. I therefor endeavored to understand what this 'LOGOS' is which can be synthesized into the following: use of language, use of "words", use of speech, use of dialogue, expression, argument, juxtaposition of differing views etc. Therefor I endeavor to utilize all faculties to the extent to which I am capable of "explaining" things in detail. The frustration is engaging with people who do not share a similar respect for the 'LOGOS' or language in general.

Behold the degradation of language globally: nothing is "illegal", it is "irregular". "Peace" means "war"; "division" means "unity"; "belief" is a "virtue" etc. The corruption of language is exceeding great and highly related to the confounding of languages alluded to in the books of Moses.

I try to respect 'language' as much as possible, for if 'GOD' is anything, it is perfect in language which I argue is 'true' for the 28-letter string of Genesis 1:1. It perfectly describes creation as it actually exists.

You can read something and know what you read. Who wrote the Kabbalah?

 

[YoursTrue]

Perhaps it is linked to why I stated I don't "believe" anything as "belief" is not a virtue. Any that "believes" anything means they don't "know"; they just "believe".

It goes beyond that. I've never been to India, but I believe it exists.

 

[9-18-1]

You can read something and know what you read. Who wrote the Kabbalah?

Kabbalah is not something that is written. The word means "to receive" and that is all it means. What others (you) are associating with it is beyond me.

It goes beyond that. I've never been to India, but I believe it exists.

Whereas others 'know' it exists.

 

[YoursTrue]

Kabbalah is not something that is written. The word means "to receive" and that is all it means. What others (you) are associating with it is beyond me.



Whereas others 'know' it exists.

thank you for clarifying. So do you study the Kabbalah?

 

[9-18-1]

thank you for clarifying. So do you study the Kabbalah?

I don't understand what you mean by "the Kabbalah" - I don't recognize it as a 'thing'. I understand Kabbalah as "to receive" and that is all.

I study many things that are often associated with Kabbalah - the tree of life, the tree of knowledge, Hebrew letters and language, Zohar etc. but I wouldn't call any of this "Kabbalah" but tools to assist with Kabbalah.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't understand what you mean by "the Kabbalah" - I don't recognize it as a 'thing'. I understand Kabbalah as "to receive" and that is all.

I study many things that are often associated with Kabbalah - the tree of life, the tree of knowledge, Hebrew letters and language, Zohar etc. but I wouldn't call any of this "Kabbalah" but tools to assist with Kabbalah.

Did you say you are an atheist? I'm not sure, sorry if I do not remember.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't understand what you mean by "the Kabbalah" - I don't recognize it as a 'thing'. I understand Kabbalah as "to receive" and that is all.

I study many things that are often associated with Kabbalah - the tree of life, the tree of knowledge, Hebrew letters and language, Zohar etc. but I wouldn't call any of this "Kabbalah" but tools to assist with Kabbalah.

Ok, let me ask you another question. Today I passed a place called the Kabbalah Center. Do you go to a group that meets together?

 

[9-18-1]

Did you say you are an atheist? I'm not sure, sorry if I do not remember.

No I didn't, as it is a difficult topic in and of itself.

Now only speaking on behalf of myself (though I hold this to be true) theists and atheists are both in the same "boat" - they both attest to things that which they do not know. On either side of the aisle both positions can be reduced to a common bind: to "not know".

I avoid terms/labels as much as possible because my own use of them is much different than what most people associate with them. However, if I had to describe my stance on creation, it would have to be one of gnosis: to know. As such "belief" is not even in my realm of interest as it is for institutions such as Christianity and Islam.

Ok, let me ask you another question. Today I passed a place called the Kabbalah Center. Do you go to a group that meets together?

No I do not go to any group. The Kabbalah Center sells tools for Kabbalah: for example if one wants to purchase a copy of the Zohar they would buy it from such a store. However kabbalah itself does not call for and/or require any group(s) - in fact I would suggest the only real kabbalah comes from individual internal introspection in isolation. That's not to say one should live in isolation, but one should surely introspect in isolation.

My own example I can give is I "learn" from what I study only in a place between sleep and wakefulness - wherein I am detached from all physical sensations but conscious to 'observe' the contents of the mind when not being directed by my being. It is in this 'place' that the information I have taken in (study) is "made sense of" and this is what I propose to be (at least a form of) kabbalah: "to receive" which happens from within - not without.

There are intellectual kabbalists that make kabbalah a social event: groups. There is nothing "wrong" with this as group discussions were and are a big part of exploring kabbalistic methods but true kabbalah has nothing to do with anything but ones own internal being.

 

[YoursTrue]

No I didn't, as it is a difficult topic in and of itself.

Now only speaking on behalf of myself (though I hold this to be true) theists and atheists are both in the same "boat" - they both attest to things that which they do not know. On either side of the aisle both positions can be reduced to a common bind: to "not know".

I avoid terms/labels as much as possible because my own use of them is much different than what most people associate with them. However, if I had to describe my stance on creation, it would have to be one of gnosis: to know. As such "belief" is not even in my realm of interest as it is for institutions such as Christianity and Islam.



No I do not go to any group. The Kabbalah Center sells tools for Kabbalah: for example if one wants to purchase a copy of the Zohar they would buy it from such a store. However kabbalah itself does not call for and/or require any group(s) - in fact I would suggest the only real kabbalah comes from individual internal introspection in isolation. That's not to say one should live in isolation, but one should surely introspect in isolation.

My own example I can give is I "learn" from what I study only in a place between sleep and wakefulness - wherein I am detached from all physical sensations but conscious to 'observe' the contents of the mind when not being directed by my being. It is in this 'place' that the information I have taken in (study) is "made sense of" and this is what I propose to be (at least a form of) kabbalah: "to receive" which happens from within - not without.

There are intellectual kabbalists that make kabbalah a social event: groups. There is nothing "wrong" with this as group discussions were and are a big part of exploring kabbalistic methods but true kabbalah has nothing to do with anything but ones own internal being.

Thank you for your answer. I appreciate it. Here is what I have to say in response: infants are born helpless. I'll keep this brief. Infants cannot take care of themselves. At a certain point they need to be instructed in the ways of their environment. So to keep this brief, I'll just say that we must be taught to read. In other words, we cannot teach ourselves to do many things.

 

[9-18-1]

Thank you for your answer. I appreciate it. Here is what I have to say in response: infants are born helpless. I'll keep this brief. Infants cannot take care of themselves. At a certain point they need to be instructed in the ways of their environment. So to keep this brief, I'll just say that we must be taught to read. In other words, we cannot teach ourselves to do many things.

Thank you - I am in agreement. This is always the challenge of the kabbalist: to discern between what is being dug from ones own soil (Cain) and what is being received as a bestowal (Abel) as these are the (only two) conduits (through which) that lead back to the primordial Edenic state. It is related to the two types of 'reasoning': subjective and objective and the first day of creation - darkness from light. Whereas the former leads to the spilling of blood (by Cain) the latter yields a favorable outcome (by Abel). I say these borrowing from other literature but there is an underlying principle here that is universal which relates to the 'golden rule'.

 

[YoursTrue]

Thank you - I am in agreement. This is always the challenge of the kabbalist: to discern between what is being dug from ones own soil (Cain) and what is being received as a bestowal (Abel) as these are the (only two) conduits (through which) that lead back to the primordial Edenic state. It is related to the two types of 'reasoning': subjective and objective and the first day of creation - darkness from light. Whereas the former leads to the spilling of blood (by Cain) the latter yields a favorable outcome (by Abel). I say these borrowing from other literature but there is an underlying principle here that is universal which relates to the 'golden rule'.

I won't say I understand what you wrote without an explanation, but thanks anyway.

 

[YoursTrue]

1. I don't "believe" anything - "believe" means one does not "know". What I know, I know. What I do not know, I do not know. Recognition of what I don't know makes me ask questions that will lead from a state of "not knowing" to "knowing" which is precisely the same activity of the first day of creation: let there be light, there was light, and let it be separated from the darkness. Moving from a state of "not knowing" to "knowing" is precisely what:

2. "Kabbalah" means:

'kab' - to receive
'alah' - (from) god

It is not a "belief". It is not a "thing". It is an action undertaken: one receives. Therefor to state "Kabbalah is not from God" is to state "To receive from God is not from God" which is self-contradicting and nonsensical.



I don't understanding what you are referencing when you say "it". What are you referencing specifically?

I attempt to explain things in detail because language is important. Even reading the gospel of John as a non-Christian it is stated very clearly: "In the beginning was the WORD (logos), and the WORD (logos) was with GOD, and the WORD (logos) was GOD." This is a profound statement - that all of creation happens through (to use the original word) 'LOGOS'. I therefor endeavored to understand what this 'LOGOS' is which can be synthesized into the following: use of language, use of "words", use of speech, use of dialogue, expression, argument, juxtaposition of differing views etc. Therefor I endeavor to utilize all faculties to the extent to which I am capable of "explaining" things in detail. The frustration is engaging with people who do not share a similar respect for the 'LOGOS' or language in general.

Behold the degradation of language globally: nothing is "illegal", it is "irregular". "Peace" means "war"; "division" means "unity"; "belief" is a "virtue" etc. The corruption of language is exceeding great and highly related to the confounding of languages alluded to in the books of Moses.

In reference to the idea that nothing is illegal, please explain. I agree that different cultures have different perceptions of right and wrong, but things like stealing and adultery are usually considered wrong, no matter.