Mohammed

[Popeyesays]

J.R.R denied any allegorical content in the Lord of the Rings regardless of what others have read into the story. If you percieve that it is allegorical, you are mistaken.

Piffle.
no author so completely understands his own psyche as to successfully make such a claim.

Regards,
Scott

 

[YmirGF]

Piffle.
no author so completely understands his own psyche as to successfully make such a claim.

Regards,
Scott

Wow. so now you know more about what was in Tolkien's mind than he did. That is most impressive, Scott. Shall I break out the backhoe again?

 

[Popeyesays]

Wow. so now you know more about what was in Tolkien's mind than he did. That is most impressive, Scott. Shall I break out the backhoe again?

When an author writes he creates more than he thinks he has. Ideally, he is writing the lines without thought as to what he writes between them--let others worry about that.

If religious text is admitted to be a communication from God revealed through the mind and spirit of a Prophet, then how much more true is that?

If one does not allow that, then there is little point in discussing it.

Regards,
Scott

 

[YmirGF]

When an author writes he creates more than he thinks he has. Ideally, he is writing the lines without thought as to what he writes between them--let others worry about that.

I'm not entirely sure of that Scott, often when I am writing, I am analyzing the content from multiple viewpoints. Methinks you are describing your own manner of writing and projecting it on all writers.

If religious text is admitted to be a communication from God revealed through the mind and spirit of a Prophet, then how much more true is that?

You see, that IS where we differ, completely. I utterly reject the common idea of "revelation". You will never convince me of the validity of such claims. I can assure you that when the average human animal is presented with larger aspects of their identity, the will almost ALWAYS assume that they have been in communication with god. It is a quite understandable, but incorrect, viewpoint. In a sense, such human animals become fixated on their errant perception and this often will have the unseemly result of them elevating their own imagined status.

If one does not allow that, then there is little point in discussing it.

I disagree. It is patently absurd to accept the words of someone who proffesses to talk for God, although much could potentially be learned from their distorted perceptions, though those lessons may not be the lessons such individuals teach directly.

For example, Prophet Muhammed [pbuh] states very clearly via the Qur'an that we are to have no intercessors between man and god. In reality, the words and actions of Prophet Muhammed [pbuh] AND the "noble" Qur'an can be considered to be intercessors in their own right, as are all religious text in that they come directly between man and his imagined god. They form a preconceived notion in the mind of the believer of what god is and what he expects. It isn't so much based on reality as it is based on liberal use of overactive imaginations.

 

[Popeyesays]

Paul,

One either accepts the Prophet or one does not. One either hears the voice of God in the Prophet's words, or one does not.

One either discusses the idea of revelation and proves or disproves it to one's self or one does not.

One lives one's life is constant reconsideration of that belief, or one has not fulfilled one's responsibility to determine the "truth". That is the purpose of this life as best I can tell.

My decision on that question is likely to be tested on a daily basis and no final decision exists in this life.

Regards,
Scott

 

[YmirGF]

Paul,

One either accepts the Prophet or one does not. One either hears the voice of God in the Prophet's words, or one does not.

I think you are adopting too much of an "all or nothing" approach here, Scott. I'm sorry, if I come off sounding like that, but I wanted to underscore that it is always possible to learn things from such people, and in some case, in spite of what they are trumpeting.

One either discusses the idea of revelation and proves or disproves it to one's self or one does not.

Well, I certainly have debunked so-called "revelation" to my own satisfaction. I guess I shouldn't be so abrupt in voicing my opinions, in public however. To me, revelation has no validity, but that does not mean that it isn't a vital form of communication to others. My point is that I am trying to say that such personalities are telling us far more about the nature of their own psyche, and by default, our own, than they are enlightening us about the "true" nature of "god".

One lives one's life is constant reconsideration of that belief, or one has not fulfilled one's responsibility to determine the "truth". That is the purpose of this life as best I can tell.

And I am not so big on simple "truth". For me, truth is relative; always has been, is now and always will be, as perceived "truth" is always relative to the information at hand. It is more reasonable to me to unlock "truth" by being content with exploring the unknown and not making hard and fast suppositions about experience. My thinking is it is of little benefit to perceive new experience from the standpoint of old experience. It is somewhat reasonable to do so, but ultimately one finds themselves stroking the magnificence of their own assumptions.

Fond regards, Scott!

Paul