What is left? (something to ponder)

[sgttomas]

You are correct that anything we say about the divine is less accurate than saying nothing at all. However, again, filtered through your assumptions and sensibilities, I don't see a reflection of what I am trying to convey. The idea that making an observation and having an opinion, let alone giving parables or riddles to inspire new perspectives, is tantamount to idolatry and passing pious and belittling judgements is nowhere near where I am coming from.

I know that's not how you self-identify with your worldview, but that's the consequences of the statements that you make about reality. You say that we are to the Absolute as waves are to the ocean. To me, that's idolatry, and a "pious and belittling judgment" of who I am in my relation to ALLAH. I'm not just saying that to be argumentative. It's the reason why I first objected to your dialogue and agreed with Person A. You are totally denying my ability to come to terms with the Absolute through the pathway of God-consciousness that is open to me and which characterizes my self identity and the meaning, purpose and value of every aspect of my Reality. You are passing judgment on me and committing the ultimate offront to my sensibilities.

Now, it so happens that I'm not sore about it. I don't despise you as a result. I can appreciate why you have that perspective. But I can't deny how your assertion of the Absolute and your way of being affects the values and notions that are consequences of my own God-consciousness. If you are right, then you are effectively saying I'm just self-delusional and entirely egotistical. Heh, I kind of think you are right, but the sense in which I think I am self-delusional and entirely egotistical is a magnification of ALLAH and His Attributes - attributes which you judge as being illegitimate.

If you tell me that you aren't judging my approach to the Absolute and you allow me my approach and you have yours; doesn't matter. That's not the point. In fact, that's the one thing that really does irritate me. lol. You should just say I'm wrong. That you don't is incredibly idolatrous, insulting and judgmental.

I'm not quite sure you can appreciate why???

I'm not lying to you, I'm not just being argumentative. I'm being completely honest with you.

Again...I can deal with it, and I don't have hard feelings towards you. But it is what it is, man.

I am sorry that I am unable to translate and convey my intended meaning in a fashion that would allow for more fruitful dialogue, but I am not sure how to translate it into the frame of reference--the kind of strict objectivist linear positivism, or whatever it is--that you keep injecting into the discussion. That isn't a criticism of your point of view, but an admission of inadequacy on my part. Perhaps I should honor where we do agree and seem to be on the same page, about the futility of discussing how to approach God. As per you request, maybe you and I should no longer try to talk about God, at least not with each other. I have no wish to cause injury or offense or to generate needless antagonism. Neither was it my wish to stoke or display arrogance.

Heh, it's all existential angst.

I feel the same, btw. I can't compell you to believe what I believe about reality. In the sense that I was totally misrepresenting your views, that's inevitable and also regrettable. It was also kinda my point. But for every way that I say, "I get what you mean" obvious refers to what *I* get about what I understand you meaning according to my categories of meaning. I mean, we've been around enough of that whole post-modern truth, language is fuzzy, blah blah blah.

In my beliefs, you are entirely entitled to your beliefs; the extent to which I violated that here wasn't a personal attack but a demonstration of how representation is domination - your dialogue was all representation and that's why I considered it a failure to justify you siding with Person B; he was the one representing Person A, not vice versa.

I know I do the same thing. This goes back to what I said about how we necessarily judge others. Therefore I only intend to be myself and relate to others according to what I believe is right and moral (Golden Rule, etc.).

I apologize to anyone who feels put upon by my attempt to share my perspective, and I am happy for anyone who benefited from it. Thanks to Sgt Thomas for offering a different perspective, as I don't lay any claim to realizing enlightenment or to attaining infallibilty. I hope others can offer Sarge more in this thread, as I suspect that when properly unpacked it will contribute greatly to the insights of this topic.

Thanks for the venue and the inspiration to contribute. Since I only want to be myself and relate to others according to my sense of righteousness, I can't think you have any less desire to be as you want to be as authentically as possible. Since we are on a discussion board, I interact in this manner. I take it as consent that we allow ourselve to be represented/dominated so we might learn something about ourselves according to what others see in us.

Peace,
-sgttomas

[sgttomas]

Okay, here's what I think. The jist of the discussion is here. ....There's a theory of language/theory of knowledge question at issue between you guys......

I agree.

Can language ever reveal anything actually REAL about the Divine or Absolute or can it only try to recapture peep's (essentially inexpressible) experience of what they believe to be that? Because it is only inappropriate to try to approximate the incomprehensibility of the Divine IF there's any possible way of ever correctly capturing it in language.

...I think you included an additional "negation" term there? (either it should be "appropriate" or "there isn't")

My position is that we can properly represent the Absolute in language without limiting the scope of the Absolute into finite terms. This is the doctrine of Tawheed at the core of Islamic God-consciousness. ALLAH can be represented and transcendent. While this is paradoxical, we can't avoid paradox because we are self-referentially aware. Paradox is inherent to consciousness. The question is how is that paradox represented? Can it be a self-consistent quality of meaning, or is it the end of meaning and a breakdown of self-consistency?

So, it's contextual. "Is there any 'more real' knowledge/expression about the Absolute from which other speech can be judged to be 'idolatry?'" Cuz otherwise, in the absence of any non-idolatrous speech, saying it's idolatry is just.... redundant. It's idolatry? Yeah so? It's all idolatry. And we're all damned anyway and everytime we open our mouths, especially about God, we know we just commit more sin.

But then.... we do it anyways. Yeah so?

That's the conundrum.

-sgtt

[tinythinker]

Met, for what it's worth the use of the concept of idolatry as gone far beyond my original intention. Being inadequate and misleading, viz a viz language/symbolism, does not itself constitute idolatry. It's just inconvenient. Using it as a substitute for a direct experience of God (however that is initiated/mediated) was the kind of thing I had in mind. All of the squabbling and hand wringing we sometimes get caught up in are not idols so much as distractions. Of course others are free to use the term as they wish.

[met]

My position is that we can properly represent the Absolute in language without limiting the scope of the Absolute into finite terms. This is the doctrine of Tawheed at the core of Islamic God-consciousness. ALLAH can be represented and transcendent. While this is paradoxical, we can't avoid paradox because we are self-referentially aware. Paradox is inherent to consciousness. The question is how is that paradox represented? Can it be a self-consistent quality of meaning, or is it the end of meaning and a breakdown of self-consistency?

Paradox lends itself to the poetic too, doesn't it? I think Tiny's complaint is you're reading him too literally, understanding him too linearly, not grasping at it and being expansive enough ....

i ask for the laughing unconventional ones
even them, to be broken,
for blood and sky to become one thing,
for revelation as startling as an ocean
that is neither wet nor dry

[met]

Okay, st, I had an silly idea.

A paradox, so to speak.

So now I write it down. (It uses a silly notion I tossed off at Josh Reagan on AARM once , btw...)

Suppose your holy text says this:

"God only saves those who TRULY believe the Moon is made of GREEN CHEESE"

.... Now, there will be those who read all the ancient theories and juxtapositions and argumentations about why it must be so that the moon really is made of green cheese in an effort to convince themselves the Moon really IS made of green cheese. Which is admittedly hard. Especially these days with the purported-prescence of actual rocks from the Moon on this very planet. But the question is, do those seekers ever really believe? Perhaps all that effort can be best understood as a part of them (call it the soul) that believes trying to convince another part of them (call it the mind) that continues to have doubts? Tht would suggest they really are saved. But, otoh, perhaps all that effort just goes to try to convince themselves that they truly believe something that seems, logically.... well, incredibly unsupportable. I dunno.

... and then, there might be those who are 'mystically transported to the Moon by God' and come back and say....

The Moon really IS made of green cheese!"

.... but then, there might be some who, after they're mystically transported to the Moon, come back and say...

The Moon really IS made of green cheese. In a sense. OR....one might say it's made of rocks. OR.... one might say it's made of cotton candy. OR.... one might say... light. Or water. Or air. Or atoms. Or.....well, really, it's anything at all u might wanna call it....

What then?

[sgttomas]

Paradox lends itself to the poetic too, doesn't it? I think Tiny's complaint is you're reading him too literally, understanding him too linearly, not grasping at it and being expansive enough ....

Poetry is fine.

Sheesh, you guys and your Rumi. You do know that Rumi was devout Muslim who subscribed to traditional Sunni jurisprudence, believed in Ashari aqeedah (dogmas of belief) and affirmed the Sunnah interpretation of the Quran, right? His effective mystical poetry is a fine example of the lover/beloved theme of many Arabic poets. ALLAH as "laylah", the beloved, veiled behind her hijab and the darkness of the night; the lover, pursuing her, seeking to woo his way to her favour that she might reveal herself and bestow her beauty upon him. Of course, if you ever asked any of these poets if you are trying to actually represent ALLAH as a woman and you as a man who is trying to have sex with her...yeah, that's not happening, obviously. And I'm sure you appreciate that just fine - the poetic license and all. But it doesn't tell us anything about the Divine Reality as being something we can enter into the way a lover enters into the beloved. Since I was suspicious that Tiny might be representing a notion of the Absolute that was not what I could affirm is why I said:

However, I do like the poem. It's sweet. But I probably don't take it as literally as you do. Ah well, that's why poems are nice.

As far as how I come to terms with Tiny, well that's the trouble. His Absolute and mine are incompatible. Being expansive enough implies adopting his relation to the Absolute. That I won't is why we can't come to terms - we are absolutely opposed on how to characterize reality. It's not that I can't appreciate what he's trying to say, it's just the more I think about what he is really implying, the more I realize I have no way to accommodate what he is saying as being valid according to what I believe is real and true. Look where he says:

{idolatry} as a substitute for a direct experience of God (however that is initiated/mediated) was the kind of thing I had in mind

At first blush, that's all quite reasonable - which is how I felt about the dialogue. But then I thought more deeply about, well, "how IS it initiated/mediate"? And what does that imply about the idea of idolatry he is portraying? That's when I realized I can't agree with him because of how I relate to the Absolute I necessarily have to exclude "directly" experiencing ALLAH. That's when I started reading his replies to Fleetmouse and Metacrock to make sure I was understanding his idea of "directness" properly. I never saw anything that dissuaded me from my original suspicion.

I can accommodate him having those beliefs by saying he is "absolutely wrong". I'm not sure if tinythinker has such a category for approaching the Absolute.

If some idea of rightness or correctness or superiority of ideas are what some folks prize in terms of religion and spirituality (and I don't presume whether ot not this applies to you) then let them have their intellectual or spiritualized treasures. I'm just not interested in that approach. For me what is right or correct or superior is whatever helps an individual to go beyond a purely egoic nature and into God-awareness, i.e. the absolute, the eternal present, the ground of being, etc.

I can't be certain he doesn't; it would be incoherent not to; I just can't get such a direct response out of him.

Do I 100% agree with all views? No. Do I idolize my views and therefore see other views as threats to be eliminated? No. There is a fundamental difference between seeing other views as corrupting communicable diseases of the mind to be isolated, innoculated against, or purged and seeing them as self-made (even though drawing on our environment and experiences) nests that in some cases have become self-made prisons.

This was probably the closest he came, and even here it is "not 100% wrong" and I demonstrated that what he thinks he is doing is not what he is doing. This is the Person A, Person B dialogue. I affirm that such a dialogue is valid, but only in reference to an Absolute frame of values and truth. If your way is that we are all on the way, but my way is my way and your way will be your way, you're done. You can't say anything about the way or the approach to the Absolute.

I know tinythinker didn't start off trying to say more than "idolatry is bad", but if you have no valid representation of the Absolute AS and Absolute you've stopped yourself before you began because any way you try to justify the statement invokes some kind of idol. Sure, it isn't the kind of idol that tinythinker had in mind, but that's because his notion of the Absolute is sufficiently blurry. Where are the boundaries of a blurry Absolute? When do I cease talking about the Absolute and start talking about my ego? He has no definition for that. His definition is:

Such things have been and are temptations. I just find them less urgent and appealingly lately as I've spent more time exploring presence.

What does that mean? What is presence?

But everything I've written here is raving gibberish compared to direct (or in my case even a nearly imperceptibly less indirect) experience of being if we believe the contemplatives and mystics of various sacred traditions, such as the Muslim poet Rumi who I quoted before.

But Rumi was an Ashari, who affirmed the doctrine of Tawheed and believed that the Prophet of ALLAH was the Messenger send to mankind to reveal ALLAH's Will. That's a one-path approach to the Absolute (and I've never said that one path is completely rigid and confining, but it defines the difference between the correct and wrong ways to approach ALLAH). Rumi's hope for meeting his beloved was in the afterlife - that's where the consummation of the love occurs. Everything before then is anticipation, not actualized reality. Our reality here is defined by Tawheed. So what does tinythinker think of the Absolute? Rumi believes that ALLAH is totally distinct and separate from the form of reality that we currently exist in ("Creation").

Another way to say it: the contingent/historical is to the divine/eternal as waves are to water. You don't need to eliminate the wave to experience the water, nor does a wave need to transcend itself to "become" water.

He said that before quoting Rumi. That is an absolutely wrong conception of the Absolute - a Muslim cannot believe in that representation as standing for anything meaningful or true. It's either wrong, or gibberish.

i ask for the laughing unconventional ones
even them, to be broken,
for blood and sky to become one thing,
for revelation as startling as an ocean
that is neither wet nor dry

Now I never did get to talk about Islamic mysticism and the contemplative tradition. So it isn't as though this is an invalid sentiment that Rumi brings. I totally love that poem. But one can't explore the depths of Being until one has correctly accounted for one's own limited being. Then we can know the approach to the Absolute. Otherwise, WE ARE THE IDOL.

The mystical approach in Islam is that "Laylah" can lift her veil, she can come to you, but you have no approach to her except to desire her.

Peace,
-sgttomas

[sgttomas]

Okay, st, I had an silly idea.

A paradox, so to speak.

So now I write it down. (It uses a silly notion I tossed off at Josh Reagan on AARM once , btw...)

Jratcliff was like my favourite person, because I so completely disagreed with him by every fiber of my being, but he was funny and good natured so I could get along with him. lol. AARM. What a weird time.

Suppose your holy text says this:

"God only saves those who TRULY believe the Moon is made of GREEN CHEESE"

What then?

"Will they not then ponder over the Quran? If it were from other than Allah they would surely have found in it many discrepancies." [4:82]

"(It is) a Qur'an in Arabic, plain and clear, without any crookedness deceit or deviation form rectitude (therein): in order that you may preserve yourself. "[39:28]

"We have put forth for men, in this Qur'an, every kind of Parable or similitude or example of conduct or manner of behavior, in order that they may receive admonition and be mindful. "[39:27]

"Surely, the One who decreed or ordained the Quran for you will summon you to a predetermined appointment. Say, "My Lord is fully aware of those who uphold the guidance, and those who have gone astray."[28:85]

Forget the green cheese. The Book of ALLAH is already here for your inspection.

Peace,
-sgttomas

[met]

Sheesh, you guys and your Rumi. You do know that Rumi was devout Muslim who subscribed to traditional Sunni jurisprudence, believed in Ashari aqeedah (dogmas of belief) and affirmed the Sunnah interpretation of the Quran, right?

Yeah, true. And Meister Ekhart and all those the other famous xian mystics were mainly devout RCC. Not such splendid spiritual-soloists as modern-liberal western people like to make them out to have been .... (Then again, nonconformity is much more tolerated by our society than by many previous ones..... )

I know the (Arabic) story of Layla-Majnu too, btw. It spread to India and shows up in Betta's book. There's actually a character named Layla. And a chapter with the title, 'Layla: The Dark One,'


I also agree that there IS a right and wrong. The dangers of becoming too fuzzy, accomodating and relativistic are real and paramount. Genocide, for example, is wrong but some (at least) in some (at least) of our great spiritual traditions have somehow found ways to accomodate it.

The mystical approach in Islam is that "Laylah" can lift her veil, she can come to you, but you have no approach to her except to desire her.

Same as in the xian tradition. Is that also the same as Indian religions -eg Hindu mysticism? Not sure. But there's an element like that. A need for humility, a need for 'grace.' None of that makes all the mystical traditions 'all the same' tho. I think we need to try to be a bit more discerning before trying to toss them all in one big stew-pot or we might really miss something, some more subtle but very important thing......

[sgttomas]

Yeah, true. And Meister Ekhart and all those the other famous xian mystics were mainly devout RCC. Not such splendid spiritual-soloists as modern-liberal western people like to make them out to have been .... (Then again, nonconformity is much more tolerated by our society than by many previous ones..... )

True about non-conformity, but I haven’t seen anything in Islamic dogmas that would disallow Rumi from being completely authentic in aspiring to some far-out mysticism. Heh, now he has certainly been sharply criticized by elements of Sunni scholarship, but he’s been just as vigorously defended, too. One of the central dogmas of Islam is the “Night Journey” of the Prophet (also called the “mi’rage” or ascension). Appended to that is the teaching that “salat” (ritual prayer) is the ascension of the believer. It isn’t the concept of mystical encounter that I’m objecting to (lol...I’m an adherent of a Sufi master!). Numerous times I affirmed that “dead ritual” isn’t “beloved” by ALLAH, but it isn’t “wrong” either. Physically submitting our bodies, even if not our hearts, is an expression of approaching the Divine.

I want to keep this tied into the thread, because my objection to the dialogue is subtle. I affirmed a lot of what tinythinker was saying. Where my agreement switches to Person A has to do with the basis in the Absolute that Person B is asserting. If it is the “modern-liberal western people” who like to lump the mystics into one group it is because their notion of Absolute is relative to themselves. Therefore, “whatever works for you is right” allows a personal preference of whatever mystical inspiration to be attributed to the approach to the Absolute. But Rumi and Ekhart aren’t mystics; they are respectively a Muslim mystic and a Catholic mystic. It isn’t that their particular attachment is just an accidental property of their mysticism. It is precisely what characterizes and directs their mysticism.

There are also mutually exclusive truth-qualities in each tradition that makes them distinct, and these aren’t just superfluous; they completely recharacterize the Absolute. It is NOT true that the Absolute is the same frame of reference and there are many paths. There is ONE Absolute, and many incorrect approaches to that Absolute. You don’t have to believe this is a valid statement, but you DO have to recognize that the first depiction (all paths go to same Base) and my depiction (One base, One path, many dead ends) are completely mutually exclusive depictions of the nature of the Absolute! Either I’m right and tinythinker is wrong, or vice versa. I can’t be partially wrong; he isn’t partially right. One can’t remove those elements without removing the approach to the Divine and there is no knowledge of the Divine except through that vehicle – there is no “direct knowledge” of the Divine AS Divine; it is all mediated knowledge and so one cannot falsely attach the tradition to the Absolute. But on CAN falsely attach one’s self to the Absolute.


And that’s why I objected. I can use that same dialogue and agree with Person B, but that’s because I am Person B and I’m right. If tinythinker is saying the dialogue and identifying himself with Person B, then I am Person A and he’s wrong. There is a report we’ve received in the Islamic tradition (shirk = falsely associating something with the Absolute). Our Prophet – may ALLAH bless him and grant him peace – said

O people, save yourselves from this shirk for it is more inconspicuous than the creeping of ant on a rock on a dark night. So someone, whon Allah willed to say, said: How do we save ourselves from it while it is more inconspicuous than the creeping of ant oh Messenger of Allah? The Messenger of Allah صلي الله عليه وسلم said: " Say: Oh Allah we take your refuge from doing shirk with you knowingly, and ask for your forgiveness for doing it unknowingly"

I mention it because our nature is to associate with ALLAH that which is not properly of ALLAH. We are always inserting ourselves as a mediator between ourselves and ALLAH. I do it too. Ultimately I see that tinythinker was talking about having sincerity in our approach to the Absolute. I completely agree with him about that. But our approach to the Absolute is not approaching the same thing, so I disagree about what that sincerity means. This isn’t a moral judgment of tinythinker. This is a statement of ontological boundaries; necessary meaning; truth and the representation of the Absolute. As long as he rejects Islam and doesn’t submit himself to ALLAH, he is setting himself up as a partner with ALLAH. This is not even hidden shirk. Thus I cannot accept his idea of idolatry because he is referencing the Absolute as if it were an idol! (himself). That’s the sincerity and purity of Tawheed. I cannot agree with him. I’m absolutely forbidden from doing so. You cannot be sincere in your approach to ALLAH until you submit yourself to His Will.

Here is an article about sincerity in our approach to ALLAH. Note the Rumi quote

May Allah place this light of Ikhlas in our hearts and may He guide and keep us on the Straight Path. May He forgive our shortcomings and envelope us with his Blessings and Mercy.

I know the (Arabic) story of Layla-Majnu too, btw. It spread to India and shows up in Betta's book. There's actually a character named Layla. And a chapter with the title, 'Layla: The Dark One,'

Hm, I didn’t know that! Can I buy Beta’s book yet?

I also agree that there IS a right and wrong. The dangers of becoming too fuzzy, accomodating and relativistic are real and paramount. Genocide, for example, is wrong but some (at least) in some (at least) of our great spiritual traditions have somehow found ways to accomodate it.

Exactly.

And ideologies that don’t have an absolute reference frame for morality – other than themselves – can just as easily accommodate genocide. In the religious instances it is because of some projection of “abomination” that must be exterminated. In the other instance it is because of some projection “abomination” that must be exterminated. Heh, it’s the same thing. But in the first case, it is “wrong”. In the second case, it is “wrong according to me”. That’s what I mean about failure to represent the Absolute AS Absolute makes US out to be idols.

It is entirely possible that I have completely misconstrued and misrepresented what tinythinker believes. Only so much we can take from these words, right? But there are hallmarks of Absolute that I’m trying to find from him, and I’m getting some telling signs that distinguish what he is representing from what I believe is necessary.

Same as in the xian tradition. Is that also the same as Indian religions -eg Hindu mysticism? Not sure. But there's an element like that. A need for humility, a need for 'grace.' None of that makes all the mystical traditions 'all the same' tho. I think we need to try to be a bit more discerning before trying to toss them all in one big stew-pot or we might really miss something, some more subtle but very important thing......

Indeed.

This is just what I am getting at with the wave/ocean attribution of the Absolute. I think there is a subtle idolatry in there. Here is a typical description from the Islamic tradition:

I bear witness that there is no god but Allah, Who is sanctified in His essence from all imaginal
representation and shades, and elevated above having a partner in His attributes and acts. I bear
witness that our master Muhammad is His servant and Messenger, whose rank He has raised so that
none of the seven skies can reach it, nor any of the Prophets.

A Muslim’s life is about submitting completely to the Will of ALLAH, obedience through the Sunnah of the Messenger of ALLAH (peace be upon him), and attainment of God-consciousness, by the Will of ALLAH, with sincerity in our worship. We aren’t trying to transcend to experience direct awareness of the Absolute because we assert that such is not possible. Our hope is to be pleasing to ALLAH by our obedience. Nothing more. Nothing can be better than to be pleasing to ALLAH through obedience to Him, according to the guidance He revealed through the Quran and the Sunnah. Any nearness we attain to ALLAH is by His permission and by His Mercy, but it isn’t yet ought but an appearance through a veil. When the mystics of our tradition say things like “all is ALLAH”, they don’t mean in essence, they mean that there is no power and no ability except by ALLAH. My body is not my body, it is the command of ALLAH. My worship is not my worship, it is the command of ALLAH. All I can do is submit my self to ALLAH and all power and ability is by His permission. I deserve nothing of attainment of nearness to Him. I can know nothing of Him on my own. I cannot be without Him. ALLAH is a purposeful and distinct ontology from whatever I may represent or hope to be. Subhanulah – far exalted is He from what they associate with Him. My only approach to Him is to obey; obedience invites love; love invites nearness.

I have attached my representation of Being, to contrast with what I understand of tiny's wave/ocean analogy. ...sorry, you may have to download it to see it properly.

-sgtt

Being and Consciousness.jpg

[met]

A Muslim’s life is about submitting completely to the Will of ALLAH, obedience through the Sunnah of the Messenger of ALLAH (peace be upon him), and attainment of God-consciousness, by the Will of ALLAH, with sincerity in our worship. We aren’t trying to transcend to experience direct awareness of the Absolute because we assert that such is not possible. Our hope is to be pleasing to ALLAH by our obedience. Nothing more. Nothing can be better than to be pleasing to ALLAH through obedience to Him, according to the guidance He revealed through the Quran and the Sunnah. Any nearness we attain to ALLAH is by His permission and by His Mercy, but it isn’t yet ought but an appearance through a veil. When the mystics of our tradition say things like “all is ALLAH”, they don’t mean in essence, they mean that there is no power and no ability except by ALLAH. My body is not my body, it is the command of ALLAH. My worship is not my worship, it is the command of ALLAH. All I can do is submit my self to ALLAH and all power and ability is by His permission. I deserve nothing of attainment of nearness to Him. I can know nothing of Him on my own. I cannot be without Him. ALLAH is a purposeful and distinct ontology from whatever I may represent or hope to be. Subhanulah – far exalted is He from what they associate with Him. My only approach to Him is to obey; obedience invites love; love invites nearness.

See, here's, to me, the strength of what tiny's been saying. Change the names and a few other details and I will utterly and totally agree... (yeah, even tho sometimes I'm sure I'm nuts and not likely to even live much longer if I don't @#$% wise up....!)


(Does Islam have anything like the xian concept of the 'paraclete' tho? )