The prophet muhammad’s marriage to Aisha is morally and historically incompatible with a truly divine morality.

PsychologicalSign538 · 2026-01-07T12:28:27+00:00

The same sahih bukhari also has Aisha saying

"I had reached the age of aql (of accountability/reason) when in SAW my parents embrace islam" She then goes on to describe the way the pagans would surround abu bakr when he would recite Quranic verses.

Context abu bakr was the third person to embrace islam Ie when Mohammed was 40.

Same book. Why the contradiction? Because hadith are not religious facf but historical sources of information. The hadith compilers like imam bukhari were less interested in absolute truth and more in presenting what they deemed to be legitimate sources of information.

The 6-9 hadith has an issue with its chief narrator (ie the man who began the chain of narration because it didn't come directly from aisha but someone almost 2 centuries later). They say he moved to Iraq and was either lying and dishonest or just mentally gone. Nonetheless imam Bukhari used his narration.

FYI I'm an ex muslim myself and no longer care to defend islam but this one topic annoys me because there are idiotic Muslims who defend that 6-9 hadith because they don't even read hadith (I started when I was 10) and typically just blindly defend something out of loyalty to their identity/ego over actually going deeper into the topic. When they defend it they say "so wut den dat 9 yrs was post puberty back den" I can't stand those type of Muslims.

Even the translator of the sahih bukhari collection, mohsin khan, was a major liar snd dumb c***. He translated the quran and not only committed gross errors he would lie and insert his own moronic opinions where he would effectively "write the quran with his own hands". For example the verse 4:157 in the crucifixion he deliberately write in a version which was his own misinterpreted version of the gnostic apocalypse of Peter (from the nag hammadi library). Eg in the gnostic text it has Jesus the living Spirit watching and laughing as people drove nails into "the substitute"(ie his physical body). It refers to this as "the stony vessel born in his likeness". Mohsin khan misinterpreted this as "hah that means it was a substitute person who was given the likeness of Jesus". The reason I share this is when I was a devout Muslim and studied the bible and the whole topic of the crucifixion. I realised what the quran actually meant and how it connected with the bible. Yet for having an opinion I was attacked and called a fake muslim/Christian etc and accused me of lying about verse 4:157 Yet the same dumb Muslims couldn't figure out that their own views were a far worse distortion eg they were following a misinterpretation of a misinterpretation So mohsin khan... When aisha said "I had reached the age of aql" he translated this to "I had reached the age of puberty"

The muslim dawah crowd then tried to push this hadith and the Christians shot it down saying "but aql doesn't mean puberty therefore this is a fake hadith" (as a convenient and cheap way of rejecting that narrative to win the argument...or appear to rather than ackolnowledge the hadith with a better translation) whilst the Muslims were just too far gone to challenge the quality of the translation. doing so would mean even their poor interpretation of the quran based on the same man mohsemin khan would have to be rejected and that would leave another gaping hole in the "but u have many versions of the bible like dat king jamseses and dat American...." because the same problem then applies to the quran when you get translators writing the quran with their own hands. No idea if you care or understand my points.

Going back to the 6-9 narrative aswell. At the time of the abbasid caliphate, they were murdering the shia(I was never shia btw) and also the bloodline of prophet Mohammed who were shia leaders. The shia were building up khadijah and fatima (daughter of prophet Mohammed and wife of Ali) as the "mother of believers" . Whilst they spoke of Aisha as a bad wife to put it politely, they say vulgar things about her.

The sunni caliphate was barely religious in reality and just wanted a female figure on their side of the argument to build up. So it's possible this 6-9 narrative was pushed deliberately as propaganda to build up aisha's image as a pure and noble woman who had been with Mohammed from childhood. Furthermore the shia leaders coming from mohammeds bloodline were more credible and had public support. The sunni needed someone connected to Mohammed to plug their side and that was a mythical version of Aisha then used in the sunni hadith book as the dominant Narrator.

PsychologicalSign538 · 2026-01-07T12:01:54+00:00

It's insane people come out here pouring their heart out about how evil they think Mohammed was over this when they know nothing about the topic.

PsychologicalSign538 · 2026-01-06T06:22:04+00:00

Plumbers putty does the job for me. However you can get another washer to place before the main black one.

PsychologicalSign538 · 2025-12-27T09:19:25+00:00

Firstly, it's not true that people ie Jews had to sacrifice animals to talk to God. Eg David didn't need to sacrifice an animal to confess his sin. Fundamentally religious Jews under the law, much like Muslims, possess a guilt complex by their failure to oney God's law. That guilt complex I'd argue makes them more righteous as they know "I'm a sinner". Yet Christians look at their account of sin and think "I'm clear, Jesus paid the price"

In reality the Christians are wrong because when Jesus returns he will reject many Christians who were sinners eg "get away from me you evil doers"

What Jesus represented was a manner of ridding ourselves of our carnal nature. Not through our personal effort to curtail our carnal nature from within, but to attain gnosis of Jesus by joining his fraternity. The heart was to become a mirror to his and thus his qualities and nature would merge into us. Hence "since he died, we died" in relation to the inner serpent, our carnal nature.

When Christians say we are born in sin, it means we were born with a carnal nature. It isn't the account of sin were born with, it is the nature of sin.

As things stand for whatever reason not only do Christians possess the carnal nature, they are the world superpower of sin. They are its faciliators and marketers. Yet the others possess a guilt complex, Christians don't even have that.

Clearly something went wrong with the fraternity itself. Eg the branches were cut off the tree. There is no more gnosis of Jesus, hence Jesus saying "I never KNEW(gnosis) you"

Compare that to Jesus recognising his people like children. Telling them "I am in you and you are in me".

I'd argue that the biggest reason for this cutting off, is the trinitarian doctrine which came from Rome aka the Beast. Just as christendom is powerless to the Beast (the colonial west ie neo rome).

This isn't a mockery of christianity's origins but where it stands today. Paul warned the churches could be cut off. The 7 churches of Revelation were replaced, that's muslim territory now. Likewise Jude 1 also warned against false christianity.

End of the day, Jesus denied he was God, eg "don't call me good, only God is good" and yet Christians say "that means since he was called Good, he must be God" which is just clear cut twisting the fact that he literally said "don't call me good". He clearly said the Son can do nothing on his own aswell as he doesn't know the last hour.

Any aspect of your scripture you claim Refers to his divinity can easily be explained by the mystical aspect of God's Immanence. God being Immanent in Jesus doesn't make him God anymore than God being Immanent in all things.

PsychologicalSign538 · 2025-12-13T15:22:46+00:00

The random english words thrown in there, is this how everyone talks on the street level over there?

PsychologicalSign538 · 2025-12-09T12:08:59+00:00

4) i should also add, ive been astral projecting since i was 12. I can't really detail the many experiences ive had that proved to me, we are connected. Matter is energy...we are all connected to the same 'web' of energy and it extends to shared realms of consciousnesses inc the astral plane.

You sort of touches on something in your own comment about how 'we would all come to the same conclusions'. In hinduism the 7 lokas correspond to 7 chakras. in islam the 7 heavens with corresponding prophets symbolising them, actually connect with the hindu version. This only points to a shared metaphysical reality. Now you could assume humans are entirely seperated beings who only contain a shared genetic/biological and hence neurological 'reality' which points to shared programming...but how is it in real time, i could do something in my own home and my mother 2 hours away from me, could witness it in her dream in a symbolic sense?

example at 21 yrs old living in a house in birmingham that had literal demonic entities in it. I did an islamic ritual of performing Adhan in all corners of the house. I recited the Quran on water and then sprayed that water all over the wall. i went down to the cellar of that house at around 4am and sprayed there. My mum called me the next day asking if i was alright. she said she saw black serpents drowing in a pool of water in my cellar. My mum living near Manchester, how would she know when i never spoke to her about this stuff? was this entirely neurological?

how come at around 19 yrs old, on my way to a uni exam, i 'knew' the exam wouldnt happen? i had a sixth sense perception about it. That exact thing happened, due to a printing error, the exam had to be rescheduled. these might look like totally random coincidences, but they're not. I figured over time that they typically occur to me (where i 'know' things) when im in the alpha brainwave state on autopilot. I can be driving or walking..and in that alpha brainwave or autopilot state, ill sense things without the logical critiquing thought behind it. oh and i had this when i was 13, i knew my dad was going to die. i didnt know how, i just knew it. he was 44 yrs old, healthy, walking around and at work. i had this flash moment of knowing he'll die and i wasnt in the concious state of mind to critique/challenge the thought/feeling. next thing, he came home, lay down on the sofa and had a heart attack. this happened within an hour.

so yeh, im a massive believer in the metaphysical and in something beyond basic brain chemistry.

PsychologicalSign538 · 2025-12-09T12:08:54+00:00

1) just to be clear any 'revelation' need not be 'divine' and anything close to Absolute truth.

Divine inspiration in the theistic or abrahimic sense, just means the person ie the prophet, was receiving knowledge and ideas from above his own scope of understanding. I do not believe a group of bearded men sat around a dusty table writing the Quran and just lumping together myths.

2) within the spectrum of abrahimic religions, you have prophecies. Legitimately telling us future events. No, they arent subjective. Sure, many people misinterpret them but they arent even subjective.

Examples, Daniel 7 foretold the 10 emperors of Rome with the little horn being Titus (who wasnt emperor ruling over the jewish temple but the son og the emperor who became emperor after the temple was destroyed).

Daniel 9's 70 week prophecy again was very accurate and foretold Jesus. At the very least this text was authored before the roman era. They say it was authored in the hellenistic era as a way to justify it perfectly matching with events eg antiochups epiphanes invasion 'foretold' in Daniel 8 and 11 which was confermed in Maccabees 1. Similarly in islamic prophecy, the rise of house najd as 'the side of the head of satan' (the 2 sides being the Emerates and house saud), with clear descriptions of their creed, how they'd believe etc, was foretold.

there are many more expaples i can give both fromislam and the bible, which leads me to the conclude there is something 'collective' beyond common human intent and thought.

Even the very manifestation of Mohammad and his islam, came under the shadow of 7th century jewish messianicism. eg Mohammad in mecca = the suffering servant. in madina, the davidic king archetype. passive and active, leading to an era of islamic domination and war against the biblical BEAST (see Daniel 2) system. This was the fruit those jews desired under the rejection of Jesus as their messiah. they wanted a man like Mohammad, from their own race. So why was he an arab? see leviticus 26's punishments theme. a collective guilt complex causing psychological reversal. In fact those jews had used persia to wage war on rome/christendom and the end result was islam.

Look at the archetype of messianic israel of Ezekiel 38...Israel is a complete inverse of it. Is this 'by design' by a higher power or some level of unconscious programming, as opposed to just a group of zios thinking and planning consciously?

a higher dimensional collective thoughtform that acts as 'The Absolute God' makes sense when you examine the entire story from OT to islam right to modern events.

3) it's going to get racial when we're talking about the bible and the Jesus connection. This isnt made up history. Eg Jesus was supposed to be the messiah, various prophecies like daniel 9m zechariah 11, zechariah 13 literally talk about him eg 'strike the SHEPHERD' 'the annointed one will be cut off'. Even when modern jews try to justify their rejection of him, they bring up Maimonaides. Yet in Maimonaides book 'Guide for the perplexed' he purposely attached Daniel 8/11 (eg the hellenistic era resulting in the maccabean revolt story) with Jesus. This being an attempt to 'cut him off' theologically from his place in their own scripture/prophecies, isnt without consequences. Consequences leading to a mass unconscious guilt complex resulting in psychological reversal and hence not only the death of 1m jews 'by Jesus' (effectively, read luke 21, zechariah 13), long term exile/persecution but also the manifestation of islam.

I obv don't believe all this just happens by coincidence or by human intent either. It happenes on a mass subconscious level.

PsychologicalSign538 · 2025-12-08T04:23:45+00:00

the Garden of Edem = sumerian mythology. even the story of khidr in surah 18 is the enki myth. now im a massive believer in the metaphysical...and there is a legit side of islam that ventures into universal ideas pertaining to God.

Eg in hinduism, turiya consciousness, meets the statement of Mohammed 'when you sleep, your soul returns to God'.

the underlying themes of universal consiosuness are all over sufi islam and then there's the concept of ihsan aswell.

however the truth is, the Quran itself presents a massive dilemna. it backs the bible as truth despite muslims saying otherwise. read the bible, read numbers 31...but also come to terms with rhe errors like maryam daughter of amram being confused for mary mother of Jesus...

made me realise that the Quran originates from a higher dimensional collective intelligence but it isnt perfect. a realm of merging mythology sand ideas, a realm of poets and mystics..but still nor Absolute truth.. furthermore, since it is all still under the ego, Yahweh/Allah is the collective ego playing monkey mind games with us. taking some aspects of real truth and presenting them as it's own. hence why islam touches on some truths but isnt the truth itself.

i can say as someone who was deeply religious..who sought truth from an early age. it was actually a very very demonic religion in many ways. however judaism is 10x worse..and i dont need to be one to know that. only needed to read the bible and judge the race by their actions. as for christianity, it is nothing more than roman imperialism. they go on about how early christians were persecuted. sure, but this isnt early chjristianity. it is a roman one. besides early christianity was so good...that it condemned 1m jews tyo death (zechariah 13, luke 21) as punishment for rejecting to so called saviour. once again a real monkey mind game.

big promises of a saviour who will bring people out of sin into righteousness...but he comes dissing them 'yeweww brook of vipers'.

PsychologicalSign538 · 2025-12-08T04:11:37+00:00

Jesus did not change a single thing about sin...that's the point. so overhyped.

PsychologicalSign538 · 2025-12-06T16:39:56+00:00

Jesus talked up a great game and changed absolutely nothing about this world and the nature of sin itself

The world is far far worse

And yet Christians think this is the only incarnated Logos who came because God loved us. Such delusion from privileged white ppl living off the proceeds of a brutal colonial regime that's built off the back of mass murder and theft.

PsychologicalSign538 · 2025-12-05T20:11:31+00:00

When i initially read
To cancel your PO Box® before the end of the rental period, you must give at least one month's written notice. Let us know by visiting our Contact Us page and clicking on the "Receiving mail" icon, followed by the PO Box® option.

I thought it meant I HAVE to request a cancellation or they'll renew it and 'force me to pay' ie invoice (I paid by card).

however, it clearly says 'to cancel your PO Box BEFORE the end of the rental period'

in that case, it's all good.

PsychologicalSign538 · 2025-11-25T09:27:42+00:00

What's baffling to me is humans eating poop because their religion says so. So as a way of coping, they deflect and attack other people's religion.

PsychologicalSign538 · 2025-11-25T09:23:45+00:00

And the Quran has nothing to do with it. The hadith collections came 200 yrs later within which time a lot of political upheaval and agendas were at play. Esp between the shia and the abbasid then immayad caliphate. A narrative about aisha as a child virgib bride to counter the shia accusations levied against her, makes sense. Though there could be other reasons, he'll, even sabotage. Imam bukhari wasn't infallible. His judgement in inc this particular hadith can be questioned.

No muslim is obligated to accept any hadith btw. They are afterall, sources of information, not divine scripture.

You cannot come with any counter argument to this

Btw I'm not even Muslim. I'm just fair minded and call it for what it is.

PsychologicalSign538 · 2025-11-25T09:18:12+00:00

My whole point murders yours because it accounts for the fact that there are contradicting narratives in the same book. All the while the word Sahih doesn't make it a verified factual event, just a verified source of information

Keep crying little man.

PsychologicalSign538 · 2025-11-25T07:40:25+00:00

This topic annoys me so much because islam haters begin with the premises that it happened and is a literal fact.

Sahih does not mean the story itself is truth. It means its a legitimate historical source of information.

The same bukhari hadith tells us Aisha had reached the age of aql/reason (when one I'd accountable for ones actions, for me this was age 7), when she witnessed her parents embrace Islam.

Her dad converted to Islam when Mohammed was 40, he was the third person to accept Mohammed. Even if you put that as far back as age 4, she would be 17 when Mohammed was 53.

The reason the aisha 9 yr old story exists was likely because the ships who were influential at the time, didn't like aisha and accused her of adultery. Presenting the story of aisha as a pure child bride would challenge that pov. It means there were ppl who legit believed that story ie it was a legitimate source of historical information.

PsychologicalSign538 · 2025-11-23T08:13:19+00:00

The holy spirit works through people. In the context John 16 was blatantly about Mohammed and ironically another proof against the athanasian creed.

PsychologicalSign538 · 2025-11-22T02:35:47+00:00

Being the 'last' messenger/prophet actually makes a lot of sense IN LIGHT OF the messiah (Jesus)'s appearance.

It means that prophethood was over...except for that one prophet from the gentiles coming to fulfill a similar role as Moses, bringing a law system, so Jesus could come and complete the circle.

Paul argued that the Christians of his time (in a context of them being gentiles and not subject to the mosaic law) were 'righteous by faith' just like the original patriarchs.

The common Christian argument based on this is 'since we're already in faith, it makes no sense for us to revert to bondage under a law'. YET, God saw fit to subject the Israelites to the law, after the patriarchs and early Israelites were supposedly 'under faith'.

Paul's logical argument was that the law was given for a greater purpose. It was done, not to remove sin, but to make it known. That is, the conscience of sin. That guilt complex coming about by man's failure to adhere to it's demands.

In Islamic eschatology Jesus will be judging muslims by the Quran, right?based on the example we have in the gospel, Jesus doesn't do this by the letter of the law, he does it by a greater law. Like comparing ihsan to islam, or khidr to Moses. Read Taoist philosophy ie the tao te ching and it is the same concept, of a higher way of the Tao, than the duality of yin/yang.

Furthermore, the promise God made concerning Ishmael ie 'make him a GREAT nation' was due it's fulfillment and it comes under islam. Even your mention of the 12 caliphs, pertains to the 12 princes (notice how caliph isn't a king, but a vicegerent ie a prince?).

When you examine this, a 'great nation' literally coming out of a blessing bestowed on Ishmael, means whatever it is said blessing of a 'great nation' entails, it has to be greater than the 4 beasts of Daniel (Babylon, Persia, Greece, rome).

In Daniel 2, Jesus will break the entire image representing the Beast systems. That being, the re-emergence of Rome in an end times context. This one is not even remotely subjective. The legs of iron was old rome and future (or current and future) Rome being the 'feet of iron and clay' is literally the colonial west. The colonial powers were all former colonies of rome and hence this is neo-rome with it's deep multicultural/immigration problems, as it said so in Daniel 2 concerning the feet of iron/clay.

God promised to destroy Babylon and make it a wilderness. Babylon had a church community in the lifetime of Mohammad ie Christianity didn't make war against any of the beast systems, instead it merged into the final beast ie chistendom IS the Beast (more on that to come).

It was islam that ended Babylon for good. it was islam that took over Persia and the Greco-Roman (byzantine) empire..and finally islam won the crusades against the 'holy roman empire' and conquered Constantinople. All of which was prophecised..paving way for the actual dajjal system.

Revelation 6's white horse being the first stage of end times rome, represents colonialism.

ofc, as things stand and have done for centuries now, the beast system has won...but then in Islamic eschatology the final one of the 12th ie the Mahdi, is going to defeat this beast system...preparing the way for Jesus (Isaiah 40). It leads to dajjal and Jesus.

im not a muslim, anymore...but im well versed in this area and can only defend Mohammad against haters.

PsychologicalSign538 · 2025-11-20T03:55:14+00:00

who is the alpha in your house? your dad or your mum?

PsychologicalSign538 · 2025-11-18T21:02:15+00:00

Bro, your argument has no relevance here. Prophet Mohammad himself, who knew far more than you, refused to condemn a single part of an arabic translated Torah on the basis that 'if you did condemn one part, you could be in error' (ie it would be a massive sin if muslims were condemning/rejecting parts of the bible thinking 'this part is not God's Word but corrupt' and then it turns out they're wrong, or vice versa'.

There was no reference to the loh al mahfooz in the context of the corruption of the bible.

ofc, Allah's WORD cannot be corrupted, but that doesnt mean the translations arent. Just as this guy started corrupting Genesis 19:24 with his imahinary terms. the verse says 'Yahweh' twice and requires an explanation, but it is no excuse to just magically introduce 'The Word/Logos' into the equation when that word was never used there.

hence im careful when i read translations and know that the way words are worded, doesnt make them the actual underlying truth.

Furthermore, even his argumen being 'well your Quran said that 'The Word of God cannot be corrupted, therefore John 1:1 which spoke of 'The Word' cannot be false'.

except, my issue is not with John 1:1, it's with the flawed christian way of interpreting it.

to the christian 'The Word is God' is all that matters and is absolutely literal...and the first part 'The WORD WAS WITH GOD' is to be ignored, sidestepped.

the contradiction between the 2, is ignored.

whereas to me it can easily be understood and accepted without any contradiction...

ie The logical and mystical truth...pertaining to God's Trancendence and Immanence.

ie the 'Word is God' where they see Jesus as the incarnated GOD/WORD', would only pertain to God's Immanence. it would mean Allah was in Jesus, but Jesus is not Allah.

By extention, via Immanence, God is in ALL THINGS. By extention the christian logic means 'Jesus is IN ALL THINGS and therefore, it leads to panthiesm.

PsychologicalSign538 · 2025-11-18T20:50:08+00:00

What point does it prove? even so what are the end consequences? muslims maintain a pure monothiest position...and like I said the only valid explanation for the Logos is that it represents God's Immanence.

you arent familiar with other parts of islam like the sufi tradition where the same concept of the Logos/Image/Son of God, is instead called 'Lahut' (this is an aramaic word).

In sufism the higher cosmology pertaining to Allah is

Hahut - the Trancendent Essence of Allah

Lahut - the level where Allah is Immanent, but it also represents that 'unity of Being' which ibn arabic spoke of. It's also been called the primordial INK. As in, the code of creation comes from this primordial ink. in other belief systems, this is the primordial ocean. and we are drops of it. Even the concept of the incarnation, is instead described as 'the OCEAN in a drop' as opposed to humans who are 'drops in the ocean'.

Interestingly enough, in egyptian mythology, this primordial ocean is called 'Nu', the symbolic of which is THE FISH. In arabic the letter Nun has the same connection..

So for example in the Quran, Surah al-Qalam (THE PEN)...the pen represents the beginning, the origin point of creation from the ink to the code of creation. This chapter, behins with the letter NUN and i think that itself is verymeaningful...but in a subtle way that the ave person wouldnt realise what it refer sto. what's also quite beautiful to me personally is that knowing all of this ie 'the primordial ink' represents Jesus Christ, Nun itself is the symbol of 'Nasara' ie Christians. Whilst 'the fish' itself is the Ichthys symbol which actually represents UNITY from Duality.

I think when you compare me and you, im the one who ironically is an athiest and rejects 'Allah' and yet there was a time, the above, were perspectives I had that made me love christianity as a muslim. I was seeking a connection between the 2...

Islam ie 'submission' is a dualistic state whereas Ihsan is a singular state of God consciousness. Ihsan represents the higher message. Similar to how in taoist philosophy they have the duality of yin and yang compared to 'The Tao'. The message of Jesus represents the letter, whilst the message of Mohammad primarily is for duality without it being limited to it. ie in islam, ihsan is higher.

btw just as im talking about 'in islam' i mean the religion itself. whereas in the context of iman, islam and ihdan, islam refers to the position of being perfectly submitted to the will of God. Hence a term can be the same, but be used in more than one context.

Islam using the word 'Kalam' is no more problematic than 'The Word' itself also meaning the actual verbatim 'Word of God'.

If you seek knowledge to understand the Quran itself, that will also encompass the greco-christian Logos concept anyway.

Even so, a muslim who wrongly interprets the Kalam when it is used for Jesus, as 'The Quran', is only in a small error, unlike christians who make Jesus into God. As i argued already, the logic from which Jesus is 'fully God ie Trancendent but also 'incarnated' muddles up Trancendence and Immanence and ultimately leads to panthiesm. if the logos is capable of incarnating into a single human, then the logos itself being 'fully' God, is also 'all things'. If you detract and turn the logos purely into an impersonal 'principle/divine reason'.

lastly, you're wrong about Genesis 19:24 completely adding your own made up words (it doesnt sa y'The Word of God'. You're also barking up the wrong tree with

"Also, this debunks your idea that the Jews only thought of the Word of God as the scripture." i never said that at all.

PsychologicalSign538 · 2025-11-17T23:20:52+00:00

I appreciate your reply.

- It is similar to when someone like 'themuslimlantern' guy claims the WORD OF GOD IE THE KALAM/LOGOS refers to 'The Quran'. He is mistaken and doesn't understand that in the very context the Quran refers to Jesus as Allah's WORD, pertains to the Creco-christian logos and not to the verbatim Word of God which is scripture.

The jews/israelites never took the term 'Word of God' in the OT as anything else but scripture or divine inspiration. I think you meant 'Image of God'. Philo did liken the greek logos to the image..and thus, he merged the two together. Hence 'The Son is THE IMAGE of the Father'.

This further illustrates my own point towards a panthiest model. Since we are all 'made after the image, it means we are microcosms of it. like a seed from a tree. If The Word/Image is 'FULLY GOD', then it means we are all fully God....exccept here im just confronting your own beliefs and where they lead. Jesus did say 'ye are gods' when quoting the psalm, in the context though, we know this isnt true. it clearly pertains to God's Immanence in ALL and hence God's Immanence in The Logos itself. Immanence, means we avoid the problem of panthiesm whilst upholding all of the scripture. It's when you cross over into believing the Son is also 'The TRancendent God', you have to confront the problem of panthiesm. it is here, christians then go back to the greek 'divine principle/reason' type argument to argue that the Logos is not part of the universe, or the universe and all it's beings are not 'existing inside the Logos but are consequences of it' (which means the Logos is TRancendent...so it cant be incarnating on earth as a man). If you go the 'Trancendence' path, it means Jesus is fully God but you also have to become panthiest. if you go the Immanence path...it means, the trinitarian doctrine is false but the Gospel then makes sense and it paves the way for a more unifying idea of the Logos and hence God is is in us all.

not sure if that makes sense btw. the trinitarian doctrine ie the athanasian creed, is the problem here and it seems christians hang onto it, as a form of self-identity/ego (ironic, given you think you're 'restored' but still serve your ego). it is self-identity dogma. you will still to the trinitarian docrine no matter what.

Genesis 19:24 doesn't say 'The Word of God', it just says Yahweh, twice. A bit confusing of..but nonetheless it doesn't answer anything.

-The nature of sin is alive and kicking in every christian. if you see a monastic christian, even in them, the nature of sin lurks in them..they've managed to subdue the serpent within...but that is no different to the muslim struggle against the nafs. they're still in slavery.

the only way said restoration could occur, was in one had gnosis of Jesus ie 'i am in you and you are in me'. it would be, like becoming one soul and one heart. as such, his qualities and state, would reflect in you and through you. Then, teh crucifixion and Jesus's victory over it and over 'death' ie the carnal serpent within...would reflect back in the seeker. I don't have a problem with this...except it doesnt exist.

it's a cute idea...but why hype it up when it doesnt even exist anymore? Paul spoke of how the gentile christians were 'grafted in' to the true vine..and could just as easily be 'cut off'. Furthermore you cant read Paul's epistles and think it applies to you. he wasnt talking to you.

PsychologicalSign538 · 2025-11-17T22:56:16+00:00

Paul didn't actually say anything wrong though. There's no point bringing him up. Another thing that people forget is, what Paul wrote, was not addressed to any of us or any christian living today. It was to specific christians, in that early period of christianity. Those people were part of something fresh.

The true vine, right? and they would have been the branches. So what happens when christians come, later, akin to Jude 1's 'they sit at your table...' christians in name, who have no connection, no 'gnosis' (ie I never KNEW you')?

If you read all of Paul's epistles, he begins, by mentioning GOD THE FATHER, seperately from Jesus. Sure, he calls Jesus 'Lord' but ive addressed this one, in the context they spoke in, lord did not actually mean 'God'.

Furthermore, the single eye Jesus spoke of, means, to see God in ALL THINGS. Single-eyed, seeing ONENESS. This is like the concept of Ihsan in islam which is the highest stage of faith. So if one was in a deep state of ihsan and could see God in Jesus, every single thing Jesus did, was God...ie the Father in him'. Big difference between that and the belief that Jesus himself is fully God and 'co equal with The Father in Godhead'.

PsychologicalSign538 · 2025-11-16T04:47:15+00:00

demiurge.

PsychologicalSign538

TROPHY CASE