*******Now, let me ask you something, did i ever try to "convert" you? ******
Actually, yes. In a conversation, which is used to convey one's thoughts, the intention is to convert. Otherwise ones would hold their tongues. Con-vert means to join (Con) in the truth (Vert)...to align our truths...to unite our stances So by speaking publicly we are ALWAYS trying to "convert". That is the truth of the matter.
*******How is it "islamic excusivity" if i stand by the truth that EVERYMAN must worship under his own vine and fig-tree and be one with THEIR god?********
Because that is an egotistical cop-out. Tell me fellow Son of the Sun what under the Sun is YOURS and not MINES? Tell me how in ancient times or in the present times in indigenous cultures so much emphasis was placed on individuality? You know as well as I do that spirituality is a COLLECTIVE harmony that encompasses EVERYTHING. The opposite of EVERY is EXCLUSION. By the nature of your stance, it IS indeed exclusive.
Are we not still seeking ONENESS and UNITY and HARMONY as brothers and sisters against the poisonings of the enemy or is that a played out concept and we are now funky fresh for 09?
Let us recall that your entry into the discussion began with your objection to the premise that islam should not be lumped into the same boat as xtianity and judaism/hebrewism.
I asked you to make the distinction between the other BIG 2 for me in regards to the acknowledgment of the Feminine Divine. We both realize that they come from PAGAN indigenous roots, the "rivers of Kemet" as you stated. So I am simply asking for the explanation of how and why and when the Feminine principle was removed/suppressed/deleted in the following of Islam (or AL-Islam), and how this was implemented any differently from to the way it was removed/suppressed/deleted from other monotheistic followings in that region, namely hebrewism and xtianity.
This is not an indictment against Islam. This is but a seeking of the difference between Islam and the other “Big 2" as you objected to in your initial response.
If the truth of the matter is that YOUR God is not acknowledged in terms of recognizing the feminine principle, then that is the plain truth of the matter.
If the truth of the matter is that you do not feel it is necessary or important to speak of or acknowledge the feminine, then that is the plain truth of the matter.
I am just trying to find out precisely what is the difference between the 3 in this regard:
THE SUPPRESSION/DELETION/DE-EMPHASIS/DE-RECOGNITION/DE-REALIZATION OF THE FEMININE DIVINE.
FAIR USE NOTICE:
This site may at times contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml