Polytheism: Whats the snags?

[barney]

Whats peoples veiws on the snags with polytheism.
What theological problems occour with Gods of the sea and a goddess of the sand etc?

Im thinking that if a nation was exclusively a livestock farming people and their cattle god sent a plauge that destroyed their cattle, thats easy. They simply hadnt pleased him/her somehow. But what if they were next door to a tribe that diddnt have specific cattle gods and the plauge avoided them, indeed they doubled their numbers in the same period.

Is it this sort of thing that destoyed polytheism? Or is there a theological excuse for the first tribe?

Any other perspectives on why Monotheism is > Polytheism?

[aamirsaab]

:sl:
I think one of the theological problems with the concept of polytheism is that it actually contradicts its own logic: how can there be more than one god? I mean, if we take the definition of God as The ruler of the world (or The creator, or That which one worships), then how can it be so that there are multiple deities? It doesn't make sense within it's own logic. It's like, you only have one biological mother. You can't have two biological mothers (though,you can have adoptive and surrogate but then that's not biological is it)....there cannot be two biological ones since this would contradict the logic of biological mothers!

[ASeeker]

Is it this sort of thing that destoyed polytheism?

Polytheism is alive and well and exists in Asia, Africa and South America. Polytheism existed throughout the Arab world, until the rise of Islam, in the form of astral religion and evidence of this well known to archeologists. Abraham left Ur in Mesopotamia because of the influence of this kind of polytheism especially the worship of the Moon-god Sin. The ziggurat still stands in Ur to this day.

Good wishes Barney

[Trumble]

:sl:
I think one of the theological problems with the concept of polytheism is that it actually contradicts its own logic: how can there be more than one god? I mean, if we take the definition of God as The ruler of the world (or The creator, or That which one worships), then how can it be so that there are multiple deities? It doesn't make sense within it's own logic.

There is no contradiction as you aren't using its own logic! You are using yours or, to be precise, you are using the same logic but with a fundamental premise a polytheist need not and would not accept. It's inevitable that if you define God in monotheistic terms, as you have, that such a definition will be incompatible with polytheism.

There are plenty of possible alternative definitions but the simplest is just to pluralize, i.e "a ruler of the world (or a creator, or one of those things that one worships). None of those thing logically entails exclusivity.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[aamirsaab]

There is no contradiction as you aren't using its own logic! You are using yours or, to be precise, you are using the same logic but with a fundamental premise a polytheist need not and would not accept. It's inevitable that if you define God in monotheistic terms, as you have, that such a definition will be incompatible with polytheism.

There are plenty of possible alternative definitions but the simplest is just to pluralize, i.e "a ruler of the world (or a creator, or one of those things that one worships). None of those thing logically entails exclusivity.

The problem then is a matter of definition and understanding. Polythiests (essentially) limit the ability of God whereas monotheists do not.

[Trumble]

The problem then is a matter of definition and understanding. Polythiests (essentially) limit the ability of God whereas monotheists do not.

Understanding rather than definition, I think. Any useful definition of 'a god' (as opposed to 'God') must surely be inclusive of both monotheistic and polytheistic conceptions?

[Uthman]

I'm in a rush but here is something from the Qur'an:

YUSUFALI: If there were, in the heavens and the earth, other gods besides Allah, there would have been confusion in both! but glory to Allah, the Lord of the Throne: (High is He) above what they attribute to Him!

PICKTHAL: If there were therein gods beside Allah, then verily both (the heavens and the earth) had been disordered. Glorified be Allah, the Lord of the Throne, from all that they ascribe (unto Him).

SHAKIR: If there had been in them any gods except Allah, they would both have certainly been in a state of disorder; therefore glory be to Allah, the Lord of the dominion, above what they attribute (to Him).

(021:022)

[barney]

I would say that the fundements of power needent be limited with polytheism. Lets hypothetically say there were twelve gods who neither had beginning or end, they co-operate to make the universe then assign themselves to different aspects of reality. A god of fear , who covers illness, a god of rage who covers War/justice/ helps out with earthquakes, god of the earth, who covers trees and farming...etc etc....

[ASeeker]

In ancient Rome, Greece and Egypt there were pantheons of gods each having their own function and story. It is a convention in some writings on world religions to use the lower case 'god' to describe apparently invented divinities and the upper case 'God' when describing the Supreme Being or One God.

Unfortunately, even when people or groups of people claim to believe in a single Supreme Being this cannot be taken to mean that they believe the same things about that Supreme Being as other people or groups. e.g. I do believe in a Supreme Being whose nature and attributes are essentially different from that of Islam. Monotheism takes different forms doesn't it?

[S1aveofA11ah]

In ancient Rome, Greece and Egypt there were pantheons of gods each having their own function and story. It is a convention in some writings on world religions to use the lower case 'god' to describe apparently invented divinities and the upper case 'God' when describing the Supreme Being or One God.

Unfortunately, even when people or groups of people claim to believe in a single Supreme Being this cannot be taken to mean that they believe the same things about that Supreme Being as other people or groups. e.g. I do believe in a Supreme Being whose nature and attributes are essentially different from that of Islam. Monotheism takes different forms doesn't it?

No it doesn't. It is not a tangible thing like for example an areoplane which has many different types.

The American Heritage Dictionary has this definition of monotheism:

"The doctrine or belief that there is only one God".

Any 'different forms' you mention are actually a straying away from or (attempted) perversion of monotheism.

Monotheism is the crux of Islam. It is Islam. This is why Islam requests we worship the creator and not the creation. No prophet is allowed to be worshipped, the sun/moon, ourselves or anything else in the entire universe. Further - 'Allah' has no gender in the Arabic language or plural as in English we have 'Gods' or 'Godesses'. Allah is above having a gender or equals and there is nothing like Him i.e. He is unique.

If Allah (God) exists (as most of mankind agree to) then surely He alone desrves to be worshipped without associating any partners, rivals, or equals in that worship.

To quote you a verse pertaining to monotheism from the Qur'an:-

"And I (Allah) have not created the Jinn (spirits) and Mankind except to worship me alone".

[alcurad]

polytheism is to an extent built on anthropomorphizing phenomena you don't understand ,so advances in science and technology take care of much of that. also for polytheistic societies, advances in hierarchical designs probably made the 'lesser gods' much less important.

[Trumble]

Any 'different forms' you mention are actually a straying away from or (attempted) perversion of monotheism.

In your opinion. As a 'neutral', effectively, I certainly consider the Islamic and Christian trinitarian concepts of God to be 'different forms' of monotheism while accepting both as monotheistic. You are just tying the concept down to the one you prefer, not presenting any sort of reasoned argument.

BTW, although it doesn't matter in this case 'dictionary' definitions of anything to do with religious dogma are rarely definitive. They are written by lexicographers not theologians, and even if theologians did write the definitions they would get edited down to uselessness anyway!

[alcurad]

rather the christian trinitarian concepts are the result of monotheism getting mixed up with polytheism.

[Zahida]

Isn't that from a song by the Black eyed peas titled where is the love??????????

:sl:
I think one of the theological problems with the concept of polytheism is that it actually contradicts its own logic: how can there be more than one god? I mean, if we take the definition of God as The ruler of the world (or The creator, or That which one worships), then how can it be so that there are multiple deities? It doesn't make sense within it's own logic. It's like, you only have one biological mother. You can't have two biological mothers (though,you can have adoptive and surrogate but then that's not biological is it)....there cannot be two biological ones since this would contradict the logic of biological mothers!

[alcurad]

^??

[Zahida]

Dicriminate, generate irate????????? from a song?

Isn't that from a song by the Black eyed peas titled where is the love??????????

[barney]

polytheism is to an extent built on anthropomorphizing phenomena you don't understand ,so advances in science and technology take care of much of that. also for polytheistic societies, advances in hierarchical designs probably made the 'lesser gods' much less important.

Christianity and Judism anthropormorphise God.
They say he looks like mankind? Created in his image?

[Uthman]

Dicriminate, generate irate????????? from a song?

If you're on about aamirsaab's signature, then yeah you're right. lol.

[Trumble]

Christianity and Judism anthropormorphise God.
They say he looks like mankind? Created in his image?

True, particularly regarding the Old Testament. I suppose that's strike one to Islam, although I would argue that conception is anthropomorphic as well albeit in a slightly more subtle fashion. Allocating mental states such as judgements, beliefs and (especially) desires is conceptually no less anthropomorphic than any imaginings of God's physical form being a model for ours. It's also, IMHO, totally inconsistent with the claimed absolute nature of God.

[ASeeker]

Sikhism, Judaism, Christianity, parts of Hindusim, and Islam are all monotheistic religions. Aren't they?

[Trumble]

Sikhism, Judaism, Christianity, parts of Hindusim, and Islam are all monotheistic religions. Aren't they?

I think so. The point behind what is being talked about now (if not at the start), though, is a recurring view from some muslims here that Christianity is actually polytheistic. They can't reconcile the Trinitarian concept with monotheism.

[Grace Seeker]

No it doesn't. It is not a tangible thing like for example an areoplane which has many different types.

The American Heritage Dictionary has this definition of monotheism:

"The doctrine or belief that there is only one God".

Any 'different forms' you mention are actually a straying away from or (attempted) perversion of monotheism.

Monotheism is the crux of Islam. It is Islam. This is why Islam requests we worship the creator and not the creation. No prophet is allowed to be worshipped, the sun/moon, ourselves or anything else in the entire universe. Further - 'Allah' has no gender in the Arabic language or plural as in English we have 'Gods' or 'Godesses'. Allah is above having a gender or equals and there is nothing like Him i.e. He is unique.

If Allah (God) exists (as most of mankind agree to) then surely He alone desrves to be worshipped without associating any partners, rivals, or equals in that worship.

To quote you a verse pertaining to monotheism from the Qur'an:-

"And I (Allah) have not created the Jinn (spirits) and Mankind except to worship me alone".

And yet "Allah" is just the word "god"; it could be "Tankri" in Turkish or "Dios" in Spanish. There is no gender in Turkish, no plural form in Spanish. All that you have said is primarily a function not of Islam, but of the Arabic language, for Arabic-speaking Christians use the same term to talk of God that Arabic-speaking Muslims do. Yet, according to you the Christian God would be a perversion of monothesim. If you are not careful, you could have the interesting situation where an English-speaking, non-Arabic speaking Muslim would accuse an Arabic-speaking, non-English speaking Christian of perverting God when he or she speaks of Allah. Wouldn't that be ironic.

[Grace Seeker]

Christianity and Judism anthropormorphise God.
They say he looks like mankind? Created in his image?

Look at what you said again. The definition of anthropomorphizing is to attribute human form or personality to things not human. We don't do that. We don't say that God is like us. The arrow flows the other direction. We say that we are created in his image. He is the standard, and in some sense we are created in that image. But you will note that we never say that God is limited by any of the things that humans are limited by. So, obviously it is not that one understand God by understanding humanity, rather it is that one can understand humanity by understanding God.

I know I'll get objections, but I think it is those who project seeing and hearing unto God not as figurative terminology but literal descriptions who are the one's more guilty of anthropomorphizing. While no doubt there are some Christians (and probably Jews too) who fall into this inappropriate way to speak about God, that is not what either religion believes. On the other hand, I find such anthropomorphic views common and defended by Muslims on this board. Now, granted, those who post here are not scholars, so maybe such anthropomorphizing is not any truer of Islam than it is of Christianity, but I see frequently in the suggestion that Muslim make that because Jesus is on the cross that he can't also be God in heaven at the same time. Why not? Unless you are limiting God to having to occupy time and space in the same way that humans do. And that would be anthropomorphizing.

[chacha_jalebi]

^ no muslim anthromophises god, they describe him as he describes himself and thats it nothin further :D also it says in surah al anaam "no vision can grasp him" so like we cant imagine what god looks like, if it says he will put his foot over hell, we cant imagine how his foot looks like it will look nothin like a human foot, so thats why you just leave it as its been described :D


anyway on topic... if you look at the root of all religions they teach monotheism, like hinduism in their books it says there is only one god, but now they got like a million,

also one thing with polytheism, is the idols created, thats stupidity, and also god is meant to be all powerfull, why would he need partners to help him out? so it shows

[Grace Seeker]

^ no muslim anthromophises god, they describe him as he describes himself and thats it nothin further :D also it says in surah al anaam "no vision can grasp him" so like we cant imagine what god looks like, if it says he will put his foot over hell, we cant imagine how his foot looks like it will look nothin like a human foot, so thats why you just leave it as its been described :D

Fair enough. But if this is not anthropomorphizing, then certainly Christianity does not anthropomorphize either, for when we say that Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father, we understand that this is figurative language, not a literal hand of any sort, so it is hardly a case of thinking of God as being like us.

[SixTen]

What is probably more hidden under the rubble is that - hindu's actually consider themselves monotheistic, while Judaism/Christianity/Islam/Sikhism etc consider them polytheistic. Moreover, its more interesting that, christians somtimes are bothered with them having their beliefs labelled polytheistic, yet christians (atleast a handful that I have encountered) regard hindu's, who call themselves monotheists, polytheists.

Random wall of text to get people thinking for the day.

[barney]

Isnt a claim that God made man in his Image anthropomorphing God?

Polytheism argued that earthquakes were the thunder god battling the Earth God and suchlike.

Theres no evidence for this of course, but yet no evidence against.

[SixTen]

Fair enough. But if this is not anthropomorphizing, then certainly Christianity does not anthropomorphize either, for when we say that Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father, we understand that this is figurative language, not a literal hand of any sort, so it is hardly a case of thinking of God as being like us.

What about, God made humans in his own image. How could that be figurative?

[Grace Seeker]

What about, God made humans in his own image. How could that be figurative?

Well, what is meant by image? Do you think that means a physical likeness. I have a daughter who people say is just like me, but obviously physically she is quite different than me. I would suggest that the image of God that we carry around within us is a spiritual nature we have received from God that no other creature has. Because of that we can actually have fellowship with God.


There are several reason I wold like to suggest that our being created in the image of God does not refer to our physicality:

1) "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them" (Genesis 1:27). If this passage was referring to our physical appearance as having been taken from some physical attributes that God has, then it would be saying that our male and femaleness is a reflection of God's physicality, and that would mean that God was both male and female. Well, I think that Jews, Muslims, and Christians would all agree that such a concept of God is foreign to the God we all know. It certainly is contrary to Jesus' description of God as being Spirit (John 4:24).

2) Part of the injunction against creating idols is that it is impossible to create a physical object that is going to capture the true image of God simply because we cannot imbue any object with a spirit, which is what God is. Thus no idol can truly be in the image of God unless God himself were to create it. So, people might be in God's image because they are indeed imbued with a spirit, but other objects that look like people would not be -- "do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman" (Deuteronomy 4:16). What is missing is not the physical appearance, but the reality of spirit.

3) "You have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator" (Colossians 3:9b-10). The person goes from not being like God to being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator, not by having some sort of physical makeover, but by a spiritual one.

4) In a slightly longer passage (Romans 1:18-23), Paul talks about how in the fall (when Adam refused to submit to God and substituted doing his own will for that which God had for originally willed for him in the garden of Eden) and following from it, people exchanged the glory of God for images that are made to look like mortal creatures.

So, it is that I suggest that the image of God that we were created in has nothing to do with our physical bodies, but with our spiritual selves. And that sin tarnishes that image (in biblical language we "fall short of the glory of God"), and that only by a new birth -- a spiritual new birth, not a physical one -- can we have that image restored within us. And this is one of the reasons that I believe (pulling from some other threads) that God indwells in us in the person of his Holy Spirit.

[chacha_jalebi]

^ but grace seeker bro, many christians refer to Jesus bein god or god sons and a off shoot if you say of god innit? thats depicting god in a human way isnt it....

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi
This might seem condescending and narrow-minded to people of other faiths, for which my apologies in advance...
But in my opinion polytheism failed for one very simple reason: it was man made and thus inevitably flawed. The same reason why all other religions will inevitably fail, except for Islam since it isn't man-made.

Oh and also what Aamirsaab said, omnipotence only works if it's exclusive. If two Gods are omnipotent one could limit the other, bringing a flaw in it's omnipotence.

[Grace Seeker]

^ but grace seeker bro, many christians refer to Jesus bein god or god sons and a off shoot if you say of god innit? thats depicting god in a human way isnt it....

I do respect your concern. That very issue led Apollinarious in the 4th century to suggest that Jesus wasn't ever truly human, that he only seemed to be human. Of course, the Church has always held that Apollinarious and the rest of the Docetist were in error. The Docetists for their part, argued that the idea of God taking on human flesh as an innovation of human minds.

But, according to scriptures, this is not something that humans created. This is something that God himself chose to do. It is he who took on this nature. It isn't us depicting God as human; it is God inserting himself into humanity.

[Grace Seeker]

Chacha, SixTen, Barney--

I appreciate the respectful way you have each asked your questions. I know that none of you agree with me, but the manner in which you have carried out this discussion is entirely agreeable. I suspect that each of my answers has probably brought more questions/comments to your mind. I welcome them, however I need to take my leave to go celebrate my birthday with my wife. I may not be able to return to it until Monday. I share that because I don't want you to think that I have just refused to answer any more quesitons. I'll check back in again later if I can and see if the discussion is still on such positive track. But, even if it has gone awry and I then elect to opt out, I want you to know I appreciated the way in which everyone has conducted themselves in this thread, and your last three questions especially. THANKS.

[chacha_jalebi]

i appreciate your answers and patience

tbh i never really post in this section, because i find it hard talkin about comparitive religion over the net, like you dont know how your questions or words will be taken and whether the person will get offended, so :D

and the Prophet (saw) whenever he preached he was so gentle, like he never forced anyone, and thats why it says in surah al imraan, " its the mercy of Allah, you deal nicely/gently with them, if you were harsh or severe with them they would have not listened and turned away"

so softness is the way, but obviosly over the net, you dont know how your words are percieved and if someone is rude you gotta respond or either ignore them, anywhoo :D

have a nice time away graceeee:D when your back i got some follow up questions lol

[barney]

Look at what you said again. The definition of anthropomorphizing is to attribute human form or personality to things not human. We don't do that. We don't say that God is like us. The arrow flows the other direction. We say that we are created in his image. He is the standard, and in some sense we are created in that image. But you will note that we never say that God is limited by any of the things that humans are limited by. So, obviously it is not that one understand God by understanding humanity, rather it is that one can understand humanity by understanding God.

I know I'll get objections, but I think it is those who project seeing and hearing unto God not as figurative terminology but literal descriptions who are the one's more guilty of anthropomorphizing. While no doubt there are some Christians (and probably Jews too) who fall into this inappropriate way to speak about God, that is not what either religion believes. On the other hand, I find such anthropomorphic views common and defended by Muslims on this board. Now, granted, those who post here are not scholars, so maybe such anthropomorphizing is not any truer of Islam than it is of Christianity, but I see frequently in the suggestion that Muslim make that because Jesus is on the cross that he can't also be God in heaven at the same time. Why not? Unless you are limiting God to having to occupy time and space in the same way that humans do. And that would be anthropomorphizing.

Hey Grace.
I'm approaching
the anthropromorphic thing from the position that Man invented God. That the Dolphin's beleive their God would have flippers and a bottle nose etc.

[جوري]

I'll answer the original Q directly from the Quran

مَا اتَّخَذَ اللَّهُ مِن وَلَدٍ وَمَا كَانَ مَعَهُ مِنْ إِلَهٍ إِذًا لَّذَهَبَ كُلُّ إِلَهٍ بِمَا خَلَقَ وَلَعَلَا بَعْضُهُمْ عَلَى بَعْضٍ سُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ عَمَّا يَصِفُونَ {91}

[Pickthal 23:91] Allah hath not chosen any son, nor is there any god along with Him; else would each god have assuredly championed that which he created, and some of them would assuredly have overcome others. Glorified be Allah above all that they allege.


Indeed.. each God should come champion what he has created and may the most powerful of them win? A ship of this magnitude can't be steered by more than one captain.. and that is really all there is to it!


cheers

[Trumble]

Indeed.. each God should come champion what he has created and may the most powerful of them win? A ship of this magnitude can't be steered by more than one captain.. and that is really all there is to it!

Talk about anthropomorphism!! :D

Case closed.

[جوري]

???
analogies are used to make it easier for others!

cheers

[czgibson]

Greetings,

This is a very interesting discussion, people. :)

In a strange way, I almost think Skye and the bit of the Qur'an she quotes have put their finger on it: if polytheism were true, then it's possible one of the gods could have become all-powerful and then monotheism would prevail.


How do believers know that this has not in fact happened?


I obviously come from the same perspective as barney, that all gods are man-made. I think one big reason that monotheism seems to be more popular than polytheism is that it's just simpler for people to understand. After all, simpler explanations are usually more immediately convincing than complex ones.

Peace

[جوري]

a 'simple' explanation satisfies the law of parsimony.. and is in fact the most logical one.
Atheism would be great if it offered a logical answer to everything in existence, while also preserving that same law, better known to you as 'Ockham's Razor'-- atheism like polytheism gives bog-standard philosophy without any concrete scientific support to its tenets...

When it comes down to it, I say we're all pretty evenly matched, but we go in different directions!


cheers

[Trumble]

???
analogies are used to make it easier for others!

In the case of the captain of the ship, true enough. The important bit is your quote from the Qur'an;

Allah hath not chosen any son, nor is there any god along with Him; else would each god have assuredly championed that which he created, and some of them would assuredly have overcome others

Does that verse not say, or at least imply, that it is in the nature of gods (any more than the one being purely hypothetical, of course) to 'champion' their creations and attempt to 'overcome' others? Both of those are human concepts, and might apply to human rulers, but why a god would need or might want to do either is unclear - at least to me. Either God/gods actually have those characteristics or they are being anthropomorphically assigned to Him/them. If the scenario is an analogy (?) then what is it an analogy of?

[Hamayun]

This thread is full of analogies and big words. I fail to see what can be proven/dis proven in this way.

We will never see eye to eye on this so why waste your breath? Be happy with what you know for indeed in time you will know the truth.

[جوري]

In the case of the captain of the ship, true enough. The important bit is your quote from the Qur'an;

Allah hath not chosen any son, nor is there any god along with Him; else would each god have assuredly championed that which he created, and some of them would assuredly have overcome others

Does that verse not say, or at least imply, that it is in the nature of gods (any more than the one being purely hypothetical, of course) to 'champion' their creations and attempt to 'overcome' others? Both of those are human concepts, and might apply to human rulers, but why a god would need or might want to do either is unclear - at least to me. Either God/gods actually have those characteristics or they are being anthropomorphically assigned to Him/them. If the scenario is an analogy (?) then what is it an analogy of?

'might or need to do either' meaning what? I don't understand...
Your Q is using a general principle and applying it where it doesn't fit; or supported by fact and by fact here I mean from the Quran since that is what I assume you originally used to speak of 'wanting to do either'.

Lastly I don't know of any Gods who have called dibs on anything in creation, and I don't know of a battle between the Gods save in fairy tales.

Given you are most likely to wonder why Islam is less of a fairy tale than others, and rather than draw this out, where I haven't the time to dedicate to a long drawn out theological debate, I'll sum it down to a general rule used in psychiatry ..how do you distinguish one delusion from another from truth, when it all seems subjective,it is highly contingent on content...

If someone is having an actual organic disease manifesting in the form of a headache and I have no true scientific way to measure it, I can look at concomitant symptoms, sequelae, differentials and possibilities and use best judgment.. if someone says, they are seeing purple, green dots every time they drink cake juice, while maintaining they are lucid, chances are what they are experiencing is improbable as an actual palpable organic disease while there is still a list of differentials, it is unlikely that the symptoms they are experiencing are anything but an actual erroneous psychotic belief...

that is another analogy by the way, just to break things down to a low common denominator!

cheers

[czgibson]

Greetings,

atheism like polytheism gives bog-standard philosophy without any concrete scientific support to its tenets...

Atheism has only one tenet.

Peace

[جوري]

Greetings,


Atheism has only one tenet.

Peace

indeed, and its one tenet is a universal negative!

cheers

[Trumble]

'might or need to do either' meaning what? I don't understand...

Meaning just what it said. Why would God or gods need to 'champion' anything' or achieve domination over other gods? I don't think I can explain it any more clearly.

Your Q is using a general principle and applying it where it doesn't fit; or supported by fact and by fact here I mean from the Quran since that is what I assume you originally used to speak of 'wanting to do either'.

What 'general principle' am I supposed to be misapplying? I followed you in quoting from the Qur'an, and commenting on that passage. I have said nothing that needs supporting by further 'facts'.

Let me attempt to clarify. According to that quote it is in the nature of gods to 'champion' their creation and attempt to 'overcome' any other gods. Whether such a conflict has ever happened is irrelevant, although presumably we can take it as given , there being only one God according the Qur'an, that the situation is a purely hypothetical one. Nonetheless, it makes clear that were there more than one God, the inevitable consequence would be conflict between them.

What are obviously human (and indeed unpleasant human, in the second instance) character traits are being assigned to gods, and by implication, God. Gods would need to fight for their corner and defeat others because their motivations and desires are the same as those of people. You can't get any more anthropomorphic than that! The idea of a supreme being, let alone an omnipotent and omnibenevolent one, having such character traits (or indeed any character traits, as we recognise such things) is ridiculous.

[جوري]

Meaning just what it said. Why would God or gods need to 'champion' anything' or achieve domination over other gods? I don't think I can explain it any more clearly.

Perhaps it has nothing to do with clarity, rather that it is a non-question. .. It comes down to the purpose of creation. What would a lesser God want with say creating the seas, or another for trees or another for mountains and another for skies, and another for stars, one life one death, one drought, one harvest.... Once you conclude purpose for each, perhaps you can see why they would want to 'champion' their cause? -- in layman's terms If I created the best greatest new Model and my company's name is Mercedes, firstly I have to answer why did I create it? secondly, why is it superior to say an Audi? thirdly, would I want some other company to take credit for my creation-- say it is Mercedes engineered and made but I stick an Audi emblem emblem? fourthly, would I want someone else to be in competition, and lastly how do I effectively market my engineered wonder to as many as possible, to get them to their home safely?

What 'general principle' am I supposed to be misapplying? I followed you in quoting from the Qur'an, and commenting on that passage. I have said nothing that needs supporting by further 'facts'.

you said

Does that verse not say, or at least imply, that it is in the nature of gods (any more than the one being purely hypothetical, of course) to 'champion' their creations and attempt to 'overcome' others? Both of those are human concepts, and might apply to human rulers, but why a god would need or might want to do either is unclear

Which I believe my first reply covers!

Let me attempt to clarify. According to that quote it is in the nature of gods to 'champion' their creation and attempt to 'overcome' any other gods. Whether such a conflict has ever happened is irrelevant, although presumably we can take it as given , there being only one God according the Qur'an, that the situation is a purely hypothetical one. Nonetheless, it makes clear that were there more than one God, the inevitable consequence would be conflict between them.

Actually it can't be taken as a given, it is a verse meant to highlight the variance and absurdity with reason that the world should have more than one God-- Divine sarcasm if you will!

What are obviously human (and indeed unpleasant human, in the second instance) character traits are being assigned to gods, and by implication, God. Gods would need to fight for their corner and defeat others because their motivations and desires are the same as those of people. You can't get any more anthropomorphic than that! The idea of a supreme being, let alone an omnipotent and omnibenevolent one, having such character traits (or indeed any character traits, as we recognise such things) is ridiculous.

And that is actually your take home message, God has no son ( as that would attribute a human quality (anthropomorphism) and Gods (plural) would surely fight amongst themselves as naturally conflict would arise, one wanting rain, one wanting drought, one wanting life the other death... and an example from pagan religions would be a struggle as such was between between Baal and Mot..


got it?

cheers

[Trumble]

Not really. Your interpretation doesn't even come close to what the verse actually says. In particular "as that would attribute a human quality (anthropomorphism)" just isn't there either explicitly or implicitly. Maybe it's different in Arabic, I don't know.

Once you conclude purpose for each, perhaps you can see why they would want to 'champion' their cause?

Only if I assign them human motivations and character traits. I see no reason to do so, as they are, by definition, not human ("lesser" or not).

I agree that verse clearly expects listeners/readers to have a background knowledge of such mythical conflicts between (anthropomorphized) pagan gods. You no doubt won't be surprised I can think of a much more plausible reason for such a reference than "Divine sarcasm"!

[جوري]

Not really. Your interpretation doesn't even come close to what the verse actually says. In particular "as that would attribute a human quality (anthropomorphism)" just isn't there either explicitly or implicitly. Maybe it's different in Arabic, I don't know.

Perhaps the question is, what do you think the verse is trying to tell you? I can accept that even I whose mother tongue is Arabic will make linguistic and exegetical mistakes.. but I think the meaning of this verse is overt!

Only if I assign them human motivations and character traits. I see no reason to do so, as they are, by definition, not human ("lesser" or not).

But that is actually the case with many Gods.. I don't even need to be a theist to see that the action of one God would be at odds if not actually nullify the action of another.

I agree that verse clearly expects listeners/readers to have a background knowledge of such mythical conflicts between (anthropomorphized) pagan gods. You no doubt won't be surprised I can think of a much more plausible reason for such a reference than "Divine sarcasm"!

Sure.. I have seen you come up with multitudes of conjectures about many a verse..
I can say that I have been there, and that time of uncertainty is over for me, I found my niche and what makes most sense... I am sure like wise you've found reason and comfort with where you are and you are so entitled ...


cheers

[Grace Seeker]

Greetings,

This is a very interesting discussion, people. :)

In a strange way, I almost think Skye and the bit of the Qur'an she quotes have put their finger on it: if polytheism were true, then it's possible one of the gods could have become all-powerful and then monotheism would prevail.


How do believers know that this has not in fact happened?


I obviously come from the same perspective as barney, that all gods are man-made. I think one big reason that monotheism seems to be more popular than polytheism is that it's just simpler for people to understand. After all, simpler explanations are usually more immediately convincing than complex ones.

Peace

I suppose that just as God existed before the beginning, that many gods could have existed before the beginning and just as you have suggested that our God simply is the one that won out. But the key is that all of this would have had to have happened before the beginning. And since God has not shared any of that which was before the beginning with us, I am agnostic to it.

In the universe in which we actually live it appears that there are those who accept only that which they have knowledge of through their own 5 senses (or technologies employed to enhances their senses). These people are called atheists for they perceive no god and therefore assume that none exists. There are those who asume that their senses do not perceive everything and that there might be something/someone out there beyond themselves. These people are some type of theist, be it animist, ploytheist, _____ist of all varities. Among them are some who believe they have some sort of special revelation or knowledge. These too come in various forms gnostic, Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, and others).

The question that Barney and CZ cause us to ask is do any of these folks really have some sort of special revelation or knowledge? Or is their special knowledge little different than the intoxicated hallucinations of the Peruvian shaman. If that is all they are, then the analogy to dolphins worshipping gods with flippers is probably right. The Greek gods being a good case in point. But not all gods fit that mold, or at least if they do the comparison to humanity is so sophisticatedly derived that I don't see.

But there is something even in the profligate profuseness of myths that makes me think that God is real. For I wonder what is it in mankind that leads us to create so many myths about a creator god that seeks to redeem its creation. Might there be at the core something real, something primeval within us that recognizes that we do in fact have a creator, an origin that is from other than random happenstance. Might those who believe that all that is real can be observed through the observation of created nature have shut themselves off from the not just the observation of, but even the perception of the very thing which brought the creation into being? Will it not take some other sort of sensing to perceive that which has made us. And if God (or whatever god/gods there might be) is not a part of the material world, then those sense we have which have been developed for the purpose of existing in the material world, will be no help to us in whatever other non-material world might exist alongside our universe. We than can live in a state of unknowing (the agnostic), denial (the atheist), or speculation (the many varities of theists), and one could not prove any of the other two wrong.

But what if there is a way to know the non-material world? What might that way be? It would not be the result of mere speculation and imagination, that would be man creating God. It would have to be the result of some type of observation, perception, experiencing of God. I see then only two sources for knowledge of God. One would be if God should make revelation of himself within the natural world. The other would be if God should leave within humanity some ability to sense things beyond those senses which are targeted to understanding the created world. Many religions make claim to some type of special revelation. Among them Christianity (there may be others such as Native American) affirms that the spiritual world may also be sensed by those who are blessed with the presence of God's Spirit within them.

These religions that rely on such special revelation of gifts of spiritual perception would be those that can encounter God quite apart from themselves. While those that rely on their own ability to sense things with their eyes, ears, touch are going to have to create God in their own image. Perhaps the epitomy of such behavior would be the scientists who, because he cannot perceive God denies that God or any god could even exist. His behavior fits the pattern described by Paul 2000 years ago: "The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot know them because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14, my own translation).

[alcurad]

are going to have to create God in their own image

no offense, but didn't christianity do just that?

[Grace Seeker]

no offense, but didn't christianity do just that?

No. I don't believe we did. As I've said before. We believe that we are created in God's image, not we in his.

But (perhaps this deserves its own thread), I'll bite, in what ways do you see Christianity as creating God in the image of human kind?

[alcurad]

in a nutshell and according to my humble understanding of christianity, God the father being unable to understand human sin, made part of himself human-like :jesus.
jesus was conceived then born, and went through what most humans go though.
if jesus experienced these feelings , then god as a whole did too, for the purpose of the son was just that; god feeling human.
and so god has been made into our own image.
behind this lies the need to perceive god in a form that's familiar and tangible ie. human form. but I agree, this does deserve it's own thread.

[Grace Seeker]

in a nutshell and according to my humble understanding of christianity, God the father being unable to understand human sin, made part of himself human-like :jesus.
jesus was conceived then born, and went through what most humans go though.
if jesus experienced these feelings , then god as a whole did too, for the purpose of the son was just that; god feeling human.
and so god has been made into our own image.
behind this lies the need to perceive god in a form that's familiar and tangible ie. human form. but I agree, this does deserve it's own thread.

Ah, I get where you are coming from now.

Well, the only thing I would correct in your "nutshell" understanding of Christianity is that God the father made himself human-like to "understand" anything. It wasn't his understanding that was lacking. It was our obedience to his will. As a human Jesus could be perfectly obedient, not because he was God, but precisely because he was human (the scripture call him the second Adam) and could therefore live the perfect life that was lost and stained by sin in the first Adam. Now if you are simply talking about Jesus taking on human-form, I guess in that way you might speak of God in human image, BUT that is not the image we are talking about when we talk about mankind being created in the image of God.

[alcurad]

I'll admit I don't know much about christianity, so I appreciate your answers:)

so the son became fully human, and then became part of the trinity again, or even if he was/were still part of it while human, still the creator was partially human for a period of time, thus in our image.

[Grace Seeker]

There never was a time when the Son did not exist or when the Son was not God, and hence God has always been triune.

It is also true that there are discreet periods of time when the Son was God but was not human and there was a period of time when the Son was human. When he was human he was known by the name Jesus. And he was then and still is now God's Messiah, the anointed one, specially chosen by the Father.

As to whether or not the Son still has a physical human body is debated even among Christians, some way he has a physical body since he was physically raised from the dead; others say that he has a spiritual body since that is what Paul says that Christians are to be raised with. I'm going to leave it at that unless you are really curious about it.

[alcurad]

There never was a time when the Son did not exist or when the Son was not God, and hence God has always been triune.

It is also true that there are discreet periods of time when the Son was God but was not human and there was a period of time when the Son was human. When he was human he was known by the name Jesus. And he was then and still is now God's Messiah, the anointed one, specially chosen by the Father.

do go on if you don't mind,
so when the son was human he was jesus, a human but still part of the trinity.
so still god was partially in our image since a persona was in human likeness?

[barney]

I'd disagree, (i know...please dont die of shock about that! :D )

God we are Told is a jealous God, he is a planner/schemer and likes the smell of burnt sacrifices to him/her/it. He feels hate, he feels love he feels anger, revenge and indignation. These are all human emotions, the emotions of sentinent beings shared by many animals. They are often morally based, curiously identical to the morals of 3000 year old desert dewelling tribes.
We have "In the eyes" of God, by the "Hand of God", Moses sees the "face of god" and the "back of god".

This leads us to two possibilities
1) Man made God in his image
2) God made man in his image

[جوري]

^^^ hope that is about the Judeo/Christian God..
In Islam God doesn't feel Jealousy, or hatred, or being in human image at all in fact I challenge you to bring me a verse from the Quran that says so :D

cheers

[barney]

^^^ hope that is about the Judeo/Christian God..
In Islam God doesn't feel Jealousy, or hatred, or being in human image at all in fact I challenge you to bring me a verse from the Quran that says so :D

cheers

Mixture of both Gods.

As regards Allah:
Hate

The Children of Israel
[17.38] All this-- the evil of it-- is hateful in the sight of your Lord.
The Ranks
[61.3] It is most hateful to Allah that you should say that which you do not do.

Love
The Family of Imrahm
[3.31] Say: If you love Allah, then follow me, Allah will love you and forgive you your faults, and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful

The Elevated places
[7.55] Call on your Lord humbly and secretly; surely He does not love those who exceed the limits.

Revenge
Volume 8, Book 81, Number 777:
Narrated Aisha:

Whenever the Prophet was given an option between two things, he used to select the easier of the tow as long as it was not sinful; but if it was sinful, he would remain far from it. By Allah, he never took revenge for himself concerning any matter that was presented to him, but when Allah's Limits were transgressed, he would take revenge for Allah's Sake.

Allah must need revenge or Mohammed wouldnt have taken revenge for him.


As for the others and indeed including the above, they apply to Yahweh and many other Gods. Zeus was supposed to be insanely Jealous and quick to anger.

[جوري]

Mixture of both Gods.

As regards Allah:
Hate

The Children of Israel
[17.38] All this-- the evil of it-- is hateful in the sight of your Lord.
The Ranks
[61.3] It is most hateful to Allah that you should say that which you do not do.

hateful in the sight of Allah doesn't mean that Allah has the emotion of hate.. It means, it is an abomination! a detestable act!

Love
The Family of Imrahm
[3.31] Say: If you love Allah, then follow me, Allah will love you and forgive you your faults, and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful

Notice in the above I mentioned nothing about love, I wrote (hate) and (in his image).. in fact one can be a friend to Allah such as Ibrahim SAW
by the way that is the family of imran! not imrahm

The Elevated places
[7.55] Call on your Lord humbly and secretly; surely He does not love those who exceed the limits.

Again as verse one, the act of excess is an abomination, not that Allah has such an emotion!

Revenge
Volume 8, Book 81, Number 777:
Narrated Aisha:

Whenever the Prophet was given an option between two things, he used to select the easier of the tow as long as it was not sinful; but if it was sinful, he would remain far from it. By Allah, he never took revenge for himself concerning any matter that was presented to him, but when Allah's Limits were transgressed, he would take revenge for Allah's Sake.

Allah must need revenge or Mohammed wouldnt have taken revenge for him.

What does this hadtih have to do with the Quran? Also it isn't about revenge it is about justice!

As for the others and indeed including the above, they apply to Yahweh and many other Gods. Zeus was supposed to be insanely Jealous and quick to anger.

Islam isn't in any ballpark with Judeo/christian depiction of God.. and certainly can't be made to be compared to Mythology..

cheers

[barney]

hateful in the sight of Allah doesn't mean that Allah has the emotion of hate.. It means, it is an abomination! a detestable act!

Notice in the above I mentioned nothing about love, I wrote (hate) and (in his image).. in fact one can be a friend to Allah such as Ibrahim SAW
by the way that is the family of imran! not imrahm

Again as verse one, the act of excess is an abomination, not that Allah has such an emotion!



What does this hadtih have to do with the Quran? Also it isn't about revenge it is about justice!


Islam isn't in any ballpark with Judeo/christian depiction of God.. and certainly can't be made to be compared to Mythology..

cheers

Its hateful in the sight of Allah, In Allahs sight its hateful, Allah sees it and Its a thing he hates. Allah feels hate towards this thingy he's looking at. It dosnt say abomination there, it dosnt say detestable. It says Allah has seen something and he hates it. Simple.

The Hadith dosnt mention justice. It says Revenge. Its not that he's getting justice for allah, he's taking revenge for Allah. Those are the words, the Hadith is reliable and you appear to be slotting in different words, and that for certain is NOT permissable is it?

[جوري]

Its hateful in the sight of Allah, In Allahs sight its hateful, Allah sees it and Its a thing he hates. Allah feels hate towards this thingy he's looking at. It dosnt say abomination there, it dosnt say detestable. It says Allah has seen something and he hates it. Simple.

The Hadith dosnt mention justice. It says Revenge. Its not that he's getting justice for allah, he's taking revenge for Allah. Those are the words, the Hadith is reliable and you appear to be slotting in different words, and that for certain is NOT permissable is it?

Hello there dear barn..
I challenge you to bring me those verses or hadith in original Arabic and maintain that it is as you claim, rather than what have explained !

cheers

[barney]

Well as the Arabic reader, I'm sure you can do that!
Also there are many many Arabic readers on the forum, with Arabic as a first language.

So lets put it out to them shall we?
In the "Original Arabic"

The Children of Israel
[17.38] All this-- the evil of it-- is hateful in the sight of your Lord.
The Ranks
[61.3] It is most hateful to Allah that you should say that which you do not do.



The Family of Imrahm
[3.31] Say: If you love Allah, then follow me, Allah will love you and forgive you your faults, and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful

The Elevated places
[7.55] Call on your Lord humbly and secretly; surely He does not love those who exceed the limits.




Revenge
Volume 8, Book 81, Number 777:
Narrated Aisha:

Whenever the Prophet was given an option between two things, he used to select the easier of the tow as long as it was not sinful; but if it was sinful, he would remain far from it. By Allah, he never took revenge for himself concerning any matter that was presented to him, but when Allah's Limits were transgressed, he would take revenge for Allah's Sake.


Arabic speakers.
What are the words?
From the three best translations please.
Is Hate "abomnible"
Is Revenge "Justice"

017.038
YUSUFALI: Of all such things the evil is hateful in the sight of thy Lord.
PICKTHAL: The evil of all that is hateful in the sight of thy Lord.
SHAKIR: All this-- the evil of it-- is hateful in the sight of your Lord.

Lets see if the three top translators are all mistaken?

[جوري]

Ana la afham ma katabat. laow toreed an tanqud ma kotib la bodda an tokhatboni bel 3rabya..
otherwise will get no where barn!

cheers

[جوري]

Name of Questioner
S. M - Canada

Title
The Nature of Allah

Question
Scholars of Islam, as-Salamu `alaykum. I am curious about the nature of Allah. I know Allah is not a person, nor anything like a man, but the Qur’an always refers to Allah as “He” or “Him” and even sometimes “I” and “We”. Is this just for our understanding, or maybe something that is lost in the translation? I see Allah as an unfolding, never ending source of power, but without any emotion or the same kind of thought process as mortals. I was wondering if you could help me on this.

Date
07/Jul/2003

Name of Counsellor
Muzammil Siddiqi

Topic
Muslim Belief



Answer



Wa `alaykum As-Salamu wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh.


In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.



All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.

Dear sister in Islam, thanks a lot for your question which reflects your care to have a sound belief and faith. Allah commands Muslims to refer to people of knowledge to become well-acquainted with the teachings of Islam in all aspects of life.

Before addressing this question, it is essential to state the following: The Islamic approach towards dealing with any issue relating to faith and practice is direct. Thus, this invariably involves looking at what the Qur’an has to say, how this was understood and applied by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and the pious generations, who are considered our perennial role models in all matters of deen (religion).

First of all, we would like to stress the fact that, every committed Muslim should have a firm belief that Allah Almighty is UNIQUE in everything. There is no resemblance between Allah the Creator and His creation. Referring to this, Allah Almighty says: "Nothing is like Him and He hears and sees all things." (Ash-Shura: 11)

In his response to your question, Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi, former President of the Islamic Society of North America, states:

“According to the teachings of the Qur’an and Sunnah, we say Allah is the Most Powerful (Al-Qawiyy). We may say that Allah’s power is unfolding and never ending, but we do not say that Allah is ‘an unfolding never ending power.’

In Islam, we believe that Allah has many Names and Beautiful Attributes. Allah sees, hears, speaks, likes, and dislikes. Allah listens to our prayers and blesses those who believe in Him and obey Him. It is correct that Allah is not a person like a man, but this does not mean that Allah is some kind of abstract being, or mere energy or power. If you read the Qur’an, you will see that there are many personal qualities of Allah. But the Qur’an reminds us that “Nothing is like Him and He hears and sees all things.” (Ash-Shura: 11) This is a very profound statement. On the one hand it denies all anthropomorphism (tashbih), and on the other hand it rejects all kind of nihilism (ta`til).

Allah Most High also loves, hates, is pleased, gets angry, wishes us to do certain things, and does not like us to do some other things. But in the case of Allah these are not emotions like those of mortals. These are according to His own Majesty and Greatness. We cannot fully grasp His Attributes, because He is infinite and we are finite. We have no other way of knowing Him, except what He tells us through His Book and His Prophets. In the Qur’an Allah says about Himself in the famous Ayat al-Kursi: “Allah! There is no god but He, the Living, the Self-subsisting, Eternal. No slumber can seize Him nor sleep. His are all things in the heavens and on earth. Who is there can intercede in His presence except as He permits? He knows what (appears to His creatures as) Before or After or Behind them. Nor shall they compass aught of His knowledge except as He wills. His Throne does extend over the heavens and the earth, and He feels no fatigue in guarding and preserving them, for He is the Most High, the Supreme (in glory).” (Al-Baqarah: 255)

The pronouns ‘He’, ‘Him’ or ‘I’, ‘We’ are to indicate that Allah is a Being, not a thing. We do not use the pronoun ‘It’ for Allah. If it were our belief that Allah is ‘power’ or ‘energy’ then we could have used the expression ‘It’, but this is not acceptable in Islam. We do not believe that Allah is a male or a female. Allah is beyond maleness and femaleness. Allah is the Creator of both males and females. Muslims do not make an image of Allah. Even if an image comes to their mind they say, ‘Allah Akbar,’ (Allah is Greater) and He transcends this particular image. In the Qur’an Allah speaks sometimes as ‘I’ and sometimes as ‘We’. This is to describe His power and His closeness. But Allah is never referred to as ‘They’ or ‘You’ in the plural (hum or antum).

I suggest you read the Qur’an carefully and see for yourself what Allah says about Himself. There is no book in which you can find a more authentic and direct word of Allah better than the Qur’an.”

Excerpted, with slight modifications, from: www.pakistanlink.com

You can also read:



Naught Is as His likeness!



Pronoun ‘He’ Referring to Allah in the Qur’an



The Pronoun ‘We’ Referring to Allah in the Qur’an



If you are still in need of more information, don't hesitate to contact us. Do keep in touch. May Allah guide us all to the straight path!

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/S...=1119503547114


this should take care of it.. I am in no mood for a 15 page argument.

[جوري]

And another, seems all minds think alike?
Anyhow you have more Q's I suggest you navigate through the website -- I am sure everything you think of has been thought of and answered
cheers

Name of Questioner


Maryam - Qatar


Title


Naught Is as His likeness!


Question


As-Salamu `Alaykum. Most people imagine Allah to have a certain form or image and to be in a particular place. Is this belief correct? What does Islam tell us about the appearance or physical attributes of Allah Almighty, and His place?


Date


20/Jun/2002


Name of Counsellor


Islam Online Fatwa Editing Desk


Topic


Muslim Belief



Answer


Wa`alaykum As-Salaamu Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh.

In The Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.

Dear sister in Islam, thank you very much for having confidence in us, and we hope our efforts, which are purely for Allah's Sake, meet your expectations.

First of all, we would like to stress the fact that, every committed Muslim should have a firm belief that Allah Almighty is UNIQUE in everything. There is no resemblance between Allah, the Creator and His creation. Referring to this, Allah Almighty says: "Naught is as His likeness; and He is the Hearer, the Seer." (Ash-Shura: 11)

Also, one should be aware of the perverted ideas promoted by non-Muslims in this regard. In addition, every Muslim has to be aware of the snares of the Satan, and to avoid any wishful thinking concerning such issues that do more harm to the minds of Muslims than benefiting them.

In his response to the question, Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi, former president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), states the following:

"Allah, Glorified be He, is not something abstract. The Qur'an describes Him as a Personal Being with face, eyes, hands. He sees, hears, speaks, sits on the throne, likes and dislikes, loves and hates, certain things please Him and certain things displease Him and make Him angry. All these descriptions are in the Qur'an. Thus Allah certainly has an image or Surah.

We, Muslims, believe in and accept all that Allah has told us about Himself. But we do not say "how".

In Islamic theology this is called 'Bila Kayf' or 'without how.' Thus, we accept that Allah has face, hands and eyes, but we do not make a picture or an image of them. Allah Almigty says:""Naught is as His likeness; and He is the Hearer, the Seer." (Ash-Shura: 11). He Almighty also says: "There is none equal to Him." (Al-Ikhlas :4)

It is acceptable in Islam to say that Allah is above or to raise one's head or hands towards the heaven to pray to Allah. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, went to the heavens in his Mi`raj and there Allah spoke to him. The “above” signifies the greatness, honor and glory of Allah. However Allah is not limited and confined to any particular place. His knowledge encompasses everything.

The Qur'an also tells us that He is very close to us. Allah Almighty also says: "…and He is with you wheresoever ye may be. And Allah is Seer of what ye do." (Al-Hadid: 4)"

Moreover, Dr. `Abdur-Raziq Muhammad Fadl at Al-Azhar University, adds:

"There are limits to what our mortal minds can grasp, in the sense that we will surely go astray if we give free rein to our thinking about Allah. A Muslim has to keep in mind that what applies to Allah do not apply to His Creatures. Allah Almighty says, "Vision comprehendeth Him not, but He comprehendeth (all) vision. He is the Subtle, the Aware." (Al-An`aam: 102)

Elaborating more on this, Sheikh Muhammad Saleh Al-Munajjid, the well known Saudi Islamic lecturer and author, states:

"The people of Ahl As-Sunnah Wal Jama`ah believe that Allah is exalted above His creation. This is based on the evidence from the Qur'an, Sunnah, consensus of the scholars, common sense and man's innate instinct or Fitrah

The Qur'an:

The Qur`an describes the "exaltedness" or "highness" of Allah in different ways, as His being High and Above, and by describing how things come down from Him, and go up to Him, and by stating that He is above heaven. For example, Allah Almighty says: ". . .and He is the Most High, the Most Great." (Al-Baqarah : 255)

He Almighty also says: "Glorify the Name of your Lord, the Most High." (Al-A'la:1)

The Sunnah:

Many authentic reports state that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, used to say "Subhana Rabbi Al-A'la or "Glory be to my Lord Most High" in sujood, and in some Hadiths he is reported to have said "By Allah Who is above the Throne."

Among his deeds is the gesture of pointing up with his finger, when addressing the people in the greatest gathering, on the Day of 'Arafah during his Farewell Pilgrimage. He asked the people, "Have I conveyed the message?" and they said, "Yes, you have." He asked again, "Have I conveyed the message?" and they said, "Yes, you have ". He asked a third time, have I conveyed the message?" and they said "Yes, you have!" Each time, he said: "O Allah, bear witness!". He said so while pointing up to the sky and then at the people.

The Prophet also used to raise his hands towards heaven when he made Du`a, as it’s reported in tens of Hadiths. This also confirms the fact that Allah is Exalted and High.

An example of an approval of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon Him, which indicates that Allah is Exalted and High is the Hadith concerning the young slave girl, to whom the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon Him, said: "Where is Allah?" She said: "In heaven" He asked, "Who am I?" She said, "The Messenger of Allah." So he said to her master: "Set her free, for she is a believer." This young girl, though uneducated and a slave, knew that her Lord is above heaven.

Common Sense:

Highness is a quality which is associated in people's minds with perfection. If this is the case, then it should be attributed to Allah because every absolute perfection should be attributed to Him."

The above quotation is excerpted with slight modifications from www.Islam-qa.com

Finally, it’s clear that Allah Almighty is Omnipresent, though our mortal minds fall short to grasp His Divine Presence. But we have to bear in mind that He is the Creator of physical space and time, He is All-Knowing of every single millimeter in the entire universe.

If you have any further comments, please don't hesitate to write back!

May Allah guide you to the straight path, and guide you to that which pleases Him, Amen

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/S...=1119503543204

[Grace Seeker]

do go on if you don't mind,
so when the son was human he was jesus, a human but still part of the trinity.
so still god was partially in our image since a persona was in human likeness?

If you take a picture of yourself in a mirror, is the photo image that develops proof that we are made in the image of what one sees in the mirror, or that mirror is an image reflective of who we actually are?

You might also recall that the part of humanity that is created in God's image is not our physical body, but that we among all of God's creation have a spiritual nature. Jesus' had a very human nature including human will, but his spiritual nature was fully divine in essence.

[Grace Seeker]

I'd disagree, (i know...please dont die of shock about that! :D )

God we are Told is a jealous God, he is a planner/schemer and likes the smell of burnt sacrifices to him/her/it. He feels hate, he feels love he feels anger, revenge and indignation. These are all human emotions, the emotions of sentinent beings shared by many animals. They are often morally based, curiously identical to the morals of 3000 year old desert dewelling tribes.
We have "In the eyes" of God, by the "Hand of God", Moses sees the "face of god" and the "back of god".

This leads us to two possibilities
1) Man made God in his image
2) God made man in his image

Barney, I think you do have a point. There is a part of every man that seeks to understand that which is outside of our experience. So, when we a little child sees to dogs sniffing noses, the closest thing they can think of to that in their own lives is people kissing. So, regardless that the dogs are doing it for some completely other purpose, the child says that the dogs are kissing.

Now, while the Qur'an was dictated, the Bible was not. (Or at least I don't believe so, I know that some Christians do.) And that means that there is some room for the human element to express itself, perhaps even with false conclusions. In trying to express the inexpressable, they returned to that which was familiar to them, and so we find the highest aspects of human society used to speak of God. And in so doing we have imagined God to be like us, even though we know that he is not. But it is easier to speak of God seeing, hearing, emoting, and of God's hand, his heart, his body part because these emtions and body parts are what we know. I think we need to understand that such language falls short of the glory of God, it only hints at the reality behind the curtain. And if we look behind the curtain as our eyes are capable of seeing is another one like ourselves. But make no mistake about it, God is much bigger than what we can imagine. So it isn't so much that we create God in our image, for we don't create God at all. But because our imaginations are so limited we cannot think of a being that lives outside of time and space in which we have lived all of our lives, so we do imagine him like us as a being trapped in space and time, perhaps some even create a physical picture of an old man with a long beard in our image and then tend to speak of him that way. In that we are not able to truly conceive of God as he actually is and substitute that which we know of our own lives for his, we are all guilty of anthropomorphizing.

[barney]

Barney, I think you do have a point. There is a part of every man that seeks to understand that which is outside of our experience. ......... .

Excellent points as usual.

I dunno If Skye was responding to my post about "hate" and "revenge", I certainly diddnt see anything that addressed the arabic translation, just more cut,n, paste of some scholors ideas. Probably addressing another post.

Offer is still open for an Arabic speaker to translate the words.

[جوري]

It addresses the so-called human qualities of God.. if you don't want a scholarly reply that is your prerogative. But that is the best on the subject, you are welcome not to read it but fill ten pages worth of your own renditions.

Until such a time you are fluent in Arabic with enough dexterity to distinguish between having an innate emotion in lieu of warning with aversion towards, can we have this discussion one on one.

cheers

[alcurad]

If you take a picture of yourself in a mirror, is the photo image that develops proof that we are made in the image of what one sees in the mirror, or that mirror is an image reflective of who we actually are?

wouldn't it be both?

You might also recall that the part of humanity that is created in God's image is not our physical body, but that we among all of God's creation have a spiritual nature. Jesus' had a very human nature including human will, but his spiritual nature was fully divine in essence.

we're all part of the trinity then, since we all have souls that are divine in essence.
oh and what about Jesus's human nature, was that also part of the trinity?
if so, then still that means...but this is getting repetitive.

[Grace Seeker]

wouldn't it be both?

The intent of my question is to show that there is an original and then there are copies. Though the two may bear remarkable likeness to each other, the process of image making goes only in one direction.

we're all part of the trinity then, since we all have souls that are divine in essence.
oh and what about Jesus's human nature, was that also part of the trinity?
if so, then still that means...but this is getting repetitive.

No, the human soul is created in the image of God, but it is not of the same essence or substance as God himself is any more than a photographic which is in our image is of the same substance that you and I are. Jesus human body was corruptable, so was his will. He had to submit himself to the Father's will just as any other person does. But just as our bodies today are the temple of God's spirit, so Jesus' body incarnated the divine essence within it and thus he had two natures in his one person.

Now, since you previously asked me to go on, I shall. But I fear, nay expect, that I shall raise as many questions as I provide answers.

Saying that Christ has two natures is likely to be confusing if you have never considered that possibility before. Obviously you and I don't have two natures. And we don't even like people who are what we popularly call double-minded, saying first one thing and then doing another. So, it might be hard to relate to Christ being like this. But all that we are saying is that Jesus was both divine and human. The question you are asking now is really about the relationship between those two natures. So, let me first give some of the scriptural references that relate to this:

John 1

1 In the beginning the Word already existed.
The Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
2 He existed in the beginning with God.
3 God created everything through him,
and nothing was created except through him.
4 The Word gave life to everything that was created,
and his life brought light to everyone.
5 The light shines in the darkness,
and the darkness can never extinguish it.
6 God sent a man, John the Baptist, 7 to tell about the light so that everyone might believe because of his testimony. 8 John himself was not the light; he was simply a witness to tell about the light. 9 The one who is the true light, who gives light to everyone, was coming into the world.

10 He came into the very world he created, but the world didn’t recognize him. 11 He came to his own people, and even they rejected him. 12 But to all who believed him and accepted him, he gave the right to become children of God. 13 They are reborn—not with a physical birth resulting from human passion or plan, but a birth that comes from God.

14 So the Word became human and made his home among us. He was full of unfailing love and faithfulness. And we have seen his glory, the glory of the Father’s one and only Son.

In Christian belief the divine and human natures in Christ are neither mixed together producing some sort of hybrid (like yellow and blue make green, which is itself neither yellow nor blue), nor are the two natures divided from one another, each remote from and unaffected by their union. There are, not surprising heresieis that have arisen even within the Church, suggesting both extremes.

As you see in John, the Word (another name for the pre-incarnate Christ) was made flesh and dwelled among us. By this we understand that the uncreated divine nature, which we glorify in giving glory to the divine persons of the Trinity, becomes wedded to our human nature in the incarnation. (Of course I don't expect you to accept this, it is shirk to Muslims, I'm just explaining where Christians are coming from.)

So, Jesus must be viewed as a whole person, not as two halfs. But there is still a distinction between God and man in Christ. One of the early church father, Cyril of Alexandria, declared, "[Christ's] human nature was in no way confused with or subsumed into the divinity. [Yet] one could speak in terms of 'two natures' so long as this did not detract in anyway from the perfection of the union.

In time an ecumenical council was called, The Council of Chalcedon, which made the statement on the hypostatic union of the two natures in Christ that the church still adheres to -- that perfect divinity and perfect humanity are united in Christ "without confusion, without change, and without separation." Christ's humanity is not absorbed into his divinity, if that is what you are asking with regard to whether or not Christ's human nature was also a part of the Trinity. If that would happen with Christ it would mean that we too would be no long exist with our humanity intact when we ourselves meet God. So the divine does not overpower either our humanity nor that of Christ. We still continue to exist as humans even after joining with God through Jesus Christ, both on earth and in heaven. Jesus remained fully human as well, even as he was also fully God.

[Hamayun]

So is it that Christians never sin due to having the Essence of Christ in them? Or is it that you can sin without worrying about being punished because you got Christ to make up for them?

[Hamayun]

No, the human soul is created in the image of God, but it is not of the same essence or substance as God himself is any more than a photographic which is in our image is of the same substance that you and I are. Jesus human body was corruptable, so was his will. He had to submit himself to the Father's will just as any other person does. But just as our bodies today are the temple of God's spirit, so Jesus' body incarnated the divine essence within it and thus he had two natures in his one person.

Now, since you previously asked me to go, I shall. But I fear, nay expect, that I shall raise as many questions as I provide answers.

Saying that Christ has two natures is likely to be confusing if you have never considered that possibility before. Obviously you and I don't have two natures. And we don't even like people who are what we popularly call double-minded, saying first one thing and then doing another. So, it might be hard to relate to Christ being like this. But all that we are saying is that Jesus was both divine and human. The question you are asking now is really about the relationship between those two natures. So, let me first give some of the scriptural references that relate to this:



In Christian belief the divine and human natures in Christ are neither mixed together producing some sort of hybrid (like yellow and blue make green, which is itself neither yellow nor blue), nor are the two natures divided from one another, each remote from and unaffected by their union. There are, not surprising heresieis that have arisen even within the Church, suggesting both extremes.

As you see in John, the Word (another name for the pre-incarnate Christ) was made flesh and dwelled among us. By this we understand that the uncreated divine nature, which we glorify in giving glory to the divine persons of the Trinity, becomes wedded to our human nature in the incarnation. (Of course I don't expect you to accept this, it is shirk to Muslims, I'm just explaining where Christians are coming from.)

So, Jesus must be viewed as a whole person, not as two halfs. But there is still a distinction between God and man in Christ. One of the early church father, Cyril of Alexandria, declared, "[Christ's] human nature was in no way confused with or subsumed into the divinity. [Yet] one could speak in terms of 'two natures' so long as this did not detract in anyway from the perfection of the union.

In time an ecumenical council was called, The Council of Chalcedon, which made the statement on the hypostatic union of the two natures in Christ that the church still adheres to -- that perfect divinity and perfect humanity are united in Christ "without confusion, without change, and without separation." Christ's humanity is not absorbed into his divinity, if that is what you are asking with regard to whether or not Christ's human nature was also a part of the Trinity. If that would happen with Christ it would mean that we too would be no long exist with our humanity intact when we ourselves meet God. So the divine does not overpower either our humanity nor that of Christ. We still continue to exist as humans even after joining with God through Jesus Christ, both on earth and in heaven. Jesus remained fully human as well, even as he was also fully God.

I wish i could see sense in any of these posts but I fail to do so. With every post your concept of the trinity gets more tangled up and vague...

I am glad I am not in your shoes.

[Grace Seeker]

So is it that Christians never sin due to having the Essence of Christ in them?

No. I hope you didn't here me say this. " If we claim we have no sin, we are only fooling ourselves and not living in the truth." (1 John 1:8)

Or is it that you can sin without worrying about being punished because you got Christ to make up for them?

"But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." (1 John 2:1b-2)

[Grace Seeker]

I wish i could see sense in any of these posts but I fail to do so. With every post your concept of the trinity gets more tangled up and vague...

And I apologize for that. It wasn't my intention to confuse anyone, though any time you discuss theology I guess there is always the risk of that. What I shared here was more than just for those who are looking for a quick, casual understanding. It has to do with points of theology that Christians themselves debated amongst one another for a couple hundred years. Though the answers have been consistent over that time, there are still those who raise this issues. Alcurad has been asking good questions showing understanding of the previous points, this post was to provide him the "more" he had been asking for.

I am glad I am not in your shoes.

I imagine you wouldn't find them comfortable. But in a nutshell, the Trinity hinges on understanding that God did indeed walk in our shoes.

Please don't hear that as a second God, but as the one and only God. But that even as God did this, he was still present in all of the other places that God is as well. Walking in our shoes did not in any way diminishes the Father's capacity to be God or the Holy Spirit's capacity to be God. Only the Son was limited to space and time has he put on human flesh, and walked in our shoes. For that reason he did all of the things that we humans do. He ate, drank, wept, slept, and also prayed. When he prayed it was not praying to himself, he was praying to his Father who remained God, and to whom he submitted his own will. Though he now had both a divine and human nature in one person, the essence of his divine nature did not change, he still fully shared in the divine essence, even as he submitted to limit his experience and expression of his divine nature to be joined to a human nature. However, Jesus's life also showed us the true potentiality for human beings when we fully live within the divine will of the Father. By the power of God active in our lives we too can and should do the miracles that Jesus is recorded to have done. He did these miracles not based on his own power in having a divine nature, but in the power of God that is available to everyone who allows the Spirit of God to be instrumental in his/her life.

[alcurad]

thanks Grace Seeker, and I think I'll leave it at that for now,
I appreciate your answers & patience.

[barney]

It has to do with points of theology that Christians themselves debated amongst one another for a couple hundred years. Though the answers have been consistent over that time, there are still those who raise this issues. .

There was a lot of confusion about what was going to go into christianity as you say.
Since it is a given that the passing of time will not make anything truer, nor that mass beleif is in itself proof without evidence,how does the church know that what it decided upon was the "correct" story?

[Grace Seeker]

There was a lot of confusion about what was going to go into christianity as you say.
Since it is a given that the passing of time will not make anything truer, nor that mass beleif is in itself proof without evidence,how does the church know that what it decided upon was the "correct" story?

Fair enough question. And not to be "smart", but the answer might depend on what you mean by "the church" and "know."

[barney]

And in the words of President Clinton, What do i mean by "Is" :D

By the Church I mean the thousand of splinter groups that seem to feel they have a dircet and wholly correct line straight to the creator of the universe who is telling them, through "feelings" and thoughts or even voices in their heads what the actual truth is about this poor old chap who lived a handful of centuries ago, who nobody seems to know anything about, but everyone is convinced they do.

By "Know" I mean have enough measurable or sufficent case for to personally beleive something that is defensible against the larger populatio.....ahhh crud! I just destroyed Atheism. Scrap that.

By Know, I mean for something not to involve talking snakes, donkeys, flying horses or gods that cant do anything when they promise they can do evrything.

My daughter loves My Little Ponys. The pegasus ponies especially. They dont exist and she dosnt actually believe they do, in real life.
But she has scripture, the books.
The Eyewitness accounts, (videos) and deep and far reaching theology. (ancient texts on flying girl horses, from Pegasus to the Revalations to Hercules to Nights journey)

Now explain why My Little Ponys, "Starcatcher" is not a real flying horse?

[alcurad]

most of what I got from that post was barney loves dolls:)

but really barney, people first believe in the basics ie. god created everything, he knows everything etc then comes belief in miracles and the rest.

btw how agnostic are you?

[Grace Seeker]

Barney, a friend of mine asked me to day how to deal with her son (age 7) who is waking up at night with night terrors. He things that there are monsters and that turning the light on will keep them away. I told her that she has to realize that the monster is real to her son. He has one plan on how to defeat the monster, if she doesn't like that plan, then as the parent she needs to help him come up with a different one. One place might be to begin talking about the monster during the day time and let him devise his plan of attack before the monster show up again. Becaues whether she believes in it or not, he "knows" that there is a monster. Just like my brother "knew" the Cubs were going to win the World Series this year. And you "know" that your wife is faithful.