/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Easy Target: Possible Analogies for Uncreated Triune Being



YieldedOne
05-15-2011, 12:52 PM
This was originally on the "Immortal/Immortal" thread...but I figured, in the interest of not derailing that other one, I'd post this as a new thread. I called this thread "Easy Target" cause I figure these can be shot down somehow...;D Anyways, let's do it...

-------------------------

Two Possible analogies for the One Uncreated "Tri-Hypostatic Subject"*, YHWH (God):

1)
God the Father: Speaker
God The Father's Self-Expressive Word: Spoken Word
God The Father's Spirit: Speaker's Breath/Voice

One cannot imagine an audibly heard speaker with no voice or no words. They would not then be "speakers". Equally, you couldn't conceive of hearing a spoken word with no voice or speaker. Equally, you couldn't conceive of the reality of "voice" without some USER of the voice or an expression of that voice, as in spoken words. The one act of speaking is actually TRIUNE...for all 3 aspects are needed for a person to AUTHENTICALLY be a speaker.


2)
God the Father: Subject (Conversation Intiator)
God the Father's Self-Image: Self (Conversation Receiver/Responder)
God The Father's Spirit: Subject/Self Relationship (Conversation Witness/Empowerer)

This is simply that ability to have inner dialogue within oneself. To relate oneself to oneself...and, in so relating, relate oneself to that relation. (This is how Soren Kierkegaard talked about it. Great guy.) In this, the one act of self-knowing and/or self-communication has 3 aspects that are necessary for it to authentically be called a RELATIONSHIP within the self. An aspect of self-other interaction that sentient consciousness itself is wired for as a "self." This is how personal integrity (or lack thereof) is experienced by self-relational beings.

Just throwin' those out there.

Are those coherently understandable? Just wanna know...

And just so it's understood, these analogies go exactly with HOW the trinitarian "movement" is understood in Christianity, I'd say. That is, God the Father is the "source/origin" of the one triune activity, and is NEVER WITHOUT his Self-Expressive Word and Self-Empowering Spirit in that activity. God, His Word, and His Spirit are all necessary aspects of the ONE uncreated, eternal activity of Divine Self-Knowledge and Self-Expression. And that's the thing: to KNOW God is to LOVE God. So his Eternal Self-Knowledge IS Eternal Loving Self-Communion.

*An Eastern Orthodox theologian I read used that term, and I've loved it ever since: God as "Tri-Hypostatic" Subject and Creator.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Now, here are my questions...for anyone of any faith.

1) Are these analogies meaningful and coherent?

2) Are these analogical concepts logically viable within a simple monotheistic framework? (Note this is NOT asking what allowable for a particular religious context, Islamic or otherwise. This is asking about logical viability of the concepts given the belief in a singular, uncreated personal reality who originates Creation.)
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Ramadhan
05-15-2011, 01:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
1) Are these analogies meaningful and coherent?
Your analogies are fallacies and they are neither meaningful nor coherent because you try to anthropomorphize God. I understand that it is not possible for you NOT to anthropomorphize God because the foundation of your creed is a God who incarnated as a human.

format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
2) Are these analogical concepts logically viable within a simple monotheistic framework? (Note this is NOT asking what allowable for a particular religious context, Islamic or otherwise. This is asking about logical viability of the concepts given the belief in a singular, uncreated personal reality who originates Creation.)
Umm.. still no. We follow monotheism that has been revealed to us by God (SWT) in the Qur'an and it is a simple true monotheistic framework: God who has no need for anything.
Your "model" force God to require other uncreated beings to do His actions. Thats not monotheism.

Have you not learned anything, YO?
No matter how sly you are and how hard you try to divert us muslims from tawheed, it NEVER works, so you might as well give up on trying to convince us that there are other divine beings but Allah SWT.

And I don't know what brand of trinity you follow, but your model of trinity is certainly not shared by Grace Seeker or Sol Invictus, no matter how Sol has been trying to lie through his teeth to convince the rest of us that you guys have no disagreement on your brands of trinity. LOL.
Reply

YieldedOne
05-15-2011, 01:52 PM
Thoughts:

1) If the One God is a self-relational being, then he can take 3 distinct perspectives within His own personal being, via his own inner self-relating communication.

Reposting from the other thread...

A completely monadic view of God cannot self-relate or self-communicate sans Creation. The only way for God-as-monad to interrelate would be for a Creation to exist. On the other hand, if God is NOT an absolute monad, that God would be seen to have the capacity to relate Himself to His self-reflected self-understanding...and relate Himself to that relationship. In other words, God would be able to initiate communication and expression to Himself, listen and respond to His initiated communication, and also take a persepctive witnessing and empowering the whole "inner conversation" going on within Himself. As I've said before, this is analogous to what we see in human beings who has the ability for "conscience" (relating oneself to oneself in integrity) and engagement in inner conversation with themselves. This is how we are able to say that ONE person can take THREE personal perspectives via their own inner self-relating dialogue. (Subject, Self, Subject/Self Relationship) We don't say that the diversity of distinctions equal division or separateness...nor do we say that it eliminates the oneness of the being in whom the inner self-relating dialogue is taking place.



2) It appears allowable in monotheism to have a "diversity of distinction" within the unique, indivisible whole that is God. Primarily this diversity of distinction could deal with the necessary "attributes" needed for God to be a self-relational being. Unless a person wants to say that God eternally having self-relational communion with Himself is inherently some form of idolatry or improper association, I don't see how tri-hypostaticity in God--ala God's uncreated self-communication sans Creation--is a problem to the oneness of God.
Reply

YieldedOne
05-15-2011, 02:05 PM
Naidamar:
Your analogies are fallacies and they are neither meaningful nor coherent because you try to anthropomorphize God.

Please show me EXACTLY how I am anthropomorphizing God. EXACTLY. All I'm claiming here is that God has to ability to be self-relational as personal being that is ANALOGOUS to what we see in ourselves. That is not the same thing as anthropomorphizing. Unless you are going to say that God is in no way a personal being who can know himself and express himself, his thoughts and desires as personal being, I don't see what you are talking about. The very fact that God created because he WANTED to intentionally...and willingly communicates with his Creation demonstrates his selfhood, don't you think? There's no anthropomophizing there.

***************************

Naidamar:
Umm.. still no. We follow monotheism that has been revealed to us by God (SWT) in the Qur'an and it is a simple true monotheistic framework: God who has no need for anything.
Your "model" force God to require other uncreated beings to do His actions. Thats not monotheism.

I think you are mistaking things. My model doesn't "force" God to do anything. It merely postulates that God has the ability to self-relate with any Creation.

*****************************

Naidamar:
Have you not learned anything, YO?
No matter how sly you are and how hard you try to divert us muslims from tawheed, it NEVER works, so you might as well give up on trying to convince us that there are other divine beings but Allah SWT.

Sly. Right. ^o)

Anyways, Siam implied on the other thread that Tawhid was NOT monadic. I took this to mean that Tawhid DIDN'T eliminate the possibility of God eternally self-relating.


***************************

Naidamar:
And I don't know what brand of trinity you follow, but your model of trinity is certainly not shared by Grace Seeker or Sol Invictus, no matter how Sol has been trying to lie through his teeth to convince the rest of us that you guys have no disagreement on your brands of trinity. LOL.


If you notice, I posed my analogies to EVERYONE, including GraceSeeker and Sol. Christian. Muslim. Jew. Buddhist. Hindu. I don't care. I'm looking for feedback from all.

Actually, I SPECIFICALLY asked GraceSeeker AND Woodrow what they thought. I'm still waiting for their responses.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
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
YieldedOne
05-15-2011, 02:07 PM
One thing that I keep hearing here is this: Allah does whatever he pleases and Allah "knows best."

For these statements to have ANY REAL MEANING AT ALL, we cannot say that God is absolutely IMpersonal. That wouldn't make any sense.

You can't have it both ways. Either Allah is a knowledgeable, intentional, speaking being (what we would term "personal" )...or not.
Reply

Ramadhan
05-15-2011, 02:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
Please show me EXACTLY how I am anthropomorphizing God. EXACTLY. All I'm claiming here is that God has to ability to be self-relational as personal being that is ANALOGOUS to what we see in ourselves. That is not the same thing as anthropomorphizing.
This:

format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
One cannot imagine an audibly heard speaker with no voice or no words. They would not then be "speakers". Equally, you couldn't conceive of hearing a spoken word with no voice or speaker. Equally, you couldn't conceive of the reality of "voice" without some USER of the voice or an expression of that voice, as in spoken words. The one act of speaking is actually TRIUNE...for all 3 aspects are needed for a person to AUTHENTICALLY be a speaker.
Clearly you put conditions on the All Powerful God, that God needs spoken words and breath be able to function. Humans need breath to be able to speak, God does NOT. You already put the conditions that God needs other uncreated beings to do His actions.
And if you can't see that you are putting human conditions on God, that is your problem.

format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
I think you are mistaking things. My model doesn't "force" God to do anything. It merely postulates that God has the ability to self-relate with any Creation.
Except you didn't do that. You postulate that God cannot relate with creation unless He has the help of uncreated divine beings (ie. the son and the holy spirit, although here you call them "spoken word" and "breath" to make it palatable for us, which is laughable, no muslim would agree to believe that God needs words and breath, so you should just save yourself).

Why is it that christians always try to make their own theories about God, instead of relying on their own scripture?
Is it because there's very little Jesus' direct sayings in the bible and if they are there, they are contradictory and confusing that force christians to always come up with all these far out tehories about God?
Reply

Ramadhan
05-15-2011, 02:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
Allah "knows best."
The term " Allah knows best" because Allah SWT has ALL knowledge.

Although I understand that christians dislike the term and disagree that God has all knowledge, since Jesus didn't even know whether he was going to be saved or not.
Reply

YieldedOne
05-15-2011, 02:30 PM
Naidamar:
Clearly you put conditions on the All Powerful God, that God needs spoken words and breath be able to function. Humans need breath to be able to speak, God does NOT. You already put the conditions that God needs other uncreated beings to do His actions.
And if you can't see that you are putting human conditions on God, that is your problem.

Wow. You really missed the point of that one. If you are thinking that the point of that particular analogy was to say that God needs to literally breathe to speak literal words, you are VERY way off. The point of that one is to describe how a single activity can be necessarily triune. In other words, the act of speaking necessarily has 3 aspects that have to be there for the ONE act to be what it is. Simply, it's an analogy that shows the coherency of the idea of a necessarily truine event/activity. That's what that one is centrally meant to convey.

Now, to be sure, the analogy does go right along with the Jewish ideas of God, His Word/Memra, and His Spirit. But that's just icing on the cake.


*****************************
Naidamar:
You postulate that God cannot relate with creation unless He has the help of uncreated divine beings (ie. the son and the holy spirit, although here you call them "spoken word" and "breath" to make it palatable for us, which is laughable, no muslim would agree to believe that God needs words and breath, so you should just save yourself).

No. I centrally postulate that it is MEANINGFUL to say that God can commune with Himself such that inner self-communication occurs. If we have reason to believe that God is a PERSONAL BEING, then this is not some unreasonable postulation.


********************************
Naidamar:
Why is it that christians always try to make their own theories about God, instead of relying on their own scripture?


I could make a very scriptural case for the idea of the God's Word being eternally WITH God and being uncreated AS God. I could also make a scriptural case that God does all things by his Word and Spirit. But you won't accept any of it...so why bother?


*********************************

Naidamar:
Is it because there's very little Jesus' direct sayings in the bible and if they are there, they are contradictory and confusing that force christians to always come up with all these far out tehories about God?

Dude, can you just focus on the analogies and my questions? Again, we can't do this Scripturally because I'll do that...and then you'll just say something about tahrif...and there we go again.
Reply

YieldedOne
05-15-2011, 02:35 PM
Naidamar:
The term " Allah knows best" because Allah SWT has ALL knowledge.
Although I understand that christians dislike the term and disagree that God has all knowledge, since Jesus didn't even know whether he was going to be saved or not.


You seem to be missing the point in spectacular form. Saying that Allah has ALL knowledge is to say that He is a KNOWER. God's knowledge is a PERSONAL affair. Why? Because God can USE his knowledge of all things to do INTENTIONAL activity in a teleological way. Only personal beings can do that.

Is God personal or IMpersonal? And please don't be silly and say "Neither". It makes sense to say that God is SUPRA-personal (transcending, yet including selfhood), but not IMpersonal (having no selfhood capability at all.)

AH! I've GOT it!!!

Is it true that God communicated his intentions with Abraham? Can an IMPERSONAL reality communicate intentions meaningfully with a person?

THAT should answer the question right there! :D
Reply

Ramadhan
05-15-2011, 02:59 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
Wow. You really missed the point of that one. If you are thinking that the point of that particular analogy was to say that God needs to literally breathe to speak literal words, you are VERY way off. The point of that one is to describe how a single activity can be necessarily triune. In other words, the act of speaking necessarily has 3 aspects that have to be there for the ONE act to be what it is. Simply, it's an analogy that shows the coherency of the idea of a necessarily truine event/activity. That's what that one is centrally meant to convey.
Were you describing a human activity?
if yes, then my answer yes of course it is possible.

However, you were describing GOD.

Hence I called you out on you anthropomorphizing God.

format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
Now, to be sure, the analogy does go right along with the Jewish ideas of God, His Word/Memra, and His Spirit. But that's just icing on the cake.
You guys have created tons of analogies for triune God. Some are more hillarious than others, yours is a boring one, sorry to say.

And by the way, there's no knowledgeable jew in this forum, so we can't verify your theory about jewish ideas of God.

format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
No. I centrally postulate that it is MEANINGFUL to say that God can commune with Himself such that inner self-communication occurs. If we have reason to believe that God is a PERSONAL BEING, then this is not some unreasonable postulation.
Your postulation of God sounds more and more like a schizophrenic God.
It is up to you to believe such thing if it appeals to your desire.

format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
I could make a very scriptural case for the idea of the God's Word being eternally WITH God and being uncreated AS God. I could also make a scriptural case that God does all things by his Word and Spirit. But you won't accept any of it...so why bother?
And I will get you the many of Jesus own sayings in the gospels how he is not God. Do you christians accept only parts of your own scripture and reject others which do not appeal to your own models of God?

I said "models" in plural form because christians do not even agree what constitute God and some even reject triune God altogether,.
Reply

Ramadhan
05-15-2011, 03:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
You seem to be missing the point in spectacular form. Saying that Allah has ALL knowledge is to say that He is a KNOWER. God's knowledge is a PERSONAL affair. Why? Because God can USE his knowledge of all things to do INTENTIONAL activity in a teleological way. Only personal beings can do that.
I don't want to argue with you about what is personal and impersonal because my command of english is not that great and I'm concerned I will come to misunderstandings about what is personal and impersonal.
Interestingly, you are only interested in the legalities and twisting meaning of words and sidetepping the huge elephant staring at you in the eye:

that Christians do not believe in the God who is all knowing.

:D
Reply

Ramadhan
05-15-2011, 03:12 PM
In fact, it is one of the fundamental differences between Islam and christianity:

In Islam, we believe in God who is all-knowing, while christianity do not believe that all-knowing is an attribute of God.
Reply

YieldedOne
05-15-2011, 03:16 PM
Naidamar:
Hence I called you out on you anthropomorphizing God.

You haven't described what you think "anthropomorphizing" even IS. How can you call me out on it?

Does it anthropomorphize God to say that God has thoughts and intentions that he communicates to others?

Does it anthropomorphize God to say that God knows Himself?

********************************

Naidamar:
And by the way, there's no knowledgeable jew in this forum, so we can't verify your theory about jewish ideas of God.

WHERE'S BOAZ? He'll do just fine. He's Jewish and on this board. If you don't want to do that, then simply look around the Internet. All the info you need is there!

**********************************

Naidamar:
Your postulation of God sounds more and more like a schizophrenic God.


Do you even know what schizophrenic means? Seriously. Can you tell me WHAT it means? I'd really like to know what you say. Once we have that, THEN we will compare that definition to what it means to be self-relational.

******************************

Naidamar:
And I will get you the many of Jesus own sayings in the gospels how he is not God. Do you christians accept only parts of your own scripture and reject others which do not appeal to your own models of God?

Oh, please. I'll show you WHY I don't even want to go there.

“Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

or...

"Before Abraham was, I am!"

Now, let's see if my theory about what you're gonna say is true...

*******************************

Naidamar:
I don't want to argue with you about what is personal and impersonal because my command of english is not that great and I'm concerned I will come to misunderstandings about what is personal and impersonal.Interestingly, you are only interested in the legalities and twisting meaning of words and sidetepping the huge elephant staring at you in the eye: that Christians do not believe in the God who is all knowing.


Um...you MUST be joking. You don't need a command of the english language to tell whether or not God actually communicated his intentions to Abraham. That's a simple question! You can use the words "schizophrenic" and "anthropomorphism" meaningfully in sentences, but CANNOT answer a simple question about whether of not God is IMpersonal????

Oh, come ON now...:hmm:
Reply

YieldedOne
05-15-2011, 03:19 PM
Naidamar:
In Islam, we believe in God who is all-knowing, while christianity do not believe that all-knowing is an attribute of God.

Whatever, bro. One thing we should BOTH be able to agree upon is this: God knows Himself perfectly. Both Muslims AND Christians should be able to say that. Now, can an IMPERSONAL being have self-knowledge for the sake of self-expression??

This is SOOOOOOOOO not a hard question. Jeez.
Reply

Ramadhan
05-15-2011, 04:00 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
Does it anthropomorphize God to say that God has thoughts and intentions that he communicates to others? Does it anthropomorphize God to say that God knows Himself?
You know that this is not what you were saying, YO. Can't you just once be honest with yourself? :D

let me copy and paste from your first post again:

format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
One cannot imagine an audibly heard speaker with no voice or no words. They would not then be "speakers". Equally, you couldn't conceive of hearing a spoken word with no voice or speaker. Equally, you couldn't conceive of the reality of "voice" without some USER of the voice or an expression of that voice, as in spoken words. The one act of speaking is actually TRIUNE...for all 3 aspects are needed for a person to AUTHENTICALLY be a speaker.
format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
WHERE'S BOAZ? He'll do just fine. He's Jewish and on this board. If you don't want to do that, then simply look around the Internet. All the info you need is there!
So you think I can also ask Hiroshi about christianity creed/theology? He's christian and he's on this board.
What say you, YO?
All the info we need about christianity is with Hiroshi.

Oh by the way, if you have not acquainted or introduced with Hiroshi yet, he reads NWT bible
:D

format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
Do you even know what schizophrenic means? Seriously. Can you tell me WHAT it means? I'd really like to know what you say. Once we have that, THEN we will compare that definition to what it means to be self-relational.
You postulate a God who commune and talk with Himself and have three personalities. That's schizophrenic.

format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
“Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.
Before we start to dissect this particular verse, can you please give me the actual words of Jesus (in first century aramaic, most likely) because I am concerned that something was lost in translation.

format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
"Before Abraham was, I am!"
Before we start to dissect this particular verse, can you please give me the actual words of Jesus (in first century aramaic, most likely) because I am concerned that something was lost in translation.
Reply

Ramadhan
05-15-2011, 04:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
Whatever, bro. One thing we should BOTH be able to agree upon is this: God knows Himself perfectly.

God knows Himself perfectly but he doesn't know own his creation? how come?

is this a tenet from christianity?

I find that christianity theology is becoming more and more interesting.
Reply

YieldedOne
05-15-2011, 04:17 PM
Naidamar:
You postulate a God who commune and talk with Himself and have three personalities. That's schizophrenic.

1) Yeah. That's exactly what I thought. HERE's a genuine definition of schizophrenia.

2) Psychology Today on "Self-Talk"


According to Thomas Brinthaupt, Ph.D., assistant professor of psychology at Middle Tennessee State University, almost everybody talks to themselves. And no--we are not all crazy. It is unusual not to talk to yourself.

Dude, get informed.


***************************

Naidamar:
Before we start to dissect this particular verse, can you please give me the actual words of Jesus (in first century aramaic, most likely) because I am concerned that something was lost in translation.

Ugh. So, here you play the "you don't have the original Aramaic 'Q' source...so how do we know about the Greek in the original texts" card. This is so cheezy.

If that's what you are going to do (basically throwing up ANY Greek form of Jesus' statements to utter ambiguity unnecessarily)...then don't use ANY of Jesus' attributed statements or words at all for your anti-Christian contentions. Be consistent. Don't try to use Jesus' words to make your case and then deny them when they don't. Especially when you don't even have the academic wherewithal to even try to tell the helpful from non-helpful.

Be consistent, for goodness sakes. :heated:
Reply

YieldedOne
05-15-2011, 04:21 PM
Naidamar:
God knows Himself perfectly but he doesn't know own his creation? how come?

I'm really trying to take you seriously, man. But you are seriously making it difficult. You won't answer my questions and keep bringing in all kinds of red herrings. The idea that both Muslims and Christians say that God perfectly knows himself. Stay on task!
Reply

Ramadhan
05-15-2011, 04:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
According to Thomas Brinthaupt, Ph.D., assistant professor of psychology at Middle Tennessee State University, almost everybody talks to themselves. And no--we are not all crazy. It is unusual not to talk to yourself. Dude, get informed.
I underlined your important sentence.
If you think that God is like "almost everybody", then it is your choice, dude.

Muslims believe in God who is not "almost everybody".

And this is the latest example how you keep attributing human personalities to God.

format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
Ugh. So, here you play the "you don't have the original Aramaic 'Q' source...so how do we know about the Greek in the original texts" card. This is so cheezy.
So christians do not think that knowing the ACTUAL words of Jesus (or God, in your case) is important?

Ah, that explains how the outright fabrication of pericope adulterae passage in the gospel of John is accepted, just because "that passage fit into the personality of God", regardless of the complete fabrication.

format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
If that's what you are going to do (basically throwing up ANY Greek form of Jesus' statements to utter ambiguity unnecessarily)...then don't use ANY of Jesus' attributed statements or words at all for your anti-Christian contentions. Be consistent. Don't try to use Jesus' words to make your case and then deny them when they don't. Especially when you don't even have the academic wherewithal to even try to tell the helpful from non-helpful.
As I may have told you, the verses that you come up with seem contradictory and vague, and so it is best that we read the original/actual words, do you not agree?
Reply

Ramadhan
05-15-2011, 04:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
I'm really trying to take you seriously, man. But you are seriously making it difficult. You won't answer my questions and keep bringing in all kinds of red herrings. The idea that both Muslims and Christians say that God perfectly knows himself. Stay on task!
I am afraid you are the one who keeps grabbing on the strawmen.

Muslims believe in God who is all knowing.

Christians do not believe in God who is all knowing.

very clear, right?

Now, my question to you:

Why do christians think that God does not know his own creation?

Please stay on the question, YO.
Reply

YieldedOne
05-15-2011, 04:32 PM
Naidamar,

Until you can answer the question about whether God is impersonal or not, we don't have anything else to talk about. I've tried to be nice enough with engaging you with all your detours. It seems that your english is just fine. :omg:

There are plenty of other threads for you, bro.

Byebye.
Reply

Ramadhan
05-15-2011, 04:39 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
Until you can answer the question about whether God is impersonal or not, we don't have anything else to talk about. I've tried to be nice enough with engaging you with all your detours. It seems that your english is just fine.
YO, I think you forgot that we muslims do not make our own theory about God. We know God (swt) from the attributes that He has revealed in the Qur'an, so yes I cannot answer you about personal/inmpersonal.

I don't think I made a detour, and if I did, I only followed up on your questions and statements.

I have responded to your initial questions you posted in your first posts about analogies of God. It was you who made the detour because you didnt want to accept my answers.

So, I will not get the answer on why christians do not think God knows His own creation? imsad
Reply

YieldedOne
05-15-2011, 05:12 PM
Why do I do this to myself? :skeleton:

Naidamar:
YO, I think you forgot that we muslims do not make our own theory about God. We know God (swt) from the attributes that He has revealed in the Qur'an, so yes I cannot answer you about personal/inmpersonal.


This is so simple, you can't mess this up. You just can't.

1) Here are some of the attributes/names of Allah...

Exceedingly Compassionate
Exceedingly Merciful
Repeatedly Forgiving
The Loving
The Responsive
The Evolver, The Fashioner, The Designer
The Repeatedly Forgiving

Are these PERSONAL traits or IMPERSONAL traits?

Can something that is impersonal forgive someone?
Can something that is impersonal mercy upon another?
Can something that is impersonal have intentionality or act teleologically enough to be a designer?
Can something that is impersonal LOVE someone?


2) YES OR NO:
Did Allah knowingly and intentionally communicate his self-revelation of his attributes to his Prophets, by actively sending his Angel Gabriel to deliver His word to said Prophets?




If you can't answer these things, Naidamar, then we definitely don't have anything else to say to each other on this subject. For real. I just couldn't see how you could have the capacity. Seriously.
Reply

Ramadhan
05-15-2011, 05:33 PM
YO,

Until you can answer the question why christians do not think God is all knowing and why christians think that God is human-like and has the traits of "almost everybody", we don't have anything else to talk about.

If you can't answer these things,YO, then we definitely don't have anything else to say to each other on this subject. For real. I just couldn't see how you could have the capacity. Seriously.
Reply

Ramadhan
05-15-2011, 05:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
Can something that is impersonal forgive someone? Can something that is impersonal mercy upon another? Can something that is impersonal have intentionality or act teleologically enough to be a designer? Can something that is impersonal LOVE someone?
again, you put limits on God to fit human characteristics.

format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
2) YES OR NO: Did Allah knowingly and intentionally communicate his self-revelation of his attributes to his Prophets, by actively sending his Angel Gabriel to deliver His word to said Prophets?
The answer: I don't know.
I cannot claim to know what is in the "mind" of God (to put it in words that you and I can understand), unlike you who have no problem in putting limits on God to need spoken word and breathe.


format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
If you can't answer these things, Naidamar, then we definitely don't have anything else to say to each other on this subject. For real. I just couldn't see how you could have the capacity. Seriously.
Now, I have answered your questions.
So please answer my questions:

1. why do christians not think God is all knowing, and
2. why do christians think that God is limited in his human-like and has the personalities of "almost everybody"?
Reply

YieldedOne
05-15-2011, 05:48 PM
Ok. You and I are done, N.

Peace out.
Reply

Ramadhan
05-15-2011, 06:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
Ok. You and I are done, N. Peace out.
Ah.. it's too bad.
I thought the discussion was just starting to get more interesting.

oh well..
Reply

جوري
05-15-2011, 07:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
Your analogies are fallacies and they are neither meaningful nor coherent because you try to anthropomorphize God.

I'll have to agree with that, I pretty much stopped reading after the first paragraph..
the analogies here can be endless.. we should also introduce Hindu dogma or Greek mythology I don't find that it differs much from Christianity in invalid reasoning and plain fatuity.

:w:
Reply

YieldedOne
05-15-2011, 08:36 PM
Heh. Hi, Lily. Love ya, milady. Allah bless you. You too, Naidamar. You frustrate me at times (but what siblings don't get frustrated with one another from time to time)...at the same time, I deeply respect your desire to honor and respect God. That's keepin' it 100 percent real with you. :D

Who's next? Woodrow. Siam. GraceSeeker. Sol Invictus. MustafaMC.

If any of you are looking at this, you would be doing me a very, very, very, very big favor by responding to this. I'm REALLY trying to get all the feedback on this I can.

I'd be ever so grateful if y'all responded.

Please?
Reply

YieldedOne
05-15-2011, 08:40 PM
Whole thread at a glance
Reply

جوري
05-15-2011, 08:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
Heh. Hi, Lily. Love ya, milady.

why don't you join blackwater? masterful crusaders the UAE has even hired them of late.. your efforts are wasted because the forum expects some semblance of cerebration not crusaders only know one language and believe you me it isn't the language of the pen!

best,
Reply

YieldedOne
05-15-2011, 09:29 PM
Just because.

Naidamar:
why do christians not think God is all knowing?

It is official Christian doctrine that God is omniscient. The Uncreated God immediately and directly knows everything that can be known. Everything.

(Digression: In the attempt to anticipate, this does NOT hold for the human nature of the Incarnate Word of God the Father. So I shouldn't hear any "well, then how can Jesus be God if he wasn't omniscient" nonsense. Hopefully. Christian doctrine doesn't hold that the human reality of Jesus was omniscient. )


**********************************************

Naidamar:
why do christians think that God is limited in his human-like and has the personalities of "almost everybody"?

Christians AND Jews believe that all human beings are created in the image of God. That means that we are EXPECTED to be like God in some ways, because we are created in his image. A main way that it is said that we are in God's image is rational deliberation, freedom of will, and capacity for self-understanding. Again, that's BASIC Jewish and Christian understanding right there. It's not about making God into humanity's image. It's exactly the reverse.
Again, this is STANDARD Jewish and Christian teaching! STANDARD.

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
Genesis 1:26

This "image of God" concept is the only real reason why it's ALLOWABLE to have analogical relationship with God. Of course God is uncreated, infinite, and ultimately unknowable...and as such, is INFINITELY DIFFERENTIATED from anything in His Creation. At the same time, there should be SOME sense of likeness if the concept of the image of God is to have any meaning at all.

Yeah. Just because.

Image of God:
A Note on the Scriptural Anthropology
Muhammad Suheyl Umar
Iqbal Academy, Lahore, Pakistan


A quote...

Imago Dei — God's Vicegerent
Turning to the Islamic tradition we find that the Prophet of Islam also referred to this peculiar characteristic of human beings (a blend of dust and divinity) when he repeated the famous Biblical saying quoted above — a saying that has played an important role in Jewish and Christian understandings of what it means to be human: "God created Adam in his own form"(khlaqa Allahu al-Adama 'ala suratihi). Many authorities understand a similar meaning from the Qur'anic verse, "God taught Adam the name(s), all of them".[35] That is, all things are present in human beings, because God taught them the names or realities of all things.[36]


The human being was created in God's form, embracing all God's attributes. The difference between the whole universe and the human being is that the signs are infinitely dispersed in the universe, while they are concentrated into a single, intense focus in each human individual.
Reply

YieldedOne
05-15-2011, 09:41 PM
Sooooo...

The fact that the ability to "self-talk" (self-relate) is seen in "almost everybody" may be a good reason to think that THIS is a part of the Imago Dei. The metaphor of Self-Relationship is represented in virtually EVERY human context. It's DOCUMENTED. It's just a part of how we are as intrapersonal and interpersonal beings.
Reply

Ramadhan
05-15-2011, 10:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
Just because.
I'm the biggest beneficiary of you eating your own words TWICE. This is my lucky day it seems, so Thank you!

format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
It is official Christian doctrine that God is omniscient. The Uncreated God immediately and directly knows everything that can be known. Everything. (Digression: In the attempt to anticipate, this does NOT hold for the human nature of the Incarnate Word of God the Father. So I shouldn't hear any "well, then how can Jesus be God if he wasn't omniscient" nonsense. Hopefully. Christian doctrine doesn't hold that the human reality of Jesus was omniscient. )
I don't know what you make of Jesus. You said in the other thread that Jesus is not God. But GS and Sol would say Jesus is God, while Hiroshi would refuse flat out that Jesus is God. So you christians need to sort out among your own kinds what you make of Jesus and what kind of God you worship.

This is from your own scripture:
Jesus said: "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. (From the NIV Bible, Matthew 24:36)"
Mark 13:32:
"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

If we take this verse as being true, Jesus was speaking about himself as the Son of God, which is part of the triune God as Christians explain. Summary: either Jesus lied, or a third of God does not know about the future.
Or you can take the path many christians have done: twist the meanings if the words, and reinterpret it to mean that Jesus words have expiry date and does not apply now.

format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
Christians AND Jews believe that all human beings are created in the image of God. That means that we are EXPECTED to be like God in some ways, because we are created in his image. A main way that it is said that we are in God's image is rational deliberation, freedom of will, and capacity for self-understanding. Again, that's BASIC Jewish and Christian understanding right there. It's not about making God into humanity's image. It's exactly the reverse. Again, this is STANDARD Jewish and Christian teaching! STANDARD.
Does this mean God really IS the bearded half naked guy I see on the cross in the churches all over the world?
Do you think jews would agree with that?

format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” Genesis 1:26
Say, "He is Allah , [who is] One,
Allah , the Eternal Refuge.
He neither begets nor is born,
Nor is there to Him any equivalent." (QS. Al Ikhlas)
Reply

Ramadhan
05-15-2011, 10:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
The fact that the ability to "self-talk" (self-relate) is seen in "almost everybody" may be a good reason to think that THIS is a part of the Imago Dei. The metaphor of Self-Relationship is represented in virtually EVERY human context. It's DOCUMENTED. It's just a part of how we are as intrapersonal and interpersonal beings.

OOhh..how about those people who dont do self-talk? Were they not made in the image of God? poor they!
How about those crazy people who talk with themselves constantly? Does this mean they were fully made in the Imago Dei? Does this make them even more special because they fully reflect personality of christian deity?
Maybe you need to visit mental hospital more often instead of church because you'll find more divinity in their as a result of much self-talk?
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-15-2011, 11:57 PM
well, it would seem that there is quite the penchant for throwing around my name particularly by the very individual whose willful ignorance should at least give him pause before embarrassing himself further within this thread. i certainly must commend you on your patience and forbearance in dealing with naidamar, yielded. i certainly seem to have a lot to learn from you when it comes to this department.

format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
And I don't know what brand of trinity you follow, but your model of trinity is certainly not shared by Grace Seeker or Sol Invictus, no matter how Sol has been trying to lie through his teeth to convince the rest of us that you guys have no disagreement on your brands of trinity. LOL.
i did state earlier that this...what i could only graciously call a resentment towards knowledge and understanding would only serve to embarrass you naidamar and here we have our prime example. could you please explain to us the difference between yielded's conception of the trinity which stands in contrast with mine? in fact if i recall the matter correctly, our difference is not whether the trinity consists of the father, the son, and the holy spirit, or not even if each of these distinct individuals comprise the one triune god but rather as to whether the shema concerns itself with only the first person of the trinity or all three. i have no business trying to convince you of anything naidamar and i don't recall ever trying to, debunking your false claims and faulty logic is exceedingly sufficient.

and speaking of debunking:
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
If you think that God is like "almost everybody", then it is your choice, dude.

Muslims believe in God who is not "almost everybody".
premise 1: almost everybody* loves the good.
premise 2: god loves the good.
conclusion: in the respect of loving the good, god is like "almost everybody".

the above refutes what you tried to pass off as a valid argument in terms simple enough for you to understand. now if you'd like to salvage your failing viewpoint you are more than welcome to try and engage the above syllogism. i've noticed that once we remove the invective statements that you tend to pad your posts with, there really isn't much else other than a horrifying cumulation of hate. please refute the above or else we might just suppose that islam (and much less logic) isn't your area of expertise. oh, and to save you from committing more crimes of logic, please do not respond by noting difference between god and man because the statement was never "in respect to x god is exactly like everyone else" but rather "in respect to x god is like everybody else". i can also answer further questions if you find yourself having trouble with the meaning of words.

format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
I don't know what you make of Jesus. You said in the other thread that Jesus is not God.
if you had at all cared to read what he said instead of looking for things you could use to add to the aforementioned cumulation of hate, then you would have noticed that he was sustaining an argument for the position that the nicene fathers particularly had the first person of the trinity in mind when speaking the words "we believe in one god". yielded himself repeatedly reiterated that he did believe christ to be god (remember the words "very god"). the argument was never about whether christ was god or not but where the emphasis of "one god" lay (this is the point in which yielded and i disagreed on). i understand that the nature of the discussion is far too subtle for an individual who has proven himself unable to answer whether the muslim deity is personal or not. if you fail to understand such a simple thing, one must really wonder where then you get the arrogance to pontificate on matters far more complex.

now, as it regards to your example yielded, there's not much i have to say. i can't really find anything i disagree with (yet!) but i can say that i doubt i'd ever use such an example to explain the trinity because it just seems to have so much baggage. i find that it makes far greater allowance for people to trip up on some points (as naidamar has so kindly demonstrated) than my analogy concerning space. plus, it is far too jewish for my taste (though this is not a bad thing). most individuals you meet will have a hard time understanding what you mean by 'breath' and such, etc. anyway. aside from my example (that of space) making little use of biblical language, what merits do you find with yours that are lacking with mine? just wondering.

* all rational beings that we possess knowledge of.
Reply

Ramadhan
05-16-2011, 12:09 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
well, it would seem that there is quitethe penchant for throwing around my name particularly by the very individual whose willful ignorance should at least give him pause before embarrassing himself further within this thread.

Sol, I think br. hamza and br. Woodrow are still waiting for your responses and replies in the http://www.islamicboard.com/showthre...303456&page=20

Please do not disappoint them.
Or have you thrown in your towel in that thread and admit defeat?

:D
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-16-2011, 12:50 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar


Sol, I think br. hamza and br. Woodrow are still waiting for your responses and replies in the http://www.islamicboard.com/showthre...303456&page=20

Please do not disappoint them.
Or have you thrown in your towel in that thread and admit defeat?

:D
i'm glad that you've been following even that discussion naidamar. certainly i'm still willing to participate, yet my primary concern as concerns that thread is how to respond to grace seeker's post. though i must ask you, in what way is woodrow still waiting for my response? which post have i not responded to?

now back to this thread, are you at all willing to defend your faulty proposition against the syllogism i have highlighted in the above? as i recall, you were pretty adamant in your misunderstanding of what "like everybody else" actually referred to. come on naidamar, is logic not your strong point?
Reply

Ramadhan
05-16-2011, 01:20 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
i'm glad that you've been following even that discussion naidamar. certainly i'm still willing to participate, yet my primary concern as concerns that thread is how to respond to grace seeker's post. though i must ask you, in what way is woodrow still waiting for my response? which post have i not responded to?

I was wondering where you were when you abandoned this thread http://www.islamicboard.com/showthre...303456&page=20
I'm glad my mentioning your name has attracted you out of wherever you were :D

This is the post from br. Hamza which you have been neglected for days, sol :)

Post#231
format_quote Originally Posted by Hamza81
Sol why is it that whenever i ask you for direct solid evidence in explicit words from the teachings of ANY previous Prophet, Jesus or God of the blood atonement of Christ that you are clearly unable to do so EVERYTIME? If you are out of your depth here which is quite clearly the case and if i am putting too much pressure on you then i apologise and i will leave you be for a day or so until you are ready to actually respond to my posts. Until then i await a direct response from you....
And then you seem also to have neglected br. Woodrow's questions, as I am sure you would have been more than eager to answer seeing how active you are in your debates about christianity and how you want to enlighten us about the words of christ:)

Post#257
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
From what I see we had reached a point where a few somewhat related topics were being discussed those being: 1. The Crucifixion 2. Baptism 3. Blood atonement. 4. Original sin In an attempt to direct this back to some sort of resemblance of order and the original topic I am tossing out this question: If the Crucifixion redeemed mankind, of what value is baptism?
Post#275
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
Now in terms of Original Sin, just what danger if any does it pose? To be honest I do not believe it exists, but I appreciate the fact you probably do believe it exists. Therefore my question, what danger is it?
So, would you mind going back there and explain to us about all those issues which are central to christianity?

I am waiting, and I am sure others are also.
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-16-2011, 01:52 AM
woodrow's questions were not directed towards me and in fact have been answered. naidamar, perhaps this would be better if you posted whatever gripe you have with my lack of participation in the thread itself instead of bringing it here. you are more than welcome to call me out in the thread itself for i haven't stopped participating, rather there were more important issues that had to be dealt with first and anyone who has read the thread would certainly know what i was talking about (but i suppose that you are hoping that whoever reads your above post will not have read the thread in question). anyway, please post this little diversion over there and do try to vindicate your failing logic. i must say that you are quite good at stringing together insults yet it would seem that you are particularly keen on avoiding placing your logic to scrutiny. now you had made a claim that was easily demonstrated to be false, will you now at all try to defend your wrong opinion against my syllogism or will you now cease talking and let individuals of more capable intellect discuss these matters?

can we at all get back to topic naidamar?
Reply

Ramadhan
05-16-2011, 02:21 AM
Ah, am I sensing that you have difficulty in addressing br. Woodrow's questions and br. Hamza' s specific post to you?

You know, you can just open your bible and answer the questions right?
Their questions are so central to christianity, so surely it should have been easy to answer them using Jesus (p) words?

Are we all left to believe that christianity is all smoke and mirror and a house built on sand? Certainly you wouldn't want people to think that way about your belief, no? :)

Here, let me remind you of the posts, or do you want me to create a new thread for you with br. Hamza and br. Woodrow's posts?
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-16-2011, 03:06 AM
now that's rather odd, i specifically told you to go post whatever you have written above in the very thread in question and now you claim that i'm trying to avoid such a discussion? funny how you seem to hear only what you want. let me try to make this perfectly clear for you: if you feel that you need to prod me in order to get me back into the discussion, then why is it that you're not posting it in that thread? please do go post whatever drivel you have above in the appropriate thread. i certainly welcome the fact that my return to the thread in question is being anticipated with so much fanfare. now let us stop this off-topic discussion, as a mod you should certainly know better. do know that the irony of you spamming this thread is not lost on me and as such i must ask you to please stop. once more, you are more than welcome to post whatever you feel in the appropriate section but you are diverting this thread and as a mod we certainly expect better of you.

now can we get you to vindicate your claims and thereby refute my syllogism?

i'm sorry yielded for somewhat taking the discussion off-topic but as you can see i am trying to get naidamar to substantiate some of the claims he has made in this thread and it would seem that he is doing everything to avoid having to back up his points.
Reply

Ramadhan
05-16-2011, 03:19 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
now that's rather odd, i specifically told you to go post whatever you have written above in the very thread in question and now you claim that i'm trying to avoid such a discussion? funny how you seem to hear only what you want. let me try to make this perfectly clear for you: if you feel that you need to prod me in order to get me back into the discussion, then why is it that you're not posting it in that thread? please do go post whatever drivel you have above in the appropriate thread. i certainly welcome the fact that my return to the thread in question is being anticipated with so much fanfare. now let us stop this off-topic discussion, as a mod you should certainly know better. do know that the irony of you spamming this thread is not lost on me and as such i must ask you to please stop. once more, you are more than welcome to post whatever you feel in the appropriate section but you are diverting this thread and as a mod we certainly expect better of you.
Ah, I am taking all this as an admission that your knowledge in christianity does not prepare you to have discussion about christianity that actually involve scriptural evidence and Jesus (p) alleged words so you have to resort to smoke and mirror tactic :)

talking about off-topic, let me remind you the title of this thread:
Easy Target: Possible Analogies for Uncreated Triune Being

Now, you are free to make any analogies for your christian deity. :D

Let us hear what kind of the father-the son-spirit you can come up with. YO's one was pretty boring, who knows you will provide a lot more entertaining analogies for christians' 3-in-1 deity, my hope is not too high of it being logical though.
Reply

Ramadhan
05-16-2011, 03:31 AM
Oh by the way Sol, I've bumped up the other thread for you :D
http://www.islamicboard.com/showthre...303456&page=20

Surely you'll be able to ace those questions as you believe that you have the truth based on the Jesus (p) actual sayings and teaching recorded in the gospels, right?
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-16-2011, 04:23 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
talking about off-topic, let me remind you the title of this thread:
Easy Target: Possible Analogies for Uncreated Triune Being
yes, i'm quite aware of what this thread is called. yes, my debunking your logic was quite on-topic actually. you made blatantly false claims and i've shown them to be wrong. if you disagree with the fact that you are wrong then please disprove the syllogism. if you've forgotten, then here it is again:

format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
premise 1: almost everybody* loves the good.
premise 2: god loves the good.
conclusion: in the respect of loving the good, god is like "almost everybody".

the above refutes what you tried to pass off as a valid argument in terms simple enough for you to understand. now if you'd like to salvage your failing viewpoint you are more than welcome to try and engage the above syllogism. i've noticed that once we remove the invective statements that you tend to pad your posts with, there really isn't much else other than a horrifying cumulation of hate. please refute the above or else we might just suppose that islam (and much less logic) isn't your area of expertise. oh, and to save you from committing more crimes of logic, please do not respond by noting difference between god and man because the statement was never "in respect to x god is exactly like everyone else" but rather "in respect to x god is like everybody else". i can also answer further questions if you find yourself having trouble with the meaning of words.
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-16-2011, 04:26 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
Oh by the way Sol, I've bumped up the other thread for you
http://www.islamicboard.com/showthre...303456&page=20
thanks! i'll make sure to post in the next day or two. make sure to keep reading naidamar.
Reply

siam
05-16-2011, 04:37 AM
In Islam, God DOES NOT have a "multiplicity of eternals"---which was the point of the mutazali/ashari perspective...that was mentioned in the other thread.
---which you refused to understand because it didn't suit your argument.:D

Also---God's attributes are NOT neccessarily TRIUNE----which from a Muslim perspective is limiting------also discussed in a previous thread......

Simply put ... a TRIUNE God is NOT Tawheed.......and you can try till the oceans run dry---Muslims are not going to budge from Tawheed.;D
Reply

Ramadhan
05-16-2011, 04:57 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
yes, i'm quite aware of what this thread is called. yes, my debunking your logic was quite on-topic actually. you made blatantly false claims and i've shown them to be wrong. if you disagree with the fact that you are wrong then please disprove the syllogism. if you've forgotten, then here it is again:
I think you are gonna be embarrassed and you may think you confuse people but I have to break the news for you: most people actually do have pretty good brain faculty, and once they figure out that there is no way 1+1+1=1 and it is actually juvenile to create a myth about God come down to earth, being born of a virgin, suckled from her breasts, took toilet breaks and cried helplessly, they either totally rid themselves of all those myth or coming to the truth that is Islam.

Now, let's get down to the points you falsely attributed to me (can't you just be honest for once? or are you actually that dense and full of hate?)

Fact : It was Yieldedone who made the claim that talking with ownself is normal behaviour and and hence God who commune with Himself and talking with oneself is normal because most people talk with themselves.
I suggested him to visit mental hospitals, which he may find divine knowing that in christian theology where God talks with himself. After all most residents of mental hospitals talk with themselves.

format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
According to Thomas Brinthaupt, Ph.D., assistant professor of psychology at Middle Tennessee State University, almost everybody talks to themselves. And no--we are not all crazy. It is unusual not to talk to yourself.
so if you have problem with that, than you need to talk with him.

Now, with that out of the way, maybe you can go back on topic, which is discussing about the analogies for the trinity, can you please entertain us with one of yours?

I'm sure you have plenty of ideas and cannot wait to explain to us using analogies of the three distinct uncreated christian deities?
Reply

Ramadhan
05-16-2011, 05:05 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
hanks! i'll make sure to post in the next day or two. make sure to keep reading naidamar.

I can't wait to see you bring Jesus (p) sayings from the gospels about the original sin and blood atonement. I'm sure it would be illuminating.

If you need time to study and brush up on your bible so you can thoroughly answer brother Hamza's questions in the central flaw's thread, maybe I shouldn't press you for your christian deities analogies in this thread. Although it would be a shame.
Reply

YieldedOne
05-16-2011, 06:03 AM
Siam:
In Islam, God DOES NOT have a "multiplicity of eternals"---which was the point of the mutazali/ashari perspective...that was mentioned in the other thread.
---which you refused to understand because it didn't suit your argument.:D

This is what you said on the other thread...

"Tawheed is very simple---It says there is One God---thats it----there are no "degrees" to Tawheed---it cannot be narrow or broad---there is only One God---even a child can understand it.......
The mutazili/ashari debates were not about Tawheed--both groups understood Tawheed perfectly well. The discussion about "attributes" concerned the concepts of "multiplicity of eternals" and revolved around understanding the relationship of God's "attributes" to God's "essence"(totality)within the framework of Tawheed."

They had different perspectives on this issue. The Mutazali thought that the Ashari perspective allowed for a "multiplicity of eternals" by saying what they said about the attributes. The Mutazali basically said that the Ashari perspective (which held that the Quran was uncreated) was tantamount to SHIRK.

The point of that matter is simply that, in Islam, it is not NECESSARILY against Tawhid to talk about diversity of distinctions...because that's exactly what the Ashari did. If diversity of distinction were completely disallowed from Tawhid (let alone just general monotheism), then the Ashari perspective wouldn't be what it is.


****************************************
Siam:
Also---God's attributes are NOT neccessarily TRIUNE----which from a Muslim perspective is limiting------also discussed in a previous thread......


As I discussed in that previous thread, I have NOT limited God's attributes to three. Formally speaking, God's attributes are innumerable. I made that very clear on the other thread, Siam. I've been saying that it's MEANINGFUL to talk about a necessarily triune activity (Like Subject/Self/Subject-Self Relationship) that can be analogous to what is POSSIBLE in a simple monotheistic context. THAT's what the analogies are about. To demonstrate that saying that a singular activity CAN have diversity of distinction involving 3 necessary aspects to the event. It's NOT logically incoherent to talk about such a thing. Tell you what. If you just answer the questions FORMALLY, that would be helpful.


*******************************************
Siam:
Simply put ... a TRIUNE God is NOT Tawheed.......and you can try till the oceans run dry---Muslims are not going to budge from Tawheed

You don't seem to get the point that there are Muslims who think that saying that the Quran is uncreated is NOT Tawhid. You really don't seem to get that.
Anyways, PLEASE just answer the two questions I have concerning the analogies. That's all I'm asking. Don't simply think of this in terms of Islam. As I said, I'm talking in a simple MONOTHEISTIC context, not necessarily YOUR view of Tahwid.

Let me get the questions again...

1) Are these analogies meaningful and coherent?

2) Are these analogical concepts logically viable within a simple monotheistic framework? (Note this is NOT asking what allowable for a particular religious context, Islamic or otherwise. This is asking about logical viability of the concepts given the belief in a singular, uncreated personal reality who originates Creation.)
Reply

YieldedOne
05-16-2011, 06:10 AM
GraceSeeker? Woodrow? Where are you at?
Reply

Ramadhan
05-16-2011, 06:28 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
Anyways, PLEASE just answer the two questions I have concerning the analogies. That's all I'm asking. Don't simply think of this in terms of Islam. As I said, I'm talking in a simple MONOTHEISTIC context, not necessarily YOUR view of Tahwid.
I still cannot believe you don't understand the basic of Islam:

When it comes to Allah SWT, as muslims what we know and believe must come from Allah SWT in the Qur'an or prophet Muhammad SAW in the ahadeeth.

So for example, we must not pretend that God does not exist just for the sake of the argument, or that God (SWT) requires partner even if it is for the sake of argument with people like you.

So, as I have told you again and again, no true muslim would ever go with you about God having the need of breathe and the need for incarnated word (or as you said in the other thread about jesus: the very god from the very god).

I understand christians are different of course, christians think they are free to make all sorts of analogy to describe christian deities, from metal, burning metal, vapour, to ice,water, steam, to egg yolk, egg whites, shell, etc.
We muslims will never go there, brother YO.

Christians even think it is ok to make up stories or words and attribute them to God just because they think those stories or words fit the personalities of god. But we muslims would rather die before we do such thing.

So no matter how hard and sly you try, you can never ask us to accept all kinds of analogies, we may however, listen to what you have to say with a sense of bewilderement and horrific.

So whats your next analogies?
Reply

YieldedOne
05-16-2011, 06:29 AM
This will help.

If a person were NOT a Muslim OR a Christian...but I DID believe in One uncreated Creator who was PERSONAL--in other words, if this person were just a general monotheist, would the analogies be MEANINGFUL as far as a logical possibility of how this one Creator can exhibit a necessarily triune activity via self-relationship.

I think they would.
Reply

Ramadhan
05-16-2011, 06:32 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
If a person were NOT a Muslim OR a Christian...but I DID believe in One uncreated Creator who was PERSONAL--in other words, if this person were just a general monotheist, would the analogies be MEANINGFUL as far as a logical possibility of how this one Creator can exhibit a necessarily triune activity via self-relationship. I think they would.

Bring your evidence or witness then.
Reply

YieldedOne
05-16-2011, 06:33 AM
Not everyone--including every Muslim--thinks as you do, brother Naidamar. I'm pretty clear on your take...so thanks.
Reply

YieldedOne
05-16-2011, 06:49 AM
Here's a repost from the other thread, Siam...
---------------------------------------------------

YO: A completely monadic view of God CANNOT self-relate or self-communicate sans Creation. The only way for God-as-monad to interrelate would be for a Creation to exist. On the other hand, if God is NOT an absolute monad, that God would be seen to have the capacity to relate Himself to His self-reflected self-understanding...and relate Himself to that relationship. In other words, God would be able to initiate communication and expression to Himself, listen and respond to His initiated communication, and also take a persepctive witnessing and empowering the whole "inner conversation" going on within Himself. As I've said before, this is analogous to what we see in human beings who has the ability for "conscience" (relating oneself to oneself in integrity) and engagement in inner conversation with themselves. This is how we are able to say that ONE person can take THREE personal perspectives via their own inner self-relating dialogue. (Subject, Self, Subject/Self Relationship) We don't say that the diversity of distinctions equal division or separateness...nor do we say that it eliminates the oneness of the being in whom the inner self-relating dialogue is taking place. If human beings were absolutely monadic beings, WE would not have this ability. We would only be able to have conversation and self-expression with OTHERS, not with OURSELVES. None of this understanding of diversity-in-unity is even possible with an absolutely monadic view.

Siam: Therefore, Tawheed is clearly not monadic

--------------------------------------------------

Now I must ask you: What did you mean by this? You never clarified your statement. What I took you as saying was that Tawhid DOES allow for God to self-relate and self-communicate sans Creation. Is that what you meant? If you were saying that Tawhid does allow for uncreated self-relationship/self-communication--the ability for inner conversation--by God, then I'm not seeing what all the issue is with the self-relationship analogy.
Reply

YieldedOne
05-16-2011, 06:56 AM
For the record, Islamic "Tawhid" is a SUBSET of monotheistic belief. Monotheism and Tawhid are NOT synonomous terms.
Reply

YieldedOne
05-16-2011, 07:24 AM
For latecomers...

In divine self-relationship, God relates to His own perfect Self-Image (via God's capacity for self-knowledge and self-expression), and in that relating, relates Himself to THAT relationship, taking 3 distinct yet inseparable perspectives within his one PERSONAL act of "communing with Himself." Being that God is immaterial and omnipresent, this has nothing to do with space or time at all. And it doesn't have anything to do with anyone OTHER than God for God's perfect Self-Image IS God seen by God from a distinct (NOT SEPARATE) perspective.

So all this means that this is NOT to be classified as idolatry or association per se at all. We are not talking about some demiurge or anything like that. It's NOT modalism in that the perspectival diversity of distinction is REAL and ACTUAL within God's inner life...not merely just in the perception of believers. It's NOT tri-theism in that the diversity of distinction within God's inner life is not SEPARATION of will, purpose, or power that any way severs the unity within God.

If God has the ability for self-relationship--which I'm hearing so far is the case--then I don't see how this idea is logically impossible.
Reply

YieldedOne
05-16-2011, 07:34 AM
For me, the impetus for this whole thing is that I kept hearing that the idea of triunity in God is INCONCEIVABLE or completely contrary to reason. Basically, people kept thinking about it as 1+1+1=1 or some silliness like that. The analogies are to give people a DIFFERENT TAKE so as to see that it is not nonsensical to talk about a diversity of distinction within an single, indivisible reality. It CAN and DOES have meaning...if people want to be open to that. Oneness in monotheism is NOT merely thinking monadically.
Reply

Ramadhan
05-16-2011, 07:40 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
So all this means that this is NOT to be classified as idolatry or association per se at all. We are not talking about some demiurge or anything like that. It's NOT modalism in that the perspectival diversity of distinction is REAL and ACTUAL within God's inner life...not merely just in the perception of believers. It's NOT tri-theism in that the diversity of distinction within God's inner life is not SEPARATION of will, purpose, or power that any way severs the unity within God.

not idolatry?

you christian worship Jesus (pbuh) right?

and Jesus (pbuh) was historical, meaning he was a human being.

How can you not be idol worship while worshipping a human being?

YO, you wrote a lot of words and it seems you got confused and lost in your own words :)
Reply

Ramadhan
05-16-2011, 07:41 AM
You take a human being as a partner of God (SWT), that is the ultimate idolatry, YO.
Reply

Ramadhan
05-16-2011, 07:56 AM
Let me give you a contrast again:

In christianiy, the concept of God is so convoluted, contradictory, illogical and in this forum alone requires hundreds of pages and pages of discussions, and yet no one understand and agree what it is that constitute God in christianity (in this forum alone, you have christians like sol who believe Jesus is the one god, and then YO who believe Jesus is not the one god but very god, then you have pouring rain who believes jesus is a messenger, and hiroshi who believe jesus is not god but was made divine by god, etc.. so please the real christian stand up?). It seems in order to undertand christianity creed, you have to be a select people like grace seeker who is a pastor, or you need to study in seminary.
No christian have been able to successfully and satisfyingly explain to non-christian who/what God means in christianity.

In Islam, the concept of God is so sublime that EVERYONE understand it, whether you are a theoretical physicist in Princeton, NJ, or a subsistence farmer in the remotest area of Indonesia, and not only understand it, they are all also able to explain fully and satisfyingly to non-muslims who/what God is in Islam.

Which one do you think is the truth?
Reply

Ramadhan
05-16-2011, 08:11 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by YieldedOne
For the record, Islamic "Tawhid" is a SUBSET of monotheistic belief. Monotheism and Tawhid are NOT synonomous terms.

LOL! sneaky YO.

Just because you want to label your 3-in-1 God belief as monotheistic, you have gone bent over backwards to redefine meanings of words.

You can label your belief monotheistic and scream till the cows come home that your triune god is indeed monotheistic, it does not change the fact that you worship 3 distinct persons God, and at the end of the day you worship one of them who was a human walking, sleeping, crying, eating, etc on earth.
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-16-2011, 11:22 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
Now, let's get down to the points you falsely attributed to me (can't you just be honest for once? or are you actually that dense and full of hate?)
hmm, which point did i falsely attribute to you? will you now deny that you said the following?:

format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
Muslims believe in God who is not "almost everybody".

And this is the latest example how you keep attributing human personalities to God.
naidamar, it's understandable to be embarrassed concerning the above logic.
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-16-2011, 11:25 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by siam
In Islam, God DOES NOT have a "multiplicity of eternals"
false. once you claim that an entity other than god (i.e. the qur'an) is eternal then you have just multiplied eternals.
Reply

Ramadhan
05-16-2011, 11:34 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
hmm, which point did i falsely attribute to you? will you now deny that you said the following?:
I was making that statement, but I certainly did not make the different premises that you were trying slyly to make me answer for it.

You are pretty transparent, Sol.

format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
naidamar, it's understandable to be embarrassed concerning the above logic.
anything I may have done wouldn't be nearly embarrassing as worshipping a God which is not all knowing.

Or believing in a book that has pericope adulterae, and outright fabrication and attributing it to God, just because the passage 'fit" into the personality of God(s).

Sol, I hope you have brushed up on your gospels and see if you can answer br. Hamza's posts in the other thread.

:D
Reply

Ramadhan
05-16-2011, 11:42 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
false. once you claim that an entity other than god (i.e. the qur'an) is eternal then you have just multiplied eternals.
Newsflash: we do not worship qur'an.
our knowledge on the nature of the Qur'an has no bearing whatsoever on our core belief.

Christians (well, most christians as there are other christians who do not worship Jesus) worship a man who was born out of a virgin, suckled the breast of the virgin, cried helplessly, took toilet breaks, cried despondently asking for help from God, and then call this man eternal.
Meanwhile, christianity (thats right, the people who claim to follow Jesus couldnt even call the real name of jesus, which was not jesus, by the way if you dont know) must believe that the man who was crucified half naked (thanks to those zillions statues in your churches, sol) was actually God himself.
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-16-2011, 12:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
Newsflash: we do not worship qur'an.
where did i say that you worshiped the qur'an? are you having trouble with language again naidamar? now given that i have corrected your misunderstanding, can you now try to actually refute my point that given that the qur'an is not god and yet muslims claim that it is eternal, you now have multiplied eternals (in that there are now two eternals, god and the qur'an).
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-16-2011, 12:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
I was making that statement, but I certainly did not make the different premises that you were trying slyly to make me answer for it.
who claimed that you made those premises? do you not understand how an argument works? you said something that was factually wrong and thus i made a simple syllogism to show how you were wrong. do you not know what a syllogism is? those premises and conclusion are what constitute a syllogism. in fact, i have repeatedly called it "my syllogism" and not "your syllogism" so no one was ever saying that you made up those premises. today you are certainly having trouble with the english language naidamar.
Reply

Ramadhan
05-16-2011, 12:25 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
where did i say that you worshiped the qur'an? are you having trouble with language again naidamar? now given that i have corrected your misunderstanding, can you now try to actually refute my point that given that the qur'an is not god and yet muslims claim that it is eternal, you now have multiplied eternals (in that there are now two eternals, god and the qur'an).
an eternal does not make God.
Isn't this obvious? unless you have very weak logic, which I am afraid you might be suffering. Maybe it's a case from worshipping a man as God, and 1+1+1 = 1?

Now, please refute my point that Christians believe in God who is not all knowing.
I have mentioned this several times already in this thread, and I am afraid YO is just unable to refute it, unless you also believe in God who is not all knowing?
Reply

Ramadhan
05-16-2011, 12:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
who claimed that you made those premises? do you not understand how an argument works? you said something that was factually wrong and thus i made a simple syllogism to show how you were wrong. do you not know what a syllogism is? those premises and conclusion are what constitute a syllogism. in fact, i have repeatedly called it "my syllogism" and not "your syllogism" so no one was ever saying that you made up those premises. today you are certainly having trouble with the english language naidamar.

Yes, I maybe having trouble with english as it is my fourth language.

Speaking about language, what language did jesus speak?
a. first century aramaic
b. first century hebrew
c. third century koine greek
d. middle age english
e. modern english
?
Reply

Ramadhan
05-16-2011, 12:35 PM
Since we are still in the triune God thread, I want to ask something which I've been meaning to ask to all christians:

Since (most) christians believe that Jesus is God and he is now on the right hand (shoulder?) of the main christian deity, does he still look like what he was on earth?
Reply

gmcbroom
05-16-2011, 09:05 PM
Naidamar,
Yes if that is what he chose to appear as. Why do I say that? Simple. After his death he appeared to multiple people yet they did not recognize him until he did something specific that would reveal himself to them. For instance he appeared to 2 of his own followers after the crucifixtion who were travelling along the road away from Jerusalem, depressed for they saw him die crucified, and they thought that their faith was in vain. They didn't know he was resurrected until he blessed and broke bread the bread before them at an inn where they ate even though he travelled with them along the road before hand. Then their faith was restored. As for what does he look like now? Does he still have the marks of the crucifixtion? Possibly.

Peace be with you.
Reply

Ramadhan
05-16-2011, 10:53 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by gmcbroom
Yes if that is what he chose to appear as. Why do I say that? Simple. After his death he appeared to multiple people yet they did not recognize him until he did something specific that would reveal himself to them. For instance he appeared to 2 of his own followers after the crucifixtion who were travelling along the road away from Jerusalem, depressed for they saw him die crucified, and they thought that their faith was in vain. They didn't know he was resurrected until he blessed and broke bread the bread before them at an inn where they ate even though he travelled with them along the road before hand. Then their faith was restored. As for what does he look like now? Does he still have the marks of the crucifixtion? Possibly.
OK.

Has Jesus *always* looked like what he is now?

Remember that christians believe Jesus had no beginning right?

Sol, where are you?
Reply

YieldedOne
05-17-2011, 04:51 PM
If the following things are NOT contrary to logic OR completely inconceivable by human experience...then I don't see how the analogies could NOT be meaningful. The analogies themselves build on JUST these kinds of concepts below...

---------------------------

1) The ONLY reason for God the Father being "YHWH" is his simple identity: God the Father is "YHWH". As such, God The Father is underivatively YHWH (aka the "Unbegotten God" )

2) The ONLY reason for Jesus being "YHWH" is that he is the Son/Word of God the Father, being the "exact representation" of God the Father's nature and being. As such, the Son/Word of God the Father is derivatively YHWH (aka the "Only-begotten God"), because He is an self-disclosing image of who God the Father is.

3) The ONLY divine Hypostasis that a) has aseity and thus b) is completely underivative is God the Father. That is to say, only God the Father contains within himself the source/"origin" of himself. Both the Word and the Spirit have their source/origin in God the Father.

and...

"In the same way we must think of the Son always, so to speak, streaming forth from the Father, like light from a lamp or thoughts from a mind. He, the Son, is the self-expression of the Father--the Word the Father has to say. And there never was a time when the Father was not saying it. And since this whole time we have been talking about God, when the Bible speaks of the Word it declares that the Word is with God and the Word was God. And further, in perfect concert with Genesis 1, it declares that all things are created through this eternal divine Word (John 1:1-3). Note: we are not referring to the historical Jesus at all, but to the pre-incarnate Son who in time (meaning entering into time and nature) becomes flesh and dwells among humanity. This Son comes from the Father and is himself God (John 1:14 & 18)."
--Grace Seeker

*****************************************

Remember the analogies...

1)
God the Father: Speaker
God The Father's Self-Expressive Word: Spoken Word
God The Father's Spirit: Speaker's Breath/Voice

2)
God the Father: Subject (Conversation Intiator)
God the Father's Self-Image: Self (Conversation Receiver/Responder)
God The Father's Spirit: Subject/Self Relationship (Conversation Witness/Empowerer)

...

"... these analogies go exactly with HOW the trinitarian "movement" is understood in Christianity, I'd say. That is, God the Father is the "source/origin" of the one triune activity, and is NEVER WITHOUT his Self-Expressive Word and Self-Empowering Spirit in that activity. God, His Word, and His Spirit are all necessary aspects of the ONE uncreated, eternal activity of Divine Self-Knowledge and Self-Expression. And that's the thing: to KNOW God is to LOVE God. So his Eternal Self-Knowledge IS Eternal Loving Self-Communion."
Reply

Ramadhan
05-17-2011, 05:21 PM
YO, I have questions:

1. gmcbroom said that Jesus has always been looking like when he was crucified, even in the beginning and at the end. Do you agree with this? and if not why? is there scriptural evidence to support your view?

2. You said Jesus (p) is not The One God, but he is very God.

What is the difference between "the one god" and "very god"?

3. Can you confirm also that christians believe in a god who is not all knowing?

Sol invictus, you can also help out YO here if you so wish. But if you are still busy learning biblical evidence that support blood atonement and human sacrifices, I understand.
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-17-2011, 05:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
an eternal does not make God.
Isn't this obvious?
where did i say that an eternal makes a god? all i said was that muslims believe in multiple eternals and that god is not the only being who is eternal. if you disagree with the above, can you quote for us the post in which i said something completely different?

format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
Yes, I maybe having trouble with english as it is my fourth language.
it's certainly nice of you to at least admit that you have trouble understanding the question. now if you could lose the attitude (especially when you are in error) then we would have no problem.
Reply

Sol Invictus
05-17-2011, 05:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
Sol invictus, you can also help out YO here if you so wish. But if you are still busy learning biblical evidence that support blood atonement and human sacrifices, I understand.
your obsession with me is indeed fascinating naidamar.
Reply

Ramadhan
05-17-2011, 06:15 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
your obsession with me is indeed fascinating naidamar.
I am just trying to figure out if you actually believe in christianity, because in all your discussions here, you have been very vague about your belief. You do have ways with words, but there is no substance, and you know that, because you keep trying to divert and refocus on trivial matters which take away spotlight from what YOU actually believe in. You even have no problem with the beliefs of other christians such as YO who believe that Jesus is not the God of the OT, and you even went on to say that you have the same belief as YO although in just previous post you said Jesus was the God of the OT. It just seems that you are very much willing to mask whatever your belief is just to win an argument, which is not a sign of honesty, but I guess that is to be expected from followers of Saul of tarsus.

So don't worry, I will keep asking you questions so I can know what your actual belief is, you don't mind, do you? :)

Now, can you answer my questions on my post #76?
Reply

Amigo
05-17-2011, 06:27 PM
I didn't follow the whole discussion, but one thing I note is that Christians here perhaps should not be considered as they believe the same thing. You know, they could be coming from different denominations with quite different understanding of Christianity. So I think best may be individual just speak from himself or herself.

About the analogies, I think they can be misleading and frankly they are not needed. I think every human can understand fatherhood better than angles and triangles. And the point of God becoming man was to show us how close God is to us that we don't need analogies to understand God. He is closer to us than we are to ourselves...

For the understanding of the Trinity, I just like to ask people whether father can be without son and vice versa. If not, why any problem seing that they are one. It is because we are not calm in our minds and hearts to look clearly.
Reply

YieldedOne
05-17-2011, 06:27 PM
Naidamar:
You even have no problem with the beliefs of other christians such as YO who believe that Jesus is not the God of the OT, and you even went on to say that you have the same belief as YO although in just previous post you said Jesus was the God of the OT.

Clarification time.

The difference between Sol and I is SEMANTIC. Evidence:

1) I don't think that Sol would disagree with the statements placed in my last post. Both the 3 "Onlys" and Grace Seeker's quote. Verify that for me, Sol, if you would...

2) Earlier in this thread, Sol said that he "can't really find anything i disagree with (yet!)" while saying that my language is "far too jewish" for his taste "though this is not a bad thing". His exact words. I admit emphatically that my language is more early Jewish Christian than formally Athanasian. Just different emphases on the same reality. Whereas I put more focus on the "underivative YHWH-ness" of God the Father (such that I've been saying that YHWH IS God the Father), Sol puts more focus on Jesus being actually being the "only begotten YHWH" (such that he's been saying that Jesus IS actually YHWH). It was the same semantic issue that I had with Grace Seeker.

3) I believe that the nuances are made clear by the analogies.

This should answer your question...
You said Jesus (p) is not The One God, but he is very God.
What is the difference between "the one god" and "very god"?

The specific term is "very God of very God"
Reply

YieldedOne
05-17-2011, 06:39 PM
Amigo:
About the analogies, I think they can be misleading and frankly they are not needed. I think every human can understand fatherhood better than angles and triangles. And the point of God becoming man was to show us how close God is to us that we don't need analogies to understand God. He is closer to us than we are to ourselves...

Hey, Amigo. Thanks for the response. Could you be specific in what ways you think the analogies are misleading? That would be very helpful for me to scrutinize my thinking.
Reply

Amigo
05-17-2011, 06:58 PM
Hi YO

I think the easy way to put it is they make it sound like a notion is too hard to grasp than it really easy.
Reply

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
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!