truthseeker63's Corner in Comparative religion

[truthseeker63]

Im a former Marxist and Atheist I want to know about the Islamic economic system and why it is better then Socialism/Communism or Marxism I know that the economic system of Islam is not Capitalism but why is it better then Marxism ?

[Perseveranze]

Peace,

I'm not too learned on this subject and I don't know if this is economically the best, but I take this over any system any day -

Islam is an entire way of life, and Allah's Guidance extends into all areas of our lives. Islam has given detailed regulations for our economic life, which is balanced and fair. Muslims are to recognize that wealth, earnings, and material goods are the property of God, and that we are merely His trustees. The principles of Islam aim at establishing a just society wherein everyone will behave responsibly and honestly. The fundamental principles of the Islamic economic system are as follows:

• Muslims are not to deal in interest. "Those who devour usury will not stand....Allah has permitted trade and forbidden usury.... Allah will deprive usury of all blessing, but will give increase for deeds of charity..." (Qur'an 2:275-6). "O you who believe! Devour not usury, doubled and multiplied. But fear Allah, that you may really prosper" (Qur'an 3:130) This prohibition is for all interest-based transactions, whether giving or receiving, whether dealing with Muslims or non-Muslims. It is reported that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) cursed those who pay interest, those who receive it, those who write a contract based on it, and those who witness such a contract.
• It is forbidden to gain property or wealth by fraud, deceit, theft, or other falsehoods. "...Give just measure and weight, and do not withhold from people the things that are their due. And do not do mischief on the earth after it has been set in order. That will be best for you, if you have faith" (Qur'an 7:85).
• It is particularly hateful for a guardian to take from an orphan's property. "To orphans restore their property (when they reach their age). Do not substitute your worthless things for their good ones, and do not devour their property by mixing it up with your own. For this is indeed a great sin" (Qur'an 4:2).
• Forbidden are earnings from gambling, lotteries, and the production, sale, and distribution of alcohol. "O you who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, sacrificing to stones, and divination by arrows are an abomination of Satan's handiwork. Eschew such abomination, that you may prosper" (Qur'an 5:90).
• It is unlawful to hoard food and other basic necessities. Everyone should take what they need and no more. "And let those who covetously withhold of the gifts which Allah has given them of His Grace, think that it is good for them. No, it will be the worse for them. Soon it will tied to their necks like a twisted collar, on the Day of Judgment. To Allah belongs the heritage of the heavens and the earth, and Allah is well-acquainted with all that you do" (Qur'an 3:180).
• A Muslim should be responsible in spending money. Extravagance and waste are strongly discouraged. "[The Servants of Allah are] Those who, when they spend, are not extravagant and not stingy, but hold a just balance between those extremes" (Qur'an 25:67). "O Children of Adam! Wear your beautiful apparel at every time and place of prayer. Eat and drink, but waste not by excess, for Allah loves not the wasters" (Qur'an 7:31).
• Muslims must pay Zakat (alms). "And they have been commanded no more than this: to worship Allah, offering Him sincere devotion, being true in faith. To establish regular prayer, and to give zakat. And that is the religion right and straight" (Qur'an 98:5). Every Muslim who owns wealth, more than a certain amount to meet his or her needs, must pay a fixed rate of Zakat to those in need. Zakat is a means of narrowing the gap between the rich and the poor, and to make sure that everyone's needs are met.
• Muslims are encouraged to give constantly in charity. "Your riches and your children may be but a trial. Whereas Allah, with Him is the highest reward. So fear Allah as much as you can, listen and obey, and spend in charity for the benefit of your own souls. And those saved from the selfishness of their own souls, they are the ones that achieve prosperity" (Qur'an 64:15-16). The Prophet Muhammad once said that "nobody's assets are reduced by charity."

http://islam.about.com/od/business/a/economics.htm

[Neelofar]

Hello truthseeker63 unfortunately I don't have any knowledge on this subject :( but I am pleased to have met you (well not literally :p) because I'm studying sociology and I come across the work of Marxists all the time! Very very interesting indeed :D Now I'd love to meet a functionalist :p sorry I've not been of much help!

[GuestFellow]

Im a former Marxist and Atheist I want to know about the Islamic economic system and why it is better then Socialism/Communism or Marxism I know that the economic system of Islam is not Capitalism but why is it better then Marxism ?

:sl:

It is best to get a book on Islamic economics. It's a broad subject.

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

[Woodrow]

I have never thought of any Islamic economic system. I believe it would be very difficult to pull out all of the factors in Islam that would be thought of as being part of an economic system.

I doubt if a Muslim would be affected very much by any economic system however, the system might be affected by us.

Essentially Islam supports free enterprise except there are products we can not produce or distribute. Anything that is halal can be produced and sold. Very much the same as in any free enterprise system. I do think there is more fair distribution of wealth as a result of Zakat and the obligation of charity. (In the ideal scenario)

So if Islam were perfectly practiced in a true Islamic Nation I believe the economic system would contain the best features of Capitalism, Marxism and Communism, while avoiding the drawbacks of each.

[Al-Mufarridun]

Assalaamu Alaikum

So if Islam were perfectly practiced in a true Islamic Nation I believe the economic system would contain the best features of Capitalism, Marxism and Communism, while avoiding the drawbacks of each.

well said.

[selsebil]

Dear Friend,

Since the Qur’an’s principles and laws have come from pre-eternity, they shall go to post-eternity. They are not condemned to grow old and die like civilization’s laws. They are always young and strong. For example, despite all its societies for good works, all its establishments for the teaching of ethics, all its severe discipline and regulations, civilization has been unable to contest the All-Wise Qur’an on two of its matters, and has been defeated by them. These two matters are:

"Be steadfast in performing the prayers, and give zakat," Qur’an, 2:43,
and,
"God has permitted trade and forbidden usury." Qur’an, 2:275.

We shall describe them, this miraculous victory, by means of an introduction. It is like this:
Just as the source of mankind’s revolutions is one phrase, so another phrase is the origin of all immorality.

First Phrase: “So long as I’m full, what is it to me if others die of hunger.”
Second Phrase: “You work so that I can eat.”

Yes, the upper and lower classes in human society, that is, the rich and the poor, live at peace when in equilibrium. The basis of that equilibrium is compassion and kindness in the upper classes, and respect and obedience in the lower classes. Now, the first phrase has incited the upper classes to practise oppression, immorality, and mercilessness. And just as the second has driven the lower classes to hatred, envy, and to contend the upper classes, and has negated man’s tranquillity for several centuries, so too last century, as the result of the struggle between capital and labour, it has been the cause of the momentous events of Europe well-known by all. Thus, together with all its societies for good works, all its establishments for the teaching of ethics, all its severe discipline and regulations, it could not reconcile these two classes of mankind, nor could it heal the two fearsome wounds in human life. The Qur’an, however, eradicates the first phrase with its injunction to pay zakat, and heals it. While it uproots the second phrase with its prohibition on usury and interest, and cures that. Indeed, the Qur’anic verse stands at the door of the world and declares usury and interest to be forbidden. It reads out its decree to mankind, saying: “In order to close the door of strife, close the door of usury and interest!” It forbids its students to enter it.

[- Qatada -]

Hi truthseeker, i hope you will find the following link of great benefit:

The Economic System in Islam:
http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/277/



Peace :)

[Abu-Abdullah]

Hi Truthseeker!

I wont be able to give you any lengthy acedemic answer, but here is basically why the Islamic economic system is the best with some reiteration of some aspects allready mentioned above:

the Islamic system is based on fair and ethical practice for all, i.e no interest/usury [which is exploitative and selfish], and all other practices are in line with fair and moral principles

It enjoins an obligatory charity to the poor [and emphasises the giving of optional charity] so the poor continue to get support from the rich and unfair greedy practices such as monopolising the countries wealth in the hands of a few will be prohibbited too I think... also seeking the bounty of ALlah [i.e earning money/wealth] is considered to be a means for assisting the common good [such as giving in charity and helping the cause of Gods religion etc,] and living a modest life hence profits is not seen as the end all and be all of buisness

hope this helps

[truthseeker63]

Was Jesus the onle Prophet who did not marry some Christians use this to say he must God or God's son because he was the only Prophet who did not marry but is it true that Mary in the Quuran never married too ?

[Al-manar]

Christians don't say Jesus must be God or God's son because he did not marry ...

There is no Quranic mention of Mary's life after Jesus...

[truthseeker63]

Does the Quran talk about the Christian idea of the Trinity being false thank you ?

[truthseeker63]

I have met Christians who use the Virgin Birth of Jesus from his Mother Mary as proof that Jesus is God or God the Son does Islam give a reason for the Virgin Birth also I have read that the Virgin Birth was like the creation Adam and Eve also is the Virgin Birth like the other Miracles like Moses and the Red Sea also does the Quran give the reason why God can't become Human or become a Man or come down to this Planet Earth ? Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.

[truthseeker63]

Does Islam believe non Muslims are Atheists since they believe in false gods and reject the true God and his Prophets ?

[Ramadhan]

Was Jesus the onle Prophet who did not marry some Christians use this to say he must God or God's son because he was the only Prophet who did not marry but is it true that Mary in the Quuran never married too ?

so a single man is a quality of God?

Christianity just got weirder and weirder and illogical and downright absurd.

[truthseeker63]

Does the Quran talk about the Christian Trinity is it called Pagan or at least called false ?

[Ramadhan]

does the Quran give the reason why God can't become Human or become a Man or come down to this Planet Earth ? Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.

QS. Al - Ikhlas:

Say, "He is Allah , [who is] One,

Allah , the Eternal Refuge.

He neither begets nor is born,

Nor is there to Him any equivalent."

[Ramadhan]

Does the Quran talk about the Christian Trinity is it called Pagan or at least called false ?

“Surely, disbelievers are those who said: ‘Allaah is the third of the three (in a Trinity).’ But there is no Ilaah (god) (none who has the right to be worshipped) but One Ilaah (God —Allaah). And if they cease not from what they say, verily, a painful torment will befall on the disbelievers among them”
[al-Maa'idah 5:73]

“Surely, in disbelief are they who say that Allaah is the Messiah, son of Maryam (Mary)”

[al-Maa'idah 5:17]



“And the Jews say: ‘Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allaah, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allaah. That is their saying with their mouths, resembling the saying of those who disbelieved aforetime. Allaah’s Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth!
They (Jews and Christians) took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allaah (by obeying them in things which they made lawful or unlawful according to their own desires without being ordered by Allaah), and (they also took as their Lord) Messiah, son of Maryam (Mary), while they (Jews and Christians) were commanded [in the Tawraat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)] to worship none but One Ilaah (God — Allaah) Laa ilaaha illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He). Praise and glory be to Him (far above is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him)”
[al-Tawbah 9:31]

“O people of the Scripture (Christians)! Do not exceed the limits in your religion, nor say of Allaah aught but the truth. The Messiah ‘Eesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), was (no more than) a Messenger of Allaah and His Word, (‘Be’ — and he was) which He bestowed on Maryam (Mary) and a spirit (Rooh) created by Him; so believe in Allaah and His Messengers. Say not: ‘Three!’ Cease! (it is) better for you”

[al-Nisa’ 4:171]

[Al-manar]

does Islam give a reason for the Virgin Birth
.

The virgin birth was a miracle ,but hold on such miracle and alone won't make sense unless supported by (talking in the cradle miracle)

Holy Quran [19:27] She came to her family, carrying him. They said, "O Mary, you have committed something that is totally unexpected. [19:28] "O descendant of Aaron, your father was not a bad man, nor was your mother unchaste." [19:29] She pointed to him. They said, "How can we talk with an infant in the crib?" [19:30] (The infant spoke and) said, "I am a servant of GOD. He has given me the scripture, and has appointed me a prophet. [19:31] "He hath made me blessed wheresoever I may be, and hath enjoined upon me prayer and almsgiving so long as I remain alive."

If it was only virgin pregnancy then any adulterer woman can be pregnant and claims that the child is through a miracle ,so the talking in the cradle was very neccesary ..... and that is why I think the Quranic text if far superior and more convincing than the biblical .....

does the Quran give the reason why God can't become Human or become a Man or come down to this Planet Earth ?

well, as I said before ..let's just don't say God can or God can't
let's say God is or God isn't

Is he the christian trinity? if not why not? Was the man Jesus who lived 2000 years ago ,God the almighty ?

it is big issue and I tried to answer that question (partially) from a muslim point of view ,there
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ml#post1329752

still 4 posts related to the topic to settle it completely....

[Woodrow]

The virgin birth was a miracle ,but hold on such miracle and alone won't make sense unless supported by (talking in the cradle miracle)

Holy Quran [19:27] She came to her family, carrying him. They said, "O Mary, you have committed something that is totally unexpected. [19:28] "O descendant of Aaron, your father was not a bad man, nor was your mother unchaste." [19:29] She pointed to him. They said, "How can we talk with an infant in the crib?" [19:30] (The infant spoke and) said, "I am a servant of GOD. He has given me the scripture, and has appointed me a prophet. [19:31] "He hath made me blessed wheresoever I may be, and hath enjoined upon me prayer and almsgiving so long as I remain alive."

If it was only virgin pregnancy then any adulterer woman can be pregnant and claims that the child is through a miracle ,so the talking in the cradle was very neccesary ..... and that is why I think the Quranic text if far superior and more convincing than the biblical .....



well, as I said before ..let's just don't say God can or God can't
let's say God is or God isn't

Is he the christian trinity? if not why not? Was the man Jesus who lived 2000 years ago ,God the almighty ?

it is big issue and I tried to answer that question (partially) from a muslim point of view ,there
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ml#post1329752

still 4 posts related to the topic to settle it completely....

While the virgin Birth was a miracle, there have been and continue to be quasi virgin births. Quasi virginal in the sense that no sexual activity took place, but not true virginal birth as a man was involved. ie;Artificial insemination, semi artificial insemination through heavy sex play not involving actual intercourse, etc.

So I agree it did require the speaking of a baby to verify it was a true miracle.

[Abu-Abdullah]

Was Jesus the onle Prophet who did not marry some Christians use this to say he must God or God's son because he was the only Prophet who did not marry but is it true that Mary in the Quuran never married too ?

Hi Truthseeker,

not sure wether there were other prophets who did not marry, but the reason why Jesus [pbuh] did not marry was because Allah made him the embodiment of spirituality; this is why he was called the spirit of ALlah [i.e, spirit belonging to ALlah, or a spirit that is very precious to Allah]; in the time of Jesus [pbuh], his community was steeped in the desease of materialism; their illness' was caused by this desease [i.e ALlah inflicted illness on them due to their excessively materialistic lives], and to balance that off, Jesus [pbuh] was very spiritual indeed to the extent where he hardly partook in the wordly life; he ate very little, he slept very little?, he did not have a permanant abode and used to wander around [this is the meaning of Messiah, say some scholars] and did not marry....

but he will marry on his return...

[Abu-Abdullah]

I have met Christians who use the Virgin Birth of Jesus from his Mother Mary as proof that Jesus is God or God the Son does Islam give a reason for the Virgin Birth also I have read that the Virgin Birth was like the creation Adam and Eve also is the Virgin Birth like the other Miracles like Moses and the Red Sea also does the Quran give the reason why God can't become Human or become a Man or come down to this Planet Earth ? Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.

The virgin birth was just another one of those miracles that God backs Prophets up with, as proof for the people that they are indeed Gods messengers; Jesus was given particualrly big miracles as a Mercy to the jews; so that they will believe, for a lot of the jews were very rebelious and rejected past Prophets; many of the Jews did believe and do righteous deeds; many of the jews were Prophets themselves, thus it may be due to their sacrifice and prayers that God decided to be particualrly Mercifull to the jews with such great miracles, but yet most of them rejected Jesus [pbuh] imsad

however, the Quran revealed to the prophet Muhammad [saw] is said to be the greatest miracle of all

Jesus birth was like that of Adam in that ALlah created Jesus [pbuh] without a father, just as he did Adam [pbuh] [for Adam had no father or mother] and maybe another likeness is there of ALlah merely saying 'Be' [and it was] and the creation took place

God does not ever contradict His attributes, so if God is infinite, He does not ever become anything finite; nor does God do anything that his beneath his majesty

[Abu-Abdullah]

Does Islam believe non Muslims are Atheists since they believe in false gods and reject the true God and his Prophets ?

Islam considers all non-Muslims to be non-believers, for they have not embraced Islam, that was sent to all mankind, abrogating all previous divine dispensations

however not all scholars say that every one who dies as a non-Muslim will end up in hell; read about the differences of opinions on this in my post on page number 4 of the 'who leaves hell' thread on the clarifications about Islam board

[Perseveranze]

Peace,

Does this sound like a God to you...

http://www.beconvinced.com/archive/e...20Christianity



( They are unbelievers who say, “God is the Messiah, Mary’s son.” Say: “Who then shall override God in any way if He desires to destroy the Messiah, Mary’s son, and his mother, and all those who are on earth?” ) - [Quran 5:17]

[truthseeker63]

Is there anything I can say to a PolyTheist to get them to understand why PolyTheism is false and why MonoTheism is true my question is why can there only be one God and not many gods I want to try to help people I know who are PolyTheists.

[truthseeker63]

I have heard Christians say God has hands feet eyes therefor he looks human and can become human i think this is false but what does Islam say ?

[truthseeker63]

Question for Muslims about Islam does the Quran or any other Islamic text say why there can only be one God and not many gods ? Why is Monotheism true and Polytheism false ? Also is Polytheism false because there is no need for many gods there is only a need for one God since God can create everything and everyone why would God need other gods ?

It is Allah (SWT) who is One with no partners, no son, no need for anyone. He says in the Qur'an, "Allah bears witness that there is no deity but He, and the angels, and those having knowledge also bear witness to this; He is always maintaining His creation in Justice." (Al-Imran 3:18). Those having knowledge understand that a kingdom with two kings will result in chaos, and also understand that Allah cannot have a son, for if He were to have a son, then what would prevent His son from having a son and so forth? Like in Greek mythology, there would be a nation of Gods, and creations like the human would have no place in existence.

[truthseeker63]

I have heard people say that Zoroastrianism started Monotheism is this wrong ?

[- Qatada -]

I have heard Christians say God has hands feet eyes therefor he looks human and can become human i think this is false but what does Islam say ?

In Islam, we believe God has what He has affirmed for Himself in the Qur'an. He has told us that He has hands with which He created and fashioned Adam, He has a face, and He has eyes. We affirm whatever Allah affirmed for Himself, and stay silent about what He did not mention in His Book of Guidance about Himself.

However, His attributes are not in any way similar to the creation.


Furthermore, if someone said that this is anthromorphosism - they are wrong. Because we affirm that Allah has hands [as He said], yet we do not say it is like a human Hand. It would only be anthromorphosism if we said Allah's hand is a human hand.

Similarly, if you said that a human has a face, it is not the same face of a bird. Although you call both faces by the same term; Face.



Allah says;

لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ ۖ وَهُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْبَصِيرُ

There is not anything like Him (whatsoever), and He is The Ever-Hearing, The Ever-Seeing.

[as-Shuraa 42:11]

So we affirm what Allah attributed for Himself, without distorting the meanings of what He said.


This is much easier to believe, unlike other philosophies i.e. Sikhs who say that God is formless and just a pile of Energy. Rather - God is real, and the believers will see Him in Paradise, and He will infact talk to them and reward them by allowing them to look at Him out of His mercy for them.

They worshipped Him in this life without seeing Him, so He will reward them by letting them see Him.



See this amazing video for more details on the Amazing meeting with Allah according to the teachings of Prophet Muhammad;

A meeting with Allah;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEnDe_23II4

[- Qatada -]

I have heard people say that Zoroastrianism started Monotheism is this wrong ?

Zoroastrianism believes in 2 Gods; one God of good [Ahura Mazda], one of Evil [Angra Manyu]. That means these 2 gods are competing always, so they do not believe in Monotheism. The funny thing is that if these 2 Gods existed, they would have destroyed the universe by now through their disagreements. However, the Universe is constantly in motion and harmony so that us -the creation- live in peace and goodness, except when other humans do evil - through which it is human fault and not God's fault.


In Islam, we believe ALL the Messengers' of God - from Adam, to Noah, to Abraham, to Moses, to Jesus, to Muhammad (peace be upon them all), and 124,000 Prophets' of God called mankind to serve the One God, our Creator and Provider, and God gave them guidelines for mankind to follow through which they would be successful in this life and the next. Which shows that Islam has always been Monotheistic and pure. Islam means 'submission to God' and a Muslim is 'one who submits to God'. :)



Peace.

[Pygoscelis]

Is there anything I can say to a PolyTheist to get them to understand why PolyTheism is false and why MonoTheism is true my question is why can there only be one God and not many gods I want to try to help people I know who are PolyTheists.

Is there anything a plytheist could say to get you to understand that there are many Gods and not just one? I expect the answer is the same.

[Abu-Abdullah]

I have heard Christians say God has hands feet eyes therefor he looks human and can become human i think this is false but what does Islam say ?

Yes that is right Truthseeker, that is utterly fasle for God is infinite and utterly unlike the creation at all

The Quran says the same that God is beyond human conceptualisation, for God is unlike any created thing at all, and as our thoughts are created, then whatever we can think of, God is not that but far above that; God says:

"There is nothing whatsoever like unto Him" (Qur'an 42:11).

We say that Gods attributes such as 'the All-seeing, All- Hearing etc, etc, are without modality too so they are not like anything we can ever think of iether

The majority of the Scholars including the traditional Scholars have allways interpreted any seemingly anthropomorphic words in the Quran in regards to God as being metopohorical rather than literal; here are a few excerpts from Shaykh Keller that sheds more light on it:

"And [mention] when your Lord said to the angels, 'Truly, I will create a man from clay. So when I have completed him, and breathed into him of My spirit, then fall down prostrate to him.' And the angels prostrated, one and all. Save for Satan, who was too proud to, and disbelieved. He said to him, 'O Satan, what prevented you from prostrating to what I have created with My two hands? Are you arrogant, or too exalted?' He said,'I am better than he; You created me from fire and created him from clay'" (Qur'an 38:71-76).

Now, the God of Islam is transcendently above any suggestion of anthropomorphism, and Qur'anic exegetes like Fakhr al-Din al-Razi explain the above words created with My two hands as a figurative expression of Allah's special concern for this particular creation, the first human, since a sovereign of immense majesty does not undertake any work "with his two hands" unless it is of the greatest importance (Tafsir al-Fakhr al-Razi. 32 vols. Beirut 1401/1981. Reprint (32 vols. in 16). Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, 1405/1985, 26.231-32). I say "the first human," because the Arabic term bashar used in the verse "Truly, I will create a man from clay" means precisely a human being and has no other lexical significance.

The same interpretive considerations (of Allah's transcendance above the attributes of created things) apply to the words and breathed into him of My spirit. Because the Qur'an unequivocally establishes that Allah is Ahad or "One," not an entity divisible into parts, exegetes say this "spirit" was a created one, and that its attribution to Allah ("My spirit") is what is called in Arabic idafat al-tashrif "an attribution of honor," showing that the ruh or "spirit" within this first human being and his descendants was "a sacred, exalted, and noble substance" (ibid., 228)--not that there was a "part of Allah" such as could enter into Adam's body, which is unbelief. Similar attributions are not infrequent in Arabic, just as the Kaaba is called bayt Allah, or "the House of Allah," meaning "Allah's honored house," not that it is His address; or such as the she-camel sent to the people of Thamud, which was called naqat Allah, or "the she-camel of Allah," meaning "Allah's honored she-camel," signifying its inviolability in the shari'a of the time, not that He rode it; and so on.
......................................


Hands. In the verse,

"And the sky We built with hands; verily We outspread [it]" (Qur'an 51:47),

al-Tabari ascribes the figurative explanation (ta’wil) of with hands as meaning "with power (bi quwwa)" through five chains of transmission to Ibn ‘Abbas, who died 68 years after the Hijra, Mujahid who died 104 years after the Hijra, Qatada [ibn Da‘ama] who died 118 years after the Hijra, Mansur [ibn Zadhan al-Thaqafi] who died 131 years after the Hijra, and Sufyan al-Thawri who died 161 years after the Hijra (Jami‘ al-bayan, 27.7–8). I mention these dates to show just how early they were.

3. Shin. Of the Qur'anic verse,

"On a day when shin shall be exposed, they shall be ordered to prostrate, but be unable" (Qur'an 68:42),

al-Tabari says, "A number of the exegetes of the Companions (Sahaba) and their students (tabi‘in) held that it [a day when shin shall be exposed] means that a dire matter (amrun shadid) shall be disclosed" (Jami‘ al-bayan, 29.38)—the shin’s association with direness being that it was customary for Arab warriors fighting in the desert to ready themselves to move fast and hard through the sand in the thick of the fight by lifting the hems of their garments above the shin. This was apparently lost upon later anthropomorphists, who said the verse proved ‘Allah has a shin,’ or, according to others, ‘two shins, since one would be unbecoming.’ Al-Tabari also relates from Muhammad ibn ‘Ubayd al-Muharibi, who relates from Ibn al-Mubarak, from Usama ibn Zayd, from ‘Ikrima, from Ibn ‘Abbas that shin in the above verse means "a day of war and direness (harbin wa shidda)" (ibid., 29.38). All of these narrators are those of the sahih or rigorously authenticated collections except Usama ibn Zayd, whose hadiths are hasan or ‘well authenticated.’

4. Laughter.

Of the hadith related in Sahih al-Bukhari from Abu Hurayra that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, Allah Most High laughs about two men, one of whom kills the other, but both of whom enter paradise: the one fights in the path of Allah and is killed, and afterwards Allah forgives the killer, and then he fights in the path of Allah and is martyred,

the hadith master al-Bayhaqi records that the scribe of Bukhari [Muhammad ibn Yusuf] al-Farabri related that Imam al-Bukhari said, "The meaning of laughter in it is mercy" (Kitab al-asma’ wa al-sifat, 298).

5. Coming. The hadith master (hafiz) Ibn Kathir reports that Imam al-Bayhaqi related from al-Hakim from Abu ‘Amr ibn al-Sammak, from Hanbal, the son of the brother of Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s father, that Ahmad ibn Hanbal figuratively interpreted the word of Allah Most High,
"And your Lord shall come . . ." (Qur'an 89:22),

as meaning "His recompense (thawab) shall come." Al-Bayhaqi said, "This chain of narrators has absolutely nothing wrong in it" (al-Bidaya wa al-nihaya,10.342). In other words, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, like the Companions (Sahaba) and other early Muslims mentioned above, sometimes also gave figurative interpretations (ta’wil) to scriptural expressions that might otherwise have been misinterpreted anthropomorphically.

.........

To summarize everything I have said tonight, we have seen three ways of understanding the mutashabihat, or ‘unapparent in meaning’ verses and hadiths:

tafwid, ‘consigning the knowledge of what is meant to Allah,’ ta’wil, ‘figurative interpretation within the parameters of classical Arabic usage,’ and lastly tashbih, or ‘anthropomorphic literalism.’

We saw that the way of tafwid or ‘consigning the knowledge of what is meant to Allah,’ was the way of Shafi‘i, Ahmad, and many of the early Muslims. A second interpretive possibility, the way of ta’wil, or ‘figurative interpretation,’ was also done by the Companions (Sahaba) and many other early Muslims as reported above. In classical scholarship, both have been considered Islamic, and both seem needed, though tafwid is superior where it does not lead to confusion about Allah’s transcendence beyond the attributes of created things, in accordance with the Qur'anic verse,

"There is nothing whatsoever like unto Him" (Qur'an 42:11).

As for anthropomorphism, it is clear from this verse and from the entire history of the Umma, that it is not an Islamic school of thought, and never has been. In all times and places, Islam has invited non-Muslims to faith in the Incomparable Reality called Allah; not making man a god, and not making God a man.

[see article: Literalism and the attributes of ALlah, by Shaykh Nuh Keller]

[truthseeker63]

Christians I talk to think that the virgin birth is proof of Jesus being God in human form but Adam and Eve were miracles too right they had no parents also Jesus spoke in the cradle as a baby when he was born that would be a miracle as far as I know only he did I don't think any other Prophet spoke in the cradle what Im trying to say is that I don't see the virgin birth as proof of Jesus being God the virgin birth was a miracle but so was Jesus speaking in the cradle as a baby and his other miracles.

[truthseeker63]

I have heard some Atheists and Evolutionists say that the similarities between humans and apes is proof of Evolution but similarities to me is just proof of common design designed by God there may be physical similarities and dna similarities between humans and apes but this could just be evidence of comon design or a common designer does anyone agree with me ?

[GuestFellow]

I agree with you.

[selsebil]

Dear Truthseeker,

You're absolutely right that there is a common Designer.Most of the mammals have similar organs.But this is not a proof that they have the same origin.Here is an article by Scholar Fethullah Gulen about evolution.It's worth to read:

" It would be difficult to find another theory which, like Darwinism, has been battered and defeated so many times, and yet the corpse of it revived artificially again and again. Some scientists still defend it to the hilt; others discredit it altogether, asserting that holding to it is sheer delusion. It seems that, in the academic scientific world, Darwinism will keep conference agendas busy for some time yet, and thousands more articles and books will be written on it, and the debates persist.

The collapse of communism as an ideology and as a political force has made it more obvious than it was before that "East" and "West" was a geographical, not a cultural divide. It was and is right to think of the experiment in Russia and its former satellite states as a variation within Western culture, not an opposition to it. The strictly Western attitude to religion, derived from Rousseau and Renan, was to see it as a socially necessary myth, a delusion that provided a sort of cultural and social cohesion to collective life but which had no more basis in reality than do dreams. The strictly Eastern (Communist) attitude, founded upon explicit rejection of religion and explicit acceptance of materialism, naturally favored Darwinism (which entails the same rejection) and gave to it more deliberate and institutional support than in the West. But in the broader view, modern Western culture as a whole is closely predicated on the assumptions of Darwinism, and those who, in Muslim countries, wish to promote Western culture, continue, in universities and educational institutions generally, to pass off Darwinism as established scientific truth and, by implication, to represent religion as unscientific and false. Inevitably, some of this poison is effective on pliable young minds: many of them begin to believe (though far fewer continue to believe) that religion is not conformable to human reason, and that, as an explanation of the origin of species, Darwinism is still the best that independent human reason can do.

I will not go into the details of the evolutionary hypothesis, but within the scope of brief question and answer, I will touch upon some of the major points.

According to Darwin, life originated on earth from simple, single celled organisms giving rise to multi cellular organisms through a process of gradual change, along with random mutations, over millions of years. According to more developed forms of evolutionary theory, the foundation of all living things is amino acids within water, which later somehow got formed into single celled organisms, like the amoeba, and these organisms interacting with each other and the immediate environment over uncalculated billions of years, gradually or by sudden jumps evolved into the great variety of complex multi cellular animals. Then the invertebrates gave rise to aquatic vertebrates, i.e., fish, which evolved into amphibians which gave rise to reptiles; later, some reptiles evolved into birds, while others evolved into mammals culminating in the evolution of humankind.

The hypothesis is typically argued on the basis of a few incomplete pieces of fossils, though, so far, the actual fossil record has failed to endorse that view. To our knowledge, no scientific hypothesis except this one was ever sustained on the basis of so many, and so important "missing links." What the scientists have discovered through observation proves the opposite of the evolutionary theory true: in spite of having many varieties, bacteria have not evolved into anything different and higher though they adapt very quickly; in whatever variety they exist, cockroaches and insects have been living as they are for almost 350 million years. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies for millions of years; arthropoda, sponges, and sea crabs today are exactly as found in fossils from rock formations formed 500 million years ago; snakes, lizards, mice, and many other species, have not evolved into any other different species; nor have horse's hooves or human feet evolved into something different. Man is, as we put it, exactly the same as he was created on the first day.

There are no examples of the transitional organisms that the theory requires, such as, for example, an animal that has evolved its front legs partly (but not yet wholly) into wings in readiness for the transition to bird like flight. And, unsurprisingly, there is not even a theoretical explanation, given that such transitions are supposed to take thousands of generations to complete. How the partly evolved animal could survive in what kind of environment—lacking four "good" legs, and still not equipped with two good legs and a pair of wings.

Many arguments give the erroneous example of the evolution of the horse from a small dog like mammal with five toes to the large modern horse with one toe or hoof. In fact, the evolutionists have no evidence for that claim. Nowhere in the world have they found a series of fossils to demonstrate such an evolutionary order. It remains entirely hypothetical, suppositional. They talk about an animal which lived in the past and claim that it was the ancestor of the modern horse; but they cannot establish any necessary connection between the modern horse and that animal: the only need for that connection is the need to illustrate the theory, which the illustration is supposed to establish. This is the very opposite of reliable scientific argument and procedure. We shall say that God created such an animal at that age which later on became extinct, and it no longer exists now. Why do we need to connect these two species? Even today horses of different sizes and breeds co exist in our age.

Scientists found bees and honey from millions of years ago. The bee produced honey and the honeycomb in the same way as it does today, using the same geometrical measures, 100 million years ago. So, for that whole expanse of time neither the bee's brain and physiological structure nor the way it produces honey have changed.

What of the evolution of humankind? It is especially badly argued and ill founded. Some scientist discovered some bones, or even just the tooth of an ape, and posited (that is, guessed) the rest—the body posture, flesh, skin, hair, features, etc., of the evolved "human."

Piltdown Man is a good example to famous scientific hoaxes related with evolution. The supposed discovery near Piltdown, England, of an ape like fossil ancestral to modern humans, was reported in 1912. The discovery included fragments of what were later proved to be a modern human cranium and the jawbone of an ape. For many years the Pildown man fossil was a subject of anthropological controversy. In 1953, scientific analyses proved the fossil a forgery.

Evolutionists used to mention the coelacanth, a fish abundant 400 million years ago, as a link between the fish and the land animals because of its limb like fins. It was theorized that the coelacanth lurched onto the land in search of food, staying there longer and longer until—about 70 million years ago—it disappeared from the fossil record. To their surprise, local fishermen caught several dozen coelacanths off the coast of Madagascar in 1938. The caught fish were exactly like their ancestors, perfectly adapted to their deep sea environment and showing no signs of evolution. The coelacanth has been quietly dropped by many text books from the list of evidences of evolution, because it became the symbol of the non evolution of organisms, rather than of their evolution.

Evolutionists also claim that the organisms evolve through random mutations. While new cells are being formed, if the genetic code, normally identical in all the cells of an organism, is copied differently or mistakenly, mutations occur. Such a change, which is claimed to bear evolutionary fruit gradually over a long period, may be caused by a number of external agents, such as geography and climate, even planetary influences such as changes in the sun's or earth's rotation, or by radiation, chemical pollution, etc. The argument is that non lethal mutations which reproduce successfully (that is, adaptively to changes in immediate environment) function like sudden jumps in the progress of evolution and give rise to species variation.

However, recent work in genetics and biochemistry has shown conclusively that mutations are all but always harmful, even lethal, the cause of many physiological disorders. In any case, they could not give rise to a magnitude of change of an order to generate a new species, to make a dog a horse, or an ape a human. For such an order of change to occur randomly and then to become successfully established would require a period of time many times in excess of the highest estimate for the age of the universe.

For years, much research has been done on pigeons, dogs and flies. Though some physiological changes do occur within the same race of animals (there are different breeds of dog and pigeon, for example), such adaptive evolution within species is no evidence for evolution of species. All the extensive research done for years on Drosophila yielded nothing but Drosophila, and the research proved that Drosophila remains as it is.

Hybrid varieties are obtained by artificially crossing two species, such as horse and donkey, but the resultant hybrid (mule) is typically sterile. After long research, scientists have recognized that it is not possible to progress from one species to another. There are some insurmountable, impassable, barriers between species. That conforms to ordinary sense, as well as to the known facts and to scientific reasoning. How could such a creature as human, who has an extraordinarily sophisticated brain and is capable of (in any and every stage of civilization) of linguistic and cultural expression, of religious belief and aspiration—how could such a creature have evolved from an ape? It is quite extraordinary that even to speculate that it might be so can be given serious consideration, let alone believed and accepted as conforming to reason!

However, that acceptance of evolution is a major pillar of modern materialism, and of historical materialism in particular, as Marx and Engels insistently pointed out. It is a sort of blind faith, a prejudice, a superstition that the materialists cling to Darwinism of the crudest kind. They insist that absolutely everything be explained by material causes. As for what, by those limited means, they cannot explain, they dare not admit that they cannot explain it so. They can never allow that there must be a supra natural, metaphysical agency that intervenes to make the biological world as it is, so wonderfully abundant, prolific, diverse and, within stable forms, so marvelously adaptive and versatile in response to local environmental possibilities.

The alternative to evolution is design which necessarily leads to the concept of a transcendent and unitary power, the Designer Creator, God. Therein lies the reason for the continuing tyranny of the Darwinist theory: the fear that to acknowledge the Creator will bring down the edifice of an autonomous science, an autonomous human reason. An individual scientist in his or her private capacity may be a believer, a theist, but science itself must be unbelieving, atheistic. It is ironic indeed that to preserve the illusion of independent human reason, the Darwinists (and materialists generally) will defy or ignore the facts, deny and belittle logic and reason. It is to the credit of the scientific community that, in ever greater numbers, individual scientists have found the courage to question and challenge the tyranny of Darwinism in the teaching of the life sciences.

That said, it remains unfortunately true that, some young, pliable minds are vulnerable to the myth of Darwinism simply because it is the official dogma, the staple of all textbooks on the subject everywhere. How true and apt is the Turkish proverb—that a half wit can throw a pearl into a well with ease, and forty wise men struggle in vain to get it out again. Nonetheless, there is solace in the knowledge that a lie, however mightily supported, can have but a short life. The truth of the matter is that the origin of the species, and of the major divisions of species, is not yet understood. Is it too heavy a burden on humility to say: "We marvel, but we do not know"? And we marvel most at, and understand least of all, the origin of intelligent speech, ideation, abstraction, symbolization, culture, love of beauty and variety, consciousness, altruism, morality religion, and spiritual aspiration.

To be sure, Darwin was a great and gifted scientist who must be credited with a mighty contribution to the ordering and classifying of species, and for his work on adaptation; but it should be noted that what he did well and incontrovertibly is to observe accurately and understood intelligently what was there in nature.

Whatever his own intentions, in spite of them, his work, like every reliable advance in observation and explanation, confirms the Divine Architect, the All Mighty Power, Sustainer, Administrator, Who willed the marvelous organization, reliable, systematic, subtly integrated harmony of the operations of nature, and who combined that order with beauty. Whereas what Darwin found increases our faith in God, it led him astray.

How great, sublime, is the Creator. Order, understanding, wisdom are by His gift. Likewise, guidance to faith is absolutely in His grasp."

[truthseeker63]

What does Islam think of Slavery I know the Bible supports Slavery but I have heard that the Quran says to Free Slaves is this true ?

[Zuzubu]

Islam allows slavery, but in the manner that they are captures of war only, and that u can marry them (the women) or use them for intercourse if they agree. But u should treat them well with respect, so if there is pizza in the house, u should give them too. Cuz u know that they like pizza!! =)

The prophet made deals with slaves and told them if they earned enough money, or they taucht enough kids to read, he would free them. :)

[Zuzubu]

Also, the bible allows slavery in unrespectful manners. Like what we saw in Africa. Arabs used to be slave traders, and the prophet also married some slaves himself. I was also surprised to know this, but I figuredout it's alright to be a slave. Also some people would prefer to be slaves (as they were treaten better as slaves than normal people) because if ur a slave ur master gives you food and roof. Otherwise u have to worry about urself a lot.

[selsebil]

Dear Truthseeker,

Here is an article by Scholar Fethullah Gulen about slavery.It's long, but worth to read :

" There are historical, social, and psychological dimensions to this question. First, the very word slavery conjures up revulsion, sorrow, and deep disgust, especially when we remember how slaves were treated in ancient Rome and Egypt. Pictures of people building the pyramids, of gladiators fighting each other to the death for the spectators' amusement, and of people bound by shameful yokes and chains around their necks come to mind when we hear that word.
Nearer to our own time, we have the western European variety of slavery. The barbarity and bestiality of this enormous trade beggars all description. The trade was principally in Africans who were transported across the oceans, packed in specially designed ships, and considered and treated as livestock. These slaves were forced to change their names, abandon their religion and language, deprived of all hope for freedom, and were kept for labor or breeding purposes. A birth among them was celebrated as if it were a death.

It is difficult to understand how human beings could conceive of fellow human beings in such a light, still less treat them thus. But it certainly happened. Documentary evidence shows, for example, how shipmasters would throw their human cargo overboard to claim compensation for their loss. Slaves had no legal or other rights, but only obligations. Their owners had the absolute right to dispose of them as they wished—brothers and sisters, parents and children, were separated or allowed to stay together according to the owner's mood or economic convenience.

Centuries of this dreadful practice made western Europe rich from its slave-based exploitation of such commodities as sugar, cotton, coffee. When it abolished slavery, first as a trade and then altogether with much self-congratulation, only the slave-owners were compensated. In other words, the attitudes that made slavery possible remained.

Not many years after its abolition, Africa was colonized by western Europe with consequences for the Africans no less terrible than slavery itself. Moreover, because their attitude to non-Europeans has changed little, if at all, the slaves' descendants continue to live in poor social and political conditions. Those who live amid Europeans remain despised inferiors. Anthropological museums in western European capitals only closed their public displays of bones and stuffed bodies of fellow (but non-white) human beings several decades ago—displays that had been organized by European scientists, doctors, learned people, and humanitarians.

In short, the institution of slavery disgusts the human heart, as do the attitudes of inhumanity that sustain it. If the institution no longer formally exists but the attitudes persist, can we say that humanity has made any progress? This is why colonial exploitation replaced slavery, and why the chains of unbearable, unrepayable international debt have replaced colonial exploitation. Slavery has disappeared, but its inhuman and barbarous structures are still securely in place.

Before we turn to the Islamic perspective on slavery, let's recall a name famous even among western Europeans: Harun al-Rashid. This ruler, who enjoyed such authority and power over Muslims, was the son of a slave. Nor is he the only such example. Slaves and their children enjoyed enormous prestige, authority, respect, and (shall we say it) freedom within the Islamic system, in all cultural, political, and other spheres of life. How was this possible?

Islam amended the institution of slavery and educated masters about slaves. The Qur'an states many times that everyone is descended from a single ancestor (Adam), and that no one is inherently superior to anyone else because of race, nation, or social standing. The Prophet applied these principles in his own life, and his Companions learned them and accepted them as laws and as social norms. The Prophet stated:

"Whoever kills a slave shall be killed. Whoever imprisons and starves a slave will be imprisoned and starved. Whoever castrates a slave will be castrated." [1]

"You are sons of Adam, and Adam was created from clay." [2]

"No Arab is superior to a non-Arab, and no non-Arab is superior to an Arab. No white person is superior to a black person, and no black person is superior to a white person. Superiority is based on righteousness and God-fearing alone." [3]

Because of this compassionate attitude, slaves and those described as poor and lowly were respected by those who enjoyed high social status. [4] 'Umar expressed such respect when he said: "Master Bilal, whom Master Abu Bakr set free." [5]

Unlike other civilizations, Islam requires that slaves be thought of and treated within the framework of universal human brotherhood. The Prophet said: "Your servants and your slaves are your brothers (and sisters). Those who have slaves should give them from what they eat and wear. They should not charge their slaves with work beyond their capabilities. If you must set them to hard work, in any case I advise you to help them." He also said: "None of you should (when introducing someone) say: 'This is my (male) slave' or 'This is my female slave.' Rather, call them 'my daughter,' 'my son,' or 'my brother.'"

For this reason, 'Umar and his slave took turns riding a camel while traveling from Madina to Jerusalem to take control of Masjid al-Aqsa. While he was caliph, 'Uthman had his slave pull his own ears in public, since he had pulled his. The Companion Abu Dharr, applying the hadith literally, made his slave wear one half of his suit while he wore the other half. These Muslims, and many others, showed succeeding generations of Muslims how to treat slaves as full human beings worthy of the same respect, dignity, and justice given to non-slaves.

This constructive and positive treatment necessarily affected the master's attitude. Slaves retained their humanity and moral dignity, and had a place within the master's family. Even when they were freed, not all wanted to leave their masters. Starting with Zayd ibn Harith, this practice became quite common. Although the Prophet gave Zayd his freedom, the latter chose to remain. Masters and slaves were able to regard each other as brothers and sisters because their faith enabled them to understand that differences between people are not permanent. Therefore, neither haughtiness nor rancor were acceptable.

[1] Abu Dawud, Diyat, 70; Tirmidhi, Diyat, 17; al-Nasa'i, Qasama, 10:16.
[2] Tirmidhi, Tafsir, 49; Manaqib, 73; Abu Dawud, Adab, 111.
[3] Ibn Hanbal, Musnad, 411.
[4] Muslim, Birr, 138; Jannat, 48; Tirmidhi, Manaqib, 54, 65.
[5] Bilal, one of the earliest Muslims, was a black Ethiopian slave. He eventually was chosen by the Prophet to be the official muezzin (caller to prayer) of the Muslim community. Abu Bakr, one of the pre-Islamic Makkan elite and also an early convert, was the Prophet's political successor and the first of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs. Bukhari, Fada'il al-Sahaba, 23.
In addition, there were strict principles enforced as law, such as: "Whoever kills a slave shall be killed; whoever imprisons and starves a slave shall be imprisoned and starved." Besides sanctions mandating proper treatment, slaves also enjoyed the legal right to earn money and hold property independently of their masters, to keep their religion, and to have a family and family life with the attendant rights and obligations. Along with personal dignity and a degree of material security, Islamic laws and norms allowed slaves a still more precious opening—the hope and means of freedom.

Human freedom is God-given, and therefore everyone's natural and proper condition. Thus to restore a person, either wholly or partly, to this condition is one of the highest virtues. Freeing half of a slave's body is considered equal to saving half of one's own body from God's wrath in the next world. Freeing a slave's whole body is considered equal to saving one's whole body. Seeking freedom for enslaved people is an acceptable reason for engaging in warfare. Muslims were encouraged to enter into agreements and contracts that enabled slaves to earn or be granted their freedom after a certain time or, most typically, on the owner's death. Unconditional emancipation was regarded as most meritorious and worthy in the Hereafter. Sometimes groups of people would buy and free large numbers of slaves in order to obtain God's favor.

Freeing a slave also was the legal expiation for certain sins or failures in religious duties, such as breaking an oath or a fast—a good deed to cancel a moral lapse. The Qur'an orders that a person who accidentally kills a Muslim must free a believing slave and pay the blood-money to the victim's family (4:92). A killing affects both the society and the victim's family. The blood-money is a partial compensation for the latter, while freeing a slave is a bill paid to the community—it gains a free person. To free a living person in return for a death was considered like bringing someone back to life. Both personal and public wealth was used to free slaves. The Prophet and Abu Bakr were known for this practice. Later on, especially during the reign of 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz, public zakat funds were used for this purpose.

A possible question: Islam regards slavery as a social evil, regardless of how well slaves are treated or how many rights they enjoy. Therefore, why was it not abolished, as happened with alcohol, interest, gambling, or prostitution? Why did the Prophet condone it?

Until the evil of the European slave trade, slavery was largely a byproduct of war, for the victors normally enslaved the survivors. During Islam's early years, there was no reliable system of exchanging prisoners of war. The available means of dealing with them were execution, placing them in prison, allowing them to go home, or distributing them among the Muslims as spoils of war.

The first option must be ruled out on the grounds of its barbarity. The second is practicable only for small numbers and for a limited period of time, provided that there are enough resources to care for them. This option was used, for prisoners were taken in the hope of ransom payments. Many Makkans held by the Muslims were so satisfied with their treatment that they became Muslims and changed sides. The third option is imprudent in times of war. This leaves, as a general practice, only the fourth option. Islam instituted humane laws and norms for what is, in effect, the rehabilitation of prisoners of war.

While living among Muslims, slaves saw at close quarters the truth of Islam in practice. Many slaves were won over by the kind treatment they received and Islam's humanity, not to mention their access to many of the legal rights enjoyed by Muslims, and, ultimately, by the chance to regain their freedom. Thousands of ex-slaves can be found among the great and famous names in Islam, and their won examples became a norm for future Muslims—imams such as Nafi' (Imam Malik's teacher) and Tawus ibn Qaisan, to name only two.

In general, Muslims considered slavery a temporary condition. Unlike Western civilization, whose values are now so much in fashion, slavery was not an inherited condition that engulfed whole generations in deepening spirals of degradation, despair, and hopelessness. On the contrary, enjoying a status as fundamentally equal to everyone else, slaves in Muslim society could and did live in secure possession of their dignity as creatures of the same Creator. They had access to the mainstream of Islamic culture and civilization—to which, as we have noted, they contributed greatly. In Western societies where slavery was widespread, particularly in North and South America, the descendants of slaves, even generations after their ancestors' formal emancipation, remain largely on the fringes of society, a sub-culture or anti-culture—which is only sometimes tolerated, and mostly despised, by the dominant community.

When the Muslims were secure against foreign conquest, why did they not free all of their former captives or slaves? Again, the answer has to do with existing realities. Those former captives or slaves did not have the personal, psychological, or economic resources needed to establish a secure and dignified independence. Remember what happened in the United States when the slaves were suddenly freed by President Lincoln. Many were abruptly reduced to destitution and homelessness by their former owners (who were compensated) who no longer accepted any responsibility for them. They were thrown, without any preparation, into the wider society from which they had been so long excluded by law.

In contrast, observant Muslim masters who embraced their slaves as brothers and sisters encouraged them to work for their freedom, recognized their rights, helped them support a family, and helped them find a place in society before freeing them. The example that comes to mind is that of Zayd ibn Harith, who was brought up in the Prophet's own household and set free. He married a noblewoman and was appointed commander of a Muslim army composed of many noblemen and Companions. There are many similar examples.

There are two important points to emphasize here: the Muslims' attitude toward slavery, and the condition of slaves in non-Muslim countries. Islam considers slavery an accidental and therefore temporary condition, one that is to be reformed step by step until it almost completely disappears. However, it has been observed that some Muslims, especially rulers, continued to hold slaves. Islam cannot be blamed for this, for it is the individual Muslim's own spiritual deficiency that caused him or her to behave in such a manner.

The other point is that personal habits engender a second nature. When Lincoln abolished slavery, most slaves had to return to their former owners because they had never learned how to take the initiative and choose for themselves. As a result, they could not live as free people. Given this psychological reality, prisoners of war were distributed among Muslims so that one day they could live a true Islamic social life as free people in a Muslim society and enjoy their full legal rights.

Islam sought to abolish slavery gradually. In the first step, it enabled slaves to realize their true human consciousness and identity. After that, it educated them in Islamic and human values, and inculcated in them a love of freedom. Thus, when they were freed, former slaves were equipped to consider all kinds of possibilities related to becoming useful members of the community: farmers, artisans, teachers, scholars, commanders, governors, ministers, or even prime ministers.

Islam attempted to destroy the institution of "individual slavery," and never envisaged or tried "national slavery." So, as a Muslim, I pray to God that enslaved—colonized, oppressed—peoples will enjoy real freedom."

[Woodrow]

Islam allows slavery, but in the manner that they are captures of war only, and that u can marry them (the women) or use them for intercourse if they agree. But u should treat them well with respect, so if there is pizza in the house, u should give them too. Cuz u know that they like pizza!! =)

The prophet made deals with slaves and told them if they earned enough money, or they taucht enough kids to read, he would free them. :)

There is a misconception about using slaves for intercourse. Intercourse is forbidden out side of marriage. It is permissible to marry a slave, if she/he meets the criteria for marriage. At one time a temporary marriage was permitted when spouses would be separated for long periods of time because of war or other disasters. Essentially all of the requirements had to be met and the obligations of being married were the same except the marriage could be terminated after conditions returned to normal. The conditions that allowed this type marriage have not existed for for a very long time and in today's world it is doubtful they would exist anyplace.

[GuestFellow]

There is a misconception about using slaves for intercourse. Intercourse is forbidden out side of marriage. It is permissible to marry a slave, if she/he meets the criteria for marriage. At one time a temporary marriage was permitted when spouses would be separated for long periods of time because of war or other disasters. Essentially all of the requirements had to be met and the obligations of being married were the same except the marriage could be terminated after conditions returned to normal. The conditions that allowed this type marriage have not existed for for a very long time and in today's world it is doubtful they would exist anyplace.

:sl:

I think it is called Mut'ah marriage? I heard the Muslim soldiers even considered castration... :skeleton: So this temporary marriage was introduced.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. I sometimes confuse Mut'ah and Misyeer marriage.

[Woodrow]

:sl:

I think it is called Mut'ah marriage? I heard the Muslim soldiers even considered castration... :skeleton: So this temporary marriage was introduced.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. I sometimes confuse Mut'ah and Misyeer marriage.

You are correct, that was a Mut'ah marriage. but the conditions that called for it, no longer exist so it is very doubtful there could be a legal Mut'ah marriage in today's world.

[GuestFellow]

^ I know in Iran Mut'ah marriage is common. Shia religious clerics support it.

I heard it is common in Bahrain too.

[Perseveranze]

Peace,

The Quran 100% encourages to free slaves, the Prophet said it is one of the "best of deeds" to free a slave. As you can imagine, Muslims would certainly do this in numbers. It was really easy to become free in those days, if your owner even slapped you around the face (without justified reason) he had to free you. Slaves could buy their freedom back aswell. Not only this, but the owner had to make sure that if the Slave became free that he/she was able to support themselves, so they would give them money etc. No point in freeing a slave if their going to die later from hunger or get captured again right?

Slaves were to be treated as family, Owners were forbidden to hit them and told to not give them work "beyond their capacity" and if you did, then you yourself should help them. So many Hadiths support this. Anyone living 1400 years ago anywhere in the world would rather be the slave of a Muslim than anyone else.

Slavery 1400 years ago was important in Islam. Firstly, during war the losing side would have many orphans, widows and people without any means to support themselves. They would likely suffer and die off if they weren't taken in as slaves, treated as FAMILY, have many opportunities to become free and even eventually be able to support themselves, not a bad deal don't you think? Another reason why Slavery was important back then was, if the enemy captured the slaves, they would force them to fight/go against the Muslims (which obviously doesn't help in the cause of spreading Islam).

Scholars estimate around 300,000 slaves were freed during the time of the Prophet(pbuh). If people had continue'd to follow the teachings of the Prophet(pbuh) after he had passed away, slavery would've been abolished much sooner in Islam than it originally did.

This topic is a broad one, people misunderstand it alot sadly, if you take some time into doing some real good research into this you'll understand it better.

1- Both financial and social security. When their country or tribe lost the war, they also lost most or all of their money as war booty. Being out of money and food, it becomes necessary for an individual to find the means for basic survival in life. Living as a slave would provide this.
2- Protection from hostile individuals. Even under the Islamic rule, you can still find hostile individuals who violate the Law and take matters into their own hands. An enemy family can be sometime in danger if they don't have a "protector".
3- Widows, Orphans, and the extremely poor of the enemy side need the financial and social protection from a Master. Back then, there were no governments with good social system that protects everyone. Slavery back then was that social system in special cases.

Read more about what I said here - http://www.answering-christianity.com/equality.htm

[Zuzubu]

Castration is haram, isn't it?

[Zuzubu]

Well, quran indeed tells us that we can seek pleasure in those female slaves whom our right hand posses (slaves)

[- Qatada -]

In Islam, we recognise there is Slavery. Except Slaves have rights and can even buy their own freedom.


See;
http://www.load-islam.com/artical_de...Misconceptions

[- Qatada -]

Us humans are more similar to Pigs in DNA than we are to monkeys :)

Reseachers study human, pig genomes


URBANA, Ill. (AP) — While it's easy to see that pigs and humans are very different, beneath the skin are striking similarities, researchers at the University of Illinois are finding.

The researchers say their work comparing the two species' genomes, or DNA maps, eventually could give medical researchers information they need to develop treatments for clogged arteries, cancer or other human diseases.

"When we look at the DNA sequence, we're a lot alike," said Jonathan Beever, an animal geneticist at the university's Urbana-Champaign campus who spent nearly two years compiling the genome comparison with UI colleague Lawrence Schook and graduate student Stacey Meyers. "The pig is just a spectacular model for humans."

A genome is the complete set of genetic instructions for making an organism — a master plan of sorts. The components of that plan, genes, are carried on DNA molecules that organize themselves into chromosomes, according to a primer on genetics published by the Human Genome Project.

A side-by-side comparison shows at least 173 places on pig and human chromosomes where the genes match, Beever said.

It is not unusual for mammals to have identical genes. But the same gene might work with other genes to control something very different in a pig than in a human, and learning where each gene lies on the genome should help determine what role it plays in the animal's makeup, Schook said.
The new comparative map gets researchers closer to that goal, he said, comparing the progress to reading a book.

"If you look at where we've been before, we were happy if we were breaking down into book chapters," he said. "Now we're getting to sentences. The next step is to go to words and letters."

The map provides a starting point for researchers who, until now, have had to "hunt and peck" to find matching genes, said Gary Rohrer, a geneticist with the USDA's Meat Animal Research Center in Clay Center, Neb.
"Rather than having to write the book, you can read the book and find the answer out," he said.


Those answers could help researchers understand and treat diseases of both species because genetic diseases might look the same in a pig as in a human, Schook said.

For instance, side-by-side comparison of a gene that predisposes a person to develop cardiovascular plaque would allow researchers to look at the variation that contributes to the disease and compare it to the same genetic sequence in the pig and test treatments, he said.

"You can do radiation therapies and other treatments that are difficult to use in smaller animals," Schook said.

The next step, or getting to the "words and letters" described by Schook, is determining how genes line up on each DNA molecule in the swine genome, a process called sequencing. Schook and Beever hope to begin that work within six months, Schook said.

Sequencing of the human genome was completed in 2003, and the first draft of the bovine, or cow, genome was finished last year.

The swine genome sequencing project will be led from the University of Illinois working with the Sanger Institute, a genomic research center in England, Schook said.

___
On the Net:
University of Illinois College of Agricultural, Environmental and Consumer Sciences: http://www.aces.uiuc.edu

SOURCE: Reseachers study human, pig genomes - NewsFlash - mlive.com


also read;
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Cloned pigs raise transplant hopes

[Ramadhan]

Us humans are more similar to Pigs in DNA than we are to monkeys

This is yet another evidence from modern science that give support to Islam strict ban on consuming pig.
Or as a muslim, we call it "hikmah"

[Trumble]

In Islam, we recognise there is Slavery. Except Slaves have rights and can even buy their own freedom.

An option that was open to both slaves in the Roman Empire and the pre Civil War slave-states in the US.

[جوري]

An option that was open to both slaves in the Roman Empire and the pre Civil War slave-states in the US.

point being?

What does Islam think of Slavery

[Zuzubu]

I think the answer is clear. No need to discuss ?

[Trumble]

Sorry - duplicate post

[Trumble]

I have heard some Atheists and Evolutionists say that the similarities between humans and apes is proof of Evolution but similarities to me is just proof of common design designed by God there may be physical similarities and dna similarities between humans and apes but this could just be evidence of comon design or a common designer does anyone agree with me ?

So do I. The existence of such similarities is compatible with both theses. Something of a strawman, though.. who are these 'evolutionists' supposedly suggesting similarities between species are 'proof' of evolution?

Us humans are more similar to Pigs in DNA than we are to monkeys :)

Or not...... Do pigs share 98 per cent of human genes?

Like it or not, we've all got a lot in common with pigs. We're omnivorous mammals that gain weight easily and are susceptible to the flu for starters.

The sheer fact that pigs and humans are mammals means that we share some genes. But it is simplistic to put an actual figure on the amount of genetic material we have in common, says animal geneticist Professor Chris Moran from the University of Sydney's Faculty of Veterinary Science.

"Making broad comparisons by saying … 98 per cent of [human] genes are similar to a chimpanzee or whatever else … tend to be a little bit misleading," says Moran.

The amount of genetic material we share with other species depends upon what you compare.

All living organisms have genetic information encoded in deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), divided into units called genes. Information is transferred from the genes via a chemical called ribonucleic acid (RNA). Some RNA is translated into chains of amino-acid that make up proteins, the building blocks of every living cell.

Scientists have discovered about 20,000 mammalian genes that encode proteins with similar basic functions. So if you compare the protein-encoding portion of our DNA we have a lot in common with a lot of mammals.

"Mammals have most of the same genes for similar biochemical and physiological functions. If you look at the details of the genes … there'll be differences between them, but they'll still be doing the same kind of function," says Moran.

"It's a little bit like having a Ford or a Holden — it's still obviously a car but a slightly different version."

But while 20,000 similar genes sounds like a lot, only one to two per cent of our DNA actually encodes proteins. Most of the rest is transcribed into RNA.

Some RNAs that don't carry the plans for proteins have important structural or functional roles in their own right. Transfer RNAs, for example, ferry specific amino acids into a growing protein, while ribosomal RNA constitutes part of the factories in cells that manufacture proteins.

But we are only just beginning to understand what many other non-coding RNA molecules do. Some control higher level functions such as the expression of protein-encoding genes, and some have even been implicated in memory.


Evolutionary differences

Parts of the genome that don't encode proteins tend to evolve rapidly, so you can have significant regions of the genome where there's no discernible similarity between species, says Moran. This means many sequences will not line up when you compare genomes between species.

And the further away two species are on the evolutionary tree, the greater the difference.

"If we compare really closely related species, like a human and chimpanzee, we can still see the similarity between these rapidly changing sequences. If you move further away to the more distantly related pig, so many changes in the DNA will have occurred that it is no longer possible to recognise that the sequences were ever similar.

"Depending upon what it is that you are comparing you can say 'Yes, there's a very high degree of similarity, for example between a human and a pig protein coding sequence', but if you compare rapidly evolving non-coding sequences from a similar location in the genome, you may not be able to recognise any similarity at all. This means that blanket comparisons of all DNA sequences between species are not very meaningful."

[Aprender]

I agree with you too.

[Al-Indunisiy]

Dear Truthseeker,

You're absolutely right that there is a common Designer.Most of the mammals have similar organs.But this is not a proof that they have the same origin.Here is an article by Scholar Fethullah Gulen about evolution.It's worth to read:

" It would be difficult to find another theory which, like Darwinism, has been battered and defeated so many times, and yet the corpse of it revived artificially again and again. Some scientists still defend it to the hilt; others discredit it altogether, asserting that holding to it is sheer delusion. It seems that, in the academic scientific world, Darwinism will keep conference agendas busy for some time yet, and thousands more articles and books will be written on it, and the debates persist.

The collapse of communism as an ideology and as a political force has made it more obvious than it was before that "East" and "West" was a geographical, not a cultural divide. It was and is right to think of the experiment in Russia and its former satellite states as a variation within Western culture, not an opposition to it. The strictly Western attitude to religion, derived from Rousseau and Renan, was to see it as a socially necessary myth, a delusion that provided a sort of cultural and social cohesion to collective life but which had no more basis in reality than do dreams. The strictly Eastern (Communist) attitude, founded upon explicit rejection of religion and explicit acceptance of materialism, naturally favored Darwinism (which entails the same rejection) and gave to it more deliberate and institutional support than in the West. But in the broader view, modern Western culture as a whole is closely predicated on the assumptions of Darwinism, and those who, in Muslim countries, wish to promote Western culture, continue, in universities and educational institutions generally, to pass off Darwinism as established scientific truth and, by implication, to represent religion as unscientific and false. Inevitably, some of this poison is effective on pliable young minds: many of them begin to believe (though far fewer continue to believe) that religion is not conformable to human reason, and that, as an explanation of the origin of species, Darwinism is still the best that independent human reason can do.

I will not go into the details of the evolutionary hypothesis, but within the scope of brief question and answer, I will touch upon some of the major points.

According to Darwin, life originated on earth from simple, single celled organisms giving rise to multi cellular organisms through a process of gradual change, along with random mutations, over millions of years. According to more developed forms of evolutionary theory, the foundation of all living things is amino acids within water, which later somehow got formed into single celled organisms, like the amoeba, and these organisms interacting with each other and the immediate environment over uncalculated billions of years, gradually or by sudden jumps evolved into the great variety of complex multi cellular animals. Then the invertebrates gave rise to aquatic vertebrates, i.e., fish, which evolved into amphibians which gave rise to reptiles; later, some reptiles evolved into birds, while others evolved into mammals culminating in the evolution of humankind.

The hypothesis is typically argued on the basis of a few incomplete pieces of fossils, though, so far, the actual fossil record has failed to endorse that view. To our knowledge, no scientific hypothesis except this one was ever sustained on the basis of so many, and so important "missing links." What the scientists have discovered through observation proves the opposite of the evolutionary theory true: in spite of having many varieties, bacteria have not evolved into anything different and higher though they adapt very quickly; in whatever variety they exist, cockroaches and insects have been living as they are for almost 350 million years. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies for millions of years; arthropoda, sponges, and sea crabs today are exactly as found in fossils from rock formations formed 500 million years ago; snakes, lizards, mice, and many other species, have not evolved into any other different species; nor have horse's hooves or human feet evolved into something different. Man is, as we put it, exactly the same as he was created on the first day.

There are no examples of the transitional organisms that the theory requires, such as, for example, an animal that has evolved its front legs partly (but not yet wholly) into wings in readiness for the transition to bird like flight. And, unsurprisingly, there is not even a theoretical explanation, given that such transitions are supposed to take thousands of generations to complete. How the partly evolved animal could survive in what kind of environment—lacking four "good" legs, and still not equipped with two good legs and a pair of wings.

Many arguments give the erroneous example of the evolution of the horse from a small dog like mammal with five toes to the large modern horse with one toe or hoof. In fact, the evolutionists have no evidence for that claim. Nowhere in the world have they found a series of fossils to demonstrate such an evolutionary order. It remains entirely hypothetical, suppositional. They talk about an animal which lived in the past and claim that it was the ancestor of the modern horse; but they cannot establish any necessary connection between the modern horse and that animal: the only need for that connection is the need to illustrate the theory, which the illustration is supposed to establish. This is the very opposite of reliable scientific argument and procedure. We shall say that God created such an animal at that age which later on became extinct, and it no longer exists now. Why do we need to connect these two species? Even today horses of different sizes and breeds co exist in our age.

Scientists found bees and honey from millions of years ago. The bee produced honey and the honeycomb in the same way as it does today, using the same geometrical measures, 100 million years ago. So, for that whole expanse of time neither the bee's brain and physiological structure nor the way it produces honey have changed.

What of the evolution of humankind? It is especially badly argued and ill founded. Some scientist discovered some bones, or even just the tooth of an ape, and posited (that is, guessed) the rest—the body posture, flesh, skin, hair, features, etc., of the evolved "human."

Piltdown Man is a good example to famous scientific hoaxes related with evolution. The supposed discovery near Piltdown, England, of an ape like fossil ancestral to modern humans, was reported in 1912. The discovery included fragments of what were later proved to be a modern human cranium and the jawbone of an ape. For many years the Pildown man fossil was a subject of anthropological controversy. In 1953, scientific analyses proved the fossil a forgery.

Evolutionists used to mention the coelacanth, a fish abundant 400 million years ago, as a link between the fish and the land animals because of its limb like fins. It was theorized that the coelacanth lurched onto the land in search of food, staying there longer and longer until—about 70 million years ago—it disappeared from the fossil record. To their surprise, local fishermen caught several dozen coelacanths off the coast of Madagascar in 1938. The caught fish were exactly like their ancestors, perfectly adapted to their deep sea environment and showing no signs of evolution. The coelacanth has been quietly dropped by many text books from the list of evidences of evolution, because it became the symbol of the non evolution of organisms, rather than of their evolution.

Evolutionists also claim that the organisms evolve through random mutations. While new cells are being formed, if the genetic code, normally identical in all the cells of an organism, is copied differently or mistakenly, mutations occur. Such a change, which is claimed to bear evolutionary fruit gradually over a long period, may be caused by a number of external agents, such as geography and climate, even planetary influences such as changes in the sun's or earth's rotation, or by radiation, chemical pollution, etc. The argument is that non lethal mutations which reproduce successfully (that is, adaptively to changes in immediate environment) function like sudden jumps in the progress of evolution and give rise to species variation.

However, recent work in genetics and biochemistry has shown conclusively that mutations are all but always harmful, even lethal, the cause of many physiological disorders. In any case, they could not give rise to a magnitude of change of an order to generate a new species, to make a dog a horse, or an ape a human. For such an order of change to occur randomly and then to become successfully established would require a period of time many times in excess of the highest estimate for the age of the universe.

For years, much research has been done on pigeons, dogs and flies. Though some physiological changes do occur within the same race of animals (there are different breeds of dog and pigeon, for example), such adaptive evolution within species is no evidence for evolution of species. All the extensive research done for years on Drosophila yielded nothing but Drosophila, and the research proved that Drosophila remains as it is.

Hybrid varieties are obtained by artificially crossing two species, such as horse and donkey, but the resultant hybrid (mule) is typically sterile. After long research, scientists have recognized that it is not possible to progress from one species to another. There are some insurmountable, impassable, barriers between species. That conforms to ordinary sense, as well as to the known facts and to scientific reasoning. How could such a creature as human, who has an extraordinarily sophisticated brain and is capable of (in any and every stage of civilization) of linguistic and cultural expression, of religious belief and aspiration—how could such a creature have evolved from an ape? It is quite extraordinary that even to speculate that it might be so can be given serious consideration, let alone believed and accepted as conforming to reason!

However, that acceptance of evolution is a major pillar of modern materialism, and of historical materialism in particular, as Marx and Engels insistently pointed out. It is a sort of blind faith, a prejudice, a superstition that the materialists cling to Darwinism of the crudest kind. They insist that absolutely everything be explained by material causes. As for what, by those limited means, they cannot explain, they dare not admit that they cannot explain it so. They can never allow that there must be a supra natural, metaphysical agency that intervenes to make the biological world as it is, so wonderfully abundant, prolific, diverse and, within stable forms, so marvelously adaptive and versatile in response to local environmental possibilities.

The alternative to evolution is design which necessarily leads to the concept of a transcendent and unitary power, the Designer Creator, God. Therein lies the reason for the continuing tyranny of the Darwinist theory: the fear that to acknowledge the Creator will bring down the edifice of an autonomous science, an autonomous human reason. An individual scientist in his or her private capacity may be a believer, a theist, but science itself must be unbelieving, atheistic. It is ironic indeed that to preserve the illusion of independent human reason, the Darwinists (and materialists generally) will defy or ignore the facts, deny and belittle logic and reason. It is to the credit of the scientific community that, in ever greater numbers, individual scientists have found the courage to question and challenge the tyranny of Darwinism in the teaching of the life sciences.

That said, it remains unfortunately true that, some young, pliable minds are vulnerable to the myth of Darwinism simply because it is the official dogma, the staple of all textbooks on the subject everywhere. How true and apt is the Turkish proverb—that a half wit can throw a pearl into a well with ease, and forty wise men struggle in vain to get it out again. Nonetheless, there is solace in the knowledge that a lie, however mightily supported, can have but a short life. The truth of the matter is that the origin of the species, and of the major divisions of species, is not yet understood. Is it too heavy a burden on humility to say: "We marvel, but we do not know"? And we marvel most at, and understand least of all, the origin of intelligent speech, ideation, abstraction, symbolization, culture, love of beauty and variety, consciousness, altruism, morality religion, and spiritual aspiration.

To be sure, Darwin was a great and gifted scientist who must be credited with a mighty contribution to the ordering and classifying of species, and for his work on adaptation; but it should be noted that what he did well and incontrovertibly is to observe accurately and understood intelligently what was there in nature.

Whatever his own intentions, in spite of them, his work, like every reliable advance in observation and explanation, confirms the Divine Architect, the All Mighty Power, Sustainer, Administrator, Who willed the marvelous organization, reliable, systematic, subtly integrated harmony of the operations of nature, and who combined that order with beauty. Whereas what Darwin found increases our faith in God, it led him astray.

How great, sublime, is the Creator. Order, understanding, wisdom are by His gift. Likewise, guidance to faith is absolutely in His grasp."

I see you are a Harun Yahya fan. Tell you what, much of those are more or less just some inaccurate conspiracy theories.

[Trumble]

point being?

Point being that despite the froth the Islamic conception of slavery seems to be much like everybody else's.

[- Qatada -]

Point being that despite the froth the Islamic conception of slavery seems to be much like everybody else's.

I forgot to add (to the Original poster):


1 - AbdulLah bin 'Umar freed a slave of his then picked a twig from the ground and said:

" I shall not receive for freeing him the worth of this in the Hereafter. I heard the Messenger of Allah say : ' If a man hits or beats his slave, his atonement is the freeing of that slave." Reported by Muslim and Abu Dawood.

2 - Slaves can even be Kings/Rulers, such as the Mamluk Dynasty in Islamic history.

3 - Many of the great scholars of Islamic history were either slaves, or freed slaves. Whom we respect very much.




This shows that Islam has a high regard for such people, who would be our brothers in faith. :)








Peace.

[جوري]

Point being that despite the froth the Islamic conception of slavery seems to be much like everybody else's.

It isn't a froth' that anyone cared to establish.. the title and the replies are of the Islamic position on slavery.. perhaps it was itching you to steer the topic to where you can carry a lightsaber? Sometimes you can be quite entertaining!

all the best

[Pygoscelis]

Also, the bible allows slavery in unrespectful manners.

So it is possible to own another human being and hold them as your property, in a respectful manner? :omg:

[Pygoscelis]

I have heard some Atheists and Evolutionists say that the similarities between humans and apes is proof of Evolution but similarities to me is just proof of common design designed by God there may be physical similarities and dna similarities between humans and apes but this could just be evidence of comon design or a common designer does anyone agree with me ?

truthseeker, you could also argue that God set things up so that Evolution would happen. Evolution needs not conflict with a creator God. But it does provide a plausible explanation that has no need for a creator God.

The only problem I see with your suggestion above is all the transitional fossils that have been found. Extinct animals varying from today's animals in such ways that it is hard not to see the development over time. Other evidence hard to explain by your theory above is shown in development in the womb. Did you know that when in the womb you had gill slits? Makes a bit of sense as a carryover from earlier stages of human evolution, but how would that sort of the be explained by your theory?

[GuestFellow]

^ Yes. Slaves have rights.

[Aprender]

truthseeker, you could also argue that God set things up so that Evolution would happen. Evolution needs not conflict with a creator God. But it does provide a plausible explanation that has no need for a creator God.

The only problem I see with your suggestion above is all the transitional fossils that have been found. Extinct animals varying from today's animals in such ways that it is hard not to see the development over time. Other evidence hard to explain by your theory above is shown in development in the womb. Did you know that when in the womb you had gill slits? Makes a bit of sense as a carryover from earlier stages of human evolution, but how would that sort of the be explained by your theory?

How does evolution provide a plausible explanation that has no need for a creator God? Arguments like this are like going in circles. Theory on top of theory. There will still be unanswered questions. If there is no need for a God because species evolve, then where did the first light of life come from to trigger evolution? Human skeletons have tail bones too. Why does that mean a person would have had to evolve? Compared to other species, humans have the biggest brain size in proportion to the sizes of our bodies. (Dolphins come close). But that part of "evolution" occurred rapidly for our species which is rare. To me, I see it nothing more as proof for a common design as truthseeker stated.

I think it's foolish to try and make the religious texts fit into what science is all about. Some say,"Well they're supposed to be sent down from a perfect God." Well, The Quran, Torah and the Bible are not particularly books of science. They are books that are concerned with the human experience. Not early hominids that once walked the earth 6-8 million years ago. Religion isn't going to answer these specific and detailed questions, which is why there is science but it too has its shortcomings. There are just some things in this world that just simply won't be answered by either. For me, the existence of the one true God is enough to fill in the blanks. I respect how that doesn't satisfy others and we're all entitled to our own opinions but I know I don't lose sleep over it at night.

[GuestFellow]

But it does provide a plausible explanation that has no need for a creator God.

What explanation and explain how it is plausible?

[Woodrow]

The slavery of old was much kinder and fairer, then the slavery of today that wears names such as minimum wage employee or welfare recipient.

[Pygoscelis]

What explanation and explain how it is plausible?

Google "the theory of evolution". Or better yet, read "why darwin matters" by Michael Shermer.

Evolution doesn't postulate God. It provides a theory that doesn't need God. And it fits better than creationism with some findings such as transitional fossils and human gill slits (and tail bones) - why would we have these things? They could be hold overs from evolution (fits nicely), but in a creation paradigm, why would god give babies gill slits (that don't function) and tail bones? And an appendix? And why do whales have foot bones attached to no muscles? Creation doesn't fit that data. Evolution does.

[Pygoscelis]

The only respectful manner in which to treat a slave, is to free them from bondage immediately.

[GuestFellow]

Evolution doesn't postulate God. It provides a theory that doesn't need God. And it fits better than creationism with some findings such as transitional fossils and human gill slits (and tail bones) - why would we have these things? They could be hold overs from evolution (fits nicely), but in a creation paradigm, why would god give babies gill slits (that don't function) and tail bones? And an appendix? And why do whales have foot bones attached to no muscles? Creation doesn't fit that data. Evolution does.

...Right. Thanks for your contribution.

[Aprender]

Google "the theory of evolution". Or better yet, read "why darwin matters" by Michael Shermer.

Evolution doesn't postulate God. It provides a theory that doesn't need God. And it fits better than creationism with some findings such as transitional fossils and human gill slits (and tail bones) - why would we have these things? They could be hold overs from evolution (fits nicely), but in a creation paradigm, why would god give babies gill slits (that don't function) and tail bones? And an appendix? And why do whales have foot bones attached to no muscles? Creation doesn't fit that data. Evolution does.

I'm familiar with both. Darwinism was forced down my throat in high school. But as I said in my other post, this theory doesn't answer my question of how the first life organism was here to trigger that evolution. Thank you for the post though. I've never read "Why Darwin Matters" but I'll read the book just to better educate myself about this theory.

[GuestFellow]

But as I said in my other post, this theory doesn't answer my question of how the first life organism was here to trigger that evolution.

If someone can explain this for me, I'll be happy. XD I will also throw confetti as a bonus...and serve croissants with tea!

[Pygoscelis]

this theory doesn't answer my question of how the first life organism was here to trigger that evolution.

Yes, you're right about that. Evolution says nothing about how the first life came to be. That is a whole different area of research :) And since evolution doesn't say how life itself began, it doesn't conflict with the very basic concept of creation (though it does conflict with the creation stories we usually hear)

[جوري]

The only respectful manner in which to treat a slave, is to free them from bondage immediately.

stop buying stuff made in china sweatshops then!

all the best

[Pygoscelis]

stop buying stuff made in china sweatshops then!

all the best

Wow, I do believe this is the first time I have ever agreed with you.

[GuestFellow]

^ No its not. You said that before.

[جوري]

^ No its not. You said that before.

:haha: this is what we'd call a touché...

:w:

[Maryan0]

Slaves can even be Kings/Rulers, such as the Mamluk Dynasty in Islamic history.

The Mamluks were a very interesting group. Slaves who became leaders of the ummah. Even born Muslims would apparently lie about their children so they could become a part of the Mamluks.
Salam

[Al-Indunisiy]

Yes, you're right about that. Evolution says nothing about how the first life came to be. That is a whole different area of research :) And since evolution doesn't say how life itself began, it doesn't conflict with the very basic concept of creation (though it does conflict with the creation stories we usually hear)

Interrestingly enough, Modern Abiogenesis is sometimes called as Chemical Evolution in some Internet literature and my high school's biology teacher.

[Trumble]

Never mind.. imsad

[Trumble]

'Evolution' is not synonymous with 'evolution by natural selection'. Atomic nucleii, rock formations and legal systems, for example, have all evolved by some process or other.

[truthseeker63]

Good answers thank you for posting.

[Woodrow]

Just adding my 2 cents worth to the OP.

Similarities do not prove same origin. A snowflake is very similar in appearance to a paper Doily, but I doubt if anyone would believe they have the same origin. Oddly enough though all things actually do have the same origin which is Allaah(swt), but that does not mean any creation is the precursor of any other creation.

[truthseeker63]

Did the Prophet Muhammad free Slaves ? I ask this question because I have read that he did do this I just wanted to make sure.

[Zuzubu]

Yes truthseeker, he did.

[Zuzubu]

stop buying stuff made in china sweatshops then!

all the best

I rather buy chinese products and let poor people work (they work for money), instead of buying expensive western stuff which supports capitalism.

The yellow people support muslims very much.

[جوري]

I rather buy chinese products and let poor people work (they work for money), instead of buying expensive western stuff which supports capitalism. The yellow people support muslims very much.

'Yellow people' don't support Muslims, what rose tinted glasses do you sport? Also when you buy cheap crap you put your own fellow countrymen out of business. At least try to support Islamic businesses if nothing else at all!

all the best

[Zuzubu]

China wish to give electricity to Pakistan and proptect them from India, for an example. If the president didn't reject China, Pakistan would be very prosporous.

Many many people in China are also muslims, and some parts were ruled by muslims.

It's good that we don't buycut China, but buy their products as well as buying from our own country and muslim countries.

I mostly look at quality and price, and China has both, those who make these things can be very smart. But of course don't buy odd stuff.

[Pygoscelis]

Yes truthseeker, he did.

Non-muslim ones? Or was it another case of "let my people go"? If the former, then good on him! That puts him a few steps ahead.

[Zuzubu]

Non-muslim ones? Or was it another case of "let my people go"? If the former, then good on him! That puts him a few steps ahead.

I read many of them converted, some stayed like that. But yes he didn't fight against muslims, they were all non-muslims from start.

[Trumble]

The yellow people support muslims very much.

They were particularly 'supportive' of muslims in Xinjiang recently, I recall.

What's the weather like today on planet Zuzubu?

[Zuzubu]

What's the weather like today on planet Zuzubu?

Take a look http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/weath...329136500?mt=8

-3 degreeds celsius in Denmark.

China is a nice country, and if people wish to work then let them work?

[Ramadhan]

if people wish to work then let them work?

For some reason, this reminds me of Marie Antoinette's "Let them eat cake" ;D

[Grace Seeker]

Is there anything I can say to a PolyTheist to get them to understand why PolyTheism is false and why MonoTheism is true my question is why can there only be one God and not many gods I want to try to help people I know who are PolyTheists.

I suppose it depends on one's definition of God.

If one believes that God is a supreme being over all things, exactly how many supreme beings can there be? I would think that the answer is only one. If there were more than one supreme being, then is either one actually supreme?

Likewise, if one believes that there is a creator, then the one who created it all would be God. There could not be more than one God, because that would imply that there was a creator god and a created god. Surely the creator would be God and the created would be at best servants of God. The only way that one could speak of more than one, would be if one were talking about different facets of the one God. But that wouldn't change anything, you still would have just one God.


Now, if you just mean by the term "god" that the ability to do neat parlor tricks is enough to classify a being as a god, then there is no reason that one could not have a million or more gods. But one must still ask if there is not a supreme being and an ultimate creator of everything. If the answer is YES, then you are back to talking about just one God and must come up with some other name for all those lesser beings that do parlor tricks.

I have heard Christians say God has hands feet eyes therefor he looks human and can become human i think this is false but what does Islam say ?

Oh, and Christianity doesn't say this. I wonder if you may have misheard what these Christians were intending to say?

[جوري]

I have heard Christians say God has hands feet eyes therefor he looks human and can become human i think this is false but what does Islam say ?

Oh, and Christianity doesn't say this. I wonder if you may have misheard what these Christians were intending to say?

It surprises me how ill read you're for a 'minister' or do you wish to deny Genesis 1:27?

''So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.''


I tell you the best and probably most accurate description I have heard of this as a justification of slavery is that 'God wasn't black and as such blacks aren't 'the children of God for they weren't created in his image' probably the same reason mass murderers of any people who didn't look like this 'christian God' who created in his image was justified, whether native Americans, or Vietnamese or Bosnians etc etc. not quite like the blond long haired Jesus you have carved and painted in your churches ..


all the best

[truthseeker63]

Are there any Islamic/Muslim Websites that disprove Evolution Im asking this because most of the Anti Evolution websites are run by Christians. I would like to ask if the fossils prove or disprove Evolution the theory of Evolution I have doubts that humans came from apes or a animal that was like or close to a ape I know apes may look alike humans both have hands and feet fingers toes and ears that may look alike in someways but so do all animals all animals have eyes mouths ears legs and a head just like humans do I would like to know once and for all if human evolution is true or where we created by God.

[Grace Seeker]

That's strange. I learned from this very forum that the Christian view was that God could and indeed did become human, and that in this state, he did have hands, feet and eyes.

</p>
Which is why I suggested that perhaps the original speakers were misunderstood. Yes Jesus is God incarnate, and in that incarnation indeed does (by definition) have a human body with hands and feet and eyes and ears and all the other parts. But the original statement by truthseeker63 reported that Christians were saying "God has hands feet eyes therefor he looks human and can become human." So, this looks like, according to Truthseeker's understanding, these Christians are proposing that the incarnation is possible because God has these human parts in heaven. That is NOT what Christianity teaches. Rather we teach that God in heaven is a non-corpreal, spiritual being. Indeed, the idea that Truthseeker63 puts on the lips of these Christians is something so foreign to any discussion I have ever had with any other Christian regarding the nature of God, that I suspect some miscommunication took place in the telling and retelling of that conversation.

[truthseeker63]

Thank you for asking my questions.

[Woodrow]

They were particularly 'supportive' of muslims in Xinjiang recently, I recall.

To answer those who may not understand what you are speaking of:

[Ramadhan]

To answer those who may not understand what you are speaking of:

May Laknat Allah on those evil people. amiin.

[zaidss786]

Islam gave many rights to salves that were not there before, since it was so ingrained in the culture around the world it would be hard to completely abolish it within the life span of prophet Muhammad pbuh. But it set pretty much set the ball in motion and Allah knew that eventually it would be abolished.

[Seventytwo]

I don't think anyone (at least in the scientific community) will claim they understand how life came to be on this planet. That is still a mystery, but given that there is even simple life, the theory of evolution takes over and those organisms best fit to survive will pass on their traits. Over several billion years, some pretty cool things might evolve (us!). Keep in mind, that humans are not the pinnacle or goal of evolution, either. We're just the latest, most-most-able-to-survive organism on the planet.

There's a cool game, which uses a genetic algorithm to evolve little cars so they can go over different tracks... it's pretty neat. Google "boxcar2d"...

[Pygoscelis]

I just had a go a this boxcar 2d thing. Its pretty neat. Thanks for referring me to it. I started with basic random shapes and went away from my computer for a couple hours and came back to some pretty well "designed" cars, all with zero interference from me and just the survival/adaption and mutation algorhythms running.

[GuestFellow]

To answer those who may not understand what you are speaking of:

Salaam,

I need to do more background reading about this topic.

[Ramadhan]

I just had a go a this boxcar 2d thing. Its pretty neat. Thanks for referring me to it. I started with basic random shapes and went away from my computer for a couple hours and came back to some pretty well "designed" cars, all with zero interference from me and just the survival/adaption and mutation algorhythms running.

ummm didnt some computer engineers create the algorhythms?
or did you just say the algoryhthms just happened by themselves?

[Pygoscelis]

Perhaps you could read what the algorhyms are before you let my point swoosh over your head. All they do is mimic reproduction and survival of the fittest. They take the designs that go the furthest and randomly mix their traits with each other to make the next generation. And then they introduce an adjustable mutation which can occur as often as you want or never occur. Then you get to watch as "design" forms from chaos.

[Ramadhan]

Perhaps you could read what the algorhyms are before you let my point swoosh over your head.

I know what algorithm is, unless you have completely different idea of what it is than the rest of the world?

All they do is mimic reproduction and survival of the fittest.

They are still a set of instructions, even if the mimic nature.

So let me ask you again, who wrote those set of instructions, are did those set of instructions suddenly exist in your computer magically?


By the way, did you know that algorithm owes its name and its source from the great mathematician, Mohammed ibn-Musa al-Khwarizmi?

[Grace Seeker]

Some Christians think that anything miraculous that they can tie to Jesus is proof of his being God. However, this is NOT the historically orthodox view nor a reason for suggesting that Jesus is divine. Now, his incarnation would be, and his incarnation might in the mind of the majority of Christians necessitate a virgin birth, but it would be possible to cause a virgin birth without that child necessarily being divine. It is sad if some Christians are conflating these two ideas into one and thus confusing the issue for non-Christians.

With regard to Adam and Eve, the story of God giving them life and that of Jesus' birth really don't have much in common at all. One was an act of creation and the other of incarnation. In other words, the lives that became Adam and Eve did not exist prior to their creation. The life that became Jesus did exist prior to his incarnation -- at least according to the Biblical record. Now, if one is using the Qur'an as one's primary source of truth, then I suppose there isn't much difference after all.


With regard to Jesus speaking in the cradle as a baby, that is not something that is record in the Bible. There are some apocryphyal (and highly dubious) accounts of this, but within the Church such stories are generally accorded the view of being little more than folk tales. What source are you using by which you reach the conclusion that such stories are indeed true?

[3rddec]

Yes Christians may use this as one of the many things that taken as a whole lead to this conclusion. It would not on its own lead to the conclusion he is God as Adam and Eve both had miraculus beginings.

[Ramadhan]

Christians would say and use anything to justify their desires and whims to worship Jesus (pbuh) as God, even when jesus (p) himself said he is not God:

"Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." (Mark 10:18)


"I can do nothing of my own authority" (John 5:30)

"I do as the Father has commanded me." (John 14:31 RSV)

"The words that I say to you I do not speak of my own authority." (John 14:10 RSV) "I do nothing of my own authority but speak thus as the Father has taught me." (John 8:28 RSV)

"The Father is greater than I." (John 14:28 RSV)

"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only." (Matthew 24:36)

"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46)




What do you know, christians are more interested to follow and obey the commands and opinions of their scribes, rabbis, priests, etc than the commands and words of Jesus (pbuh).

[Hamza Asadullah]

I liked this article so i thought i would paste it as it is also relevant to this thread:

Jesus and The Virgin Mary in Islam

By Juan Galvan

Many people may be surprised that Muslims love Mary, the mother of Jesus. In the Quran, no woman is given more attention than Mary. Mary receives the most attention of any woman mentioned in the Quran even though all the Prophets with the exception of Adam had mothers. Of the Quran's 114 chapters, she is among the eight people who have a chapter named after them. The nineteenth chapter of the Quran is named after her, Mariam. Mariam means Mary in Arabic. The third chapter in the Quran is named after her father, Imran. Chapters Mariam and Imran are among the most beautiful chapters in the Quran. Mary (peace be upon her) is the only woman specifically named in the Quran. An authentic Haddith states that the Prophet said, "The superiority of 'Aisha to other ladies is like the superiority of Tharid (i.e. meat and bread dish) to other meals. Many men reached the level of perfection, but no woman reached such a level except Mary, the daughter of Imran and Asia, the wife of Pharaoh." (Bukhari 4.643). Indeed, both Mary and Pharoah's wife are an example (Quran 66:11-12). The Virgin Mary plays a very significant role in Islam. She is an example and a sign for all people.

In the Quran, Mary's story begins while she is still in her mother's womb. The mother of Mary, said: "O my Lord! I do dedicate into Thee what is in my womb for Thy special service: So accept this of me: For Thou hearest and knowest all things." (Quran 3:35).

She wanted the baby in her womb to serve only the Creator. When Mary was delivered, she said: "O my Lord! Behold! I am delivered of a female child!" (Quran 3:36). She had expected her baby to be a male child who would grow up to be a scholar or religious leader. However, God had a better plan. God is the best of planners. Quran 3:36 continues "…and God knew best what she brought forth- 'And no wise is the male like the female. I have named her Mariam, and I commend her and her offspring to Thy protection from Satan, the Rejected.'" Mariam literally means "maidservant of God."

In Quran 3:37, God states that He accepted Mary as her mother had asked. He made Mary grow in purity and beauty. She was assigned to the care of a priest named Zacharias. This is interesting considering few women were given this opportunity.

"Every time that he entered (her) chamber to see her, he found her supplied with sustenance. He said: 'O Mary! Whence (comes) this to you?' She said: 'From God. for God provides sustenance to whom He pleases without measure.'" (Quran 3:37). Upon hearing Mary's answer, "There did Zakariya pray to his Lord, saying: 'O my Lord! Grant unto me from Thee a progeny that is pure: for Thou art He that heareth prayer!'" (Quran 3:38).

Although his wife was barren and he was very old, God blesses Zacharias and his wife Elizabeth with John. John is known as "John the Baptist" in the Bible. Zacharias was skeptical after the angels announced John's birth. The response to his skepticism was "Doth God accomplish what He willeth" (Quran 3:40). John would become a noble and chaste Prophet as the angels had stated (Quran 3:39).
The Quran discusses Mary's miraculous conception as well. "Relate in the Book (the story of) Mary, when she withdrew from her family to a place in the East. She placed a screen (to screen herself) from them; then We sent her Our angel, and he appeared before her as a man in all respects." (Quran 19:16-17). After seeing the angel, she said: "I seek refuge from thee to (God) Most Gracious: (come not near) if thou dost fear God." (Quran 19:18). The angel Gabriel responded: "Nay, I am only a messenger from thy Lord, (to announce) to thee the gift of a pure son." (Quran 19:19). Her next response is expected. She asked: "How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?" (Quran 19:20). The Angel Gabriel said: "So (it will be): thy Lord saith, 'That is easy for Me: and (We wish) to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us.' It is a matter (so) decreed." (Quran 19:21). Mary then becomes pregnant.

Jesus is a Prophet and a Messenger. A Messenger is a Prophet who is given revelation from God. Whereas the Torah was revealed to Moses, the Gospel was revealed to Jesus. Messengers are a mercy, guidance, and sign from God. "And God will teach him (Jesus) the Book and Wisdom, the Torah and the Gospel, and (appoint him) as a messenger to the Children of Israel, (with this message):

'I have come to you, with a Sign from your Lord, in that I make for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by God's leave. And I heal those born blind, and the lepers, and I bring the dead into life, by God's leave; and I declare to you what ye eat, and what ye store in your houses. Surely therein is a Sign for you if ye did believe. (I have come to you) to attest the Torah which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (before) forbidden to you. I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear God, and obey me. It is God Who is my Lord and your Lord; then worship Him. This is a Way that is straight.'" (Quran 3:48-51).

God appointed messengers to help us answer questions such as: What happens after I die? What's right and wrong? Does a supernatural world exist? What's the purpose of my creation? Jesus was calling people to the worship of only God. Only by God's leave was Jesus able to perform miracles.

"When Jesus found unbelief on their (the disciples) part he said: 'Who will be my helpers to (the work of) God?" Said the disciples: "We are God's helpers: We believe in God, and do thou bear witness that we are Muslims.'" (Quran 3:52).

After conceiving Jesus, Mary went away with the baby to a distant place (Quran 19:22). "And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a palm-tree. She cried (in her anguish): 'Ah! would that I had died before this! would that I had been a thing forgotten!'" (Quran 19:23). "But (a voice) cried to her from beneath the (palm-tree): 'Grieve not! for thy Lord hath provided a rivulet beneath thee; And shake towards thyself the trunk of the palm-tree: It will let fall fresh ripe dates upon thee. So eat and drink and cool (thine) eye. And if thou dost see any man, say, 'I have vowed a fast to (God) Most Gracious, and this day will I enter into no talk with any human being.'" (Quran 19:24-26).

Joseph, the magi, and manger are not mentioned in the Quran. God was Mary's only Provider. Muslims do not accept the virgin birth of Jesus as evidence of Jesus' divinity. "The similitude of Jesus before God is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: 'Be.' And he was." (Quran 3:59). Adam's creation was even more miraculous because he was born without father and mother. When she brings the baby to her people, they said: "O Mary! truly a strange thing has thou brought! O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!" (Quran 19:27-8). Mary then points to the baby. They said: "How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?" (Quran 19:29). Then a miracle occurs that is not mentioned in the Bible. In defense of his mother, Jesus said: "I am indeed a servant of God. He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet; And He hath made me blessed wheresoever I be, and hath enjoined on me Prayer and Charity as long as I live; (He hath made me) kind to my mother, and not overbearing or unblest; So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)!" (Quran 19:30-33).

The virgin birth of Jesus was a sign. "And (remember) her who guarded her chastity: We breathed into her of Our spirit, and We made her and her son a sign for all peoples." (Quran 21:91). All previous Prophets confirmed the oneness of God, Tawheed. Whereas the Holy Trinity is the fundamental concept of God in Christianity, Tawheed is the fundamental concept of God in Islam. God exists independent of religion. Muslims do not believe in the concept of Holy Trinity (Quran 5:73). God is not Jesus (Quran 5:72). On the Day of Judgment, when Jesus is asked if he had called people to worship him and his mother as two gods, Jesus will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, Thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden." (Quran 5:116).

People should not worship any of God's creation, including Jesus and Mary. We must not assign any of God's creation His divine attributes and characteristics. "He is God the Creator, the Maker, the Shaper. To Him belong the Names Most Beautiful. All that is in the heavens and the earth magnifies Him; He is the All-Mighty, the All-Wise." (Qur'an 59:24).

Although God can do all things, He only does things that are consistent with His fundamental nature. Begetting a son is not consistent with God's magnificent nature (Quran 19:92, Quran 19:35). Consistent with His fundamental nature is forgiveness. Although Adam and Eve could no longer live in the Paradise, God forgave Adam and Eve for their sin after they sincerely repented (Quran 2:35-37). We are responsible for our own deeds and will not be punished for the deeds of another person (Quran 53:38-42). Therefore, Muslims reject the doctrine of original sin. Although Adam and Eve were punished, God would still be merciful by sending Guidance to mankind. "We said: 'Get down all of you from this place (the Paradise), then whenever there comes to you Guidance from Me, and whoever follows My Guidance, there shall be no fear on them, nor shall they grieve.'" (Quran 2:38).

When people hear the term Islam, they naturally tend to think of the organized religion of Islam which started in the 7th century CE with prophet Mohammed. However, in Arabic the word Islam comes from the root "salema" which means peace, purity, submission, and obedience. In the religious sense, Islam means peace and purity achieved by submitting to the will of God and obedience to His law. Muslims are those who submit. Muslims believe that all those who submitted to the will of God in line with divine revelation received before the advent of formal Islam with prophet Mohammed, were themselves also Muslim. So coming from this understanding, Muslims believe that we are part of one continuing faith community with Jesus and Mary. Mary, Jesus, and the disciples were all "Muslims" because they submitted to God.

"Behold! the angels said: 'O Mary! God hath chosen thee and purified thee - chosen thee above the women of all nations. O Mary! worship thy Lord devoutly: Prostrate thyself, and bow down (in prayer) with those who bow down.'" (Quran 3:42-43).

Another Prophet with a message similar to Jesus' would later be born in Arabia in the sixth century. He also called people to the worship of only God. Although unable to read and write, Muhammad (peace be upon him) would recite beautiful verses of the Quran as they were revealed to him. The Quran is a beautiful miracle, a sign, a mercy, a warner, and a guidance for all people. Muhammad is the last Prophet from a line of Prophets that included Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus (peace be upon them). All Prophets were models for righteous living. Muhammad's sunnah, his sayings, example, and traditions, is also considered revelation. His sunnah is expressed in various books of Haddith.

"Indeed in the Messenger of God you have a good example to follow for him who hopes for (the Meeting with) God and the Last Day, and remembers God much." (Quran 33:21).

God created all people to worship Him and to live life based on His teachings and guidance. "And hold fast, all together, by the Rope which God (stretches out for you), and be not divided among yourselves; and remember with gratitude God's favor on you; for ye were enemies and He joined your hearts in love, so that by His Grace, ye became brethren; and ye were on the brink of the pit of Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus doth God make His Signs clear to you that ye may be guided." (Quran 3:103).

"If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to God), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost." (Quran 3:85).

We accomplish this by bearing witness to God's oneness and accepting His final revelation in our daily lives. "O ye who believe! Fear God as He should be feared, and die not except in a state of Islam." (Quran 3:102).

There is none worthy of worship but God, and Muhammad is His messenger.

• End Note: While writing about the Virgin Mary, I wanted to avoid as much confusion as possible among non-Muslims. My article was written with a non-Muslim audience in mind. Consequently, I used English terms and figures familiar to Christians rather than those in Arabic. For example, "Isa" means Jesus in Arabic, and "Yahya" means John in Arabic. I also avoided using terms of respectability commonly used among Muslims such as SWT, PBUH, SAWS, RA, and AS. I apologize if I have offended anyone.

Source: http://www.islamfortoday.com/galvan03.htm

[truthseeker63]

The fact that Jesus said in the Bible that he only came for Israel seems to me to mean that Christianity is not a universal religion or Judaism only Islam is universal does anyone agree ?

[Ali Mujahidin]

Just curious. Jesus had a mother. Adam didn't even have a mother, much less a father. How come the Christians do not think that Adam is more god-like than Jesus?

[3rddec]

Looks like another thread leading to trinity debate, don't you think that after all these centuries the scholars and theologians have thrashed it out. If you want to read the pro trinity argue ment then go on an answering islam website. When you keep bringing up the same thing over and over I wonder what is the point. It begins to make your forum a sterile place. Maybe you should be debating how we can make this world a better and more loving place and if we do then im sure the Holy Spirit will sort out the nature of God for us. If you Muslims believe your own end of the world beliefs then you dont need to worry as Christ himself will be comming back to tell the Christians the truth so why not wait for Christ and show the Christians in your attitudes and lives why Muslims are the peacefull tolerant people you say you are. Of course most Christians except those Rapture believers who wont accept that at the end of times Christians will be persecuted on earth for their beliefs. I already accept that the bible has already warned me that the Christian faith will dwindle in the face of such percecution but in the end Christ will come back to save us when all would seem lost.

Love and Respect

[IAmZamzam]

When Christians can come up with an explanation of how a virgin birth points to God as the father instead of no father at all that's more coherent than "the Holy Ghost came upon Mary, she was impregnated by the Spirit", then they can talk. Christianity is all words; they exist first before any meaning is assigned to them, and said meaning always varies.

[3rddec]

Christians don't believe in the Trinity based on just one piece of information and if you really want to know just type in Trinity doctrine in any search engine so i wont waste time typing over every piece of evidence and interpretations used. Just be assured christians DONT BELIEVE IN THE TRINITY BASED ON JUST THE VIRGIN BIRTH.

Love and Respect

[Ramadhan]

Looks like another thread leading to trinity debate, don't you think that after all these centuries the scholars and theologians have thrashed it out. If you want to read the pro trinity argue ment then go on an answering islam website.

You are peddling an anti Islam website. Even if you did it slyly, like a thief. That's against this forum rules. I have reported you.

Here's some good articles that you can find anywhere on the web about trinity:

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/mi...uting_trinity_
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/ge...futing_trinity
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/re..._new_testament
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/re..._old_testament

[Ali Mujahidin]

Christians don't believe in the Trinity based on just one piece of information and if you really want to know just type in Trinity doctrine in any search engine so i wont waste time typing over every piece of evidence and interpretations used. Just be assured christians DONT BELIEVE IN THE TRINITY BASED ON JUST THE VIRGIN BIRTH

Just curious. Assuming that you, yourself, have done all the searching and reading that you suggested, you should be in a good position to tell us how the Trinity doctrine is different from the belief that Zeus came down to earth in the form of a swan to make love to Leda. I look forward to being enlightened.

[Sol Invictus]

When Christians can come up with an explanation of how a virgin birth points to God as the father instead of no father at all that's more coherent than "the Holy Ghost came upon Mary, she was impregnated by the Spirit", then they can talk. Christianity is all words; they exist first before any meaning is assigned to them, and said meaning always varies.

hmm, i'm quite sure that christian teaching is not what you make it seem in the above. first of all it isn't even an either or issue as you would like us to believe through the manner in which you have crafted your argument. the fact is that christians do in fact say that christ has no father--in the sense that he has no human father (and in that sense i suppose that your question has largely been answered) and it is because christians believe the bible as a whole that they believe jesus when he claimed to be the son of the father, as we do when he claims to be eternal life itself, or when he says that he will judge all men on judgement day etc.

[IAmZamzam]

Either he had a father or he didn't. If he didn't, he's not the Son of God you take him to be. If he did, it's up to you to do more to explain how a virgin birth is not by definition a fatherless birth than just gloss over it with a meaningless non-explanation such as "conceived by the Holy Spirit". That's just words.

By the way, I'm not sure if you know this but sol invictus is a pagan name. It refers to the god Mithras and means "unconquered/invincible sun".

[Sol Invictus]

Either he had a father or he didn't. If he didn't, he's not the Son of God you take him to be. If he did, it's up to you to do more to explain how a virgin birth is not by definition a fatherless birth than just gloss over it with a meaningless non-explanation such as "conceived by the Holy Spirit". That's just words.

By the way, I'm not sure if you know this but sol invictus is a pagan name. It refers to the god Mithras and means "unconquered/invincible sun".

no once again it isn't an either or question because one must seek to represent the beliefs of others as they themselves believe these to be and then attack them from there. the mistake you make is that you identify the virgin birth as the first moment of christ's existence and then argue that since he had no (human) father he then could not be the son of the father. that is plainly wrong because christians do not say that the status of being the son of god comes from the virgin birth but rather that he has existed eternally as the son of the father. it seems to me that you aren't actually attacking christian doctrine here. christians do not have to argue that a virgin birth is not by definition a fatherless birth because they precisely claim that a virgin birth is in fact fatherless. it is fatherless in the regard that he has no human father and that is all that a virgin birth seeks claims. to make your point at all, you would have to prove that a virgin birth (and in this context it is a human one) encompasses more than just the birth of the human person. since christians argue that the christ is the eternal second person of the trinity who then deemed to be born a man through the process of a human birth and only in this respect lacks a father, your point is rendered moot.


while i don't see what my username has to do with this thread, i'm quite aware of its roots but umm...thanks?

[IAmZamzam]

It isn't a question of whether he could have been the Son of God because of the virgin birth but whether it can be compatible with a virgin birth. If an eternal aspect of God was just possessing a man then why should he have to be born of a virgin at all? What difference would it make? And furthermore, if it's as simple as God just occupying a new human body then the expression "Son of God" becomes absolutely meaningless. It would be like someone being called the Son of Satan because they happen to be demon-possessed. And if his birth wasn't the beginning of his existence then quite obviously he wasn't anyone's son at all, even figuratively. None of it gels.

[Sol Invictus]

( a )It isn't a question of whether he could have been the Son of God because of the virgin birth but whether it can be compatible with a virgin birth. ( b )If an eternal aspect of God was just possessing a man then why should he have to be born of a virgin at all? What difference would it make? And furthermore, if it's as simple as God just occupying a new human body then the expression "Son of God" becomes absolutely meaningless. It would be like someone being called the Son of Satan because they happen to be demon-possessed. And if his birth wasn't the beginning of his existence then quite obviously he wasn't anyone's son at all, even figuratively. None of it gels.

( a ) once again i'd like to first move the discussion to an examination of what the virgin birth really is. all it says is that the human was born without a father. on this point at the very least i think that we are both in agreement. if christ is eternally the son of god who deems himself fit to be born a man through a virgin birth he would in fact then have no father. the bible and christian doctrine is quite clear in the regard that when christ is called fatherless or anything of the sort it is meant in terms of him not being the product of a union between a man and a woman. the fact that he is eternally the son of the father is quite compatible with the fact that his humanity is not produced through the participation of a human male who could claim the status of biological parent to him.

( b ) he did not possess a man rather the second person of the trinity assumed a body. while it is possible (i do not know you and as such this is merely an assumption) that you might think these to express the same idea they actually teach something else. interestingly enough, your idea of an aspect of the divine possessing a man (and he therefore becoming the son of god) is adoptionism, a heresy condemned by trinitarians. while i won't go into details as it relates to this heresy seeing as it doesn't have too much to do with what we're discussing, i only brought it up to show that that is not the trinitarian position (and i assume that we are in fact speaking in a trinitarian context here). though in hindsight, your own position on demonic possession quite aptly disproves adoptionism as well yet be that as it may, it cannot do the same in regards to the proper understanding of this title.

i think that it is safe to say that the above explanations are satisfactory for the both of us and that i can now move on to the supposed problem that is brought about by the term "son of god" given that christ, biologically, has no father. it ought to be said once more that the term son of god does not refer to a sexual union (biology) and so that aspect of the problem is rendered null but rather it describes the eternal relationship which the second person of trinity has always had to that of the first in that he is said to be begotten of the father. to repeat what i had posted in another thread concerning the word begotten:

t is the Greek word “monogeneis.” This is not simply “begotten,” for that expression can be applied to all believers, those who have been begotten or born again by the Spirit. This is a unique expression for a unique person, the only-begotten Son of God. The expression appears in John 1:14, 1:18, 3:16, and 3:18. It would literally mean the “only generated one.” This is the key expression for the doctrine of “the eternal generation of the Son,” meaning, he always was the only begotten Son. The expression does not refer to the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, because he is the Son from eternity past.

[...] You can only beget a child that has the same nature as you have—a son or a daughter. There is nothing else you can beget (unless you were speaking very figuratively). Your son or your daughter will inherit his or her nature from you—genes, personality—all of it. You can use “make” or “create” for producing a child; but when you use “beget” it only means you produce a child that has your nature.

Now follow this carefully. If Jesus is said to be the begotten Son of God (using the figure from human language to make the point), then Jesus has the same nature as the Father. If Jesus has the same nature as God the Father, then Jesus is divine and eternal as well. If he is eternally God, then there was never a time he was literally begotten—which is why we know the language is figurative to describe his nature, and not his beginning. To call Jesus “the only begotten Son” means that he is fully divine and eternal. He is God the Son.

now, the above is logically consistent though this does not necessarily imply its truth but seeing as your question was more directed towards whether it was logically coherent i think that this is a satisfactory answer.

[Fivesolas]

The fact that Jesus said in the Bible that he only came for Israel seems to me to mean that Christianity is not a universal religion or Judaism only Islam is universal does anyone agree ?

I would expect that very few would agree. Maybe not. In another thread a Muslim made the point that any verse in the Qur'an or passage of it is best understood in light of the whole, contending that the Qur'an forms a unity. The same could be said here. Does the Bible teach what you are suggesting? The answer is clearly no. So then the question remains to what did Jesus mean/intend when He said he was sent to the house of Israel.

[Sol Invictus]

I would expect that very few would agree. Maybe not. In another thread a Muslim made the point that any verse in the Qur'an or passage of it is best understood in light of the whole, contending that the Qur'an forms a unity. The same could be said here. Does the Bible teach what you are suggesting? The answer is clearly no. So then the question remains to what did Jesus mean/intend when He said he was sent to the house of Israel.

true, it is completely false to say that the bible teaches that jesus came only for israel. certainly his initial ministry was directed only towards israel but he made it abundantly clear that his message was for the entire world and that no one could come to the father except through him. if we are to examine all the things that jesus said concerning his ministry it becomes fairly obvious that his message is universal and one can only believe the contrary if they selectively choose quotes from the bible to confirm their prior presuppositions.

[Fivesolas]

true, it is completely false to say that the bible teaches that jesus came only for israel. certainly his initial ministry was directed only towards israel but he made it abundantly clear that his message was for the entire world and that no one could come to the father except through him. if we are to examine all the things that jesus said concerning his ministry it becomes fairly obvious that his message is universal and one can only believe the contrary if they selectively choose quotes from the bible to confirm their prior presuppositions.

Agreed. Perhaps the OP would like to take a look at the verses from both Old and New Testaments that demonstrate that the New Covenant is universal. I will wait to hear...

[3rddec]

To THISOLDMAN im curious as to why I have to explain the miraculus Virgin birth of Christ to a muslim when it is in your Quran . I fail to see why a Muslim cannot see that the birth of Christ was caused directly by God with no intervention of any human kind apart from Mary's acceptance. Feel free to correct me if i'm mistaken in Muslim teaching on this. As far as I can see the Issue is whether we call God his Father or not or just accept it was miraculas. I understand the logic of the Muslim position as I understand the logic of the Christian position. But I cant understand the logic of your Question to me.

Love and Respect

[IAmZamzam]

Sol:

1. If there is any difference beyond pure semantics between God possessing a body and God assuming one, by all means tell me what it is.

2. "Eternally begotten" is an oxymoron.

3. You still haven't answered my question. What is the point of the virgin birth if it has nothing to do with the "son of God" status?

[3rddec]

Yahya ; can I interject a few thoughts

1) God possessing a body sort of implys someone else owned it before as in the idea of a demon taking over someones body or apparantly reanimating a dead person ( some people
believe this is how the antichrist will fool people) whereas God assuming a body means a unique body owned by no-one else and possessing it the way we normal humans do.

2) you are right Eternally Begotton is an Oxymoron but Begotton is not

3) the question really should be did the Virgin birth happen and if it did then there may be a point, what could it be?

Do muslims believe in the Virgin birth or not?

Love and Respect

[IAmZamzam]

1) God possessing a body sort of implys someone else owned it before as in the idea of a demon taking over someones body or apparantly reanimating a dead person ( some people believe this is how the antichrist will fool people) whereas God assuming a body means a unique body owned by no-one else and possessing it the way we normal humans do.

Talk about hairsplitting! For the third time at least, the question is: if God is not the biological father in any sense whatsoever, then what does a virgin birth accomplish and how does it connect in any way to the "son of God" status?

2) you are right Eternally Begotton is an Oxymoron but Begotton is not

But "eternally begotten" is what he said, and if memory serves it's what the creeds say too.

3) the question really should be did the Virgin birth happen and if it did then there may be a point, what could it be?

I'm waiting for an answer.

Do muslims believe in the Virgin birth or not?

Yes, we do, and unlike you we follow through with it and believe him to be, as a result, the son of no one but Mary, period. One parent and that's all. His birth was, to us, just one of many miracles that confirmed his prophethood. Miracles were God's way of letting his prophets prove that they were sent by Him.

[Sol Invictus]

Sol:

1. If there is any difference beyond pure semantics between God possessing a body and God assuming one, by all means tell me what it is.

2. "Eternally begotten" is an oxymoron.

3. You still haven't answered my question. What is the point of the virgin birth if it has nothing to do with the "son of God" status?

1. well the fact is that you did not say the above but rather the following:

If an eternal aspect of God was just possessing a man then why should he have to be born of a virgin at all?

to which i then replied with "he did not possess a man rather the second person of the trinity assumed a body.". possessing a man implies the existence of the individual and/or prior to the possession (as you've shown in the case of a demon possession where the individual exists prior to becoming possessed) and as it relates to the claim that this is what happened in the case of christ, that is a form of adoptionism. assuming a body on the other hand does not entail the existence of an existence separate to the second person of the trinity. by that trinitarians mean to say that within the person of christ, there is no separate consciousness which is not the second person of the trinity. he did not occupy someone else's body, rather he was incarnated into one. there is a clear theological difference and if we are at all to continue such a discussion we must be careful to attack what trinitarians actually believe. there is no sense in setting up a strawman and refuting it instead of what trinitarians actually believe. i trust that this explanation is satisfactory in highlighting the difference between what you have claimed, and what christians actually profess.

2. i would hope that you could elaborate on this because as is you fail to make your point. if begotten is to be taken in the biological sense, then that is indeed an oxymoron but christians understand this to be figurative to represent in human terms the relationship that the second person of the trinity has with the first. once more, to call it an oxymoron only works if christians claimed to a biological sonship. it does not do to bring up a rebuttal towards biological sonship when this isn't what christians claim in the first place. given this peculiar stance, i very much would like you to further your argument in something that is perhaps more than five words.

3. well the virgin birth is the process by which god would begin his redemption of mankind. it is a sign, an accomplishment of prophecy and at the very least indicates that the child born to mary is of a special character. it would seem that until now you have been under the understanding that the term son of god found its source in the virgin birth and that is not what christians say, rather they claim that christ has always been the son to the father from all eternity.

i await your response.

[3rddec]

It doesn't say eternally begotten as far as I know ( but as i've always said im no scholar ) in the bible, just begotten when the term is used. But in the key passage John doesnt use that it just stated "In the begining was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God". but the eternally begotten is in the nicean creed and lets be honest this was phrased as such to stop a particular heresy that would try to turn the Triune One God into 3 separate Gods which is completely contrary to Christian belief in One God a triune in form.

and yes I understand your position on the Virgin Birth and agree on its own it doesnt prove Jesus is God's son but lately I have seen a few posts by Muslims that would appear to deny the Virgin birth which I'm led to believe is anti islamic faith so I just needed to check for sure.

[Sol Invictus]

It doesn't say eternally begotten as far as I know ( but as i've always said im no scholar ) in the bible, just begotten when the term is used. But in the key passage John doesnt use that it just stated "In the begining was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God". but the eternally begotten is in the nicean creed and lets be honest this was phrased as such to stop a particular heresy that would try to turn the Triune One God into 3 separate Gods which is completely contrary to Christian belief in One God a triune in form.

hmm if you admit that it was phrased as such in order to stop a heresy then are you not admitting to it being taught in scripture? it should not matter whether it was phrased in a certain matter in order to stop a heresy but rather whether it is taught in the bible. that said, it isn't merely begotten but rather the only-begotten which is to literally mean "the only generated one" which then is the basis for the eternal generation of the son and why the phrase "eternally begotten" is used.

[Ali Mujahidin]

But I cant understand the logic of your Question to me.

I am reposting my question below:

Just curious. Assuming that you, yourself, have done all the searching and reading that you suggested, you should be in a good position to tell us how the Trinity doctrine is different from the belief that Zeus came down to earth in the form of a swan to make love to Leda. I look forward to being enlightened.

I have gone over my question word by word and letter by letter but I don't see where I have asked anything about Mary or virgin birth. Perhaps your browser shows something which mine doesn't. I know I am not a master of the English language but I believe my question is clear enough. I have purposely highlighted "Zeus came down to earth in the form of a swan" in bold letters, so that you can see that my question is not about making love to Leda. A direct answer from you to such a simple and straightforward question from me would be greatly appreciated. WaLLahu aklam.

[IAmZamzam]

Sol, the question was why a virgin birth should have anything to do with the sonship status if it is sonship in no biological sense whatsoever. Stop dodging it with your endless semantics!

"Eternally begotten" can mean either "begotten in a way that transcends time and occupies all of past, present, and future" or "begotten throughout all time in a process that never ends". Either way, the begetting would never have ceased and the son never be fully begotten. It's like calling something a grown chicken that you insist is an eternally hatching egg.

The virgin birth is the process by which god would begin his redemption of mankind.

How? What do you mean it's the process by which this redemption begins? How is it?

It is a sign, an accomplishment of prophecy and at the very least indicates that the child born to mary is of a special character.

And this doesn't equally apply to the Islamic conception of it with Jesus (P) as a prophet how?

If I had just one single penny for every time an evangelist talked down to me like I'm some complete newbie to Christian doctrine just because I disbelieve in it and point out the holes in it I could feed all the starving children of the whole world. I am not merely an ex-Christian; I was never casual as a Christian in my adult life. You might consider the possibility that I know more about your religion than you do. I just don't buy the semantic gymnastics involved, especially with the Trinity, which consists of literally nothing else.

You still haven't answered the question. I refer you to the top of this post.

[3rddec]

to Thisoldman do you believe in the Virgin birth and if so do you believe it was done by God and if you do can you explain the answer to your own question in the light of your response to these answers. I am now humbly awaiting your enlightenment of me.

[3rddec]

i'm sorry Sol but if I am going to debate an Issue I will always try to remain honest in the debate and you will not find the two words together in the scriptures. And if you research the subject fully if my position correct please show me where you were reading; it does not invalidate the Trinity it Just shows how importance the Church fathers had in ensuring there was no room for manouvre from a one God to 3 Gods in our beliefs. We as Christians believe in 1 God in Triune form.

[Sol Invictus]

( a ) "Eternally begotten" can mean either "begotten in a way that transcends time and occupies all of past, present, and future" or "begotten throughout all time in a process that never ends". Either way, the begetting would never have ceased and the son never be fully begotten. It's like calling something a grown chicken that you insist is an eternally hatching egg.

( b ) How? What do you mean it's the process by which this redemption begins? How is it?

( c ) And this doesn't equally apply to the Islamic conception of it with Jesus (P) as a prophet how?

( d ) If I had just one single penny for every time an evangelist talked down to me like I'm some complete newbie to Christian doctrine just because I disbelieve in it and point out the holes in it I could feed all the starving children of the whole world. I am not merely an ex-Christian; I was never casual as a Christian in my adult life. You might consider the possibility that I know more about your religion than you do. I just don't buy the semantic gymnastics involved, especially with the Trinity, which consists of literally nothing else.

( a ) now i'm quite sure that i've gone over this but let us try once again. your principle mistake (as highlighted by your analogy actually) is you don't at all deal with what god's nature would entail. as opposed to the egg god's nature entails eternality and completeness, so if the son were to have the nature of god and be eternally begotten it would imply completeness of being. in your analogy you simply ignore this and go on to say that he would be incomplete without making mention how this could at all be if the son possesses the very nature of god. if we actually were to factor in the christian understanding, then your analogy falls short. instead of dealing with the attributes of god you instead choose to deal with the attributes of creations of god. if then you are so sure of your argument please begin to attack my analogy instead of ignoring the concept and attributes of god whatsoever and effectively setting up a strawman.

( b ) the christian understanding is that in being incarnated, the second person of the trinity was thus able to atone for the sins of the world. the fact that you seem to be unaware of this is quite disheartening because it makes me feel as if i'm discussing with an individual who does not possess an adequate understanding of christianity.

( c ) i'm incredulous as to why you would bring this up. did i ever say anything to the contrary? you're attacking something which i have never said and that is rather deplorable. if as you claim you understood christianity so well then you would have known that christians believe that islam does contain some truth such as in it's agreement of the fundamental facts of the virgin birth. let us focus on what has actually been said instead of what is only our imagination.

( d ) rather than posting supposed credentials, let your arguments bear proof of this. as is, you were unable to articulate the christological doctrine of the incarnation properly and denied the matter when i pointed this out the first time. i then quoted your very own words and discussed at length how even your own example of demon possession showed your framing of the incarnation to be faulty. you have not done anything to show my words to be false other than to simply call them semantics. yet i must add that simply saying so does not make this true and the fact that this is not accompanied by an argument to prove your position speaks volumes. yet you would have me believe that you somehow possess adequate knowledge of christianity and this may actually be true and so i will give you the benefit of a doubt. but begin to let this knowledge come through in your posts seeing as whether intentional or accidental, you could not in your posts articulate the incarnation properly and merely fell in along the lines of a strain of adoptionism.

Sol, the question was why a virgin birth should have anything to do with the sonship status if it is sonship in no biological sense whatsoever. Stop dodging it with your endless semantics! [...] You still haven't answered the question. I refer you to the top of this post.

the above is fairly interesting in that you seem to imply that i have never given you an answer. let us see about that.

( a ) once again i'd like to first move the discussion to an examination of what the virgin birth really is. all it says is that the human was born without a father. on this point at the very least i think that we are both in agreement. if christ is eternally the son of god who deems himself fit to be born a man through a virgin birth he would in fact then have no father. the bible and christian doctrine is quite clear in the regard that when christ is called fatherless or anything of the sort it is meant in terms of him not being the product of a union between a man and a woman. the fact that he is eternally the son of the father is quite compatible with the fact that his humanity is not produced through the participation of a human male who could claim the status of biological parent to him.

[...] i think that it is safe to say that the above explanations are satisfactory for the both of us and that i can now move on to the supposed problem that is brought about by the term "son of god" given that christ, biologically, has no father. it ought to be said once more that the term son of god does not refer to a sexual union (biology) and so that aspect of the problem is rendered null but rather it describes the eternal relationship which the second person of trinity has always had to that of the first in that he is said to be begotten of the father. to repeat what i had posted in another thread concerning the word begotten:

It is the Greek word “monogeneis.” This is not simply “begotten,” for that expression can be applied to all believers, those who have been begotten or born again by the Spirit. This is a unique expression for a unique person, the only-begotten Son of God. The expression appears in John 1:14, 1:18, 3:16, and 3:18. It would literally mean the “only generated one.” This is the key expression for the doctrine of “the eternal generation of the Son,” meaning, he always was the only begotten Son. The expression does not refer to the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, because he is the Son from eternity past.

from the above, the fact that i had actually answered your question in multiple occasions becomes quite clear. i maintained that it is not the virgin birth which the doctrine of the sonship of christ rests on. what we should note is how you ignore these replies and repeatedly ask "why a virgin birth should have anything to do with the sonship status if it is sonship in no biological sense whatsoever" when i never argued that it did. you keep arguing against things i have never said and so i would very much like for you to give us a quote wherein i said anything of the sort. on that note, you seem to believe that christianity teaches that the virgin birth is the basis for the sonship of christ and if you were as well-read as you claim to be can you show us the source for such a belief? sure in hindsight i can see how one could propose such a thought but please give us a proper source which claims that the primary evidence for the sonship of christ is the miracle of the virgin birth?

in light of the above, can we begin to actually engage what i have written instead of attacking claims i have never made? i maintain that you have made some rather serious though quite basic errors in your posts and although this may sound rather harsh i do not mean this in a disrespectful fashion. the point is to simply understand each other if it is the case that we cannot come to an agreement and this goal will only get subverted if we refuse or are unable to represent the beliefs of our interlocutors accurately.

[Sol Invictus]

i'm sorry Sol but if I am going to debate an Issue I will always try to remain honest in the debate and you will not find the two words together in the scriptures. And if you research the subject fully if my position correct please show me where you were reading; it does not invalidate the Trinity it Just shows how importance the Church fathers had in ensuring there was no room for manouvre from a one God to 3 Gods in our beliefs. We as Christians believe in 1 God in Triune form.

it seems that i have been misunderstood. i claimed that the only-begotten comes from the word monogeneis which literally means the only generated one. from this, we get the doctrine of the eternal generation of the son. i did not claim that the very words "eternal generation of the son" are to be found in the bible but rather that the word, the only-begotten and the concept is in the bible:

It is the Greek word “monogeneis.” This is not simply “begotten,” for that expression can be applied to all believers, those who have been begotten or born again by the Spirit. This is a unique expression for a unique person, the only-begotten Son of God. The expression appears in John 1:14, 1:18, 3:16, and 3:18. It would literally mean the “only generated one.” This is the key expression for the doctrine of “the eternal generation of the Son,” meaning, he always was the only begotten Son. The expression does not refer to the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, because he is the Son from eternity past.

[3rddec]

Yahya in truth the Virgin birth is consistent with how Christ approaches his divinity throughout the Bible ; he never gives a definative answer but asks the Questioner WHO DO YOU THINK I AM? he teaches them, lives as an example to them; explains the scriptures to them and performs numerous miracles for them and then WHO DO YOU THINK I AM ?

The miracle Virgin Birth just asks the same question; we as Christians see all the life , death and resurrection of Christ and the Virgin Birth asks the question WHO IS MY FATHER and in the light of all the scriptures we say you are the Son of God.

You look at the same evidence and you say as you can't be Son of God you are fatherless.

Of course Christ prayed to his Father; Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” And they divided up his clothes by casting lots.

Love and Respect

[truthseeker63]

Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say when Jesus died on the cross his human body died but his spirit never died can you or anyone debunk or refute this claim because would I be correct that only God is Immortal humans are Mortal while humans have spirits these spirits were created by God like the Angels were created by God ?

[Xander]

We believe that Christ Jesus as a human is mortal, meaning if He wants, He can die. And we think He is immortal when He is using His Godly powers. This means He cannot die unless He wants to -- and that's only His human body. In other words, God just humbled Himself as a human by living in a human body.

[Woodrow]

We believe that Christ Jesus as a human is mortal, meaning if He wants, He can die. And we think He is immortal when He is using His Godly powers. This means He cannot die unless He wants to -- and that's only His human body. In other words, God just humbled Himself as a human by living in a human body.

In other words Jesus(as) was a mortal human with no soul of his own, but was possessed by God(swt). A drone with no self thought, but a biological device wandering about this earth being the receptor of earthly stimuli and passing it on to God(swt).

[Ramadhan]

We believe that Christ Jesus as a human is mortal, meaning if He wants, He can die. And we think He is immortal when He is using His Godly powers. This means He cannot die unless He wants to -- and that's only His human body. In other words, God just humbled Himself as a human by living in a human body.

Did Jesus say all this nonsense?
Or did your rabbis/priests/pastors/nuns/missionaries/popes/what-have-you tell you this?

[Woodrow]

Did Jesus say all this nonsense?
Or did your rabbis/priests/pastors/nuns/missionaries/popes/what-have-you tell you this?

Just out of fairness. I want to point out that outside of Xander making that statement, I have only heard one other person say that. I can not find any religion in which that is an alleged belief. But, I am curious to see if any of our Christian members agree with Xander.

[truthseeker63]

I know Islam believes that Jesus did not die on the cross but Christians seem to think that when Jesus's human body died on the cross but his soul/spirit did not die therefor he is Mortal/Immortal at the sametime but tell me if anyone agrees with me that if Jesus died and only his human body died not his soul/spirit he would still not be God because God never dies in anyway ?

The following was sent to me by Haleem; may Allah Almighty always be pleased with him.

Response to Mainstream Christianity: The Nature of Christ

The Wrested Scriptures Page lists passages commonly used to defend the erroneous views and outlines the correct understanding of these passages.In referring to 'Mainstream Christianity', we speak of the principal Christian groups, such as Catholics, Baptists, Evangelicals, Pentecostals, etc.Please excuse the directness of the sections below; due to the nature of the media, we felt it was best.

Mainstream Christian Teaching

The bulk of all Christianity teaches unequivocally that Jesus is God. This claim is made without qualification. Typically, it is said that Jesus is 100% man and 100% God: that Jesus was fully God, and never ceased to be God while on earth. And usually, when it really gets down to the nitty-gritty, it is said the whole issue (the Trinity) is a mystery.

Inherent Flaws:

The fundamental truth of the Bible is that God is One. Any teaching that in any way appears to deviate from or undermime this profound truth must be very firmly substantiated. The doctrine of the Trinity pretends to be such a teaching, yet it is entirely absent from the entire Old Testament. This doesn't make sense.

Mortality and Immortality are mutually exclusive characteristics. If Jesus is God, he couldn't have really died, for God is immortal by nature. Likewise, if Jesus died, he couldn't really be God, for God cannot die. Immortality is not a fluctuating quality! A being is either mortal or immortal. You can't have it both ways with this. Either Christ died, and he is mortal, or he's God and can't die. Pick one alternative, as holding both is simply untenable. Traditional Christians typically respond to this point with the idea stated above in the introduction, that Jesus was fully human and fully God. But look at the next point.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/jesus_nature.htm

Rebuttal to Sam Shamoun’s article

A Series of Answers to Common Questions

By

Sami Zaatri

My response:

Once again the fact remains Jesus died, God does not die. Shamoun then starts talking about Jesus rising from the dead, God never rises from the dead because God never dies, so the rest of what Shamoun has had to say basically still shows Jesus died. Just to make Shamoun happy, sure buddy Jesus was still existent when he died, but buddy he still died, and God does not die. Shamoun tried to answer the question but ultimately failed, he actually destroyed a great myth of Christianity on the God who loves all and hears all. He also managed to go into topics, which basically had nothing to do with the topic at hand, HOW CAN GOD DIE? The question remains ‘ HOW COULD JESUS DIE IF HE IS GOD, GOD DOES NOT DIE’.

http://www.answering-christianity.co..._shamoun_1.htm

Examining The Hypostatic Union

In order for Jesus to coexist in 2 distinct natures: the Divine and the human, the attributes of both the Divine and the human must coexist simultaneously. An example of an attribute of God is: all-knowing. An example of an attribute of man is: not-all knowing. So, how can Jesus coexist in both of these natures simultaneously (meaning: how man Jesus be all-knowing and not all-knowing simultaneously)? It is contradicting because: if Jesus is "all-knowing" that means he cannot be "not all-knowing." If Jesus is "not all-knowing" that means he cannot be "all-knowing."
Moreover, by definition, man is not eternal and God is eternal. Even the Bible says God is eternal:
Deuteronomy 33:27:
"The eternal God is your refuge and underneath are the everlasting arms. He will drive out your enemy before you, saying, 'Destroy him!'"

Jeremiah 10:10:
"But the LORD is the true God; he is the living God, the eternal King."

This is 1 of the attributes which makes God: God. Humans are not eternal, which is 1 of the attributes which makes man: not God. If we assume that Jesus co-exists in both natures: divine and man, how can Jesus be both eternal and not eternal simultaneously? REMEMBER: If Jesus has the nature of being a man, by definition he CANNOT be eternal, so a Christian cannot claim that the nature of man is eternal, because it is NOT. Using objectivity and logic, it is impossible for Jesus to coexist simultaneously in both natures. This is the main problem I see with the hypostatic union.

[Woodrow]

The concept of a trinity God(swt) is quite alien to us and many other non-Christians. Even some who call themselves Christian do not accept the teachings of a Trinity. Those who call themselves Christian usually admit this is a mystery that they them selves do not understand. One flawed answer to how it can be is : "God can do anything."

It is true that God(swt) can do anything. But the problem is People sometimes toss up contradictory statements and make them seem to be sensible, without realizing they are nonsensical self contradictions some often quoted ones are things like:

Can God(swt) create a rock so heavy He can not lift it?

Can God(swt) create another god?

Can God(swt) create a 4 sided triangle?

A bit of thinking and a full realization of what is said in statements like that shows the statements contradict themselves. they do not set up an asking of what God(swt) can do, they set up a a pure nonsense statement in which any answer negates the question itself from being an actual question. Grammatically they are questions, but in meaning they are nonsense.

I find the question "Can God(swt) be 3 persons yet be one god?" to be in the same category as those statements. For that reason I do not find the answer of "Yes, because He can do anything." to be a valid answer, as the question itself is self contradictory and not a real question except in terms of grammar.

[Xander]

Just out of fairness. I want to point out that outside of Xander making that statement, I have only heard one other person say that. I can not find any religion in which that is an alleged belief. But, I am curious to see if any of our Christian members agree with Xander.

Throughout the New Testament it claims that Jesus is the Son of Man (referring to His human life) and Son of God (referring to His Godhood). If you are talking to Christians, they all should say the same thing.

[Fivesolas]

Woodrow,

I would like to make sure that we are describing the same thing when we are discussing the concept of the Triune God. What is your (and anyone on the board) understanding of the trinity?

Second, the answer regarding the human and divine nature of Christ was, essentially, answered correctly. The fact that woodrow raised the question of the trinity is actually, in my opinion, perceptive. I am assuming that woodrow is not attempting to reason through the concept of the hypostatic union (theological term) from a unitarian view, but from the trinitarian viewpoint. Therefore, it would make sense for him to address the subject of the trinity.

The theological term for the union of the human and divine nature of Jesus is Hypostatic Union. The term could be useful to you in your research of the subject in theological journals or articles. It may be helpful to simply use the language of Holy Scripture to express this idea:

John 1:1; 14 "In the beginng was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God..." "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."

The reasoning that "God cannot die" reasons from a unitatian understanding of the nature of God, and not a trinitarian understanding. The main purpose for the human nature of Christ, the Word becoming flesh, was for the purpose of the suffering of the cross. See Hebrews 10:5 and compare with Psalm 40:6

Within the Christian understand of the nature and being of God, the Trinity, this is not illogical.

It would seem to me then that it would be argued next that the Trinity is illogical. Well, then I have to ask...how is it illogical? I see nothing illogical in the biblical doctrine of the trinity. So, if it is illogical, what rules of logic is it violating? If you immediately run to 1+1+1=3/1 logic, then you have failed. Because the biblical doctrine of the trinity does not teach that one God is really three gods.

So, if we want to relate the OP to the doctrine of the trinity, we should first define the doctrine of the trinity.

[Aprender]

Throughout the New Testament it claims that Jesus is the Son of Man (referring to His human life) and Son of God (referring to His Godhood). If you are talking to Christians, they all should say the same thing.

With so many different sects of Christianity, how can we all agree on the same thing? So many different thoughts and interpretations out there.

I do not believe that Jesus Christ was a demi-god as explained in the Trinity. There mere idea of saying "Godhood" just sounds like it is making Jesus out to be a human-god hybrid as apparent in Greek mythology. I believe that Jesus Christ was a man, who walked this Earth, sent by God as a messenger. Yes, he was a son of God, but not begotten. Go ahead and say I'm not a real Christian, an infidel, but that's just the way I see it.

[truthseeker63]

Since Christians believe that Jesus is God and that Jesus died on the cross and was kiled they believe that God was killed and died my question is even if only the human part of Jesus died and not his spirit would this mean that Jesus is a Mortal and not Immortal like God I mean to me this would disprove Christianity I know that in Islam that the Jews wanted to kill Jesus but Jesus never died on the cross but my question that some Christians say we are all Immortal since we have souls but am I right that God would not die in anyway if Jesus was God as Christians claim he should of never of died or been close to dying ?

God cannot die. Jesus died. Therefore, Jesus cannot be God.


by Matt Slick

One of the doctrines that many people fail to understand concerning Jesus is the doctrine of the hypostatic union. This is in the teaching that Jesus has two natures: God and man. In other words, Jesus is both God and man at the same time. This is why we see some scriptures that point to Him being divine and others pointing to Him being a man. Below is a chart illustrating the two natures of Jesus as derived from scripture.
Jesus is one personGOD
MAN
He is worshiped (Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9)
He is prayed to (Acts 7:59; 1 Cor. 1:1-2)
He was called God (John 20:28; Heb. 1:8)
He was called Son of God (Mark 1:1)
He is sinless (1 Pet. 2:22; Heb. 4:15)
He knew all things (John 21:17)
He gives eternal life (John 10:28)
The fullness of deity dwells in Him (Col. 2:9)
He worshiped the Father (John 17)
He prayed to the Father (John 17:1)
He was called man (Mark 15:39; John 19:5).
He was called Son of Man (John 9:35-37)
He was tempted (Matt. 4:1)
He grew in wisdom (Luke 2:52)
He died (Rom. 5:8)
He has a body of flesh and bones (Luke 24:39)

This is not a made-up doctrine. Rather, it is a doctrine derived from observing God's word. It is true that God cannot die. It is also true that man can die. But we see that Jesus has two natures, not one. It was the human part of Jesus that died on the cross, not the divine But, because He is both God and man in one person, and because He was sinless, His sacrifice is sufficient to cover the sins of the world.

[pamuk7]

We don't say God can't die, we say he chooses not to because that what makes God God. By the way, John 1:1 is a mistranslation.

Sources:
biblicalunitarian . com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=61
servetustheevangelical . com/doc/Is_Jesus_God_in_John_1.1c.pdf
ebrahimsaifuddin . wordpress . com/2007/03/03/the-truth-about-john-11/


If conflicting attributes aren't illogical, then I don't know what is. A Christian writes:

"The doctrine of the Incarnation, that Jesus of Nazareth was fully God and fully human, is simply impossible. It does not make sense. The words cannot be put together this way without doing violence either to their meaning or to the rules of logic.

To be human is to be finite, limited in knowledge, fallible, and imperfect. To be human also means to be aware of one’s finitude, and of one’s separation from others and from God — sometimes painfully aware. If Jesus was human, then he was all of these — and indeed this is how the Gospels portray him, experiencing anger, fatigue, uncertainty, reluctance, pain and even death.

To be God — not just to share a spark of the divine, nor to be in God’s image, nor to be a lesser divine being like the angels, nor any of the other possible subversions of the orthodox doctrine, but really to be God -- in any Christian understanding, this means to be eternal and unlimited, to be perfect in love and understanding. Now, either Jesus of Nazareth was limited, fallible and imperfect, or else he was unlimited, infallible and perfect. These two sets of attributes are opposites of each other. You can’t have it both ways; he was either one or the other. You can’t say of one person that he was both." (C. Randolph Ross - Common Sense Christianity - Occam Publishers, 1989 - Page 81).

The trinity also violates the rule of non-contradiction, because it implies the claim that man is God which the Christian above showed is illogical. Also, it assumes Jesus and two natures and the Father has one leaving us with a discrepancy & confusion, even though God is not supposed to be the author of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33).

Also read: call-to-monotheism . com/is_the_trinity_logically_coherent_in_light_of_bibl ical_teachings_

Psalm 40:6 is not referring to the Messiah in the context:
call-to-monotheism . com/psalm_40_6_8__by_g__shapiro


Also the human sacrifice idea goes against the Old Testament (ie Psalm 49:7), which Jews have even argued.

[Sol Invictus]

I do not believe that Jesus Christ was a demi-god as explained in the Trinity.

hello aprender, seeing as you stated earlier--sorry, not earlier but in a different thread, i'm thinking of: http://www.islamicboard.com/clarific...ml#post1426626 instead--that you never understood the trinity then i will understand the above as your attempt at formulating the doctrine correctly rather than knowingly perverting it. once we get into caricatures of what other people believe we have ceased to engage in any real discussion and more importantly, we have ceased to do this with love and decency. that said, the trinity does not posit that christ is half man and half god, for one thing the trinity doesn't even speak of this christological concept. the doctrine of the trinity (in simple terms) is the following: the single divine being exists eternally as the persons of the father, the son, and the holy spirit---these three are the one true god and yet each is not identical with the other (that is, not identical in personhood but certainly in being). the doctrine of the hypostatic union however states that christ is fully god, and fully man and the two should not be confused. as a side note, given that you were unable to distinguish between the two nor articulate them properly, i will be quite honest and say that i cannot take your words seriously seeing as you have demonstrated that you do not possess adequate knowledge of the matters in question. i intend no offense by this (though i certainly can understand it if you are indeed offended and as such i apologize beforehand) but the same would apply if i tried to criticize the islamic concept of tawhid yet displayed that i couldn't even articulate it properly. people would simply not take me seriously.

I find the question "Can God(swt) be 3 persons yet be one god?" to be in the same category as those statements. For that reason I do not find the answer of "Yes, because He can do anything." to be a valid answer, as the question itself is self contradictory and not a real question except in terms of grammar.

greetings woodrow, it would seem that we are back to the question that we had initially discussed when i first joined. seeing as you had claimed that you could not prove this to be illogical in the other thread, i must say that i have taken the above with a grain of salt. the very first reason why we believe in the trinity is because it is taught in the bible (the bible calls christ god, the father god, and the holy spirit god etc.) and that in itself is enough. the fact that three things can also be one is not at all illogical and you will surely remember my example to which i still have yet to receive a response by the muslim members of this board (and if we remember the events correctly, it was said that the muslim position could not be proved through reason). here it is again (sorry, given that the trinity thread is closed i can't easily quote from there, hence the following format):

woodrow: 3. God always was 3 entities inseperable from each other

My answer
This is our point of biggest disagreement. By simple definition in my feeble, somewhat senile mind. if they are inseparable they are not 3 entities. If they are not 3 entities, there is no trinity

myself: if i have understood your example correctly then you are arguing that distinctions cannot exist when things are inseparable (please correct me if i am wrong). at present, it is our task to see if this argument is at all correct. you would agree with me that length is distinct from, width, and that width is distinct from height, and that height is not either of these and yet it is not 3 spaces that we possess but rather that the one space is always existent as length, width and height. these are distinct (such that neither is the other), yet are all the one space (such that prerogatives of space apply equally and fully to these three distinctions), and therefore these aspects of space are inseparable as it relates to space. simply from this, we can therefore admit that 3 things can be distinct without losing that which makes them inseparable.

(pg. 9 of "all trinity discussion goes here" thread)

the above shows us that as far as the concept of "three in one" goes, this is logically robust. you may deny it on faith (that is seeing as you are a muslim) but certainly not in terms of logic (in the same way that i deny muhammad's prophethood on my faith as a christian and not necessarily in terms of logic seeing as it is not logically impossible for god to have used a 7th century bedouin to spread his message). that said, you have highlighted contradictions within your post, but doing so is not the same as showing the trinity to be contradictory (and if such a thing were indeed contradictory then it simply could not exist but the example of space shows us that such a thing is not logically contradictory; as you seemed to have implied in your response in the trinity thread).

God cannot die. Jesus died. Therefore, Jesus cannot be God.

greetings truthseeker, i noticed that you had linked to a supposed rebuttal of the hypostatic union and while the writer did mention the words 'hypostatic union' he did not actually deal with it. if i recall correctly, he used the exact same argument as the one you use above and this is untenable when one actually tries to attack this christian doctrine honestly. anyway, i will once again quote myself from another thread and i welcome you to respond to this vis a vis the above given that i did not receive a response which actually dealt with what i had written:

Now, since you seemed to know so much about what happen inside and outside of creation, answer this questions:

1. How can god be dead and alive at the same time?
You are talking big about "logic", now prove to me logically
was the lesser god truly dead?
2. you havent answered my question before: Why do christians think that God needed to scuckle breast, peed, cried, pooped, washed after himself?
was a human or god?
if he was a human, how can he be god?

1. death happens to the body and as such if god wills it, the human body can experience death, this would not mean that god as he is in himself would experience death. when christians say that god died, they do not say that the being of god died because god as he is in himself cannot die, rather they say that the body he occupied experienced death. you seem to have trouble with the phrase god as he is in himself" and as such you would do well to look up this term and avoid further elementary mistakes as has already occured with the concept of omnitemporal and atemporal.

2. christians do not believe that god needed to do any of that, rather he chose to let the human body function as it should. even then it would not be the being of god which would need to function as such but rather the human body. you seem to wish to predicate the properties of one nature unto the other and there is no warrant for that. once again this stems from your lack of understanding of the hypostatic union and the concept of god as he is in himself.

( c ) i suppose that you failed to read my post #95. it was a response to the best muslim argument for why jesus could not be god and it is exactly how i would have written it if i were a muslim yet still it was rather simple to prove wrong given that we're talking in terms of logic. please do get to reading it.

and just in case, here was my post #95 (once again you can respond to this as well if you would like):

now i must begin with congratulating you (or rather your source) on wording the matter perfectly. that is perhaps the best case against the belief that jesus can be god and it is precisely how i would have worded it, were i a muslim. yet i must say that the matter is pretty much already settled given that we are talking in terms of logic and the above source seems to possess no knowledge of the hypostatic union. without further ado, let us begin.

it must be acknowledged that the above points rest on the individual nature of the thing in question being transformed into something that is contradictory to it. hence why the following can be said (and quit correctly that is):

Can you draw me a triangle with four sides?

as we can all see, the nature of a triangle is that it has 3 sides so the triangle can not be made to have 4 sides and suddenly remain a triangle. if we can all agree on this matter then i must move on to say that that is not what the christian says in claiming that god became man. we do not say that the divine essence was converted into a human essence so that the divine would cease to be divine. rather we say that god took on a human nature and not that he transformed the divine nature into a human one.

The Divine and human natures cannot alternate, so that the Divine should become human or the human Divine; nor can they be so commingled as that a third should be produced from the two which is neither wholly Divine nor wholly human. For, granting that it were possible for either to be changed into the other, it would in that case be only God and not man, or man only and not God. Or, if they were so commingled that a third nature sprung from the combination of the two (as from two animals, a male and a female of different species, a third is produced, which does not preserve entire the species of either parent, but has a mixed nature derived from both), it would neither be God nor man. Therefore the God-man, whom we require to be of a nature both human and Divine, cannot be produced by a change from one into the other, nor by an imperfect commingling of both in a third; since these things cannot be, or, if they could be, would avail nothing to our purpose. Moreover, if these two complete natures are said to be joined somehow, in such a way that one may be Divine while the other is human, and yet that which is God not be the same with that which is man, it is impossible for both to do the work necessary to be accomplished. For God will not do it, because he has no debt to pay; and man will not do it, because he cannot. Therefore, in order that the God-man may perform this, it is necessary that the same being should [be] perfect God and perfect man, in order to make this atonement. For he cannot and ought not to do it, unless he be very God and very man. Since, then, it is necessary that the God-man preserve the completeness of each nature, it is no less necessary that these two natures be united entire in one person, just as a body and a reasonable soul exist together in every human being; for otherwise it is impossible that the same being should be very God and very man. - Cur Deus Homo, Chapter VII

the above is a word on the matter by saint anselm of canterbury. while at this point, the above does not quite explain everything, once you have continued to read what i write, it will certainly begin to make sense.

the question now becomes whether it is logical for a person to be both god and man at the same time seeing as to be god means to be infinite and to be man is to be finite. in keeping with your simple example of a triangle and a square here is an example of the christian conception of christ (the following is what i have written on the subject for another person but i'll simply copy and paste it here):

Let us imagine a triangle. Now we all know the nature of a triangle i.e. it’s attributes, the things that make a triangle a triangle as opposed to a rectangle or circle. Good. Now let us at this point imagine a box. Once more we know what is the nature of a box and furthermore, we are also aware that the nature of a box is in direct contradiction to the nature of a triangle. Now suppose that we were to place the triangle within the box, would we then have a confusion, a mixing, an intermingling of the two essences/natures? No, we would possess one unit (the Triangle-Box if you would like) with the essences of both objects intact. The triangle would not cease to be a triangle and neither would the box cease to be a box—on the contrary we would now have a unit that possesses in its being the very attributes of both in that it is not half a box and half a triangle but rather a full (perfect) triangle and a full (perfect) box. A veritable Triangle-Box, wherein the unit is one but the essences are two. In just the same manner does the Christian speak of God becoming man. God did not cease being God, he did not convert the divine essence into a human essence; instead he took on a second nature aside from his divine nature. As such in the unit that is the individual, Christ Jesus, there are two natures with contradicting attributes simultaneously present. As with the Triangle-Box, Jesus can claim the otherwise mutually exclusive prerogatives that come with each nature because of them being simultaneously existent in his being. Such that he can increase in knowledge as man, but always have known all things as God. Such that he can pray to the father as man, yet have no need to do so as God. Such that should he will it, he is able to give his life unto death as man, and yet death never having any power or hold over him as God. He does everything as the God-Man—mystery upon mystery. In short, He is both three-sided and four-sided at the same time.

let us remember that the your point rested on the single nature being converted into its opposite yet simultaneously remaining that which makes it whatever it is (the nature of triangle being converted into that of a square yet somehow also remaining a triangle). this whole argument is blown completely out of the water when the muslim understands that christians speak of god taken on, for the purpose of salvation a second nature and not converting the divine nature into a human one. in light of this understanding by christians, the muslim objections are put to rest because they become untenable when christians are allowed to explain the matter of the hypostatic union. i must confess that given that the muslim argument was made on the premise of logic, the argument was more than easy to refute seeing as your source never even understood what christians meant by christ becoming man. his whole argument relies on the single premise that the one nature was converted into the other while the christian claim is that a second nature was taken on. this explanation averts the problem of any change to the being of god whatsoever and furthermore, is logically robust. i do not ask you to believe this but it is more than evident that the christian claim cannot be attacked in terms of logic.

now, i have answered and refuted all the above arguments. to those who would still claim that allah does not enter into his creation, can you please begin to engage my argument?

i think that this post has touched on all the basic issues so far and i am more than willing to get into the "gritty details" of things (to the best of my ability) if it follows that there a deeper objections or matters in which greater clarification is required. i had hoped to speak of the complete misunderstanding of the trinity within the qur'an (for truth be told, it is indeed a difficult doctrine to understand as all parties in this discussion will readily admit) but i am too tired and it is an old spectre that we need not ressurect at the moment but once again will be more than willing to speak of if i am challenged on this issue (though i must admit that my points won't be all that different then i first stipulated in the trinity thread).

[Aprender]

hello aprender, seeing as you stated earlier that you never understood the trinity then i will understand the above as your attempt at formulating the doctrine correctly rather than knowingly perverting it. once we get into caricatures of what other people believe we have ceased to engage in any real discussion and more importantly, we have ceased to do this with love and decency. that said, the trinity does not posit that christ is half man and half god, for one thing the trinity doesn't even speak of this christological concept. the doctrine of the trinity (in simple terms) is the following: the single divine being exists eternally as the persons of the father, the son, and the holy spirit---these three are the one true god and yet each is not identical with the other (that is, not identical in personhood but certainly in being). the doctrine of the hypostatic union however states that christ is fully god, and fully man and the two should not be confused. as a side note, given that you were unable to distinguish between the two nor articulate them properly, i will be quite honest and say that i cannot take your words seriously seeing as you have demonstrated that you do not possess adequate knowledge of the matters in question. i intend no offense by this (though i certainly can understand it if you are indeed offended and as such i apologize beforehand) but the same would apply if i tried to criticize the islamic concept of tawhid yet displayed that i couldn't even articulate it properly. people would simply not take me seriously.

I've had the trinity explained to me in many different ways at many different times in my life. I've been on this earth for decades and no matter how much you try to dress it up with academic and flowery language- it doesn't make sense. I understand what you are trying to say but after years of debate and seeking to understand this concept, I do not believe in it. Although it was a failed attempt, thank you for trying to explain the trinity to me once again. I know that the trinity does not display, exactly, that Christ is half man, half god but when it was explained to me as a child that was what I perceived it to be. Perhaps it was wrong for me to add "as explained in the trinity" seeing as it is more of an incorrect math formula in and of itself, but that's beside the point. Any way you put it, it doesn't make sense.

OK:

the single OK. He's One. Got it.

divine being exists eternally as the persons Wait a minute. Persons? I thought he was one?

of the father, the son, and the holy spirit---these three OK...He was one at first. Now all of a sudden these three things come into place.

are the one true god and yet each is not identical with the other. Now we are back to one again? But each one is not identical?

that christ is fully god, and fully man and the two should not be confused There we go with the plurals again. So is he one, two or three now?

i intend no offense by this (though i certainly can understand it if you are indeed offended and as such i apologize beforehand)

Then why did you say it? I'll have you know that I'm not offended. I am not easily offended and especially not by empty words. But I do applaud you for thinking you had the ability to offend me. Good try, brother.

God is one. That is all. Have a great day/night wherever you are in the world and May God guide us all to the right path.

[Sol Invictus]

the single OK. He's One. Got it.

( a )divine being exists eternally as the persons Wait a minute. Persons? I thought he was one?

( b ) [B]of the father, the son, and the holy spirit---these three OK...He was one at first. Now all of a sudden these three things come into place.[/B]

are the one true god and yet each is not identical with the other. Now we are back to one again? But each one is not identical?

( c ) that christ is fully god, and fully man and the two should not be confused There we go with the plurals again. So is he one, two or three now?



( d ) Then why did you say it? I'll have you know that I'm not offended. I am not easily offended and especially not by empty words. But I do applaud you for thinking you had the ability to offend me. Good try, brother.

( e )God is one. That is all. Have a great day/night wherever you are in the world and May God guide us all to the right path.

thanks for the reply aprender. now it would seem that you have adopted a somewhat belligerent tone but we'll try to further this discussion without trying to belittle the other for this simply won't go anywhere towards a productive discussion.

( a ) one in being. your first mistake is that you immediately assume a unitarian understanding of oneness and this ought to be called into question. the fact is that oneness can refer to something which holds a plurality within itself. for example, there exists only one matter but within the one matter there are the distinctions of solid, liquid, and gas. yet it is not three matters that we have but rather one. even you believe this seeing as i'm sure that you did not go to school to learn the three states of matterS but rather the three states of matter. as such, your objection that oneness can never refer to a being who houses a plurality (or rather distinctions) within himself becomes untenable. you also believe that we only have one space yet within this single space there exist the distinctions of length, width and height. neither of these distinctions are identical to the others (though they each possess the prerogatives of the one space and as such equally can be called the one true space) yet it is not three spaces that we have but rather one. once again, the fact that you understand that the oneness of space is also a oneness again proves your objection to be untenable. you cannot attack the doctrine of the trinity on the matter of oneness seeing as just as unitarianism is a type of oneness (for there are others such as monism, pantheism, panentheism, monistic monotheism etc.), so is trinitarianism.

( b ) if threeness took precedence over oneness than perhaps you would have a point, but as is you do not. simply showing how absurd your objection would be if we take the concept of space or matter is enough to refute your argument:

imagine we were speaking of space: "of length, width, and height---these three OK...it was one at first. Now all of a sudden these three things come into place.

are the one true space and yet each is not identical with the other. Now we are back to one again? But each one is not identical?". <--- see how absurd such an objection would be when we speak of other things which are three in one? the fact that the basics of the trinity is true of the concept of space shows that the trinity is not illogical and any objection to it on the grounds of logic is untenable.

( c ) like i said, you are unable to distinguish the hypostatic union from the doctrine of the trinity and this is where you make your error. when we speak of the trinity, we speak of the being of god as he is in himself. what is true of the being of god is true of each person, or if you would like, each distinction within him. what is true of each individual person within the trinity need not be true of the others (such that within the unit that is christ jesus, there exist two natures).

( d ) i said it because it needed to be said. not everything that is said in kindness need be inoffensive. and no, i can't agree with your "good try" comment seeing as it presupposes that my intentions were to offend you. if this were the case then i would not have preemptively apologized and while i would very much have liked it if you wouldn't be so quick on the attack, i can certainly see where you're coming from and i'm not taking this to heart. once more, i apologized not because i enjoyed the thought that i had offended you but rather because there was such a possibility and therefore common decency and moreover christian charity compelled me to at least clear this up before we came to a misunderstanding such as the one we seem to be in now.

( e ) indeed he is. and while you had tried to show that the trinity did not subscribe to oneness, you have been unable to do so. your entire point rests on the phrase "god is one" being understood as "god is unitarian" and you have been unable to prove this. even you believe that things which exist in drastically similar fashions to the holy trinity are in fact examples of oneness (such as space and matter) and as such your objection that the trinity is not an example of oneness loses any weight that it might have had. you have no warrant to claim that oneness refers only to a unitarian understanding seeing that this is logically untrue and, perhaps more importantly, factually untrue when we examine the universe. if you however wish to claim that the trinity is not unitarian then this is all well and good--yet no one is arguing against this! we are defending the fact (and it really is a fact) that the trinity is an expression of oneness and not that the trinity is an expression of unitarianism. you have to show us how the trinity is not an expression of oneness instead of what you have argued so far (i.e. that the trinity is not an expression of unitarianism).

that said, i would be more than interested in your response to the above given that your initial reply to me centered on a faulty premise.

[Ramadhan]

By the way, John 1:1 is a mistranslation.

How do you know it's a mistranslation when the originals does not even exist, and no one even know who wrote it, and no one knows what Jesus actually said (in original language)?

[Perseveranze]

That's some real blind faith there. Also, quite interesting that people act like they understand the Trinity, I honestly doubt you really do and just try to think you do to make yourself feel comfortable. I've seen many Christian Ministers/Priests admit that "Trinity isn't something your fully suppose to understand or make sense of".

[YieldedOne]

Heh. Just for fun. My take. :D

Trinitarian Christian teaching effectively states that the human being Jesus of Nazareth is the effect of God's Uncreated Self-Revealing "Word" (empowered by the Spirit/Breath of God) taking on created human nature. That is to say that the Eternal "Word" has taken on a human body, soul, and spirit in time...becoming a human being.

Insofar God's Self-Revealing Word is uncreated, it cannot be destroyed. At the same time, the human nature taken on by the "Word" can experience human death.

I tend to think of the reality of Jesus from the perspective of the complementary seen in atomic reality: The wave/particle complementarity. The singular reality of an atom functions as BOTH wave and particle, even though some "wavelike" aspects of an atom are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE from the "particle-like" aspects of that same atom. So the analogy would go as follows:

Atom <=> Incarnate Word (Jesus of Nazareth)

Wave Aspect <=> Uncreated Spoken "Word" of God

Particle Aspect <=> Created human nature (body, soul, spirit)

As long as it's not logically inconsistent for God's directly "spoken word" to actualize as human existence...then I don't see what the problem is.

:shade:

[Sol Invictus]

That's some real blind faith there. Also, quite interesting that people act like they understand the Trinity, I honestly doubt you really do and just try to think you do to make yourself feel comfortable. I've seen many Christian Ministers/Priests admit that "Trinity isn't something your fully suppose to understand or make sense of".

thanks for the response but i'd prefer it if we could drop the attitude. once again the discussion will go nowhere if we are dead set on deprecating one another simply because our beliefs are different.

anyway, your mistake is assuming that when ministers say that one cannot fully understand the trinity (something that every trinitarian will agree to) this nets out to "one can have no understanding of it at all". for instance, we both believe that god has always existed, but can you fully understand the concept of having no beginning? no, neither you nor i can yet this doesn't therefore mean that we have absolutely no understanding of it. if god is infinite in his being, then should it not follow that us finite creatures should not be able to fully understand him as he is in himself? and if the trinity is talking about how god exists in himself, should this then not mean that logically we shouldn't be able to understand it completely seeing as it deals with the being of god himself? that said, you imply that my beliefs function on nothing but blind faith so then could you begin proving how my posts are in fact logically untenable instead of merely making this claim without expending any effort in proving this? i will say that such an approach certainly does not make your position believable.

i look forward to your reply.

[Sol Invictus]

I tend to think of the reality of Jesus from the perspective of the complementary seen in atomic reality: The wave/particle complementarity. The singular reality of an atom function as BOTH waves and particles, even though some "wavelike" aspects of an atom are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE from the "particle-like" aspects of that same atom. So the analogy would go as follows:

Atom <=> Incarnate Word (Jesus of Nazareth)

Wave Aspect <=> Uncreated Spoken "Word" of God

Particle Aspect <=> Created human nature (body, soul, spirit)

was my triangle-box example really that bad, lol? anyway, to be a bit more serious, i think that the above can easily get exceedingly confusing (though we should be quick to point out that confusing does not mean untrue) and as such the box-triangle example is better simply because it shows in rather simple terms how the hypostatic union is not illogical. but yes, the more examples the better.

[YieldedOne]

Sol Invictus:
was my box example really that bad, lol? anyway, to be a bit more seriously, i think that the above can easily get exceedingly confusing (though we should be quick to point out that confusing does not mean untrue) and as such the box-triangle example is better simply because it shows in rather simple terms how the hypostatic union is not illogical. but yes, the more examples the better.

I'm wondering how the wave/particle complementarity analogy is "exceedingly confusing." (I didn't come up with it, by the way. See James Loder.) If a person understands the fundamental aspects of the wave/particle reality of atoms, then it's a VERY helpful analogy of how a SINGULAR reality can have TWO mutually exclusive aspects within it without any contradiction or conflation. A wave is NOT a particle and a particle is NOT a wave...but an atom is BOTH a wave AND a particle. In like manner, uncreated reality is NOT created and created reality is NOT uncreated...but the Incarnate "Word" is composed of BOTH uncreated AND created reality.

[Sol Invictus]

I'm wondering how the wave/particle complementarity analogy is "exceedingly confusing." (I didn't come up with it, by the way. See James Loder.) If a person understands the fundamental aspects of the wave/particle reality of atoms, then it's a VERY helpful analogy of how a SINGULAR reality can have TWO mutually exclusive aspects within it without any contradiction or conflation.

hey yielded, i'm not going to argue the matter with you and if it did seem like i did then i apologize. that said, i simply meant that the triangle-box was more concrete (in my opinion). once again though, the more examples the better.

[YieldedOne]

SolInvictus:
once again though, the more examples the better.

Agreed. Hopefully, it's a helpful addition. :statisfie

[YieldedOne]

Aprender:
OK:
the single OK. He's One. Got it.
divine being exists eternally as the persons Wait a minute. Persons? I thought he was one?
of the father, the son, and the holy spirit---these three OK...He was one at first. Now all of a sudden these three things come into place.
are the one true god and yet each is not identical with the other. Now we are back to one again? But each one is not identical?
that christ is fully god, and fully man and the two should not be confused There we go with the plurals again. So is he one, two or three now?

Figured I may as well give this a shot too...

Let's try this: The ONE God as necessarily triune uncreated personal being. Basically, if God's uncreated self-experience and self-expression ("I Am that I Am"; Tetragammaton, etc) can be conceived as a triune event (God as "Speaker" using His "Breath" to bring forth His "Spoken Word" )--even sans Creation--then this can be a pointer to the Christian view of the Trinity. My own personal view is that the uncreated self-revelatory "spoken Word" of God 1) is hypostatic, meaning reflective of the personality of God Himself and 2) is expressed in created human existence [human body, soul, and spirit] as a divinely creative "word" to Mary.

[Muhaba]

jesus peace be upon him was born a child like any other child is born. childbirth isn't very godly. and i think that should be enough to convince any christian that jesus isn't god. after being born a child, Jesus had to be fed by his mother and cleaned, etc. he went to the bathroom, etc. again not very godly qualities. he was just a weak little baby, unable to do anything for himself. all these prove that Jesus wasn't God. if god wanted to come to earth in the shape of a human He didn't have to make himself be born and raised as a baby, soiling his diapers, frying for food, etc. God could've just come as an adult human.

[Fivesolas]

jesus peace be upon him was born a child like any other child is born. childbirth isn't very godly. and i think that should be enough to convince any christian that jesus isn't god. after being born a child, Jesus had to be fed by his mother and cleaned, etc. he went to the bathroom, etc. again not very godly qualities. he was just a weak little baby, unable to do anything for himself. all these prove that Jesus wasn't God. if god wanted to come to earth in the shape of a human He didn't have to make himself be born and raised as a baby, soiling his diapers, frying for food, etc. God could've just come as an adult human.

Many people have seen the incarnation as an enigma. Others have seen it as something "below" God to do. God does not think like we think, estimate like we estimate, judge as we judge. Let's remember the words of the prophet Isaiah who said,

For thus saith the high andlofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in thehigh and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.

[YieldedOne]

Writer:
jesus peace be upon him was born a child like any other child is born. childbirth isn't very godly. and i think that should be enough to convince any christian that jesus isn't god.

I think something needs to be clear here. This is like the kind of argumentation I often hear against the simultaneity of uncreated and created reality in Jesus:

1) Creaturely beings cannot be uncreated, by definition.

2) Jesus is a creaturely being.

Therefore...

3) Jesus cannot be uncreated (ie. Jesus cannot be divine.)

Looked at this way, it seems like rank absurdity to consider Jesus to be God in any way. However, I believe that this is a false dichotomy insofar as the uncreated and created are pitted against each other as the logic above states without any type of complementarity involved. This would be like saying that since particles cannot be waves and vice versa--and because an atom exhibits tendencies of particles--said atom CANNOT be a wave in any form or fashion. But we realize scientifically the inaccuracy of such a statement. An atom is always fully "wave" and fully "particle", even though those realities manifest in different ways under different circumstances. As a world community, we now have a category of thought (ala quantum mechanics) that allows for two mutually exclusive realities to be attributed to a single object. This category of thought is excellent analogically for approximating what is meant by saying that Jesus is fully God (uncreated) and fully human (created). As such, a rational, informed, intelligent person and still give cogent meaning to the idea.

[Sol Invictus]

glad to see my christian brothers posting but what we need now is input from our muslim brethren concerning what we have presented so far. a discussion is a two-way street and while we would love to continue speaking of the blessed trinity, we do want to see input stemming from a opposing opinions as it relates to the arguments we have made concerning the logical foundation of the trinity.

[Woodrow]

glad to see my christian brothers posting but what we need now is input from our muslim brethren concerning what we have presented so far. a discussion is a two-way street and while we would love to continue speaking of the blessed trinity, we do want to see input stemming from a opposing opinions as it relates to the arguments we have made concerning the logical foundation of the trinity.

I agree any debate does need to be a 2 way. an obstacle I see facing us here is that we are both using different sources of truth and considering any other than our own as false.

Point one:

The Trinity we are discussing is a Christian belief. We as Muslims do not accept things such as Christian doctrine or Scriptures to be valid sources of proof. This is a bit of an impasse here.

Point 2:

We accept only the Qur'an and valid Ahadith as being the only valid sources of Islamic belief. Christians do not accept these as valid sources.

We seem to have a problem here, in how we can conduct a debate without an agreement over the sources we accept.

Perhaps it is possible to conduct a discussion of the Trinity without reference to either Christianity or Islam? I do not see how, but suggestions are welcome.

[YieldedOne]

Woodrow:
Perhaps it is possible to conduct a discussion of the Trinity without reference to either Christianity or Islam? I do not see how, but suggestions are welcome.

Since suggestions are welcome...

There has been philosophical argumentation about a necessarily triune uncreated reality in areas of process philosophy that doesn't deal with very many Scriptures at all, if any. But that's a little heady, honestly.

I'd say that the best way to go about it is just talk about what we know from the JEWISH faith. In the Jewish faith, you have God, His "Breath", and His creative "Word". No orthodox, conservative, or even reform Jew in their right mind would deny that these things have historically existed in the Jewish faith. Nor would they deny that God is a self-communicating God who enacts personal self-revelation ala "I am that I am", etc. If you put all those things into a certain framework--divine self-expression as necessarily triune personal event sans Creation--an idea of God's eternal self-expression can easily form the idea of the revealed, self-communicating God as uncreated necessarily triune personal reality insofar as God eternally knows Himself and empowers His own self-expression by that self-knowledge.

As I recall, Woodrow, when I mentioned these ideas elsewhere, you didn't see any real philosophical problem with this idea as long as there was no personality and/or personal identity attributed to either God's "Breath" or "Spoken Word." The "Breath" and "Spoken Word" being facets or aspects of the One Speaking God. Insofar as that's true, the only difference between you and me on this issue is that I DO grant personality/personal identity to those things. Sure, we can disagree on that, via our divergent faith commitments. But it's still the case that it's not an inconceivability or logical absurdity to talk about God being a singular uncreated necessarily triune personal reality.

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

Prospective Jewish Bases of Uncreated Triunity:

1) YHWH (Name of God)
2) Spirit of YHWH (Holy Spirit / Shekinah)
3) Word of YHWH (Memra)

[Sol Invictus]

I agree any debate does need to be a 2 way. an obstacle I see facing us here is that we are both using different sources of truth and considering any other than our own as false.

Point one:

The Trinity we are discussing is a Christian belief. We as Muslims do not accept things such as Christian doctrine or Scriptures to be valid sources of proof. This is a bit of an impasse here.

Point 2:

We accept only the Qur'an and valid Ahadith as being the only valid sources of Islamic belief. Christians do not accept these as valid sources.

We seem to have a problem here, in how we can conduct a debate without an agreement over the sources we accept.

Perhaps it is possible to conduct a discussion of the Trinity without reference to either Christianity or Islam? I do not see how, but suggestions are welcome.

greetings woodrow, i certainly see what you're saying but you'll note that none of my posts were predicated on the bible but rather on logic. i did make a distinction between believing something out of faith and understanding something from reason (in my example of whether it is logically reasonable to suppose that god could use a 7th century arab to spread his message) earlier and logic tells us that the concept of the trinity is not illogical. we would come to a problem if i had wished to make muslims believe that god does really exist as a trinity but that is not the case (for belief that god exists as a trinity is predicated on belief in the truth of the bible in much the same way that belief in the allah of the qur'an is predicated on the belief in the truth of the qur'an). i did not argue that muslims should agree with christians that god is a trinity but rather that they should cease claiming that the trinity is illogical for it certainly isn't and no one of the islamic faith has shown it to be so. once again, i'm not trying to get muslims to accept the bible (though this would certainly be for the best), but merely to cease claiming to things that they wholly cannot prove. it is perfectly fine to not believe in the trinity and i have never argued against this, what isn't fine is to deny it's coherence in terms of logic.

now if we function on the premise of mere logic (which both muslims and christians claim to adhere to) then this discussion can indeed continue (as it has) and i would still await for an objection by the part of the muslim as it relates to the supposed logical incoherence of the holy trinity. i'm perfectly fine with basing our arguments on simple logic as i have done in my prior posts.

edit: oh dear, i see that the tone of my post could certainly be taken the wrong way. as such, i will say that i have spoken nothing with the purpose of offending. on this board you are one of the very few members of the islamic faith with whom i feel i can have a proper discussion without it degenerating into an exercise in insulting one's interlocutor.

[Woodrow]

greetings woodrow, i certainly see what you're saying but you'll note that none of my posts were predicated on the bible but rather on logic. i did make a distinction between believing something out of faith and understanding something from reason (in my example of whether it is logically reasonable to suppose that god could use a 7th century arab to spread his message) earlier and logic tells us that the concept of the trinity is not illogical. we would come to a problem if i had wished to make muslims believe that god does really exist as a trinity but that is not the case (for belief that god exists as a trinity is predicated on belief in the truth of the bible in much the same way that belief in the allah of the qur'an is predicated on the belief in the truth of the qur'an).

The difficulty arises because this is a core issue in both of our faiths. We as humans do have a very strong emotional investment in what is essential to our respective faiths and tend to in see them as self evident truths.

When we hear or read of something that is in violation of anything seen as a self evident truth, we tend to view any explanation, something different can be logically reasoned, as a statement that is attacking us. Emotionalism is very often a built in component of a religious discussion.

i did not argue that muslims should agree with christians that god is a trinity but rather that they should cease claiming that the trinity is illogical for it certainly isn't and no one of the islamic faith has shown it to be so. once again, i'm not trying to get muslims to accept the bible (though this would certainly be for the best), but merely to cease claiming to things that they wholly cannot prove. it is perfectly fine to not believe in the trinity and i have never argued against this, what isn't fine is to deny it's coherence in terms of logic.

I can not deny the validity of what you are saying hear. What I see as an issue is this part:

they should cease claiming that the trinity is illogical

. That carries with it a feeling of being a challenge. I agree it would be nice and may even be possible we can discuss the logic of a trinity existence. But all parties involved need to be able to accept that the logical explanation of such does not necessitate nor suffice as proof. A good mathematician well versed in topology and non-euclidean geometry can show logical explanations as to how the earth is a flat surface, but that is not proof the earth is flat.

For an issue to be conducted in pure logical terms all parties involved need to have a working concept of logic.

now if we function on the premise of mere logic (which both muslims and christians claim to adhere to) then this discussion can indeed continue (as it has) and i would still await for an objection by the part of the muslim as it relates to the supposed logical incoherence of the holy trinity. i'm perfectly fine with basing our arguments on simple logic as i have done in my prior posts.

At this point I will attempt to express my reason for viewing the Trinity as illogical, or to be more precise the Christian concept of a Trinity.

For purpose of this reply I am speaking specifically of the Trinity as being the triune existence of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. To show what I a consider as illogical I had best first describe what I see as the the Christian concept of the trinity.

1. The Christian concept is not 3 attributes of one entity. It is the actual separate personifications of 3 unique identities being one entity. Three beings yet each being the same unique being.

2. Each person of the trinity having it's own unique identity, it's own personal abilities and each with a specific role.

3. Each person of the trinity can and does function separate from the other 2

While that probably is not an all inclusive view of how all Christians view the Trinity, it is what I understand the Christian trinity to be. Correct me if I am wrong. It would be a bit pointless if we are debating different concepts.

I find that concept as being illogical because looking at it we either have 3 attributes, very strong attributes but still attributes of a single God(swt). If that is the case there is no Trinity. It is one god and only one with the ability to do all things. but, he is one and not a Triune.

If that is not correct than it means we have Three separate but essentially equal beings functioning as one being. That does not logically make sense as by definition God(swt) is all powerfull. That would mean the 3 personifications could not be Equal one would be dominate and the other 2 subordinate. Again ruling out the concept of a triune god as that would be 3 gods and not a trinity.

edit: oh dear, i see that the tone of my post could certainly be taken the wrong way. as such, i will say that i have spoken nothing with the purpose of offending. on this board you are one of the very few members of the islamic faith with whom i feel i can have a proper discussion without it degenerating into an exercise in insulting one's interlocutor.

No problem Sol. I also sometimes reply without first proof reading.

[truthseeker63]

I think that the hypostatic union is linked to the Trinity Christianity has a God in Heaven God the Father and a God on Earth God the Son also all Humans have souls but we are still Mortal because we die.

[Sol Invictus]

greetings woodrow, i must say that this thread is becoming even more enjoyable. while i would love to respond right at the moment, it's far more likely that i'll be unable to do so until sunday evening.

I think that the hypostatic union is linked to the Trinity Christianity has a God in Heaven God the Father and a God on Earth God the Son also all Humans have souls but we are still Mortal because we die.

the hypostatic union is only casually related to doctrine of the trinity for one does not necessarily lead nor supposes the other and as such i must say that the above is an error. furthermore, neither the hypostatic union nor the trinity make any claims concerning god's 'location' but rather speak of his being. from these doctrines, we cannot make the claim that what you have stated above is at all a necessary inference.

[Chavundur]

As Salamun Alaikum

According to logic , According to physics, according to history, according to mind created, there can be only one unique creator free from time and abode and form.

In an organized group of beings, every member of the group can not be an organized and an obedient at the same time. We here discuss three beings, there can not be such a relationship between them, it is contrary to mind , logic, wisdom. All particles of molecules, all planets of universe have to directed by one organizer. Unique organizer is not in need of having some partners also. Just don't try to make partner one of your kind to the Allah. Jews did that also, as explained in Qur'an. Just even don't take the religion into account. Christian or Muslim , Trinity is illogical and sentimental supposition created by enemy of real Christianity.

[Chavundur]

Sorry there is a letter mistake above , please read this one,

According to logic , According to physics, according to history, according to mind created, there can be only one unique creator free from time and abode and form.

In an organized group of beings, every member of the group can not be an organizer and an obedient at the same time. We here discuss three beings, there can not be such a relationship between them, it is contrary to mind , logic, wisdom. All particles of molecules, all planets of universe have to directed by one organizer. Unique organizer is not in need of having some partners also. Just don't try to make partner one of your kind to the Allah. Jews did that also, as explained in Qur'an. Just even don't take the religion into account. Christian or Muslim , Trinity is illogical and sentimental supposition created by enemy of real Christianity.

[YieldedOne]

Woodrow:
At this point I will attempt to express my reason for viewing the Trinity as illogical, or to be more precise the Christian concept of a Trinity.
For purpose of this reply I am speaking specifically of the Trinity as being the triune existence of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. To show what I a consider as illogical I had best first describe what I see as the the Christian concept of the trinity.

Sounds good.

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

Woodrow:
1. The Christian concept is not 3 attributes of one entity. It is the actual separate personifications of 3 unique identities being one entity. Three beings yet each being the same unique being.

Just helping with language. There are 3 unique personal identities that "emerge" from the eternal self-relationship and self-expression of the ONE God (the Father). What this means is that they are not "separate" like unto how human beings are separate from one another. The 3 are distinct and unique, but not separate or separable.

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

Woodrow:
2. Each person of the trinity having it's own unique identity, it's own personal abilities and each with a specific role.

It's more accurate to say that each person has their unique identity as "person". Trying to delineate personal abilities and roles to the Godhead begins to import human ways of understanding interpersonal "abilities" and "roles"...which inevitably leads to tritheistic thinking.

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

Woodrow:
3. Each person of the trinity can and does function separate from the other 2

This is seriously inaccurate. Again, the ONE Speaking God (the Father) does not function as Speaking God with His Spirit and His Word/Image. God, His Word/Image, and Spirit are mutually interdependent, though distinct.

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

Woodrow:
I find that concept as being illogical because looking at it we either have 3 attributes, very strong attributes but still attributes of a single God(swt). If that is the case there is no Trinity. It is one god and only one with the ability to do all things. but, he is one and not a Triune. If that is not correct than it means we have Three separate but essentially equal beings functioning as one being. That does not logically make sense as by definition God(swt) is all powerfull. That would mean the 3 personifications could not be Equal one would be dominate and the other 2 subordinate. Again ruling out the concept of a triune god as that would be 3 gods and not a trinity.

Looking at what you say here, we can only have a formal "Trinity" if...

1) the relationship between God, His Word, and His Spirit is not merely one of God possessing "attributes"...like God simply having certain characteristics. There must be an distinct, unique ontological reality granted to God, Word, and Spirit.

and...

2) there is a way that perfect equality (in the all powerful department) occurs between all 3 persons. No one identity can be all-powerful...while the other two are not.

In other words, mere modalism is NOT triunity...and tritheism is NOT triunity.

Fair enough.

Let's start with moving away from modalism first. As I see things, the eternal self-knowing, self-communicating, self-expressing activity of the God the Father brings forth God's own perfect Self-Image (the Son) by way of the Father's agency of self-knowledge and self-communication, God's own Spirit. In other words, the uncreated truine being of God is an eternal ACT of the one God presenting His own Self-Expressing Image to Himself...and reciprocally relating to His Image...with active "oversight" of that relationship by His Spirit. In this way, God, God's Word/Image, and God's Relationship to His Image (via the Spirit) are all "aspects" of one entity. And all have the same uncreated nature because the whole process is grounded in the uncreated One God, the Father; the UNITY of the triune Godhead is the Father. Moreover, God's personality is reflected in God's Word/Image. You may say that the personality of the Father is "transferred" to the Word/Image as personal image. And the personality of the Father is "in" the Father's Spirit which "rests in" the Word/Image. The best analogy I can give for this is the human ability for construction and perception of inner dialogue. We are able to relate to ourselves in the following way:

1) Subject (Talker/Initiator)
2) Self (Listener/Responder)
3) Witness of Subject/Self Relationship. (Watching/Contouring the Conversation)

If you look at yourself, you are actually able to hold a "conversation" with yourself, while witnessing yourself BOTH as communicator TO yourself and recipient of communication FROM yourself...and as witness, communicate to BOTH your "talker" and your "listener." This is because of the inherent self-relational dimension of human existence. It is that which all of the different existentialist philosophers aptly pointed out about human beings and what separates us from animals. For all we know, animals do not have the capacity for inner "conversation" like we do. It's been shown that human beings can actually come to new levels of self-awareness and insight into oneself based upon inner dialogue and conversation.

In like manner, God holds "eternal conversation" within himself via God's self-relationship and self-expression...and the result of that eternal event is uncreated necessarily triune personal reality. God in 3 "persons."

NOW, let's move on to the equality issue.

The question is simple: how can there be 3 "all-powerful" beings. If one is immutably all-powerful, the other two cannot be, the logic runs. Here's the problem. There is a interpentrative, self-giving relationship between God, His Self-Image, and His Spirit such that each of the 3 persons participate in the very life of the others. The characteristics of God are found in each unique person, because of this interpentration. Let's go back to our inner dialogue analogy. The 3 participants in the inner dialogue all have the same characteristics: It's basically you talking to yourself, answering yourself, and overseeing the conversation to yourself. Each participant responds with YOUR characteristics...and each is EQUALLY "you".

If the self-relational ability of the human spirit is a good analogy, then we can see something like how the Uncreated God's self-knowing, self-communicating, self-expressing activity can bring forth a reality of eternal, uncreated necessarily triune personal being.

[YieldedOne]

For more on the self-relational capacity of the human being, see George Lakoff and Mark Johnson's wonderful book "Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and It's Challenge to Western Thought."

Particularly the chapter on "The Self". Check here for a Googlebooks sample of the chapter 13, beginning at page 267.

[YieldedOne]

All this above is why anyone who tries to tell me that because I'm a trinitarian that I INHERENTLY and EXPLICITLY DENY the Shema with that belief...all I can conclude is that they obviously DON'T UNDERSTAND what being articulated (ie they are uninformed about what the Trinity ACTUALLY IS). Anyone who looks at the Nicene Creed can see this clearly...

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

...

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one being with the Father.

...

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father.

Just a cursory examination of the Creed demonstrates that Christians believe that there is ONE GOD...and that that ONE GOD is the God the Father of ALL peoples on the earth in general and of the people of Israel in particular (qua Jewish belief). Both the Word/Son and the Spirit are spoken of in terms of that ONE GOD. And there's a very important REASON for that. Hopefully my discussion above show part of what that reasoning is. Keeping the analogy from the above posts, God the Father is the "Conversation Initiator", the Word/Image/Son of God is the "Listener/Responder", and the Spirit of God is the "Witness/Conversation Enabler"...such that the Trinity is the Eternal Self-Relational, Self-Communication Activity of God.

:D

[Chavundur]

Yielded One,
Would you explain me shortly please , Why one artist wants to be a part of its own art, what is the wisdom in it ? If you know every single details and time periods of a project and all variables and their moves in accordance with every variation, and also all of them is in your hands second by second, I mean Why Creator have to be in his scenario by splitting his personality and limiting his sublime power and feature for resembling a created one ?, And We Muslims believe that Allah Almighty is free from time, a moment or millennium are same for him, I see a lot of contradictions in such a condition but I wonder at first that one ?

[YieldedOne]

Brief answers. Got it. ;)

Chavundur:
Why one artist wants to be a part of its own art, what is the wisdom in it ? If you know every single details and time periods of a project and all variables and their moves in accordance with every variation, and also all of them is in your hands second by second, I mean Why Creator have to be in his scenario by splitting his personality and limiting his sublime power and feature for resembling a created one ?, And We Muslims believe that Allah Almighty is free from time, a moment or millennium are same for him...

1) One aspect of art is artistic self-expression ie. bestowing the contents of your own subjective experience and self-understanding to others artistically. Basically, it's completely wise for an artist to want to be "found" in and through their art.

2) God doesn't split or divine his personality in the Trinity. It is the necessarily triune reality that just IS self-expression and self-communication. The "Trinity" is the eternal outcome of God the Father's necessarily triune self-experience of knowing, loving, and expressing Himself.

3) It could be argued that in Jesus, God demonstrated his highest self-expression and self-communication in human form. Jesus is the epitome of what it means to be a human in the One God's image and likeness. In fact, this is EXACTLY what Christians believe.

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.
Hebrews 1:1-3

Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.
John 14:8-11

4) On God and Time.

a) God's omnipresence definitely means that a "moment" and "millenium" (light-year, even?) are the same for him. God's presence in Los Angeles, California is no less there and full...than in the Andromeda Galaxy...or any where else in spatio-temporal Universe as we know it. God is equally in the quantum world of subatomic structure...as God is in the hugest expanse of star clusters in the Universe. So, speaking on those terms, there is no real difference between God's perception of a nanosecond and a light year...or a billion light years.

b) God obviously transcends time/space as we know it. God is uncreated. At the same time (no pun intended), God's transcendent EVENT of self-communication implies a Divine Temporality only experienced by God in God's own inner life. Basically, what I'm saying is that God's divine self-relationship and self-communication implies temporality within God's life...and this temporality is COMPLETELY outside of time/space as we know it as creatures.

[YieldedOne]

The general Christian sentiment is that Jesus of Nazereth, as a divinely-spoken "word" to Mary and anointed with God's own Spirit, wholly and perfectly (sinlessly) re-presented the character, intentions, and presence of God the Father in human terms by the power of God's Spirit. To see Jesus in action is to see God the Father Himself in action via God's Spirit upon Jesus. It was partly the early Christians' process of attempting to work out all the implications of this biblical picture that helped the whole trinitarian elaboration of God in Christianity. This is also why Christians over time have said that Jesus was the "human 'face' of God", an divine revelation of who God is in human existence.

I surely hope that this discussion goes a long way to showing how a trinitarian Christian can see themselves as being STRICTLY monotheistic along the line of the Shema spoken by Jesus himself. We have ONE GOD. Jesus' God: God the Father of humanity (generally) and the "Children of Israel" (specifically). And in that sense, both Christians and Muslims have the SAME One God.

Do not argue with the people of the scripture (Jews, Christians, and Muslims) except in the nicest possible manner - unless they transgress - and say, "We believe in what was revealed to us and in what was revealed to you, and our god and your god is one and the same; to Him we are submitters."
Surah 29:46

[Chavundur]

1) One aspect of art is artistic self-expression ie. bestowing the contents of your own subjective experience and self-understanding to others artistically. Basically, it's completely wise for an artist to want to be "found" in and through their art.

1. Art already manifests his artist with its every details, why you put artists into art. And that art is also only for himself, Who even can measure or see his art without his permission and help. His Dignity and his greatness and his excellence and his honor is away from being with his weak creature directly ( His creature is dependent on him, so they are weak). Allah said " I was a hidden treasure, I want to be known " In Islam, Human is his servant and happy for being created. How dare Pharaoh natured people meet with God Almighty directly and God let them to humiliate his excellence.

2) God doesn't split or divine his personality in the Trinity. It is the necessarily triune reality that just IS self-expression and self-communication.

2. What is so special in human and angel form except their position in the sight of Allah, That speciality put itself into triune.

3) It could be argued that in Jesus, God demonstrated his highest self-expression and self-communication in human form. Jesus is the epitome of what it means to be a human in the One God's image and likeness. In fact, this is EXACTLY what Christians believe.

3. what is so special in human form again, except being a mirror kind creature , God try to communicate directly, Allah is the epitome of uniqueness, being in a form or image is away from him, This is exactly what Muslims believe.

God is equally in the quantum world of subatomic structure...as God is in the hugest expanse of star clusters in the Universe. So, speaking on those terms, there is no real difference between God's perception of a nanosecond and a light year...or a billion light years. b) God obviously transcends time/space as we know it. God is uncreated. At the same time (no pun intended), God's transcendent EVENT of self-communication implies a Divine Temporality only experienced by God in God's own inner life. Basically, what I'm saying is that God's divine self-relationship and self-communication implies temporality within God's life...and this temporality is COMPLETELY outside of time/space as we know it as creatures.

4. Ok assume that all your suppositions above is real, ( I only said Allah is free from time and Abode , We can't describe furthermore ) , how you put trinity into such a superior God's power

I know you can keep going same things again and again. I can't prove something either in these terms, because As a human being We use wisdom and hearth together in religious matters. Otherwise As most of Muslim scholars said, philosophy only doesn't lead us to the reality. I forgot one of the Islamic consensus against Christians, We don't try to refute trinity, We try to explain unity. Proving the unity is very simple comparing to proving wrongfulness of trinity. Because balance in universe explains everything. Sorry my dear Muslim brothers who responsed before me. I just carried sand to the desert. I think previous answers were enough.

[Chavundur]

Sorry for my grammatical errors, I can't edit them due to my membership position

[Zafran]

where does Jesus pbuh talk about the trinity?

[YieldedOne]

Zafran:
where does Jesus pbuh talk about the trinity?

Where does Muhammad talk about the Qu'ran being uncreated? (Just playin'...kinda...;D I do hope that you do see a point in my saying that. )

Ok. Seriously now. As a Second Temple Jew, Jesus specifically talked about God (the Father) who sent him as God-ordained Messiah, the Spirit of God with which he was anointed, and the eternal Word of God which he proclaimed and embodied. Moreover, Jesus was the direct product of a "word of God" to humanity via Mary. Here you have God, God's Spirit, and God's self-revealing Word...all of which form the sine qua non of the trinitarian idea of God. Did Jesus specifically mention the word "trinity"? No, obviously not. At the same time, his very being, mission, and continuing impact grounds the trinitarian language that later came forth in people who believed in him as God's Spirit-filled Messiah.

[YieldedOne]

That's what's always interested me in this Quranic passages...

Those people who say that God is the third of three are defying [the truth]: there is only One God. If they persist in what they are saying, a painful punishment will afflict those of them who persist. Why do they not turn to God and ask his forgiveness, when God is most forgiving, most merciful? The Messiah, son of Mary, was only a messenger; other messengers had come and gone before him; his mother was a virtuous woman; both ate food.
Surah 5:73-74

and...

When God says, 'Jesus, son of Mary, did you say to people, "Take me and my mother as two gods alongside God"?' he will say, 'May You be exalted! I would never say what I had no right to say—if I had said such a thing You would have known it: You know all that is within me, though I do not know what is within You, You alone have full knowledge of things unseen.
Surah 5:116

This is a complete misrepresentation and/or misunderstanding of the Trinity for ANY orthodox Christian. The Trinity has NOTHING TO DO with Mary...at all. No true Christian who believes in the Nicene Creed would ever say such a thing! Wikipedia has it right on this one...

Regarding the verse 5:116, some scholars have written that the version of the "Trinity" concept that the Qur'an is criticizing appears to be God, Jesus, and Mary; and that this is not a description of orthodox Christian belief, wherein the third part of the Trinity is the Holy Spirit. Edward Hulmes writes:

"The Qur'anic interpretation of trinitarian orthodoxy as belief in the Father, the Son, and the Virgin Mary, may owe less to a misunderstanding of the New Testament itself than to a recognition of the role accorded by local Christians to Mary as mother in a special sense."

Why would God question Jesus about anyone asserting MARY as a member of the Trinity? That makes no sense Judeo-Christianly speaking. God would totally be MISSING THE POINT.

[Woodrow]

That's what's always interested me in this Quranic passages...

Those people who say that God is the third of three are defying [the truth]: there is only One God. If they persist in what they are saying, a painful punishment will afflict those of them who persist. Why do they not turn to God and ask his forgiveness, when God is most forgiving, most merciful? The Messiah, son of Mary, was only a messenger; other messengers had come and gone before him; his mother was a virtuous woman; both ate food.
Surah 5:73-74

and...

When God says, 'Jesus, son of Mary, did you say to people, "Take me and my mother as two gods alongside God"?' he will say, 'May You be exalted! I would never say what I had no right to say—if I had said such a thing You would have known it: You know all that is within me, though I do not know what is within You, You alone have full knowledge of things unseen.
Surah 5:116

This is a complete misrepresentation and/or misunderstanding of the Trinity for ANY orthodox Christian. The Trinity has NOTHING TO DO with Mary...at all. No true Christian who believes in the Nicene Creed would ever say such a thing! Wikipedia has it right on this one...

Regarding the verse 5:116, some scholars have written that the version of the "Trinity" concept that the Qur'an is criticizing appears to be God, Jesus, and Mary; and that this is not a description of orthodox Christian belief, wherein the third part of the Trinity is the Holy Spirit. Edward Hulmes writes:

"The Qur'anic interpretation of trinitarian orthodoxy as belief in the Father, the Son, and the Virgin Mary, may owe less to a misunderstanding of the New Testament itself than to a recognition of the role accorded by local Christians to Mary as mother in a special sense."

Why would God question Jesus about anyone asserting MARY as a member of the Trinity? That makes no sense Judeo-Christianly speaking. God would totally be MISSING THE POINT.

However some early Christians did see Mary as part of the Trinity. Although in time they did get labelled heretics by the Catholic Church.

Principal errors
The heresy of the Collyridians was very simple: They worshiped Mary. This was in direct conflict with the Catholic Church's condemnation of idolatry, which had been condemned by God himself: "You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God" (Ex. 20:3-5; cf. Deut. 5:7, 6:14; 1 Cor. 4:8-6, 10:19-20; Eph. 5:5). This proscription applies not just to statue worship, but to the worship of anything besides God.

SOURCE

Mary was worshipped by at least some early Christians. There have also been occasional revivals of this belief.

Collyridianism encore?
"Calling it a "very grave situation," the Vatican has excommunicated members of a controversial Quebec Catholic movement, the Army of Mary, for their heretical beliefs that derive from the writings of Marie-Paule Giguère, an 86-year-old mystic who claims to be a reincarnation of the Virgin Mary....In her writings, Mme. Giguère described visions and messages she received from God, explaining that Mary, the mother of Jesus, is fully divine, and also that, as her modern incarnation, so is Mme. Giguère. Rather than the traditional Catholic Trinity - in which God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are each fully divine and part of a three-part deity - the Army of Mary now speaks of a "quinternity," including Mary and Mme. Giguère...They would say that they would not subscribe to some of the limitations that we would put on the creed." You can read about it here.

SOURCE

The Collyridian Ecumenical Episcopal Convocation
Seal of the Collyridian Britannic Episcopal Church
Seal of the Collyridian Britannic Episcopal Church
The Collyridian Ecumenical Episcopal Convocation is a small Church and community dedicated to the worship of the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Holy Presence of Our Divine Mother. The Church is Collyridian, because it recognizes the divinity of the Queen of Heaven just as it was recognized by Collyridian worshippers of the fourth and fifth centuries. It is Ecumenical because it draws on the liturgy of all Christian Churches, include Latin, Anglican, Celtic, Orthodox and Syrian rites. It is Episcopal in having a episcopal church organization and being in communion with the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The leader of the Church is the Right Reverend +Sarah Morrigan, Bishop, of the Collyridian Episcopate of St. Brigid, Oregon City. The Church was founded on the Déanic feast of Rosa Mundi, June 21, 2008 in the Gregorian calendar. The Church was known as the Collyridian Brittanic Episcopal Church until June 1st, 2009

SOURCE

Those movements show the validity of the Surah mentioned above.

When God says, 'Jesus, son of Mary, did you say to people, "Take me and my mother as two gods alongside God"?' he will say, 'May You be exalted! I would never say what I had no right to say—if I had said such a thing You would have known it: You know all that is within me, though I do not know what is within You, You alone have full knowledge of things unseen.
Surah 5:116

The simple fact is There have been and still are some who call themselves Christian that worship Mary as a god. I do acknowledge that this view is not held by most modern Christians. But it was a belief in the past, even though it was eventually condemned as heresy.

[YieldedOne]

woodrow:
However some early Christians did see Mary as part of the Trinity. Although in time they did get labelled heretics by the Catholic Church.

But that's my point. The only reason that they got called heretics is because their belief went against the explicit monotheism asserted in the Nicene Creed. Christianity had a benchmark by which to say the Collyridians were wrong. True (non-heretical) Christian faith doesn't do that. But hey, if God wants to speak to such a minority report, I guess that's fine. So, the Quranic text cannot apply to Christianity per se...but a fragmentary abberation of such.

[YieldedOne]

From Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi's "The Meaning of the Qur'an"...

The Christians have been rebuked for their wrong belief in the doctrine of the Trinity and advised to refrain from transgression. Strange though it may appear, the fact is that the Christians believe both in the Oneness of God and in the Trinity at one and the same time; for no Christian can deny that according to the clear sayings of Jesus in the Gospels, God is One Being and there is no other god than He. They cannot but admit that Unity of God is the real basis of religion. But the introduction of the doctrine of the Logos at an early stage of Christianity misled them into believing in the Godhead of Christ in union with God and the Holy Ghost. Since then it has always remained an enigma for them to reconcile these two contradictory doctrines and for the last eighteen hundred years or so the Christian scholars have been vainly engaged in solving this self-created baffling puzzle. Not only this, many Christian denominations have been founded upon different interpretations of this doctrine and it has given rise to many religious disputes in which one denomination accuses the other of blasphemy. In short, their scholars and interpreters have been spending all their efforts and energies in solving this enigma which was neither created by God nor by Christ. It is also obvious that there is no solution to it, because no one can prove that three persons share Godhead and also that God is One Being and has no partners in His Godhead. As this enigma is the result of their own transgression beyond the Divine limits, it can only be solved if they refrain from going beyond the limits and give up the belief of the Godhead of the Messiah and of the Holy Ghost, and acknowledge Allah as the sole object of worship, adoration and devotion and believe in the Messiah as a Messenger of God and not as a partner in the Godhead of Allah.
Commentary on 4:171




This refers to another error of the Christians. They had made Mary an object of worship along with Christ and the Holy Ghost, though there is not a word or hint in the Bible about this doctrine. During the first three centuries after Christ, the Christian world was totally unaware of this creed. Towards the end of the 3rd century, the words "Mother of God" were used for the first time by some theologians of Alexandria. Though the response which these words found in the popular heart was great, yet the Church was not at first inclined to accept the doctrine and declared that the worship of Mary was a wrong creed. Then at the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D., the words `Mother of God' were officially used by the Church. As a result `Mariolatry' began to spread by leaps and bounds both inside and outside the Church. So much so that by the time the Qur'an was revealed, the exaltation of the 'Mother of God' had eclipsed the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Her statues were set up in Churches and she was worshiped, implored and invoked in prayers. In short, the greatest source of reliance of a Christian was that he should obtain the help and protection of the `Mother of God.' Emperor Justinian in the preamble to one of his laws bespeaks her advocacy for the empire and his general, Narses, looks to her directions on the battlefield. Emperor Heraclius, a contemporary of the Holy Prophet Muhammad, bore her image on his banner and believed that because of its auspicious nature it will never be lowered. Though the Protestants after the Reformation did their best to fight against Mariolatry, yet the Roman Catholic Church still adheres to it passionately.
Commentary on 5:116

Some things...

1) Maududi links the emergence of the Trinity specifically to the Hellenistic "Logos" idea. He seems to make no connection whatsoever to the Hebrew concept of the "Word" of God that predated Philo's "Logos" concept. Philo's whole work TURNED on the Jewish "Memra" concept. From the Jewish Encyclopedia...

There are, in addition, Biblical elements: there are Biblical passages in which the word of Yhwh is regarded as a power acting independently and existing by itself, as Isa. lv. 11 (comp. Matt. x. 13; Prov. xxx. 4); these ideas were further developed by later Judaism in the doctrines of the Divine Word creating the world, the divine throne-chariot and its cherub, the divine splendor and its shekinah, and the name of God as well as the names of the angels; and Philo borrowed from all these in elaborating his doctrine of the Logos.

and...

The Memra as a cosmic power furnished Philo the corner-stone upon which he built his peculiar semi-Jewish philosophy. Philo's "divine thought," "the image" and "first-born son" of God, "the archpriest," "intercessor," and "paraclete" of humanity, the "arch type of man", paved the way for the Christian conceptions of the Incarnation ("the Word become flesh") and the Trinity.

In short, it's incorrect to say that Christian idea of Jesus as "Word of God" is completely a Hellenisitic, Stoic misconception. Philo thought of his Jewish faith FIRST...not in some tertiary way. The only reason that Philo was able to make the connection work is because a JEWISH concept the "word of YHWH" grounded that to him.

Philo's views derive from a combination of Hellenistic philosophy with the Jewish Bible, which he considers as the source and standard not only of religious truth but in general of all truth. Its pronouncements are for him divine pronouncements. They are the words of the ἱερὸς λόγος, ϑεῖος λόγος, ὀρϑὸς λόγος (holy word, godly word, upright word) uttered sometimes directly and sometimes through the mouth of a prophet, especially through Moses, whom Philo considers the real medium of revelation, while the other writers of the Old Testament appear as friends or pupils of Moses.
Although he distinguishes between the words uttered by God, as the Decalogue, and the edicts of Moses, as the special laws,he does not carry out this distinction, since he believes in general that everything in the Torah is of divine origin, even the letters and accents.

The Jewish Bible had not been canonized at the time of Philo, and the extent of his knowledge of Biblical books cannot be exactly determined. Philo does not quote Ezekiel, Daniel, Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, or Esther. Philo regards the Bible as the source not only of religious revelation, but also of philosophic truth; for, according to him, the Greek philosophers also have borrowed from the Bible: Heraclitus, according to "Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit" § 43 [i.503]; Zeno, according to Quod Omnis Probus Liber, § 8 [ii.454].

What's also interesting because the Nicene Creed's assertion about the Trinity makes NO MENTION of the "Logos" concept at all. You would expect that if the idea were the absolutely essential element in the concept...that it would be in there. There's a reason for that.

2) It's one thing to say that some Christian groups take veneration of Mary too far, like the Collyandrians. It's a whole other thing to say that Christianity per se does this doctrinally...because it doesn't. Maududi himself says that the Protestant Reformation went AGAINST this tendency. And you, Woodrow, already mentioned how the Roman Catholics went AGAINST the Mariolatry of the Collyandrians.

[Woodrow]

woodrow:
However some early Christians did see Mary as part of the Trinity. Although in time they did get labelled heretics by the Catholic Church.

But that's my point. The only reason that they got called heretics is because their belief went against the explicit monotheism asserted in the Nicene Creed. Christianity had a benchmark by which to say the Collyridians were wrong. True (non-heretical) Christian faith doesn't do that. But hey, if God wants to speak to such a minority report, I guess that's fine. So, the Quranic text cannot apply to Christianity per se...but a fragmentary abberation of such.

And what proof is there that todays Christianity is not just the strongest of the heretical beliefs? Come to think of it the Vatican did condemn all of the churches of the reformation and Protestantism as being heretical, but it no longer had the military might to squash them.

[YieldedOne]

Something else I just noticed. Maududi says...

The Christians have been rebuked for their wrong belief in the doctrine of the Trinity and advised to refrain from transgression. Strange though it may appear, the fact is that the Christians believe both in the Oneness of God and in the Trinity at one and the same time; for no Christian can deny that according to the clear sayings of Jesus in the Gospels, God is One Being and there is no other god than He. They cannot but admit that Unity of God is the real basis of religion.

As I have argued above, Christians do believe in the ONE GOD of Jesus, and the Unity of God the Father is the VERY BASIS for the claim of God's triunity. Again, see the Nicene Creed...

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

[YieldedOne]

Woodrow:
And what proof is there that todays Christianity is not just the strongest of the heretical beliefs?

Christianity is only heretical if it can be shown that Christianity per se DOES NOT believe in singular worship of the One God, the Father of humanity and Israel, whom Jesus testified to. I don't believe that can be adequately shown. For example, can someone demonstrate to me how I do NOT worship the One God spoken of clearly by Jesus and reaffirmed by the Nicene Creed?

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

Woodrow:
Come to think of it the Vatican did condemn all of the churches of the reformation and Protestantism as being heretical, but it no longer had the military might to squash them.

They backtracked on all of that in Vatican II. Remember that?

"...separated brethren..."

[Zafran]

Zafran:
where does Jesus pbuh talk about the trinity?

Where does Muhammad talk about the Qu'ran being uncreated? (Just playin'...kinda...;D I do hope that you do see a point in my saying that. )

Ok. Seriously now. As a Second Temple Jew, Jesus specifically talked about God (the Father) who sent him as God-ordained Messiah, the Spirit of God with which he was anointed, and the eternal Word of God which he proclaimed and embodied. Moreover, Jesus was the direct product of a "word of God" to humanity via Mary. Here you have God, God's Spirit, and God's self-revealing Word...all of which form the sine qua non of the trinitarian idea of God. Did Jesus specifically mention the word "trinity"? No, obviously not. At the same time, his very being, mission, and continuing impact grounds the trinitarian language that later came forth in people who believed in him as God's Spirit-filled Messiah.

He doesnt I rest my point. Everything you said has no backing by Jesus pbuh words.

The Quran being uncreated is nowhere near as important as the trinity is to christians.

[Woodrow]

Woodrow:
And what proof is there that todays Christianity is not just the strongest of the heretical beliefs?

Christianity is only heretical if it can be shown that Christianity per se DOES NOT believe in singular worship of the One God, the Father of humanity and Israel, whom Jesus testified to. I don't believe that can be adequately shown. For example, can someone demonstrate to me how I do NOT worship the One God spoken of clearly by Jesus and reaffirmed by the Nicene Creed?

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

Woodrow:
Come to think of it the Vatican did condemn all of the churches of the reformation and Protestantism as being heretical, but it no longer had the military might to squash them.

They backtracked on all of that in Vatican II. Remember that?

"...separated brethren..."

And it only took them 600 years to back track. For 600 years the Protestants and other non-Catholic Christians were heretics.

[Sol Invictus]

That carries with it a feeling of being a challenge. I agree it would be nice and may even be possible we can discuss the logic of a trinity existence. But all parties involved need to be able to accept that the logical explanation of such does not necessitate nor suffice as proof. A good mathematician well versed in topology and non-euclidean geometry can show logical explanations as to how the earth is a flat surface, but that is not proof the earth is flat.

greetings woodrow. you make a good point on the matter of non-euclidean geometry and the matter of a flat earth yet this is offsetted by the fact that the factual reality would contradict this wholly theoretical argument. in the same manner does the factual reality of the existence of three in one entities offset the claim that the trinity is illogical. at this point it is no longer even a matter of trying to argue whether this concept is coherent or not seeing as if it were contradictory, examples of such wouldn't exist. contradictions cannot exist in the universe and the fact that examples of a three in one existence are found in the universe removes the trinity from being merely a concept in the realm of ideas but rather a reality present in this world. in hopes of preemptively rebutting an argument in the vein of the above, you will note that in my previous post i wrote:

you have no warrant to claim that oneness refers only to a unitarian understanding seeing that this is logically untrue and, perhaps more importantly, factually untrue when we examine the universe.

notice that i spoke both of a logical proof and a factual proof for why oneness means more than simply unitarianism. in the light of the above, an objection on the matter that the argument and/or proof for the coherence of the trinity is merely theoretical (as your bringing up of the proof for the flat earth seemed to imply) cannot be put forward for the christian has 'concrete' examples for the coherence of this doctrine. so once more, in terms of logic, there can be no argument.

For purpose of this reply I am speaking specifically of the Trinity as being the triune existence of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. To show what I a consider as illogical I had best first describe what I see as the the Christian concept of the trinity.

( a ) 1. The Christian concept is not 3 attributes of one entity. It is the actual separate personifications of 3 unique identities being one entity. Three beings yet each being the same unique being.

( b ) 2. Each person of the trinity having it's own unique identity, it's own personal abilities and each with a specific role.

( c ) 3. Each person of the trinity can and does function separate from the other 2

( a ) yes, the christian conception is certainly not three attributes of a single entity for then we would have a disaster. the distinctions within the being of god are not to be mistaken for attributes. turning back to our example of space: length, width, and height are not attributes of space per se but rather distinctions within the one space. these distinctions possess in their being all the prerogatives of space (i.e. the attributes). they are the possessors of the attributes of space and not attributes themselves. the same is true of the members of the trinity. the attributes of god are omnipotence, aseity, omniscience, omnipresence (though you would disagree with this one), omni-benevolence, omnisapience et cetera. neither are these persons separate but rather distinct. since they all subsist within the single being of god neither can actually be separate from the other (for none can somehow divest himself of the divine essence which is what is needed for them to be separate). once again i bring up the example of space because when we keep these explanations 'concrete' we find that the doctrine is without reproach: length, width, height are not separate but rather distinct--these three exist within the being of space and can no more cease being the one true space than to cease being interrelated to one another.

( b ) no, the members of the trinity all have the same abilities (that is, they all possess the same attributes). what one member can do, the others can do as well seeing as they subsist in the same essence and comprise the single divine being (by this i mean to say that seeing as one's attributes are determined by one's essence, it is impossible to subsist within the single essence and not possess the same attributes). yet it is true that each member does indeed take on particular roles in salvation history (such that it is the son who was crucified etc.) but the matter of roles does not detract from the ontological equality possessed by these as it regards their nature. my very first job was working at a fast-food restaurant and there were three of us in the kitchen making the food (what a coincidence). each person had a specific role that they were assigned to do and while we worked as such, we each were fully capable of doing the job of the other. while we did have specific roles, it was not because we lacked the ability to perform any of the other roles.

( c ) it is true that each member of the trinity can function 'separately' from the other, yet given that there is only a single divine will, we must identify what exactly we mean by separate. each member of the trinity knows the others full well and there is a mutual indwelling between these (each exists within the other, hence why we cannot really speak of separate persons but rather distinct persons). given the single divine will, none can act in opposition to the others for they all comprise the single divine being who--while existent as 3 real persons--shares a single divine will between these.

I find that concept as being illogical because looking at it we either have 3 attributes, very strong attributes but still attributes of a single God(swt). If that is the case there is no Trinity. It is one god and only one with the ability to do all things. but, he is one and not a Triune.

yes! we do only have one god and not three gods. the distinctions within the one god are like the distinctions within space--3 distinctions that we could equally and truly call space yet we do not have three spaces but rather only one for these three are what the single space is existent as. conversely, this would mean no trinity if and only if the trinity stipulated three gods yet it doesn't:

And the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. [...] So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not Three Lords but One Lord. For, like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, so are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, there be Three Gods or Three Lords. --- The Athanasian Creed

given the above, i contend that your argument is not a problem for the trinitarian as it regards to logic but rather logic reinforces the validity of our position.

If that is not correct than it means we have Three separate but essentially equal beings functioning as one being. That does not logically make sense as by definition God(swt) is all powerfull. That would mean the 3 personifications could not be Equal one would be dominate and the other 2 subordinate. Again ruling out the concept of a triune god as that would be 3 gods and not a trinity.

if i understand the above correctly, then it is the fact that there cannot be 3 different all-powerful entities which would supposedly damage the coherence of the doctrine of the trinity. at face-value i would have to agree with this but once again, this is not what we confess when we confess the trinity. we are not multiplying almighties but positing only a single almighty (for each person subsists only within the single essence) who is existent as three persons. if your point were in fact true then when speaking of space, we would run into the problem of multiplying whatever prerogatives are particular to space (if space were infinite then we might be accused of believing in three infinities by believing in the real distinctions within space) but this is not the case. each distinction within space has all the attributes of space because they exist as the one space. once more it is a case of existing within the single essence of space and not positing multiple essences. given that the prerogatives of god apply to each person, we would only have a problem if we did not also possess a single divine essence.

given all of the above, it once more need be said that the claim that the trinity is incoherent cannot be upheld for we have drastically similar examples of this in our very own universe and as we have seen throughout this post, when we try to apply the objections towards the trinity on things such as space, we then see how---for the lack of a better word--absurd these objections become. yet if the bible is to be believed, this is entirely expected seeing as:

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. — Romans 1:20 KJV (emphasis mine)

from the above, we see that the bible claims that god's nature (that is the mode of his existence which encompasses the trinity) can be understood (as far as one can understand the infinite) from what he has created and this is why i have repeatedly returned to the example of space to show how the trinity functions (to the best of my knowledge). that said, it must again be said that one can understand the trinity not to be illogical without necessarily believing in it. one understands through logic but belief is predicated on faith and it is this fact that i have tried to emphasize. i believe that i have shown that the trinity cannot be attacked in terms of logic and the only credible opposition to it is merely in regards to one's faith (which is perfectly alright). if logic is what is being discussed then the fact that a three in one existence is exemplified in the universe should be enough to put claims to its incoherence to rest yet the fact that this is not actually the case says more (to me) about one's faith than about one's understanding of logic.

[Sol Invictus]

Mary was worshipped by at least some early Christians. There have also been occasional revivals of this belief.

the matter of collyridianism (we should also mention that i have seen no claim which accused these of incorporating mary within the trinity but merely of making her a goddess--this is not the same of substituting her for the holy spirit) is actually a point against the prophethood of the islamic prophet but before i continue i think that we should formally finish our discussion concerning the coherence of the trinity. if we are, then i am more than happy to speak of the trinity within the qur'an and then maybe even enter a discussion on the problems with tawhid.

[Woodrow]

greetings woodrow. you make a good point on the matter of non-euclidean geometry and the matter of a flat earth yet this is offsetted by the fact that the factual reality would contradict this wholly theoretical argument. in the same manner does the factual reality of the existence of three in one entities offset the claim that the trinity is illogical. at this point it is no longer even a matter of trying to argue whether this concept is coherent or not seeing as if it were contradictory, examples of such wouldn't exist. contradictions cannot exist in the universe and the fact that examples of a three in one existence are found in the universe removes the trinity from being merely a concept in the realm of ideas but rather a reality present in this world. in hopes of preemptively rebutting an argument in the vein of the above, you will note that in my previous post i wrote:



notice that i spoke both of a logical proof and a factual proof for why oneness means more than simply unitarianism. in the light of the above, an objection on the matter that the argument and/or proof for the coherence of the trinity is merely theoretical (as your bringing up of the proof for the flat earth seemed to imply) cannot be put forward for the christian has 'concrete' examples for the coherence of this doctrine. so once more, in terms of logic, there can be no argument.


( a ) yes, the christian conception is certainly not three attributes of a single entity for then we would have a disaster. the distinctions within the being of god are not to be mistaken for attributes. turning back to our example of space, length, width, and height are not attributes of space per se but rather distinctions within the one space. these distinctions possess in their being all the prerogatives of space (i.e. the attributes). they are the possessors of the attributes of space and not attributes themselves. the same is true of the members of the trinity. the attributes of god are omnipotence, aseity, omniscience, omnipresence (though you would disagree with this one), omni-benevolence, omnisapience et cetera. neither are these persons separate but rather distinct. since they all subsist within the single being of god neither can actually be separate from the other (for none can somehow divest himself of the divine essence which is what is needed for them to be separate). once again i bring up the example of space because when we keep these explanations 'concrete' we find that the doctrine is without reproach: length, width, height are not separate but rather distinct--these three exist within the being of space and can no more cease being the one true space than to cease being interrelated to one another.

( b ) no, the members of the trinity all have the same abilities (that is, they all possess the same attributes). what one member can do, the others can do as well seeing as they subsist in the same essence and comprise the single divine being (by this i mean to say that seeing as one's attributes are determined by one's essence, it is impossible to subsist within the single essence and not possess the same attributes). yet it is true that each member does indeed take on particular roles in salvation history (such that it is the son who was crucified etc.) but the matter of roles does not detract from the ontological equality possessed by these as it regards their nature. my very first job was working at a fast-food restaurant and there were three of us in the kitchen making the food (what a coincidence). each person had a specific role that they were assigned to do and while we worked as such, we each were fully capable of doing the job of the other. while we did have specific roles, it was not because we lacked the ability to perform any of the other roles.

( c ) it is true that each member of the trinity can function 'separately' from the other, yet given that there is only a single divine will, we must identify what exactly we mean by separate. each member of the trinity knows the others full well and there is a mutual indwelling between these (each exists within the other, hence why we cannot really speak of separate persons but rather distinct persons). given the single divine will, none can act in opposition to the others for they all comprise the single divine being who--while existent as 3 real persons--shares a single divine will between these.


yes! we do only have one god and not three gods. the distinctions within the one god are like the distinctions within space--3 distinctions that we could equally and truly call space yet we do not have three spaces but rather only one for these three are what the single space is existent as. conversely, this would mean no trinity if and only if the trinity stipulated three gods yet it doesn't:



given the above, i contend that your argument is not a problem for the trinitarian as it regards to logic but rather logic reinforces the validity of our position.


if i understand the above correctly, then it is the fact that there cannot be 3 different all-powerful entities which would supposedly damage the coherence of the doctrine of the trinity. at face-value i would have to agree with this but once again, this is not what we confess when we confess the trinity. we are not multiplying almighties but positing only a single almighty (for each person subsists only within the single essence) who is existent as three persons. if your point were in fact true then when speaking of space, we would run into the problem of multiplying whatever prerogatives are particular to space (if space were infinite then we might be accused of believing in three infinities by believing in the real distinctions within space) but this is not the case. each distinction within space has all the attributes of space because they exist as the one space. once more it is a case of existing within the single essence of space and not positing multiple essences. given that the prerogatives of god apply to each person, we would only have a problem if we did not also possess a single divine essence.

given all of the above, it once more need be said that the claim that the trinity is incoherent cannot be upheld for we have drastically similar examples of this in our very own universe and as we have seen throughout this post, when we try to apply the objections towards the trinity on things such as space, we then see how---for the lack of a better word--absurd these objections become. yet if the bible is to be believed, this is entirely expected seeing as:

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. — Romans 1:20 KJV (emphasis mine)

from the above, we see that the bible claims that god's nature (that is the mode of his existence which encompasses the trinity) can be understood (as far as one can understand the infinite) from what he has created and this is why i have repeatedly returned to the example of space to show how the trinity functions (to the best of my knowledge). that said, it must again be said that one can understand the trinity not to be illogical without necessarily believing in it. one understands through logic but belief is predicated on faith and it is this fact that i have tried to emphasize. i believe that i have shown that the trinity cannot be attacked in terms of logic and the only credible opposition to it is merely in regards to one's faith (which is perfectly alright). if logic is what is being discussed then the fact that a three in one existence is exemplified in the universe should be enough to put claims to its incoherence to rest yet the fact that this is not actually the case says more (to me) about one's faith than about one's understanding of logic.

I apologize for not answering this immediately. But, it is past my bedtime and I need my rest for a trip to Bismarck in the morning. I'll be there until late tomorrow or possibly Tuesday morning.

I do appreciate the peaceful debating shown in this thread.

[YieldedOne]

Woodrow:
I do appreciate the peaceful debating shown in this thread.

Me too. Safe travels, brother. :)

[YieldedOne]

Zafran:
He doesnt I rest my point. Everything you said has no backing by Jesus pbuh words. The Quran being uncreated is nowhere near as important as the trinity is to christians.

Ok. Let me make my point more plain. Very many Muslims believe that the Quran is uncreated "speech" of God...and though it may not be a central belief of Islam, it is a significant one. And--as far as I can tell--there is no direct qu'ranic or hadithic statement saying that the Quran is uncreated. That's why there's been differences of opinion on the matter within Islam. That idea came from a deliberation of Muslim believers, reflecting on the texts and Islamic theology and belief as they then had it. It was NO DIFFERENT for the Christian formation of the Trinity from it's councils.

[YieldedOne]

Oh...and we can tie this back...

Personally, I would say that the "hypostatic union" is based upon Jesus' humanity being a direct product of a pre-existent self-disclosing Uncreated Spoken "Word" of God to humanity through Mary...bringing forth the Incarnate "Word" of God. Using Philo's language, Jesus of Nazareth is the incarnation of the uncreated self-communicating "Memra (Word)" of God through which all things are continually created. In essence, God the Father self-communicates himself to humanity in Jesus' human existence by the power of the Holy Spirit of God.


Going back to my earliest ideas...reposting...

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

Trinitarian Christian teaching effectively states that the human being Jesus of Nazareth is the effect of God's Uncreated Self-Revealing "Word" (empowered by the Spirit/Breath of God) taking on created human nature. That is to say that the Eternal "Word" has taken on a human body, soul, and spirit in time...becoming a human being.

Insofar God's Self-Revealing Word is uncreated, it cannot be destroyed. At the same time, the human nature taken on by the "Word" can experience human death.

I tend to think of the reality of Jesus from the perspective of the complementary seen in atomic reality: The wave/particle complementarity. The singular reality of an atom functions as BOTH wave and particle, even though some "wavelike" aspects of an atom are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE from the "particle-like" aspects of that same atom. So the analogy would go as follows:

Atom <=> Incarnate Word (Jesus of Nazareth)

Wave Aspect <=> Uncreated Spoken "Word" of God

Particle Aspect <=> Created human nature (body, soul, spirit)

As long as it's not logically inconsistent for God's directly "spoken word" to actualize as human existence...then I don't see what the problem is.

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

In Scripture "the word of the Lord" commonly denotes the speech addressed to patriarch or prophet (Gen. xv. 1; Num. xii. 6, xxiii. 5; I Sam. iii. 21; Amos v. 1-8); but frequently it denotes also the creative word: "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made" (Ps. xxxiii. 6; comp. "For He spake, and it was done"; "He sendeth his word, and melteth them [the ice]"; "Fire and hail; snow, and vapors; stormy wind fulfilling his word"; Ps. xxxiii. 9, cxlvii. 18, cxlviii. 8). In this sense it is said, "For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven" (Ps. cxix. 89). "The Word," heard and announced by the prophet, often became, in the conception of the seer, an efficacious power apart from God, as was the angel or messenger of God: "The Lord sent a word into Jacob, and it hath lighted upon Israel" (Isa. ix. 7 [A. V. 8], lv. 11); "He sent his word, and healed them" (Ps. cvii. 20); and comp. "his word runneth very swiftly" (Ps. cxlvii. 15).

[YieldedOne]

Ok. Time to take stock. I've pretty much given my best understanding of the Triunity of God (Father, Word, Spirit) and the hypostatic union of Jesus (Complementarity relationship between Uncreated and Created in one human being.) But I just want to focus on the main thread topic: Jesus being "Immortal" (Uncreated) and Mortal (Created) at the same time.

Here's my questions. For whoever'd like to answer.

1) Is my depiction of the hypostatic union in Jesus contrary to logic? If so, please explain how.

2) Is my depiction of the hypostatic union in Jesus incomprehensible to reason? If so, please show where and how.

3) Is my depiction of the hypostatic union in Jesus antithetical to fundmental beliefs in Islamic metaphysics? If so, please show where and how.
(I'll tip my hat here. I don't see how that can be the case. Islam already believes that Jesus' very existence was by a creative "word" of God...and it already believes in of a concept of God's "uncreated speech" ala the Quran. All I would be postulation is that the creative "word" spoken to Mary, blown into her by the Holy Spirit, was actually God's "uncreated speech" [ala Memra...or Mother of the Book, too, perhaps?], a divine self-revelatory act where God's "uncreated speech" can be felt, touched, and held with human hands, like what is said about the Quran. For any Muslim to deny it's metaphysical possibility within Islam, they'd have to eliminate any argument at all for any pre-existent, uncreated "speech" or heavenly "prototype" ala the Mother of the Book. And I don't think that's gonna happen.)

If any would like to answer these questions for me, I think some good feedback could result. Plus it will bring out any direct challenges and/or refutations of what I've said...which is great. :)

[Zafran]

Zafran:
He doesnt I rest my point. Everything you said has no backing by Jesus pbuh words. The Quran being uncreated is nowhere near as important as the trinity is to christians.

Ok. Let me make my point more plain. Very many Muslims believe that the Quran is uncreated "speech" of God...and though it may not be a central belief of Islam, it is a significant one. And--as far as I can tell--there is no direct qu'ranic or hadithic statement saying that the Quran is uncreated. That's why there's been differences of opinion on the matter within Islam. That idea came from a deliberation of Muslim believers, reflecting on the texts and Islamic theology and belief as they then had it. It was NO DIFFERENT for the Christian formation of the Trinity from it's councils.

Not realy and it isnt that significant - Its more on the realm of speculative theology unlike the trinity which is indeed a core principle of christainty that Jesus pbuh himself never talks about. Shouldnt the trinty be in the realm of speculative theology as well then?

The Question of the uncreatedness of the Quran never came up until the time of Ahmed ibn Hanbal (ra) - It was preety irrelvent before as it wasnt seen as a problem unlike the trinty in christainty.

[YieldedOne]

Zafran:
Not realy and it isnt that significant - Its more on the realm of speculative theology unlike the trinity which is indeed a core principle of christainty that Jesus pbuh himself never talks about. Shouldnt the trinty be in the realm of speculative theology as well then? The Question of the uncreatedness of the Quran never came up until the time of Ahmed ibn Hanbal (ra) - It was preety irrelvent before as it wasnt seen as a problem unlike the trinty in christianity.

You seem to be more focussed on the believed centrality of the Trinity to Christian faith (as opposed to the Muslim belief that the Quran is uncreated)...than seeing what I'm saying about the processes of the development of the respective beliefs. Just like word and concept "Trinity" doesn't appear as a direct statement and/or affirmation in the Bible...neither does the concept of the Quran being uncreated appear as a direct statement and/or affirmation in the Quran. All I'm saying is give BOTH SIDES equal time with that.

[YieldedOne]

Whole thread at a glance.

[YieldedOne]

Check this out...

"Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.
John 8:56-59

If this isn't anything else, this would be Jesus directly associating himself with the "I Am" self-declaration of God. That's exactly why his fellow Jews immediately began try to stone him after he said that. They weren't mad merely at the claim of pre-existing Abraham. That would have just been laughable and crazy to them. No, they were mad because he took Exodus 3:14 and directly slapped it upon himself, right after such a claim. THAT was stoning worthy to them!

God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”
Exodus 3:14

But if we look at this through the lens of the hypostatic union--basically Jesus as incarnated self-revelatory, uncreated "Word/Speech" of God into human existence--wouldn't this actually MAKE SENSE and be EXPLAINABLE in those terms?

Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeealy think about it.

I would also say that Jesus perfectly incarnated the Word of God ala the Great Commandments (Deut 6:4-5; Leviticus 19:9-18). Jesus was the sinless, perfect human embodiment and expression of God's Word/Commandments insofar as Jesus never failed to love God with all his heart, soul, mind and strenght and love his neighbors as himself.

[siam]

Those who are already in a conversation, please ignore me.....

Those who are unfamiliar with Christian history and their creeds---here is some info -----BUT caution:p---proceed at your own risk---warning of a killer migraine up ahead :D

The Creed of Constantinople (Which got confused with the creed of nicea)
Why is the Creed of Constantinople (AD 381) called the Nicene Creed? The liturgy of the Book of Common Prayer actually provides what I think is the best description of the Great Creed utilised in the Eucharist, as the BCP calls it the 'Creed commonly called Nicene.' The exact origin of the Creed we today use as the Great Creed in Eucharistic worship, for the whole Catholic Church both East and West, has been lost in the mists of time. The answer to the question is not itself simple but can be reduced to a simplistic phrase: the Constantinopolitan Creed is identified with the Nicene Creed because the Council that officially ratified it, the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (AD 451), did so. Chalcedon confused the Creed of Nicea with the Creed of Constantinople because the Council of Constantinople professed that its teaching was the true expression of Nicene faith and orthodoxy. The reason for all this is shrouded in mystery; all we know for certain is that the First Council of Constantinople in AD 381 led in time, likely after the period of the Council itself, to the creation of a new Creed, an expansion of a third-century baptismal creed used in the Church of Jerusalem, which was called the 'Faith of the 318 Fathers,' that is, the Faith of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea I. It is possible that Saint Cyril of Jerusalem presented the form of the Constantinopolitan Creed to the Council of AD 381 from his own Church: this however is an ancient tradition and not based on certain evidence. This much we do know - in turn, the 'Creed of the 150 Fathers,' that is, the Creed of Constantinople I, was declared to be same as the Creed of Nicea I by the Council of Chalcedon in 451. Chalcedon also stated that the Creed of Constantinople (C), which was confused with the original Creed of Nicea (N), was to be unchanged and unaltered forever - and that any effort to change, alter, or correct the Creed so received would be heresy

Council of Ephesus (With regards to the "Mother Of God" concept still held by the Catholics---and hotly debated within early Christian history----the use of the title "Mother of God" instead of "Mother of Christ")

"We confess, then, our Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, perfect God and perfect man, of a rational soul and a body, begotten before all ages from the Father in his Godhead, the same in the last days, for us and for our salvation, born of Mary the Virgin according to his humanity, one and the same consubstantial with the Father in Godhead and consubstantial with us in humanity, for a union of two natures took place. Therefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this understanding of the unconfused union, we confess the holy Virgin to be the Mother of God because God the Word took flesh and became man and from his very conception united to himself the temple he took from her" (Formula of Union [A.D. 431]).

(And here is OFFICIAL CHRISTIAN the explanation of the HYPOSTATIC UNION)
THE ATHANASIAN CREED dates from the late fourth century, and is attributed to St. Athanasius (296-373), the great defender of Catholic Truth. Those who held to the Arian heresy, which ravaged the Church at that time, denied the divinity of Christ. As a result, Athanasius composed this creed which includes lengthy explanations of the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union (the Human and Divine natures of Christ forming one Person)...
Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith, except a man keep whole and integral, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. Now the Catholic Faith is this: that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal. For such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, the Holy Ghost uncreate; the Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible; the Father eternal, the Son eternal, the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet, there are not three eternals, but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated, nor three incomprehensibles; but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet there are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet there are not three Gods, but one God. So likewise, the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Ghost is Lord. And yet there are not three Lords, but one Lord. For, as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord; so we are forbidden by the Catholic religion to say there be three Gods or three Lords. The Father is made by none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father, not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before or after the other. None is greater or less than another, but the whole three Persons are co-equal and co-eternal together. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshiped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity. Furthermore it is necessary unto eternal salvation that he believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ is God and man. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the world; and Man of the substance of His Mother, born into the world. Perfect God and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Godhead as touching His Manhood. Who, although He be God, and Man, yet He is not two, but one Christ. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven; He sitteth at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty; from whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account for their works. And they that have done good shall go into everlasting life, and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This, then, is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

(Notice the underlined word---incomprehensible :D---that about says it all)

[Sol Invictus]

woodrow: alright and have a safe trip.

(Notice the underlined word---incomprehensible ---that about says it all)

greetings siam, incomprehensible indeed. that is in the respect that god cannot be perfectly comprehended. if you being finite wish to imply that you comprehend an infinite god, then we would have to say that this is dishonest on your part. truth is that 'incomprehensible' is the only word fit for the dignity of the subject which is being discussed.

that said, if it is either the logical coherence of the trinity or the hypostatic union that you want to disprove, then you are quite welcome to begin to attack my points.

[Chavundur]

Dear Sol Invictus

There is a proverb in Turkey " One of the insane people threw a stone into the well, Forty wise men couldn't extract it " , Three personifications in one entity, three but one, three controller, three organizer, two spectator with no interference, a slander like dementia, and it goes long, ( Yes God is Comprehensible in Islam too, He is away from being described triune ) . I hope I will write some logical proofs about tawhid. And I have to state that, in east throughout history, Discussions in this respect has been based on proving tawhid instead of explaining falsity of trinity. Every positive supposition is based on an existence. I mean proving non-existence of trinity is only be possible by proving unity. I hope I ll be right here before Woodrow,

[Sol Invictus]

Dear Sol Invictus

There is a proverb in Turkey " One of the insane people threw a stone into the well, Forty wise men couldn't extract it " , Three personifications in one entity, three but one, three controller, three organizer, two spectator with no interference, a slander like dementia, and it goes long, ( Yes God is Comprehensible in Islam too, He is away from being described triune ) . I hope I will write some logical proofs about tawhid. And I have to state that, in east throughout history, Discussions in this respect has been based on proving tawhid instead of explaining falsity of trinity. Every positive supposition is based on an existence. I mean proving non-existence of trinity is only be possible by proving unity. I hope I ll be right here before Woodrow,

while i don't appreciate the tone of your response, i'd rather you deal with what i have written before we move on to the subject of tawhid. by deal with what i have written i mean that i would like you to quote my arguments as i have done the arguments of others and dissect it for the participants in this thread and show it is illogical instead of merely making such claims but altogether ignoring my points. furthermore, let us hope that your next reply will be more respectful than the one above. anyway, i will be heading out very soon and while i had ignored your claims earlier, when i return i will debunk some of the claims you've been making within this thread.

[Chavundur]

Sorry Sol Invictus if I state sentences dishonestly, I didn't mean your arguments or claims. As you see my message was short and superficial. It is only about general trinity thought of Christianity, I started message in your name because I wanted you to know why Muslims disprove trinity by pointing at its illogical sides or contradictions. It is not easy to prove that as I expressed above why. As you see my writing capacity is not enough for sarcasm or other unjust meanings.

[Zafran]

Zafran:
Not realy and it isnt that significant - Its more on the realm of speculative theology unlike the trinity which is indeed a core principle of christainty that Jesus pbuh himself never talks about. Shouldnt the trinty be in the realm of speculative theology as well then? The Question of the uncreatedness of the Quran never came up until the time of Ahmed ibn Hanbal (ra) - It was preety irrelvent before as it wasnt seen as a problem unlike the trinty in christianity.

You seem to be more focussed on the believed centrality of the Trinity to Christian faith (as opposed to the Muslim belief that the Quran is uncreated)...than seeing what I'm saying about the processes of the development of the respective beliefs. Just like word and concept "Trinity" doesn't appear as a direct statement and/or affirmation in the Bible...neither does the concept of the Quran being uncreated appear as a direct statement and/or affirmation in the Quran. All I'm saying is give BOTH SIDES equal time with that.

Your camparison isnt a good one becasue the uncreated nature of the Quran is indeed in the realm of SPECULATIVE THEOLOGY - Are you seriously trying to campare that with the trinty??? - its indeed a terrible camparision - Can you even give indirect proof of the trinty with the statemnets of Jesus pbuh or is this just sepculative theology made mainstream?

[YieldedOne]

Siam,
1) You didn't answer my questions...even tangentially.

2) If you want me to use the more formal term Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381, that's fine. This changes nothing about what I'm arguing, if you check. Can you deal with my actual thoughts?

3) All the "Mother of God" term was delineating is that "God the Word" took on flesh in and through Mary. It's just affirming that, if you note.

4) Your underlining of "incomprehensible" in the quote you cite just mentions that all 3 members of the Trinity are incomprehensible to the human finite mind. It is not talking about theological models being incomprehensible.

Siam, I think I know your capacity for engagement is MUCH, MUCH better than this. Can you do some real engagement, please? :D

[YieldedOne]

Zafran:
Your camparison isnt a good one becasue the uncreated nature of the Quran is indeed in the realm of SPECULATIVE THEOLOGY - Are you seriously trying to campare that with the trinty??? - its indeed a terrible camparision - Can you even give indirect proof of the trinty with the statemnets of Jesus pbuh or is this just sepculative theology made mainstream?

Gee whiz. This ain't that hard. REGARDLESS if the uncreated nature of the Quran is "speculative theology", it's STILL THE CASE that the belief DOES exist within Islam. And it didn't come there from any direct Quranic verse or verses. It came from later discussion of Muslim believers taking the text and theology into account. If it's VALID for Islam to do this, how come it's NOT VALID for Christians to do this?

[Zafran]

salaam Mods please delete thanks

peace

[Chavundur]

.........................First indication...Second indication............
FIFTH INDICATION

We have demonstrated with decisive proofs in many places that the most fundamental characteristic of rulership is independence and separateness. The weak shadow of rulership in impotent men even vehemently rejects the interference of others and does not permit others to meddle in its duty, in order to preserve its independence. Many kings have mercilessly put to death their innocent children and loved brothers on account of this rejection of interference. That is to say, the most basic characteristics of true rulership, and its inseparable necessities and perpetual essentials are independence, separateness, and the rejection of the interference of others.

It is because of this most basic characteristic that Divine rulership, which is at the degree of absolute dominicality, most vehemently rejects the association of any partners and the participation and interference of others. And the Qur'an of Miraculous Exposition too, insistently, repeatedly, and sternly, points out the affirmation of Divine Unity and rejects with severe threats the association of partners with God.

Thus, the Divine rulership in dominicality necessitates Divine Unity in definite fashion and shows a most powerful motive and necessitating cause. So too the infinitely perfect order and harmony on the face of the universe, apparent from the totality of the universe and the stars to the plants, animals, minerals down to particulars, individuals, and minute particles, are an indubitably veracious witness to and clear proof of that Singleness and Unity. For if others had interfered, this most sensitive balance, order, and regularity of the universe would have been spoilt and signs of disorder would have been apparent. In accordance with the meaning of the verse,

If there were in the heavens and the earth, other gods besides God, there would have been confusion in both!,2

this wondrous, perfect order of the universe would have been thrown into confusion and been spoilt. Whereas, according to the verse,

So turn your vision again; do you see any flaw?,3

from minute particles to the planets, from the ground to the Divine Throne, there is no sign of fault, defect, or confusion to be seen. Thus the order of the universe and of creatures and the balance of beings, demonstrate most brilliantly the greatest manifestation of the Name of Single and testify to Divine Unity.

Moreover, since, through the mystery of the manifestation of Divine Oneness, the tiniest living creature is a miniature sample of the universe and a small index of it, only the One in the grasp of Whose power is the whole universe can lay claim to it. And since, in regard to creation, a seed is not inferior to a tree, and a tree is a small universe, and all living beings are like small universes and small worlds, this mystery of Divine Oneness has made the association of partners with God impossible.

Through this mystery, the universe is not only an indivisible whole, but in respect of its nature, like a universal whose division and being broken up into parts is impossible and which does not accept participation and numerous hands in its creation. Thus, since each part of it is a

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

2. Qur'an, 21:22.

3. Qur'an, 67:3.

particular and individual part and the whole also is a universal, there is no possibility in any respect for the participation of others in it. It proves to the degree of being self-evident the greatest manifestation of the Name of Single, the reality of the affirmation of Divine Unity, and this mystery of Divine Oneness.

Yes, since the realms of beings in the universe are interwoven and interbonded and the functions of each look to all, it has made the universe, in respect of dominicality and creation, like an indivisible whole. So too, the all-encompassing general acts in the universe are interwoven and interpenetrated. That is, for example, within the act of giving life, the acts of nurturing and giving of sustenance are apparent at the same instant. And within those acts of nurturing and giving of life, at the same time the acts of ordering and decking out the living creature's body are observed. And within those acts of nurturing, giving life, ordering, and decking out, at the same time the acts of giving of form, raising, and regulating strike the eye. And so on, since such all-encompassing and general acts are interpenetrated and one within the other and blended together like the seven colours in light, indeed, are united; and since being the same in regard to their natures each of those acts encompasses and embraces most beings and are a single act; and since the one who performs the acts must be the same; and since each of them pervades the whole universe and unites with the other acts in co-operation and assistance; it has made the universe like an indivisible whole. Similarly, since all living creatures are like seeds, indexes, and samples of the universe, it has made the universe from the point of view of dominicality like a universal whose division and breaking into parts is impossible. That is to say, the universe is such a totality that to be Sustainer of a part of it is only possible by being Sustainer of the whole. And it is such a universal that each part of it has become like a single member; to make any one single member submit to His dominicality is only possible by subjugating the universal.
The Flashes ( 420 - 422 )

[Sol Invictus]

Sorry Sol Invictus if I state sentences dishonestly, I didn't mean your arguments or claims. As you see my message was short and superficial. It is only about general trinity thought of Christianity, I started message in your name because I wanted you to know why Muslims disprove trinity by pointing at its illogical sides or contradictions. It is not easy to prove that as I expressed above why. As you see my writing capacity is not enough for sarcasm or other unjust meanings.

greetings chavunder, first off, i must sincerely apologize for seemingly having misread you. it was a rather pleasant surprise to find out that you had no desire to be belligerent at all and as such i'm pleased that we'll be able to conduct this discussion on good terms. i have noticed your last post (so far) and while i don't know if it is addressed to me (i only skimmed it) i would ask if we could hold up on it for a while (having quickly skimmed it the first mistake i noticed was it's presumption that oneness assumes unitarianism and the inappropriate understanding of the trinity as it regards the indwelling of the members and the single divine will...that is to say, in order for you to prove the majority of what you have posted you must first refute my post #15 and #56 because as such, they bar any way for your argument to prove a credible opposition against the triune conception of god) while i dedicate this post to answering a common assumption which i believe to be quite wrong. here is what i'm talking about:

As Salamun Alaikum

According to logic , According to physics, according to history, according to mind created, there can be only one unique creator free from time and abode and form.

i will reproduce for you a post i had made in a different thread which showed that even the muslim deity enters time, (can) exist in an abode and indeed assumes a form as well as generally enters his creation.

here is my argument:

alright, it's now more than obvious that my post has been misunderstood. the only flaw so far is in those individuals who assume that my point rests on allah being located in heaven. it has nothing to do with this and we can exclude the concept of heaven from the equation and still my argument would stand. so on that note, let us try again. what does the claim that allah cannot enter into his creation mean? it would seem to me that what muslims say and what islam teaches are two different things on this matter.

Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 532s:
Narrated Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri:
When there remain only those who used to worship Allah (Alone), both the obedient ones and the mischievous ones, it will be said to them, ‘What keeps you here when all the people have gone?’ They will say, ‘We parted with them (in the world) when we were in greater need of them than we are today, we heard the call of one proclaiming, ‘Let every nation follow what they used to worship,’ and now we are waiting for our Lord.’ Then the Almighty will come to them in a shape other than the one which they saw the first time, and He will say, ‘I am your Lord,’ and they will say, ‘You are not our Lord.’

Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 105:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
Then (Allah) the Lord of the worlds will come to them in a shape nearest to the picture they had in their minds about Him. It will be said, ‘What are you waiting for?’ Every nation have followed what they used to worship.’ They will reply, ‘We left the people in the world when we were in great need of them and we did not take them as friends. Now we are waiting for our Lord Whom we used to worship.’ Allah will say, ‘I am your Lord.’ They will say twice or thrice, ‘We do not worship any besides Allah.’ “

Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 76, Number 577:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
and then only this nation (i.e., Muslims) will remain, including their hypocrites. Allah will come to them in a shape other than they know and will say, ‘I am your Lord.‘ They will say, ‘We seek refuge with Allah from you. This is our place; (we will not follow you) till our Lord comes to us, and when our Lord comes to us, we will recognize Him.

Then Allah will come to them in a shape they know and will say, “I am your Lord.‘ They will say, ‘(No doubt) You are our Lord,’ and they will follow Him.

now from the above it would seem that allah does in fact take on a shape. if he takes on a shape then he exhibits certain dimensions which are the property of space (length, width, height). these very dimensions have not always existed and came into being during the big bang and as such are a creation of allah. yet the fact that allah takes on these very properties goes to show that he does indeed enter his own creation. so once again i must reiterate the fact that unlike what many muslims claim, allah does indeed enter his creation. now in light of the clear evidence above, i would still not be surprised if the claim was made that i have somehow been deceiving in my argument so let's suppose that contrary to evidence, i was in fact wrong and when these texts say that allah will take on a shape they really mean "allah will not take on a shape". let us suppose this is true, it would still not hurt the argument that allah does indeed enter his creation.

that is, we all understand that time is a creation of allah, right? yet allah acts within time in order to fulfill his purpose. the very fact that he acts presupposes the entering of time for there can be no act that does not involve temporality (if one disagrees, they are welcome to give an example of an act that does not take place within time). the very fact of creating everything in existence means that (while he simultaneously created time in doing so) he also entered time to do so. before creation, allah existed in a state of no time where nothing happened. the fact that at some point he chose to create everything in existence means that he took action and action can only happen within the realm of time. so once more, allah entered and repeatedly enters time in order to fulfill his purpose and given that time is a creation of his it becomes obvious that allah does in fact enter into his creation.

now i can already see how i could be misunderstood and as such i will say that i'm not saying that allah is bound to time. i'm only saying that allah did indeed enter time and that contrary to what muslims say, in claiming that allah created everything that exists, islam teaches that allah does in fact enter his creation.

@mustafa: must you believe that i really harbour such dark motives? the fact of the matter is that i saw this claim within your post and merely wanted an explanation.

i would encourage you to view the actual thread where this quote is from in order to see how this discussion was concluded.

[YieldedOne]

Since Siam put that stuff earlier. I figured I'd try to do some summation where available...here goes...

1) The term "Mother of God" means that Mary was the mother of the eternal "Word/Memra" of God the Father, bringing forth God's word into humanity. Mary is the mother of God only in THAT sense. It means nothing more than that.


2) The Athanasian Creed has some of the following concepts:

a) There is genuine TRIUNITY in the self-relationship of God the Father, His Word/Son, and His Spirit. No modalism or tritheism. All 3 hypostases ARE equally uncreated, and therefore God. At the same time, God the Father (the Unbegotten) is the ground of the triunity. God the Father "begets" His Word/Son via the Spirit that "proceeds" from Him.

b) Jesus of Nazereth is the "Word/Son" of God incarnated into one human being. God's Eternal Word/Son took on all incoporeal and corporeal elements of humanity via the creative word to Mary via power of the God's Spirit. Therefore, Jesus is God (Uncreated) and human (Created) as the one "Word" in hypostatic union with humanity. Jesus is the Incarnate Word who was also the one "Messiah" (Christ).

c) Jesus of Nazareth is at the right hand of God, the Father...right now! :D

3) Please note how my analogy falls well within these lines. Jesus of Nazareth is the single "atom" who's "wave-like" tendencies as the Uncreated "Word/Memra" of God are mutually-exclusive from yet undeniably related to the "particle-like" tendencies of his created human soul and body...such that Jesus is fully divine and fully human just like a single atom is fully "wave" and fully "particle."

[YieldedOne]

Now. For real, y'all. Is what I'm describing really just THAT irrational or incomprehensible? There seem to be a number of human analogies that give real meaning to the concepts. Basically, we have conceptual models and language (like quantum mechanics, self-relationality of human being, etc) that help us to understand. I guess that why I've asked those questions. The Trinity and the Hypostatic Union in Jesus makes complete sense to me. And I've tried to show how my thoughts go on it.

What's really interesting to me is that...
1) it's very consistent with the Judaism that proceeds it,
2) it doesn't seem to abograte the Absolute Unity of the One God referred to in the Jewish Shema, the God and Father of humanity in general and Israel in particular
and...
3) it doesn't go against Islamic metaphysics as I understand it (ala Islamic belief of the uncreated nature of Quran and heavenly archetypal nature of the "Mother of the Book").

[Chavundur]

Hi Sol Invictus ,


As Woodrow said at that topic linked, Hadiths may have metaphorical meanings, I assure you that you can find too much hadiths in this aspect, even there are a lot of metaphorical hadiths about the end of the times and recent times, their meanings can only be understood with current conditions. And you can see that sorts of hadiths about hereafter, ( Generally, companions of messenger had not academic degree or civilized education, He made some truths close to minds by metaphors) I can say about the Bukhari Hadiths a lot of remarks like saying " these forms are not his original form", "Only appeared in that way or He wanted to seem to Christians in the form of what they supposed but they were already knowing their supposition was wrong and admitted their falsity with their mouth by saying you are not our lord "....


And finally this discussion will serve no purpose because as I stated above, philosophical suppositions and headways can not lead us to divine authenticity separately, in itself alone. As our senior scholars said, taking the road of philosophy to arrive at truth is like trying to pass ocean through swimming ( It is possible by the way, but not easy). Reality is too detailed, We can't capture everything, limitless information and limitless viewpoints obstruct . For cutting short I have to come to an end. I made some mistakes by writing sentences like " why Muslims disprove trinity " instead of " Why Muslims had not been concentrated on disproving trinity ". We prove the correctness and easiness of divine unity only, consequently trinity approach becomes groundless. My style and approach was wrong at the beginning because I didn't comform this rule. And I explained some logical reasons of this approach, why working on disproving that supposition is to waste time and wrong. I think I am to much interested in refuting Atheistic thoughts instead of inter-religious matters like trinity. May my experienced Muslim brothers forgive me for writing in this topic without working seriously on it. I have to confess that I wasn't knowing what triune is. ( Unforgivable:.)) . Finally Sol Invictus ,As you see I try to cut short in order to not prevent minds from focusing on what the point is. I measure the facts by reasoning in the terms of message above starting with First Indication. I focus on thinking proofs of unity now only.

[YieldedOne]

Whole thread at a glance.

[YieldedOne]

Hey, Woodrow. Whenever you get a sec, I'd love to see what you think about all this. Same for you, Aprender...s'il vous plait? She said...

I've had the trinity explained to me in many different ways at many different times in my life. I've been on this earth for decades and no matter how much you try to dress it up with academic and flowery language- it doesn't make sense. I understand what you are trying to say but after years of debate and seeking to understand this concept, I do not believe in it. Although it was a failed attempt, thank you for trying to explain the trinity to me once again. I know that the trinity does not display, exactly, that Christ is half man, half god but when it was explained to me as a child that was what I perceived it to be. Perhaps it was wrong for me to add "as explained in the trinity" seeing as it is more of an incorrect math formula in and of itself, but that's beside the point. Any way you put it, it doesn't make sense.

I'd like to see if what's been discussed so far "makes sense" to you, Aprender. If it does, then that would be some really good proof for me that there is some kind of intelligibility for idea of Trinity and the Hypostatic Union that's possible for Christians, at least.

[YieldedOne]

Something else...

How does the idea of "different persons" work in Trinity? What does it really serve to convey? How is triunity really any distinct from modalism, philosophically speaking?

Simply this: Only the Uncreated Word/Son was incarnated, neither God the Father nor His Spirit. Said another way, neither God the Father nor His Spirit had the subjective experience of incarnation into humanity, only the Uncreated Word/Son.

It's that simple.

[YieldedOne]

I absolutely LOVE Brother Ahmad Deedat here. He the rightly criticizes the rampant TRITHEISM that is implicit in imagination of the the vast majority of the Christian West. Many Western Christians are tritheistic in their practice of faith...simply because they haven't been TAUGHT any different. I can definitely say that about my experience as a Southern Baptist youth growing up in church. Deedat's portrait was almost EXACTLY the one I had. But again, I was seriously MISINFORMED because of the ignorance of Western Christianity in general...and the Southern Baptists in particular. I bet Aprender to attest to this taught ignorance as well...

Just a point here. I believe our discussion here is why Peter, James (Jesus' brother), Paul, and the other Jewish apostles all believed that Christianity was a CONTINUATION-UNTO-FULFILLMENT of their previously held JEWISH Messianic hopes grounded in the Torah, Prophets and Writings! This is why John 1:1 says what it does...

"In the beginning was the Word (of God), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."


Remember...

In Scripture "the word of the Lord" commonly denotes the speech addressed to patriarch or prophet (Gen. xv. 1; Num. xii. 6, xxiii. 5; I Sam. iii. 21; Amos v. 1-8); but frequently it denotes also the creative word: "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made" (Ps. xxxiii. 6; comp. "For He spake, and it was done"; "He sendeth his word, and melteth them [the ice]"; "Fire and hail; snow, and vapors; stormy wind fulfilling his word"; Ps. xxxiii. 9, cxlvii. 18, cxlviii. 8). In this sense it is said, "For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven" (Ps. cxix. 89). "The Word," heard and announced by the prophet, often became, in the conception of the seer, an efficacious power apart from God, as was the angel or messenger of God: "The Lord sent a word into Jacob, and it hath lighted upon Israel" (Isa. ix. 7 [A. V. 8], lv. 11); "He sent his word, and healed them" (Ps. cvii. 20); and comp. "his word runneth very swiftly" (Ps. cxlvii. 15).

It's TOTALLY CONSISTENT with Jewish belief! And Wikipedia's on it...

The Gospel of John has been seen as aimed at emphasizing Jesus' divinity, presenting Jesus as the Logos, pre-existent and divine, from its first words, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God".[John 1:1] John also portrays Jesus Christ as the Creator of the universe, such that "without him nothing was made that has been made."[John 1:3]

Basically, nothing would be made with out the "Word/Memra" of God the Father. God creates and sustains all things by his Word. This Word antedates Creation, thus IS uncreated AS God the Father...and this Word is eternally WITH God the Father.

Make sense, Woodrow? Siam? Aprender? Whoever? :D

[YieldedOne]

Side thought:

Try this. Read this in light of the Jewish concept of God's Word/Memra...

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.

The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”) And from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.

This says that the "uncreated speech" of God---the self-disclosing, creative "Word/Memra" of the Invisible, Intangible God the Father--became a single human being...and in so doing, revealed God the Father to us in visible, tangible, human terms...

"Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves."

Now, doesn't this really make a lot of sense of the text and the context of John 1:1? Doesn't it make it more viable as a whole considering the Jewishness of the author?

[YieldedOne]

Woodrow? You there, bro?

[siam]

some interesting ideas YO....I will have to read them again to reply properly......
meanwhile, With regards to "Mother of God"

I'm afraid things may not be as simple historically, as they seem now.....Its my understanding that the Chrisitian creeds were developed in opposition to other equally valid creeds---it just so happens that the creeds that won politcally (not scripturally) are the ones dominant now.......

So the "Mother of God"--"theotokos" was developed because there was an opposing concept---that of "christotokos"---"Mother of Christ"

There are Catholics that end up worshiping the "Mother of God" and if you see the language of the CCC---you will see why----refer to CCC484-511 and CCC963-975
(The Catholic Church encourages worship of Mary(pbuh) but not as God---however, many cannot see the difference)

(According to the Catholic Church) There are many similarities between Mary(pbuh) and her Son....

Immaculate conception------Virgin Birth
free of sin----free of sin
role of advocate/intercessor----role of intercessor.
resurrection------resurrection
and others.....


964 Mary's role in the Church is inseparable from her union with Christ and flows directly from it. "This union of the mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ's virginal conception up to his death";504 it is made manifest above all at the hour of his Passion:

Thus the Blessed Virgin advanced in her pilgrimage of faith, and faithfully persevered in her union with her Son unto the cross. There she stood, in keeping with the divine plan, enduring with her only begotten Son the intensity of his suffering, joining herself with his sacrifice in her mother's heart, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this victim, born of her: to be given, by the same Christ Jesus dying on the cross, as a mother to his disciple, with these words: "Woman, behold your son."505
966 "Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death."508 The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son's Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians:

In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.509
969 "This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation . . . . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."512
970 "Mary's function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed Virgin's salutary influence on men . . . flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it, and draws all its power from it."513 "No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer; but just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is radiated in different ways among his creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source."514
* II. DEVOTION TO THE BLESSED VIRGIN
971 "All generations will call me blessed": "The Church's devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship."515 The Church rightly honors "the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of 'Mother of God,' to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs. . . . This very special devotion . . . differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration."516 The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, an "epitome of the whole Gospel," express this devotion to the Virgin Mary.517

[siam]

I think you need to refine your ideas further YO....

"The Gospel of John has been seen as aimed at emphasizing Jesus' divinity, presenting Jesus as the Logos, pre-existent and divine, from its first words, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God".[John 1:1] John also portrays Jesus Christ as the Creator of the universe, such that "without him nothing was made that has been made."[John 1:3]

Basically, nothing would be made with out the "Word/Memra" of God the Father. God creates and sustains all things by his Word. This Word antedates Creation, thus IS uncreated AS God the Father...and this Word is eternally WITH God the Father."

----Everything is made/created by the "Word" but "everyhting" is not God. So why should Jesus Chrsit(pbuh) be any different?

[siam]

Something else...

How does the idea of "different persons" work in Trinity? What does it really serve to convey? How is triunity really any distinct from modalism, philosophically speaking?

Simply this: Only the Uncreated Word/Son was incarnated, neither God the Father nor His Spirit. Said another way, neither God the Father nor His Spirit had the subjective experience of incarnation into humanity, only the Uncreated Word/Son.

It's that simple.

---BUT WHY? YO....why an incarnation in the first place?

[Woodrow]

This thread has grown considerably in the past 30 hours or so. To keep myself from getting completly lost. For the moment I am simply going back to this post, that I had promised to reply to.

greetings woodrow. you make a good point on the matter of non-euclidean geometry and the matter of a flat earth yet this is offsetted by the fact that the factual reality would contradict this wholly theoretical argument. in the same manner does the factual reality of the existence of three in one entities offset the claim that the trinity is illogical. at this point it is no longer even a matter of trying to argue whether this concept is coherent or not seeing as if it were contradictory, examples of such wouldn't exist. contradictions cannot exist in the universe and the fact that examples of a three in one existence are found in the universe removes the trinity from being merely a concept in the realm of ideas but rather a reality present in this world. in hopes of preemptively rebutting an argument in the vein of the above, you will note that in my previous post i wrote:



notice that i spoke both of a logical proof and a factual proof for why oneness means more than simply unitarianism. in the light of the above, an objection on the matter that the argument and/or proof for the coherence of the trinity is merely theoretical (as your bringing up of the proof for the flat earth seemed to imply) cannot be put forward for the christian has 'concrete' examples for the coherence of this doctrine. so once more, in terms of logic, there can be no argument.


( a ) yes, the christian conception is certainly not three attributes of a single entity for then we would have a disaster. the distinctions within the being of god are not to be mistaken for attributes. turning back to our example of space: length, width, and height are not attributes of space per se but rather distinctions within the one space. these distinctions possess in their being all the prerogatives of space (i.e. the attributes). they are the possessors of the attributes of space and not attributes themselves. the same is true of the members of the trinity. the attributes of god are omnipotence, aseity, omniscience, omnipresence (though you would disagree with this one), omni-benevolence, omnisapience et cetera. neither are these persons separate but rather distinct. since they all subsist within the single being of god neither can actually be separate from the other (for none can somehow divest himself of the divine essence which is what is needed for them to be separate). once again i bring up the example of space because when we keep these explanations 'concrete' we find that the doctrine is without reproach: length, width, height are not separate but rather distinct--these three exist within the being of space and can no more cease being the one true space than to cease being interrelated to one another.

( b ) no, the members of the trinity all have the same abilities (that is, they all possess the same attributes). what one member can do, the others can do as well seeing as they subsist in the same essence and comprise the single divine being (by this i mean to say that seeing as one's attributes are determined by one's essence, it is impossible to subsist within the single essence and not possess the same attributes). yet it is true that each member does indeed take on particular roles in salvation history (such that it is the son who was crucified etc.) but the matter of roles does not detract from the ontological equality possessed by these as it regards their nature. my very first job was working at a fast-food restaurant and there were three of us in the kitchen making the food (what a coincidence). each person had a specific role that they were assigned to do and while we worked as such, we each were fully capable of doing the job of the other. while we did have specific roles, it was not because we lacked the ability to perform any of the other roles.

( c ) it is true that each member of the trinity can function 'separately' from the other, yet given that there is only a single divine will, we must identify what exactly we mean by separate. each member of the trinity knows the others full well and there is a mutual indwelling between these (each exists within the other, hence why we cannot really speak of separate persons but rather distinct persons). given the single divine will, none can act in opposition to the others for they all comprise the single divine being who--while existent as 3 real persons--shares a single divine will between these.


yes! we do only have one god and not three gods. the distinctions within the one god are like the distinctions within space--3 distinctions that we could equally and truly call space yet we do not have three spaces but rather only one for these three are what the single space is existent as. conversely, this would mean no trinity if and only if the trinity stipulated three gods yet it doesn't:



given the above, i contend that your argument is not a problem for the trinitarian as it regards to logic but rather logic reinforces the validity of our position.


if i understand the above correctly, then it is the fact that there cannot be 3 different all-powerful entities which would supposedly damage the coherence of the doctrine of the trinity. at face-value i would have to agree with this but once again, this is not what we confess when we confess the trinity. we are not multiplying almighties but positing only a single almighty (for each person subsists only within the single essence) who is existent as three persons. if your point were in fact true then when speaking of space, we would run into the problem of multiplying whatever prerogatives are particular to space (if space were infinite then we might be accused of believing in three infinities by believing in the real distinctions within space) but this is not the case. each distinction within space has all the attributes of space because they exist as the one space. once more it is a case of existing within the single essence of space and not positing multiple essences. given that the prerogatives of god apply to each person, we would only have a problem if we did not also possess a single divine essence.

given all of the above, it once more need be said that the claim that the trinity is incoherent cannot be upheld for we have drastically similar examples of this in our very own universe and as we have seen throughout this post, when we try to apply the objections towards the trinity on things such as space, we then see how---for the lack of a better word--absurd these objections become. yet if the bible is to be believed, this is entirely expected seeing as:

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. — Romans 1:20 KJV (emphasis mine)

from the above, we see that the bible claims that god's nature (that is the mode of his existence which encompasses the trinity) can be understood (as far as one can understand the infinite) from what he has created and this is why i have repeatedly returned to the example of space to show how the trinity functions (to the best of my knowledge). that said, it must again be said that one can understand the trinity not to be illogical without necessarily believing in it. one understands through logic but belief is predicated on faith and it is this fact that i have tried to emphasize. i believe that i have shown that the trinity cannot be attacked in terms of logic and the only credible opposition to it is merely in regards to one's faith (which is perfectly alright). if logic is what is being discussed then the fact that a three in one existence is exemplified in the universe should be enough to put claims to its incoherence to rest yet the fact that this is not actually the case says more (to me) about one's faith than about one's understanding of logic.

I posted all of the post above mostly for reference. but at the moment I am only addressing one part. One piece at a time is about the limit of my simple brain.

That carries with it a feeling of being a challenge. I agree it would be nice and may even be possible we can discuss the logic of a trinity existence. But all parties involved need to be able to accept that the logical explanation of such does not necessitate nor suffice as proof. A good mathematician well versed in topology and non-euclidean geometry can show logical explanations as to how the earth is a flat surface, but that is not proof the earth is flat.

greetings woodrow. you make a good point on the matter of non-euclidean geometry and the matter of a flat earth yet this is offsetted by the fact that the factual reality would contradict this wholly theoretical argument. in the same manner does the factual reality of the existence of three in one entities offset the claim that the trinity is illogical. at this point it is no longer even a matter of trying to argue whether this concept is coherent or not seeing as if it were contradictory, examples of such wouldn't exist. contradictions cannot exist in the universe and the fact that examples of a three in one existence are found in the universe removes the trinity from being merely a concept in the realm of ideas but rather a reality present in this world. in hopes of preemptively rebutting an argument in the vein of the above, you will note that in my previous post i wrote:

you have no warrant to claim that oneness refers only to a unitarian understanding seeing that this is logically untrue and, perhaps more importantly, factually untrue when we examine the universe.

notice that i spoke both of a logical proof and a factual proof for why oneness means more than simply unitarianism. in the light of the above, an objection on the matter that the argument and/or proof for the coherence of the trinity is merely theoretical (as your bringing up of the proof for the flat earth seemed to imply) cannot be put forward for the christian has 'concrete' examples for the coherence of this doctrine. so once more, in terms of logic, there can be no argument.

Here the issue is that we both do not agree your examples of three in one existences, being as such. Height, width and breadth are not 3 separate things. they are simply measurements of an object. The object exists, height width and breadth are not things, they are measurements. none can exist as a single object, as none is an object. each is a measurement of the object, not part of the object.

[Sol Invictus]

( a ) Here the issue is that we both do not agree your examples of three in one existences, being as such. Height, width and breadth are not 3 separate things. they are simply measurements of an object. The object exists, height width and breadth are not things, they are measurements. ( b ) none can exist as a single object, as none is an object. ( c ) each is a measurement of the object, not part of the object.

( a ) greetings woodrow, it is always a pleasure. i do not know what whether or not height, width, and length are separate or not has to do with the matter but you will note that i never did say that they are separate (the fact that they aren't separate only strengthens my point). rather i called them distinct. they are distinct in that they are not identical to each other but are all the one space. all three subsist within the single essence of space and in fact the one space is existent as these three distinctions. this then leads me to the claim that they are measurements--that they are not. cm, meters, miles, kilometers etc. these are measurements but length, width, and height are not. rather, they are the dimensions of the single space. they are the distinctions within this concept. if they were indeed measurements then we could in fact speak of "3 length, or 5 height" etc. but we cannot. instead we speak of 3 cm, or 5 metres etc.

( b ) i think that we are being somewhat vague here. what do you mean by object? if you mean that each is not a reality in its own right and is not distinct from the others then i would have to disagree with you simply for the fact that this is demonstrably untrue. length, width, height each possess the prerogatives of space. in fact, the single entity of space is existent as these three distinctions (hence why we say that space is 3 dimensional). if you mean to say that none can exist without the other then this point is irrelevant because no one disagrees with this. by necessity the single space is existent as the distinctions of length, width and height and in the same manner does the one god by necessity exist as the persons of the father, the son, and the holy spirit. you cannot remove one member from the equation. just as space exists as three distinctions simply because of the type of thing that it is (that is, by it's very nature it exists in the manner that it does), in the same manner does the one god exist as three persons because of "the type of thing the he is" (that is a bit crude but you do get what i mean).

( c ) no, we have already seen that each is not at all a measurement but rather the very object itself. centimeters are a measurement of space but length is space itself (as are width and height). therefore we have three distinctions which although they all possess the very prerogatives of space (in that they each can rightly be called and in fact are the one space) we do not possess 3 spaces but rather only one for the type of thing that the one space is, is existent as the three distinctions we call length, width and height. in the same way are the persons of the trinity the one god given that the type of being that god is, is eternally existent as the persons of the father, the son, and the holy spirit. yet it is not three gods that we have (in the like manner that it is not three spaces that we possess) but rather only one.

your point rested on showing that length, width and height weren't space itself but rather measurements of space and given that we have seen that this is not the case, it cannot be used as an attack on the coherence of the trinity. as such we must once again affirm the existence of three in one entities in the universe and admit that not only is such a conception logically sound, it is even factually true. so therefore, while the muslim may not believe in the trinity, and attack it on the basis that it stands in contrast to the conception of the god within their holy book, they cannot mount an attack on the basis of logic for logic and factual evidence vindicate the coherence of the trinity. it is for this reason that i have maintained that we should cease making statements to the illogical nature of the trinity for when the matter of logic is actually discussed, we find that the trinity is a robust doctrine which cannot be attacked in terms of intelligibility.

[MSalman]

^you know sol, the fact you have to resort to silly analogies and write pages after pages to explain your basic doctrine says a lot - really.

[YieldedOne]

Siam:
I'm afraid things may not be as simple historically, as they seem now.....Its my understanding that the Chrisitian creeds were developed in opposition to other equally valid creeds---it just so happens that the creeds that won politcally (not scripturally) are the ones dominant now.......
So the "Mother of God"--"theotokos" was developed because there was an opposing concept---that of "christotokos"---"Mother of Christ"

I have to disagree with you there, bro. This particular issue was not a political issue; it was STRICTLY theological. Check it out...

Since mainstream Christians understand Jesus Christ as both fully God and fully human, they call Mary Theotokos to affirm the fullness of God's incarnation. The Council of Ephesus decreed, in opposition to those who denied Mary the title Theotokos ("the one who gives birth to God") but called her Christotokos ("the one who gives birth to Christ"), that Mary is Theotokos because her son Jesus is one person who is both God and man, divine and human. (Some Protestants still insist that Mary cannot be truly Theotokos, but only Christotokos.) Cyril of Alexandria wrote, "I am amazed that there are some who are entirely in doubt as to whether the holy Virgin should be called Theotokos or not. For if our Lord Jesus Christ is God, how is the holy Virgin who gave [Him] birth, not [Theotokos]?" (Epistle 1, to the monks of Egypt; PG 77:13B). Thus the significance of Theotokos lies more in what it says about Jesus than any declaration about Mary.

Canons 1-5 of the Council of Ephesus speak against Nestorius's belief...

Shortly after his arrival in Constantinople, Nestorius became involved in the disputes of two theological factions, which differed in their Christology. Nestorius tried to find a middle ground between those that emphasized the fact that in Christ God had been born as a man, insisted on calling the Virgin Mary Theotokos (Greek: Θεοτόκος, "God-bearer"), and those that rejected that title because God as an eternal being could not have been born. Nestorius suggested the title Christotokos (Χριστοτόκος, "Christ-bearer"), but did not find acceptance on either side.

Please note that last part. Nestorius' view had NEVER been fully accepted as viable by EITHER SIDE of the debate. So, the rejection of his doctrine was not politically motivated at all. It was simply THEOLOGICALLY wrong...to all concerned.

Just for clarity.

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

Siam:
There are Catholics that end up worshiping the "Mother of God" and if you see the language of the CCC---you will see why----refer to CCC484-511 and CCC963-975

Lemme just say this: The Roman Catholic church, by their doctrines, practically made the VENERATION of Mary (allowable) into virtual WORSHIP of Mary (non-allowable). This has NEVER been a problem with any of the Eastern churches, if you note. Even so, it is still NOT the case that official Roman Catholic theology says that 1) Mary is a member of the Trinity or 2) Mary is the mother of God in some eternal sense. That's what matters.

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

Siam:
I think you need to refine your ideas further YO....

"The Gospel of John has been seen as aimed at emphasizing Jesus' divinity, presenting Jesus as the Logos, pre-existent and divine, from its first words, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God".[John 1:1] John also portrays Jesus Christ as the Creator of the universe, such that "without him nothing was made that has been made."[John 1:3]

Basically, nothing would be made with out the "Word/Memra" of God the Father. God creates and sustains all things by his Word. This Word antedates Creation, thus IS uncreated AS God the Father...and this Word is eternally WITH God the Father."

Everything is made/created by the "Word" but "everyhting" is not God. So why should Jesus Chrsit(pbuh) be any different?

This is very important to understanding. The human nature of Jesus (both incorporeal and corporeal aspects) is FULLY CREATED...just like any other human. So, the human soul and body that Jesus had were of the created order. At the same time the "Word/Memra" of God that incarnated into the human soul and body is FULLY UNCREATED. The only thing that makes Jesus in any sense "fully God" is the fact of the Uncreated "Word/Memra" of God the Father takes on the created human nature, becoming a single human being. This is why Christian theology says that Jesus has TWO NATURES, human and divine. Please remember the "atom" analogy and it's two natures (wave and particle). I really think that helps understanding!

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

Siam:
WHY? YO....why an incarnation in the first place?

Eastern Christianity believes that the incarnation was primarily due to God's loving desire to 1) reveal Himself to humans in human terms and 2) be in complete identification with his beloved Creation. If you notice, one of the main things Christians say about the Incarnation is that, because of it, we KNOW that God has "walked a mile in our moccasins". We have an God that KNOWS the perils of human flesh and emotion...because he has freely chosen to IDENTIFY with our human struggle.

[YieldedOne]

Woodrow:
This thread has grown considerably in the past 30 hours or so. To keep myself from getting completly lost. For the moment I am simply going back to this post, that I had promised to reply to.

Take your time. I believe that your input is worth the wait. Patience is a virtue...when you're not manic at the moment. HA! ;D

Whole thread at a glance...for you, Woodrow!

[YieldedOne]

Just reposting my questions.

For ease of reference, when I say "my depiction of the hypostatic union", I am specifically talking about the following:

Jesus of Nazerath, born of Mary by the power of the "Breath" of God, is a single person having two natures (uncreated "speech", "Word/Memra*" of God /created, human soul and body) in his singularity of existence JUST LIKE a single atom has two natures (wave, non-locality / particle, locality) in it's singularity of existence.

So....

1) Is my depiction of the hypostatic union in Jesus contrary to logic? If so, please explain how.

2) Is my depiction of the hypostatic union in Jesus incomprehensible to reason? If so, please show where and how.

3) Is my depiction of the hypostatic union in Jesus antithetical to fundmental beliefs in Islamic metaphysics? If so, please show where and how.

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

* The Memra as a cosmic power furnished Philo the corner-stone upon which he built his peculiar semi-Jewish philosophy. Philo's "divine thought," "the image" and "first-born son" of God, "the archpriest," "intercessor," and "paraclete" of humanity, the "arch type of man" (see Philo), paved the way for the Christian conceptions of the Incarnation ("the Word become flesh") and the Trinity.

[YieldedOne]

Forgot this. Wiki on Jesus in Islam...

Qur'anic verses also employ the term "kalimat allah" (meaning the "word of God") as a descriptor of Jesus, which is interpreted as a reference to the creating word of God, uttered at the moment of Jesus' conception.

1) That "creating word of God" idea is a DEAD RINGER for the Jewish "Memra" idea. Just look at it.

2) Hmmm...Kalimat of Allah. I love that as a descriptor of Jesus. All I'm saying is that Jesus is actually the human incarnation of that "creating word of God" which is in analogical "particle" form as a human being, not merely a divinely-spoken-into-existence human being in the womb of Mary by that "creating word of God" (though obviously he is THAT as well. :) )

[Sol Invictus]

^you know sol, the fact you have to resort to silly analogies and write pages after pages to explain your basic doctrine says a lot - really.

greetings islamiclife. what is more telling is the fact that you do nothing to back up your argument. you have here a venue to prove your opinions yet in your post you fail to do so and resort to mere insults, i don't know about you but that certainly doesn't make your position look at all reasonable or even probable. i'm not interested in exchanging insults and as such if this is all you want to bring to the discussion then it's best that we end here. if however you have something constructive that you failed to bring with your initial post then you are more than welcome to post it here. moreover, i would like it if you could begin to pick apart my argument instead of making claims that you have been wholly unable to prove.

i'll be waiting.

[Chavundur]

this is not the case, it cannot be used as an attack on the coherence of the trinity. as such we must once again affirm the existence of three in one entities in the universe and admit that not only is such a conception logically sound, it is even factually true.

Three decision maker, three individually free entity having separate personality in one body is a huge weakness. Three of them can not be free and dominating at the same time. They can not be three and one at the same time due to characteristics of sovereignty and dignity, one of them should be organizer and ruler, two of them should be obedient or even not be near strong one with the claim of ruler ship independently . All meanings in the universe, all balance can not be based on such a weakness. You can not witness even a life form having three separate decision making process. If one of them leading one, he is the ruler, otherwise you can not divide the authority into pieces. It is illogical in this life and hereafter. They can not be independent and dependant at the same time in such a condition. Complexity of universe and life does not bear such a supposition. If you manage infinite variables connected each other in limitless variations, You have to be rule over all of them yourself only. As we witness in every details of our life, Sovereignty, domination necessitates to be one. You can not put three into one in these circumstances.

After all , You will say again one but three. And Of course You make one of them father. You know and I know that one of them should be dominating one and others are obedient ones. Oh Allah forbid us. You are away from such a big slander as you said in Qur'an. There is only one Creator with one personality.

[Sol Invictus]

hello chavunder. your point only works if it were the case that the members of the trinity had conflicting wills such that one would have to bend to the will of the other. yet the members of the trinity share only one will and they each indwell the other such that they are interrelated and each exists within the other. the will of the father is the will of the son, the will of the son is the will of the holy spirit and the will of the holy spirit is the will of the other two members. given that there is only one divine will shared by the three persons, your objection proves untenable.

now, your post seemed to border on the concept of oneness and whether the trinity is an example of oneness and as such i will redirect you back to my post #15 and #56. your point cannot work if you are unable to refute these. i am perfectly willing to continue this discussion but we can't be talking past each other. while i, in the posts within this thread, have touched on largely everything which you and the other muslim members have brought up as it concerns oneness etc. you have consistently ignored my argument. if we are going to continue this discussion then you should begin taking me to task on the matter of my argument.

[MSalman]

@Sol

seriously, do you even listen to yourself. It's so sad that I've to write this response

greetings islamiclife. what is more telling is the fact that you do nothing to back up your argument.

what argument? I never argued about anything. There is a difference between a statement and an argument: Logic 101.

you have here a venue to prove your opinions yet in your post you fail to do so

o no I'm busted...honestly did it look to you that I was even trying to prove anything.

and resort to mere insults,

this is outrageous - when did I insult you? Instead of answering my post you come up with this absurd attack!!

i don't know about you but that certainly doesn't make your position look at all reasonable or even probable.

my what position?

i'm not interested in exchanging insults

ok maybe not insults per say but you're definitely good at accusations and straw man attacks.

moreover, i would like it if you could begin to pick apart my argument instead of making claims that you have been wholly unable to prove.

again, a statement is not a claim and maybe you should learn to be more patient and give other people some benefit of doubt before bringing out your accusations bazooka. As far taking apart your arguments, what will happen if I do that? And who will judge that your arguments have been taken apart?

[Sol Invictus]

greetings islamiclife, you seem not to want to leave aside the belligerent tone but for the sake of giving the islamic position every opportunity possible to prove the incoherence of the trinity, i'll warrant replying to you once more.

what argument? I never argued about anything. There is a difference between a statement and an argument: Logic 101.

the argument here is that my analogy is silly and thus untrue. you simply make this claim without having proven it.

o no I'm busted...honestly did it look to you that I was even trying to prove anything.

well given that you have no point you wished to prove with your post then we are both agreed in that your post is vacuous and doesn't add anything to the discussion.

Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
i don't know about you but that certainly doesn't make your position look at all reasonable or even probable.

my what position?

the position that my argument is silly and therefore does not prove anything. if you are going to deny that you even hold any position then this entire discussion has become ridiculous because one cannot debate with an individual who quite clearly claims that they held to no position at all. as such, i'm sorry, i was unaware that you had neither a point nor even a position but thank you for clarifying.

again, a statement is not a claim and maybe you should learn to be more patient and give other people some benefit of doubt before bringing out your accusations bazooka. As far taking apart your arguments, what will happen if I do that? And who will judge that your arguments have been taken apart?

a statement is indeed a claim. the very fact that we have to go over such a simple matter is disheartening.

now, it would seem that you are still avoiding actually engaging my argument which only lends credence to the point i have been making throughout this thread: that the trinity cannot be attacked in terms of logic. the overall majority of people who have tried to engage my argument have simply stated things which bordered on insults yet took care not to actually pick apart my points for the very fact that they couldn't. while you may wish to claim that you find no reason to do so, it doesn't change the fact that you have failed to counter my points within your post and even after being asked to prove your point you did not manage to do so (though this is perfectly in keeping with your confession of having no point nor position in the first place).

anyway, the above was certainly ridiculous and i'd much rather we not do this again. if you do choose to respond, please engage my argument for every post you make that steers clear from picking apart my argument only goes to maintain the correctness of the view that the trinity cannot be attacked on the grounds of logic (as has been clearly evident within this thread so far).

i'll be waiting.

[siam]

Siam:
I'm afraid things may not be as simple historically, as they seem now.....Its my understanding that the Chrisitian creeds were developed in opposition to other equally valid creeds---it just so happens that the creeds that won politcally (not scripturally) are the ones dominant now.......
So the "Mother of God"--"theotokos" was developed because there was an opposing concept---that of "christotokos"---"Mother of Christ"

I have to disagree with you there, bro. This particular issue was not a political issue; it was STRICTLY theological. Check it out...

----I agree that the debate itself was theological---the party that became mainstream was for politcal reasons rather than doctrinal superiority....

Since mainstream Christians understand Jesus Christ as both fully God and fully human, they call Mary Theotokos to affirm the fullness of God's incarnation. The Council of Ephesus decreed, in opposition to those who denied Mary the title Theotokos ("the one who gives birth to God") but called her Christotokos ("the one who gives birth to Christ"), that Mary is Theotokos because her son Jesus is one person who is both God and man, divine and human. (Some Protestants still insist that Mary cannot be truly Theotokos, but only Christotokos.) Cyril of Alexandria wrote, "I am amazed that there are some who are entirely in doubt as to whether the holy Virgin should be called Theotokos or not. For if our Lord Jesus Christ is God, how is the holy Virgin who gave [Him] birth, not [Theotokos]?" (Epistle 1, to the monks of Egypt; PG 77:13B). Thus the significance of Theotokos lies more in what it says about Jesus than any declaration about Mary.

---I agree here also, however, such nuance escapes the average worshipper---particular those average worshippers of the time who were practically illiterate......

Canons 1-5 of the Council of Ephesus speak against Nestorius's belief...

Shortly after his arrival in Constantinople, Nestorius became involved in the disputes of two theological factions, which differed in their Christology. Nestorius tried to find a middle ground between those that emphasized the fact that in Christ God had been born as a man, insisted on calling the Virgin Mary Theotokos (Greek: Θεοτόκος, "God-bearer"), and those that rejected that title because God as an eternal being could not have been born. Nestorius suggested the title Christotokos (Χριστοτόκος, "Christ-bearer"), but did not find acceptance on either side.

Please note that last part. Nestorius' view had NEVER been fully accepted as viable by EITHER SIDE of the debate. So, the rejection of his doctrine was not politically motivated at all. It was simply THEOLOGICALLY wrong...to all concerned.

Just for clarity.

----That may be so....as I am myself unfamilair with the nuance of these things----but as far as my understanding, Historically---up until the 7th century--the present understanding of the Trinity was not mainstream in that there were competing understanding of the nature of Christ....and much of the creeds (including nicea) were formulated in opposition to these other understandings of the scripture/doctrine.

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

Siam:
There are Catholics that end up worshiping the "Mother of God" and if you see the language of the CCC---you will see why----refer to CCC484-511 and CCC963-975

Lemme just say this: The Roman Catholic church, by their doctrines, practically made the VENERATION of Mary (allowable) into virtual WORSHIP of Mary (non-allowable). This has NEVER been a problem with any of the Eastern churches, if you note. Even so, it is still NOT the case that official Roman Catholic theology says that 1) Mary is a member of the Trinity or 2) Mary is the mother of God in some eternal sense. That's what matters.

---I agree
********************************************

Siam:
I think you need to refine your ideas further YO....

"The Gospel of John has been seen as aimed at emphasizing Jesus' divinity, presenting Jesus as the Logos, pre-existent and divine, from its first words, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God".[John 1:1] John also portrays Jesus Christ as the Creator of the universe, such that "without him nothing was made that has been made."[John 1:3]

Basically, nothing would be made with out the "Word/Memra" of God the Father. God creates and sustains all things by his Word. This Word antedates Creation, thus IS uncreated AS God the Father...and this Word is eternally WITH God the Father."

Everything is made/created by the "Word" but "everyhting" is not God. So why should Jesus Chrsit(pbuh) be any different?

This is very important to understanding. The human nature of Jesus (both incorporeal and corporeal aspects) is FULLY CREATED...just like any other human. So, the human soul and body that Jesus had were of the created order. At the same time the "Word/Memra" of God that incarnated into the human soul and body is FULLY UNCREATED. The only thing that makes Jesus in any sense "fully God" is the fact of the Uncreated "Word/Memra" of God the Father takes on the created human nature, becoming a single human being. This is why Christian theology says that Jesus has TWO NATURES, human and divine. Please remember the "atom" analogy and it's two natures (wave and particle). I really think that helps understanding!
----I will address this issue in a minute
*******************************************

Siam:
WHY? YO....why an incarnation in the first place?

Eastern Christianity believes that the incarnation was primarily due to God's loving desire to 1) reveal Himself to humans in human terms and 2) be in complete identification with his beloved Creation. If you notice, one of the main things Christians say about the Incarnation is that, because of it, we KNOW that God has "walked a mile in our moccasins". We have an God that KNOWS the perils of human flesh and emotion...because he has freely chosen to IDENTIFY with our human struggle.

----unreasonable, illogical and completely misunderstands the nature of God (.....and God's love/compassion and mercy.)

[YieldedOne]

I'll wait on the other thing, Siam...but you said this...

YO:Eastern Christianity believes that the incarnation was primarily due to God's loving desire to 1) reveal Himself to humans in human terms and 2) be in complete identification with his beloved Creation. If you notice, one of the main things Christians say about the Incarnation is that, because of it, we KNOW that God has "walked a mile in our moccasins". We have an God that KNOWS the perils of human flesh and emotion...because he has freely chosen to IDENTIFY with our human struggle.

Siam:----unreasonable, illogical and completely misunderstands the nature of God (.....and God's love/compassion and mercy.)

Ok. I'd like you to clearly articulate WHY this belief is 1) unreasonable, 2) illogical, and 3) misunderstands divine nature. No mere assertions, please. SHOW me what doesn't work about it. You know that I will listen to REASON...so let's reason together, shall we? Thanks! :statisfie

[Sol Invictus]

You know that I will listen to REASON...so let's reason together, shall we? Thanks!

"Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD. --- Isaiah 1:18 NIV

kinda off-topic but you just reminded me of that passage, yielded.

[siam]

Siam:

Everything is made/created by the "Word" but "everyhting" is not God. So why should Jesus Chrsit(pbuh) be any different?

This is very important to understanding. The human nature of Jesus (both incorporeal and corporeal aspects) is FULLY CREATED...just like any other human. So, the human soul and body that Jesus had were of the created order. At the same time the "Word/Memra" of God that incarnated into the human soul and body is FULLY UNCREATED. The only thing that makes Jesus in any sense "fully God" is the fact of the Uncreated "Word/Memra" of God the Father takes on the created human nature, becoming a single human being. This is why Christian theology says that Jesus has TWO NATURES, human and divine. Please remember the "atom" analogy and it's two natures (wave and particle). I really think that helps understanding!

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

Siam:
WHY? YO....why an incarnation in the first place?

Eastern Christianity believes that the incarnation was primarily due to God's loving desire to 1) reveal Himself to humans in human terms and 2) be in complete identification with his beloved Creation. If you notice, one of the main things Christians say about the Incarnation is that, because of it, we KNOW that God has "walked a mile in our moccasins". We have an God that KNOWS the perils of human flesh and emotion...because he has freely chosen to IDENTIFY with our human struggle.

The Shema requires Jews to Worship the ONE God alone. Therefore, they reject the concept of the trinity as against the Shema. Muslims agree with this rejection----and here is why.......

God is ONE and there is none co-equal or like him (disregard gender). God is ONE and is thereofore not divisible. ALL worship must be to God alone---none can share in it. Therefore, irrespective of the "created/uncreated" aspect ---Worship is to God alone.

Thus, irrespective of "created/uncreated" aspect of the Quran, Muslims do not equate the Quran with God, we do not worship the Quran as God, or as "co-equal" or semi-divine to God. Nor as God incarnate or any other form/shape of God. Worship is dedicated to the ONE God alone.

Now let us assume for the moment that there is an aspect of Jesus Christ(pbuh) that is "uncreated". If Christians were to adhere to the Shema---such an aspect would be a mere technicality as in practice ALL worship would be due to the ONE God alone---not to an "incarnation". Therefore---the "trinity" would serve no practical purpose....other than explaining a technicality of theology.

HOWEVER---this is not the case with todays trinitarianism, in that, it (3-in-one) is the foremost construct that determines trinitarian Christianity (....right?) If so, it is a doctrine constructed in OPPOSITION to the Shema and serves to break it.

"Incarnation"---is a totally useless notion if God is Omnipotent, Omnicient....... It is also polytheistic. Any created form worshipped as Divine breaks monotheism---it does not matter if this is limited to one incarnation, 3 incarnations or a hundred incarnations.....the minute any construct/concept is worshipped other than the ONE God, it is polytheism. Thus---if one were to say "God is Love"---and the concept/emotion of "Love" were to be worshipped as God----it is polytheism.
The idea that an Omnicient, Omnipotent God "needs" to incarnate in order to understand his creation is a ridiculous notion. God intimately knows and loves his creation without any "need" for an incarnation---whether that creation is a planet, a human, or an animal. God is here---right now---with his creation. He is eternally present.

[Sol Invictus]

God is ONE and there is none co-equal or like him (disregard gender).

greetings siam. i know that the discussion is mostly between you and yielded siam, but i would like to mention that your entire point is predicated on understanding the phrase "god is one" as in "god is unitarian" yet until you prove this point your entire argument fails to have any force behind it. you will note that my posts #15 and #56 conclusively showed that oneness need not refer to merely unitarianism and until you can deny my argument your post will have failed to make it's point. no one is arguing about whether god is one or not, rather we are discussing whether god is unitarian. if however you believe that the trinity is not an example of oneness then you would first have to show how oneness only exists as a unitarian concept (which would mean having to refute my posts #15 and #56) and until you can do so, the above has done nothing in proving your point.

[siam]

@ Sol
Yes, the conversation with YO is based on some previous dialogue we have had together.......I apologise if I have not addressed your points....I have not really gone through the thread....just sort of jumped in as I find YO's comments generally fascinating.....:D

[Sol Invictus]

@ Sol
Yes, the conversation with YO is based on some previous dialogue we have had together.......I apologise if I have not addressed your points....I have not really gone through the thread....just sort of jumped in as I find YO's comments generally fascinating.....:D

greetings siam, actually no need to really address my points right at the moment. i certainly know how distracting it can sometimes be to have to answer every objection when you're carrying on a particular discussion with a particular member. either way, i'm sure that yielded will touch on the matter himself in the course of your discussion so on that note, what i have written might end up being irrelevant.

[siam]

Just some thoughts...........

There are levels of spirituality. "Islam" can be understood to mean willing submission to God (and thereby achieving peace) and this would come in the form of doing God's will, one way is to follow his "law". (the other level is called Iman) The highest level of spirituality is called Ihsan.....

"Ihsaan means to worship and behave as if we can see Allah. For even though we cannot see Him, He surely sees us.
This high level of perfection is called Ihsaan, and a person who reaches it is called a Muhsin. There are two types of Ihsaan. Both of them are commendable, but one is slightly better than the other.
The levels of Ihsaan are:

• Worshipping Allah as if we can see Him
• Being aware that Allah sees all of our deeds and acting accordingly."

When we can acknowledge the "Presense of God" at this level, we can become conscious that God is "the only reality"---that nothing is independent of God. Our very existence/being is owed to God. His presence,wisdom, will, permeates all of his creation. All of creation is always enfolded in his just compassion and mercy.

[Sol Invictus]

while i don't know what the above particularly has to do with the topic i must say that as a christian, i completely agree with all of the above and in the midst of such discussion where we variously try to disprove the position of our opponents, it is quite nice to dwell on something which unites us all.

[YieldedOne]

A thought...before I formally respond to the "worship to God alone" thing...

You know how Iblis didn't bow before Adam, right? Well...what if Satan didn't bow before Adam...because he truly believed that "worship is to God alone."? (This isn't my concept. It's Mansur Al-Hallaj's. )

Basically, Al-Hallaj said that Satan's hardcore belief in the utter uniqueness of God's worship was so intense...that he DISOBEYED God when God Himself INSTRUCTED all the angels to bow to Adam. Instead of loving God and obeying God's order to bow to Adam from that love, Satan basically said God was wrong for making the angels bow to Adam in the first place. He felt like he knew how things should work concerning God's uniqueness better than God Himself...and therein was his pride. Satan was the TRUE "supplicator" to God in his own mind by NOT bowing...valuing God's UNIQUENESS over all other considerations...even God's own order. Satan got mad that God had cast him aside for this.

His best known written work is the Kitab al Tawasin, Arabic (كتاب الطواسين), which includes two brief chapters devoted to a dialogue of Satan (Iblis) and God, where Satan refuses to bow to Adam, although God asks him to do so. His refusal is due to a misconceived idea of God's uniqueness and because of his refusal to abandon himself to God in love. Hallaj criticizes the staleness of his adoration (Mason, 51-3).

In other words, let's say that this were a NEW "Adam" situation where God the Father tells people to "bow" to the New Adam, Jesus the Messiah. In other words, if God HIMSELF exalts Jesus the Messiah to have "every knee" bow to him, would God be wrong for doing that?

What about that?

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

“And remember when we said to the angels: ‘Prostrate before Adam’ and they all prostrated except for Satan. He refused and was haughty and was one of the unbelievers.” [Sûrah al-Baqarah: 34]

...

He said: ‘Because You have thrown me out of the way, I will lie in wait for them on Your straight way. Then will I assault them from before them and behind them, from their right and their left. You will find most of them to be ungrateful.’” [Sûrah al-A`râf: 16-17]

...

So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Phillipians 2:1-11