/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Can God Become A Man??



hur575
03-15-2013, 10:59 AM
This clip is from long a lecture but those 3 minutes are amazing from brother Abdur rheem Green.

Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Logikon
03-18-2013, 02:40 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by hur575

Can god become a man?

God has no limits on his power so he can.

.
Reply

Abu Loren
03-18-2013, 06:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Logikon
God has no limits on his power so he can.

.
It's true that God has no limits on his power, however ask yourself why would a Holy God become one of His creation? Why would He stoop so low?
Reply

جوري
03-18-2013, 07:29 PM
God has no limit to his power so lowely minds want to bring him down to the lowest common denominator and stand as rivals!
Reply

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

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
piXie
03-18-2013, 07:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Logikon
God has no limits on his power so he can.
Don't be silly.
Reply

Iceee
03-18-2013, 07:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by piXie
Don't be silly.
Salaam.

Please give him an answer as to why God cannot become a human being whether in the form of a male or female.
Comment is useless at the moment, need something to back it up.
Reply

Student1996
03-18-2013, 08:02 PM
God can do anything.
Reply

Scimitar
03-18-2013, 08:55 PM
it would be sheer hypocrisy for God to become a man and then worship himself in the third person... a la the Christian belief of Jesus pbuh.

God is not a deciever, nor is it meet for HIM to become a part of HIS creation, when He is far above it, the self sufficient and most merciful creator whose magnificence is far above the subjugated reality of a human being.

THINK PEOPLE - namely, Logicon, change your name to Logican't

Scimi
Reply

M.I.A.
03-18-2013, 09:05 PM
from an islamic perspective, god is free of all wants and needs. he has no need to become a man.

his will is done through all men, if they like it or not.

and if you dont, then maybe its time to change.


if its with regards to the christian belief system, then a man can certainly become the best representative of god amongst men.

..."a god amongst men" is a cliched term and not an accurate representation but i guess thats how use of language changes.


i mean just look at any priest or imam.

the obligation the expectation the responsibility they are required to have.


and ask them that same question OP.

you dont pray to them, you pray with them.


you expect them to give you the insight to make the best decisions in your life.

and the more you follow the more at the mercy of your decisions they are.


hope that makes some sense.
Reply

Iceee
03-18-2013, 11:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Scimitar
it would be sheer hypocrisy for God to become a man and then worship himself in the third person... a la the Christian belief of Jesus pbuh.
I thought Jesus (peace be upon him) was the Son of God. So he wasn't actually worshiping himself, but worshiping God. Christians pray to the father, but use Jesus' (peace be upon him) name.

In the main, Christians pray to the Father, in the name of the Son (Jesus). And they know the Holy Spirit is the one who lifts those prayers up, and Jesus also interceeds for them - Romans 8:26-27 "But the Spirit himself interceds for us with groans that words cannot express. And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God's will." Compare that to Hebrews 7:25, where Jesus intercedes for the saints!

Now, the point is, all prayer to God involves all three Persons of the Godhead - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Jesus gave Christians permission to pray directly to him as well. That's in John 14:14, just before Jesus died. He said, "I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it. See also John 15:16 & 16:23.

When Stephen was being stoned to death, a bit later, he had a vision of Jesus standing besides God in heaven, and then Stephen prayed to Jesus, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit" (Acts 7:54-60)

Because the one Being of God subsists in the three persons of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, all three are bound together in matters of prayer. Most times Christians pray to the Father, in Jesus' name, but there are occasions when the matter for prayer is most appropriately addressed to Jesus, and sometimes it is the blessed Holy Spirit who we cry out to. But at all times we are praying to this one Being who, alone is God.

Reply

Scimitar
03-18-2013, 11:11 PM
Ask 10 Chirstians who God is, wait for their answers: most will say Jesus.

I know, I'm on Christian forums so... I get this response all the time :)

Scimi
Reply

Indian Bro
03-19-2013, 05:43 AM
It is wrong to say that God can do ALL things or God can do ANYTHING.

The right thing to say is God has power over ALL things.

If you say God can do ALL things or God can do anything, then ask yourself, can God tell a lie? Can God deceive? Can God be unjust? Can God commit a sin? Can God create another God? Can God take the form of His creation? The answer to these questions is a plain and simple "No".

That's why when someone asks Christians the question "Can God create a rock that He cannot lift?" they get stunned.
Reply

Tyrion
03-19-2013, 06:32 AM

format_quote Originally Posted by Logikon
God has no limits on his power so he can.
The way I've heard it is similar to the video. God not being able to become a man is not a sign of weakness or a limit on his power, but rather it is a nonsensical statement. Man, almost by definition, is imperfect. God, by definition, is perfect. To say God turns into a man is like saying you have a square circle. It just doesn't make sense, and so is impossible. The same can be said, I think, about the once popular argument about God being able to make a rock so heavy he can't lift it. So I guess in that sense, you can say that there are 'limits' to God's power, but I don't see that as being much of an issue. I am curious as to how you, or maybe other Christians, rationalize this. I've never heard the same answer from two different Christians, so it's always interesting to hear.
Reply

Alpha Dude
03-19-2013, 07:43 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Logikon
God has no limits on his power so he can.

.
Did you even watch the video?

It's not even a question of limits on the power of God. It's a plain logical fallacy.
Reply

Al-Mufarridun
03-19-2013, 09:08 AM
:sl:

True, it is not a matter of power and capability, but one of wisdom and justice.

Allah :swt: in His Infinite wisdom will not do an act that in so doing - will make Him no longer Allah!
Reply

Indian Bro
03-19-2013, 12:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Tyrion
So I guess in that sense, you can say that there are 'limits' to God's power, but I don't see that as being much of an issue.
As-salamu alaykum brother,

There is no limit to Allah (swt)'s power, please be careful of what you say... What you said is kufr!

Please refer to this link http://islamqa.info/en/ref/39679 for more insight on the Islamic perspective towards the "heavy-rock" question.
Reply

Tyrion
03-19-2013, 05:34 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Indian Bro
There is no limit to Allah (swt)'s power, please be careful of what you say... What you said is kufr!
No it's not. I said the only limit is the inability to do the logically impossible, which isn't actually a limit but just common sense.
Reply

Pygoscelis
03-19-2013, 07:15 PM
Can God become a man is not the same question as would or did God become a man.
Reply

Berries'forest
03-19-2013, 11:28 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Can God become a man is not the same question as would or did God become a man
God *can* become man is He wants to. Infact God even have His "begotten" son if He wants to aswell. There is no objection to what ever God wills to do. The question is,however, is in terms of accpeting truth. God did not transform into man and descended down to earth. The problem centrally is that we can't attribute to God that which there is no evidence of. And in the terms of God really becoming a man the main question here is *why* would He need to in first place. God can become a man if He wants to but He didn't since it's not necessary and wouldn't because it is degrading of Him.
Reply

Berries'forest
03-19-2013, 11:32 PM
Same applies to Him having a son. In the Quran it explicity does not reject that God can not "have" a son it even goes as far as to say that and in the tongue of the prophet (pbuh) "If the All-Merciful did really have a son, then I am the first of worshippers" --of that son. But the fault here is that; God does not have ason to begin with. And so it would be not only blasmephy against Him to say He has a begotten son but also a lie.
Reply

IslamicRevival
03-20-2013, 01:33 AM
I don't understand the point of this thread. Why are we delving into matters that do not concern us? If something is beyond our understanding then surely its better to remain silent then tread into dangerous territory? Allah knows best
Reply

Ali_008
03-20-2013, 01:53 AM
:sl:




format_quote Originally Posted by Berries'forest
God *can* become man is He wants to. Infact God even have His "begotten" son if He wants to aswell. There is no objection to what ever God wills to do. The question is,however, is in terms of accpeting truth. God did not transform into man and descended down to earth. The problem centrally is that we can't attribute to God that which there is no evidence of. And in the terms of God really becoming a man the main question here is *why* would He need to in first place. God can become a man if He wants to but He didn't since it's not necessary and wouldn't because it is degrading of Him.

format_quote Originally Posted by Berries'forest
Same applies to Him having a son. In the Quran it explicity does not reject that God can not "have" a son it even goes as far as to say that and in the tongue of the prophet (pbuh) "If the All-Merciful did really have a son, then I am the first of worshippers" --of that son. But the fault here is that; God does not have ason to begin with. And so it would be not only blasmephy against Him to say He has a begotten son but also a lie.
Uhhhh...

He begetteth not, nor is He begotten
Surah # 112 - Surah Al 'Ikhlas - Verse 3
Reply

Logikon
03-20-2013, 02:09 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Berries'forest

God does not have a son to begin with.

And so it would be not only blasmephy against Him to say He has a begotten son but also a lie.
But you don't know that.

The Koran does not mention wildlife that is native to New Zealand for example and it exists none the less.
Reply

Berries'forest
03-20-2013, 04:51 AM
Um. You know maybe before you start dismissing someone and express your lack of patience you should actually read what's been written thoroughly before jumping to conclusions. I will cite God willing the verse ftom the Quran but later.
It would be much nicer if you stopped searching for what you may perceive as flaws and condescendingly point them out just to entertain yourself. I am no less a muslim than you are and just because I dont express my self in the writing style that you prefer it gives you no right
to give me a cold shoulder. Faith is a word of action it is a ver not a noun.
Reply

Berries'forest
03-20-2013, 05:17 AM
Just for clarification before anyone starts a dispute. He said can is not the same would or did. If you are a muslim you would inherently believe that God is cabale of all things. Can is a term of defining ability. When you negate that God can't become man, it follows quickly enough the same premise of God creating a rock so heavy that He cant lift it himself. With that being denote it only implies that God has limits in what He is capable of doing hence God the indefinitively unlimited and omnipotent Creator is on the contradictive and here you actually not only confuse people but also defy the original doctrine of God having no limits to His capabilities so when it is a question of can then certainly God can do anything He wants to. Otherwise a negative would detail and attribute limits to an unlimitedly capable being. Does that make sensed. Are we good?. Good, now let's move on to the point marking subject of Him willing to or having done a thing as mentioned above. My answer was a resounding no. It was meant to convey that just because God can do something does not necessarily mean He would do it. Nor does it mean that He actually needs to. Just as you wouldnt do something just because you can without providing your given or ungiven reasons for it. And in the case where He did do it. Then we wouldnt have been rejecting it because Islam revolves around accepting the truth and not around the way we emotionally more even rationally believe what God should and should not do. If this didnt clarify my above posts then I really dont know what more I could say.
Reply

Ali_008
03-20-2013, 09:12 AM
^^^ Muslims do not believe that God can do anything and everything. If Allah could do anything and everything then He could even lie, He could even do injustice, but all those are ungodly traits, and thus we don't believe that Allah can do anything and everything. Allah's can only do that which is godly as He has Himself mentioned in the Qur'an that He is truthful, just, strict in punishment, forgiving, and other attributes.

It is this belief that separates the Muslim belief from the Christian belief. Christians proclaim that God loves everybody regardless whether that person is a devout saint or a ruthless tyrant whereas the Muslim belief states that Allah loves those who do righteous deeds, and hates those who transgress his limits. It automatically implies the just nature of Allah which is lacking in the Christian God.

Just watch the video which I posted above. :)
Reply

Berries'forest
03-20-2013, 10:35 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ali_008
Muslims do not believe that God can do anything and everything. If Allah could do anything and everything then He could even lie, He could even do injustice, but all those are ungodly traits, and thus we don't believe that Allah can do anything and everything.
Yeah okay, I guess then we really do have some kind of central disturbance when it comes to that. Assuming that I say things out of my head and I don't have an understanding of the Qura'n I'm interested in knowing how you interpret this verse:
"Blessed is He in Whose hand is the Sovereignty, and, He is Able to do all things"- Surah Al-mulk;verse:1-Pickthal.

God *will* not lie. There is a fine distinct line between what God can and will not do. He will not lie because it is degrading of Him to do so. Infact this kind of anology is out of the queston and irrelevent.


format_quote Originally Posted by Ali_008
He could even lie, He could even do injustice, but all those are ungodly traits, and thus we don't believe that Allah can do anything and everything. Allah's can only do that which is godly as He has Himself mentioned in the Qur'an that He is truthful, just, strict in punishment, forgiving, and other attributes.
Again can does not determine whether he *would* do it. As I said the possibility of God doing something like the this you mention above is impossible not because He can't do it -in terms of ability- but because it is opposing to His nature and there is no reason for Him to do it in first place, that is not to forget that it is degrading of His high status.


format_quote Originally Posted by Ali_008
It is this belief that separates the Muslim belief from the Christian belief. Christians proclaim that God loves everybody regardless whether that person is a devout saint or a ruthless tyrant whereas the Muslim belief states that Allah loves those who do righteous deeds, and hates those who transgress his limits. It automatically implies the just nature of Allah which is lacking in the Christian God.
I'm not sure if this directly relates to the topic but you have a point. However; and although what really essentially sepreates Muslim from Christian belief is the monotheistic creed. The whole concept of having a subect being x if it does not fit into that x category then it is automatically y. If God loves everyone then that must also include tyrants and oppressers as well; God loves those who do righteous deeds and is forgiving to those whom lack behind. The 99 names of Allah contained a balanced duality in the God's attirbutes. There is always a balance which makes Him a perfect entity.
Reply

Berries'forest
03-20-2013, 10:59 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Berries'forest
If God loves everyone then that must also include tyrants and oppressers as well;
I realized I made a typo mistake here.

If God loves everyone then that must also include tyrants and oppressers as well; He either love everyone or love no one at all. Both are wrong premises. And this is what happens with questions like these they end up in one way or another becoming a loaded question in which both alternate options are different sides of the same token. Perhaps we should also know that God's justice is mercy and His mercy is justice.
Reply

Indian Bro
03-20-2013, 11:12 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Tyrion

No it's not. I said the only limit is the inability to do the logically impossible, which isn't actually a limit but just common sense.
I understand your intentions but you must also understand there is a difference between saying:

1.) Allah (swt) has infinite power even if he cannot do everything.
2.) Allah (swt)'s power is limited because he cannot do everything.

Just because Allah (swt) cannot do some things (like lying or becoming human, etc) doesn't show a sign of weakness from Allah (swt) and neither does it "limit" His power. His power has no limit or boundary. If Allah (swt) could do everything then it would contradict with Him having unlimited power or being All-Powerful, e.g. if Allah (swt) can become a creation (e.g. human) then His powers become limited because the power of a creation (e.g. human) is limited whereas the power of Allah (swt) is unlimited, no limit whatsoever!

Just because Allah (swt) cannot do everything this does not indicate a weakness in Him or limit His power (astaghfurallah!). He has power over all things and cannot do things that will no longer make Him a God, which is why I posted earlier, God can not do everything (things befitting of God, or un-Godly things). This is the greatness of God and shows why there is no limit to His power, subhanAllah!
Reply

MustafaMc
03-20-2013, 11:22 AM
My understanding is that Allah's (swt) existence is unlike our existence. Our existence is defined by the miniscule space occupied by our bodies and by the minute amount of time between our conception and our death. My understanding is that Allah (swt) is not bound by our space-time continuum. We do not perceive Allah (swt) as occupying one portion of space over here while not occupying another portion over there, but neither do we say that Allah (swt) exists everywhere and in everything at the same time (astaghfir Allah). The same can be said for any point in time from before the moment of creation until after its destruction.

Allah's (swt) existence is the only true reality which brings us to the question of what does it mean to be a man? What is the nature of our existence? We have a physical body that contains a few trillion cells each with 46 chromosomes that are all the same but are unique to each individual (except identical twins), but am I really that Caucasian male body? We go through stages of development and decline, but are we defined by any single moment between our birth and death? Do we cease to exist with our death? I have a certain ability to think and understand through the activity of my brain, but does that define who I am along the lines of, "I think, therefore I am"? When my brain ceases to function, do I then cease to exist? I have a certain will to act and to move my body a certain way or think about the solution to some problem. Is that capability or will to act and think define who I am, or is it the choices I make along the way? I have certain beliefs about the unseen, but are those beliefs what defines who I am? I could go on and on with asking the question of "Who am I?" with no clear answer other than an accumulation of choices, actions and intentions made be some essence (soul?) that exists within my body between my birth and death. If, in a sense, my existence is a mystery to me, then how much more so the existence of Allah who is beyond the limitation of occupying a human body (astaghfir Allah)? The opening question itself is a philosophical and religious absurdity, although perhaps it was made just to illustrate that very point!
Reply

Indian Bro
03-20-2013, 11:33 AM
The statement "God can do everything" is contradictory because God's power is not connected to irrationalities!

If God CAN lie (note: I didn't say "would", I said "can"), then He no longer becomes a god! Therefore there are some things that God cannot do. This doesn't show weakness in God. Just think about it, if you never lied all your life would someone approached you and said "You're weak because you never lied!", does that make any sense? Or what if you've told a lie and someone approached you and said "You're weak because you lied", then that makes sense! Lying is something befitting of God, just as becoming a creation is befitting of God or being injustice is befitting of God.
Reply

Berries'forest
03-20-2013, 11:47 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Indian Bro
If God CAN lie (note: I didn't say "would", I said "can"), then He no longer becomes a god! Therefore there are some things that God cannot do.
God cannot lie because He wont. Great point. God almighty is far above such a despicable trait as lying. When it comes to His 'ability' to lie it is not a limit but rather it is a higher standard He set for himself. Otherwise two things cannot be alike and different at the same time. Major duality crisis here generates and also it's contardictive. Perhaps the real question should not be "Can God become man?" it should be retarced back to it's original form of " Why would a limitless entity choose to restrict His infinitive limit and thus contradict His own or even cease His own existance". Man is mortal and limited. God is immortal and unlimited. One can not be God and man at the same time; it's not only contradictive but highly impossible for it to happen one would have not been an inifinite being to begin with. It's really like drawing circles and then marking a point in the middle and then asking whether the circle can transform into a dot or vice versa. Nosensical yet also intrugining. It's really only black and white there's no gray in between. Man cannot become God; because simply he is man. And vice versa.
Reply

Eric H
03-20-2013, 12:45 PM
Greetings and peace be with you Vision;
I don't understand the point of this thread. Why are we delving into matters that do not concern us? If something is beyond our understanding then surely its better to remain silent then tread into dangerous territory? Allah knows best
Agreed, I think we should use scriptures to try and change ourselves, rather than to change others.

Blessings

Eric
Reply

Indian Bro
03-20-2013, 01:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Berries'forest
God cannot lie because He wont. Great point. God almighty is far above such a despicable trait as lying. When it comes to His 'ability' to lie it is not a limit but rather it is a higher standard He set for himself. Otherwise two things cannot be alike and different at the same time. Major duality crisis here generates and also it's contardictive. Perhaps the real question should not be "Can God become man?" it should be retarced back to it's original form of " Why would a limitless entity choose to restrict His infinitive limit and thus contradict His own or even cease His own existance". Man is mortal and limited. God is immortal and unlimited. One can not be God and man at the same time; it's not only contradictive but highly impossible for it to happen one would have not been an inifinite being to begin with. It's really like drawing circles and then marking a point in the middle and then asking whether the circle can transform into a dot or vice versa. Nosensical yet also intrugining. It's really only black and white there's no gray in between. Man cannot become God; because simply he is man. And vice versa.
I want to ask you something.

Do you think Allah (swt) can do something which will no longer make him a god? (AstaghfurAllah!)

I'm not asking you if Allah (swt) WOULD, because we both agree the answer for that is "no". I'm asking you if He COULD or CAN do?
Reply

Berries'forest
03-20-2013, 04:28 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Indian Bro
I want to ask you something.

Do you think Allah (swt) can do something which will no longer make him a god? (AstaghfurAllah!)

I'm not asking you if Allah (swt) WOULD, because we both agree the answer for that is "no". I'm asking you if He COULD or CAN do?
I dont ofcourse not. I wouldnt be a muslim if I did. HE is not God if He can become man. Because thry are completely different and distint entities. Allah "cannot" become man end of story because it is against His very being. I think this sums it up. I agree with Eric H sometimes we should not debate that much it deprives us feeling faith fully within our hearts. I ask you Lord forgiveness for my many tongue slips.
Reply

Indian Bro
03-20-2013, 05:15 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Berries'forest
I dont ofcourse not. I wouldnt be a muslim if I did. HE is not God if He can become man. Because thry are completely different and distint entities. Allah "cannot" become man end of story because it is against His very being. I think this sums it up. I agree with Eric H sometimes we should not debate that much it deprives us feeling faith fully within our hearts. I ask you Lord forgiveness for my many tongue slips.
We will never truly fully understand God, our mind isn't capable to comprehend His Greatness. We humans cannot even fully understand the creations of God such as the universe, galaxies even our own selves! However, if people, especially my brothers or sisters, share their views about Allah (swt) which, according to me are inaccurate, then I would most certainly address the issue.

I, along with you, ask Allah (swt) to forgive me as well as any other brothers or sisters from this thread, if we spoke anything wrong.
Reply

GuestFellow
03-20-2013, 11:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by hur575
This clip is from long a lecture but those 3 minutes are amazing from brother Abdur rheem Green.

:wa:

RAISE YOUR ARMPITS...for those who don't get it just watch the video.

On a serious note, this question reminds me of another question. XD An Atheist asked if God is so powerful can he transfer all of his powers to a rock? The person responded by saying yes God can transfer his powers to a rock. However, the question did not reflect reality. Why on Earth would God transfer his powers to a rock? Of course the atheist had no answer to that.
Reply

Amigo
03-21-2013, 08:00 AM
God can do anything which is good.
What God can not do is what is contrary to his nature that is God can not do evil.
Reply

Tyrion
03-21-2013, 08:06 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Amigo
God can do anything which is good.
What God can not do is what is contrary to his nature that is God can not do evil.
In this case though, it's not a matter of things being good or not. If God becomes man, he can no longer logically be God. This cannot make sense. Also, isn't it technically against God's nature to be man, since man is by nature imperfect?
Reply

Independent
03-21-2013, 09:43 AM
My question is from a philosophical not a theological point of view: is it really logically impossible for God to inhabit human form? Many of the answers here assume an impossibility on the grounds that God cannot become a man in his entirety - for instance:

format_quote Originally Posted by Tyrion
If God becomes man, he can no longer logically be God
But why can't it be just an 'aspect' of God that is embodied?

According to Christian doctrine God is omnipresent in both place and time. So even if God is said to inhabit a bush or a human form or anything else, that can never be the 'whole' of God. It wouldn't make sense to say that God is too powerful to come into our presence because he is supposed to be here already.

For us, we only have one consciousness that can focus on one thing at a time. But for God to exist, he has to be aware of what is going on in every person's head simultaneously - not just this second but throughout history and the future.

This is unimaginable for a human. (For instance, there is a rare mental condition which means that some people continue to experience their whole lives and memories as if they are always happening - and it drives them half insane. Imagine that multiplied many billions of times). The best way we can conceive of it is to imagine an infinite number of Gods looking at each circumstance individually, but of course this is just a convenience for our imagination and in no way represents what it must be like to be God.

Therefore, there is no more reason for it to be impossible for God's consciousness to inhabit a human form than anything else. Surely it is not the 'whole' of God's consciousness that inhabits the body, but just an aspect?
Reply

Indian Bro
03-21-2013, 01:46 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
My question is from a philosophical not a theological point of view: is it really logically impossible for God to inhabit human form? Many of the answers here assume an impossibility on the grounds that God cannot become a man in his entirety - for instance:


But why can't it be just an 'aspect' of God that is embodied?

According to Christian doctrine God is omnipresent in both place and time. So even if God is said to inhabit a bush or a human form or anything else, that can never be the 'whole' of God. It wouldn't make sense to say that God is too powerful to come into our presence because he is supposed to be here already.

For us, we only have one consciousness that can focus on one thing at a time. But for God to exist, he has to be aware of what is going on in every person's head simultaneously - not just this second but throughout history and the future.

This is unimaginable for a human. (For instance, there is a rare mental condition which means that some people continue to experience their whole lives and memories as if they are always happening - and it drives them half insane. Imagine that multiplied many billions of times). The best way we can conceive of it is to imagine an infinite number of Gods looking at each circumstance individually, but of course this is just a convenience for our imagination and in no way represents what it must be like to be God.

Therefore, there is no more reason for it to be impossible for God's consciousness to inhabit a human form than anything else. Surely it is not the 'whole' of God's consciousness that inhabits the body, but just an aspect?
Would you agree that if God takes the form of a creation, let's just say a human for the sake of argument, wouldn't that make God's power limited? God has unlimited, infinite power, but if He were to become a human he would need to go to the toilet, eat food, drink water, etc, and these things are not befitting of God. How can an all Powerful God go to the toilet, eat food, drink water. Why would He go from being All-Powerful to something with limited power, it makes no sense logically or rationally. God is, was and will always be free from any imperfections. God is All-Powerful, exalted is He above all creation and imperfections.
Reply

Independent
03-21-2013, 02:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Indian Bro
Would you agree that if God takes the form of a creation, let's just say a human for the sake of argument, wouldn't that make God's power limited?
No and for the same reason as above - because it wouldn't be the totality of God. He continues to be omnipresent in all other times and places so plainly he is not 'limited' to one body or any feature of that body. His consciousness must continue to inhabit all other spaces simultaneously.

There is no logical conflict of the 'infinite' being 'limited' here.

format_quote Originally Posted by Indian Bro
these things are not befitting of God. How can an all Powerful God go to the toilet, eat food, drink water.
This is a slightly separate theme going on this thread which i also don't understand. If such things are part of God's created Nature, in what way are they 'unbefitting'? This is all just part of life.

Once you have made the jump to believing in God, i don't find it an additional 'logical' leap to believe that an aspect of God could inhabit human form. It's a highly radical notion in the history of religious thought but that doesn't make it impossible.
Reply

muslimah bird
03-21-2013, 02:32 PM
God cant be mortal and immortal at the same time , hence cant become a man .God is eternal , Simple as that
Reply

جوري
03-21-2013, 02:46 PM
Sophistry truly is the game of the devil innit- Zionists perfected it, they made *****s and villains out of their prophets a loser out of God, homosexuality an art and bow down to satan who is just so misunderstood daily in the media they control.. so why not why not be lesions for the devil.


[][][383573664]
An-Nisa (The Women)[4:140]

[RECITE]
[top] [next match]

Waqad nazzala AAalaykum fee alkitabi an itha samiAAtum ayati Allahi yukfaru biha wayustahzao biha fala taqAAudoo maAAahum hatta yakhoodoo fee hadeethin ghayrihi innakum ithan mithluhum inna Allaha jamiAAu almunafiqeena waalkafireena fee jahannama jameeAAan
Reply

Independent
03-21-2013, 03:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by muslimah bird
God cant be mortal and immortal at the same time , hence cant become a man .God is eternal , Simple as that
Again, this matters if you regard the totality of God as being in the human form - but (as i understand it) this is not and cannot be the Christian position because God is omnipresent.
Reply

GuestFellow
03-21-2013, 07:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by شَادِنُ
Sophistry truly is the game of the devil innit- Zionists perfected it, they made *****s and villains out of their prophets a loser out of God, homosexuality an art and bow down to satan who is just so misunderstood daily in the media they control.. so why not why not be lesions for the devil.


[][][383573664]
An-Nisa (The Women)[4:140]

[RECITE]

Waqad nazzala AAalaykum fee alkitabi an itha samiAAtum ayati Allahi yukfaru biha wayustahzao biha fala taqAAudoo maAAahum hatta yakhoodoo fee hadeethin ghayrihi innakum ithan mithluhum inna Allaha jamiAAu almunafiqeena waalkafireena fee jahannama jameeAAan
LOL your posts can be so random. =) It's adorable. Ah anyway...

This topic is pointless. The question should be why would God become a man.
Reply

IAmZamzam
03-21-2013, 10:28 PM
Wow...I just click on any random thread now and see people talking about Zionists. It doesn't matter what the original topic was. You guys are obsessed.
Reply

Tyrion
03-21-2013, 10:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
But why can't it be just an 'aspect' of God that is embodied?
I suppose that could be one way of looking at it. However, I think you run into a major issue when you bring in the claim that Jesus was completely God and completely man (which, from my understanding, is a pretty fundamental/common belief). When you try to maintain that, it seems like you can't help but to run into a few contradictions along the way.
Reply

IAmZamzam
03-21-2013, 10:44 PM
I may have missed something here but I think you're overlooking the obvious: an omnipresent being would naturally be in a human consciousness and a human body, yes, along with the limited abilities that come with it. But He would also be in every other body, and in every insect's body, and every blade of grass, and every wave of the ocean, and every speck of space dust, and every cubic inch of empty space seventeen galaxies away. That one person is nothing special. There is no reason to single it out as housing one of three very particular "aspects". If omnipresence has an effect then it serves as an argument against a specialized kind of "aspect", as it puts everything in creation in the same boat.
Reply

Independent
03-21-2013, 11:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IAmZamzam
I may have missed something here but I think you're overlooking the obvious: an omnipresent being would naturally be in a human consciousness and a human body, yes, along with the limited abilities that come with it. But He would also be in every other body, and in every insect's body, and every blade of grass, and every wave of the ocean, and every speck of space dust, and every cubic inch of empty space seventeen galaxies away.
Actually I've been wondering about that too. I was brought up as a Christian but I'm no theologian. I now suspect I may have been wandering somewhat off-piste in my beliefs, as it were...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't omnipresence an Islamic belief too? I must admit I am really struggling to think this one through.

format_quote Originally Posted by Tyrion
Jesus was completely God and completely man
It wasn't my belief but as I say, I may not have been entirely on brief.
Reply

IAmZamzam
03-21-2013, 11:37 PM
One of the Ninety-Nine Names of Allah (http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/99names.htm) is "The All-Encompassing" or "The All-Embracing". I'm not sure if that amounts to the same or not, but I think that according to The Qur'an He is already both extremely distant from us and closer to us than our own jugular veins. That seems a great deal more appropriate to me than anything a Trinitarian could propose. Incarnation is superfluous.
Reply

hur575
03-21-2013, 11:43 PM


Well I thought brother Abdur Rheem made it simple and clear but still some Christians will go to any length to defend the impossible.^o) even after reading the replies from muslims subhan Allah, the question is not
Literal can he or can’t he?? The who concept of the question is to start a dialogue, well in Arabic the question is translated better, into why would God become a man?? But in English this the title advertised for the video but it discusses the whole concept longer than those 3 minutes.


Why there is a problem with this, we believe God is fair and just but you expect him to set unbelievable example for us and we are meant to just accept it with no proofs. Here in points

1. They claim God can do anything by been human who forgets, and does not know things, and in the same time he is God so should know everything, and does not forget things. This is impossible for us human to comprehend let alone believe so how are we going to accept something that does not make any sense, God is full human, and full divine, and our salvation depends on it!!

2. the concept of God coming to earth and living with his creatures, and understanding them, sound like a noble idea but by suggesting this you are claiming God does not know his creations, Dr Zakir answered that claim with an example, if someone invented a vcr, would they need to turn to vcr in order to work out how their creation work?? They normally know how it works, and even provide a manual for it but you are claiming God the all knowing need to do a test drive.

“Would He (God) not know (all about) what He (God) created? He (God) is the subtle and aware.” Quran 67:14 “ألا يعلم من خلق وهو اللطيف الخبير”

3. Why would God come down to earth, be in a woman womb for 9 months, breast fed, and circumcised in the 8th day, eat, drink, and what comes after food!!

4. They claim God came to forgive one sin, got crucified, spat on, humiliated, and there is not one single verse in the bible where Jesus say I am God worship me. Not one clear verse!

5. The bible writers are unknown.

6. how many books are the word of God??

Catholic believe in 73 book
Protestants in 66 books
The Ethiopian Church believes in 81 books


Which Bible is the word of God? 66, 73 or 81??

7. Jesus use to pray like the Muslims, who is he praying to?? God praying to himself??

“And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt” Mt.26.39



Jesus peace be upon him was mighty messenger, he says so in the bible


[And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.] john17:3


So Christians do what Jesus peace be upon him asked you to do



[Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. ]

John.5.39
Reply

hur575
03-22-2013, 12:16 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Vision
I don't understand the point of this thread. Why are we delving into matters that do not concern us? If something is beyond our understanding then surely its better to remain silent then tread into dangerous territory? Allah knows best
of course it concern us, are these claim not against Allah?? It is Gross Blasphemy

[19:88] They said, "The Most Gracious has begotten a son!" [19:89] You have uttered a gross blasphemy.
[19:90] The heavens are about to shatter, the earth is about to tear asunder, and the mountains are about to crumble.[19:91] Because they claim that the Most Gracious has begotten a son.[19:92] It is not befitting the Most Gracious that He should beget a son.[19:93] Every single one in the heavens and the earth is a servant of the Most Gracious.[19:94] He has encompassed them, and has counted them one by one.[19:95] All of them will come before Him on the Day of Resurrection as individuals.” Quran

Also it is our duty

Say, "O People of the Scripture, come to a word that is equitable between us and you - that we will not worship except Allah and not associate anything with Him and not take one another as lords instead of Allah." But if they turn away, then say, "Bear witness that we are Muslims [submitting to Him]." Quran 3:64
Reply

Muhammad
03-22-2013, 12:19 AM
:salamext:

format_quote Originally Posted by IAmZamzam
One of the Ninety-Nine Names of Allah (http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/99names.htm) is "The All-Encompassing" or "The All-Embracing". I'm not sure if that amounts to the same or not, but I think that according to The Qur'an He is already both extremely distant from us and closer to us than our own jugular veins. That seems a great deal more appropriate to me than anything a Trinitarian could propose. Incarnation is superfluous.
Allaah, the Most Glorious, is above His heavens, over His Throne, separate from His creation; Allah’s knowledge and power is everywhere and in every place. The Prophet (salAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) asked (the slave girl), “Where is Allaah?” She replied, “He is above the sky.” He (salAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) asked (her), “Who am I?” She said, “You are Allaah’s Messenger.” He (salAllaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said (to her master, “Free her, for she is a believer.” Reported by Muslim (1/537).

It was said to Abu ‘Abdullaah (Imaam Ahmad), “Allaah is above the seventh heaven, over His Throne, separate from His creation. His Power and Knowledge are in every place?” He said, “Yes, He is above the Throne and His Knowledge is in every place.” Reported by al-Khallaal in al-Mukhtasar and its isnaad is Saheeh.


With regards to the Islamic understanding of God, these two verses of the Qur'an are foundational and must always be borne in mind:

There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing. [42:11]

Nor is there to Him any equivalent. [112:4]


format_quote Originally Posted by hur575
Also it is our duty
It would be best to deal with one issue at a time and not turn it into an attack on Christianity. Da'wah must be done using wisdom :ia:.
Reply

ccc
03-22-2013, 01:01 AM
i would say that we are very far from discussing what the christian say and understands. There are many things that christians do not believe but they are pretended to be he faith of the Christians. If we would really want to attak the Christian beliefs we should see what Christian say and what Christian mean through their words. For instance, it is a basic fact that christians do believe that Jesus Christ was the Second person of the Trinity, who dwelt in the womb of Mary without being absent from the "place" of His eternal being. Jesus Christ is now fully God as he always was, of the same being as God the Father. He is also fully a human being, sharing our fallen human nature, but without incurring sin. His humanness and his Godness are united without change or mixture. One divine-human Christ, one Person, with two natures.
Also, rearding he Holly Trinity there is a basic distinction between nature or essence or being and person or manner of existence or hypostasis. These are the things that are the basis of the christian understanding.
"the names Father, Son and Spirit, and cause, less and caused, and unbegotten and begotten, and procession contain the idea of separation: for these terms do not explain His essence, but the mutual relationship(2) and manner of existence(3)."
Reply

IAmZamzam
03-22-2013, 01:11 AM
My above post (the one starting with "I may have missed something here") originally contained a comment along these lines:

"But that's the great thing about the Trinity, Tyrion: it's the first doctrine in history to be its own cop-out. The inconsistency is itself a counter-argument when people point out the inconsistency. No matter what you do, no matter what errors in the idea you find, the Christian can always just clam up and say, 'Jesus was both perfect God and perfect Man.' It's such a brilliant expression. It sounds like a genuine paradox and not just an excuse not to think."

I edited that out because it seemed I was going needlessly and kind of pertly off topic, and I wanted to stick to the "omnipresence" thing under discussion. Perhaps I should've gone with my gut instinct after all. One way or another I've been on message boards too many times not to find certain types of people, or at least certain types of discussion, disconcertingly predictable.
Reply

IAmZamzam
03-22-2013, 01:22 AM
Nature: an umbrella term given to a general description of the collective whole of an entity's actions over a long term period. "He wouldn't do that: it's not in his nature." Translation: "My observations of his behavior over a long term period lead me to believe that it is not typical for him to do this sort of thing."

Essence: the core or central part of something. "The essence of Islam is submission, even though there's a lot more to it than that."

Person: An entity. Something capable of deliberate action, as opposed to an inanimate object. "You know, sometimes I feel like that tree is staring at me? Almost talking to me? It's almost like it's a person. Not a human being, but some kind of person."

Hypostatis: A complicated theory from Greek philosophy which was eagerly seized upon by early Trinitarians who were desperate to find a way to justify the nonsensical nature of their doctrine. They found in the idea a faint coincidental resemblance to their own doctrine so they lost no chance to distort and misrepresent it, even though the real hypostatis contains strong elements of what might vaguely be called paganism and pantheism. I don't know how to explain it except to say that it's closer to the white cloth analogy from I Heart Huckabees than to Trinitarian Christianity.

I hope we've cleared that up.
Reply

ccc
03-22-2013, 01:38 AM
we did not. It is not helpful to take words from dictionaries, it is helpful to see the meaning of the words for the christians
Reply

ccc
03-22-2013, 01:42 AM
the greek terms were not the only ones in which the christians spoke about their concepts. They tried to speak to everyone in their own language and words, but for this they needed to transfigurate those words because they tried to show things that were never known before and realities that were not present in the world before.
Reply

IAmZamzam
03-22-2013, 01:47 AM
I did not get a single one of those words from a dictionary. I'm just explaining the situation. In my own words.

Let me put it this way: a person and that person's nature are inseparable. In fact, one's "nature" is largely just a matter of semantics, as I have explained above. A person is a person. Either you're talking about one entity in particular or you aren't, and if you are then that one guy's actions are separate from everyone else's, and his traits are separate from anyone else's traits as well. Whose actions are you talking about? Whose traits? You Christians can build all the Byzantine monuments of pure semantics and circular reasoning you can like over this fact but all you're doing is trying to bury it.
Reply

Amigo
03-22-2013, 02:00 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Tyrion
In this case though, it's not a matter of things being good or not. If God becomes man, he can no longer logically be God. This cannot make sense. Also, isn't it technically against God's nature to be man, since man is by nature imperfect?
If man was made by God then man is by nature perfect since God can not make imperfect things... the imperfections in man are not from God...
And it is a matter of goodness or not since goodness is the only 'direction/orientation' of God and all his attributes:
God is perfectly good, his goodness is unlimited/infinite, and all powerful...it is in his goodness that we can understand him (and all of his other attributes) clearly..
Thanks to this all powerfull, unlimited goodness, God became man without ceasing to be God...the original perfect human nature was then made known.
Reply

IAmZamzam
03-22-2013, 02:22 AM
Tyrion, Amigo is right. It says in The Qur'an, "We created man in the best make." (Surah 95, verse 4, Shakir) Any imperfections of ours are merely our own fault. There is no inherent reason why a human being can't be perfect. In fact weren't Mary and the wife of Pharaoh supposed to have been that way? Are we free agents or not? A human body is not a trap, it is a vessel.

We must stick to better arguments against the incarnation.
Reply

Tyrion
03-22-2013, 06:24 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Amigo
If man was made by God then man is by nature perfect since God can not make imperfect things... the imperfections in man are not from God...
format_quote Originally Posted by IAmZamzam
Tyrion, Amigo is right. It says in The Qur'an, "We created man in the best make." (Surah 95, verse 4, Shakir) Any imperfections of ours are merely our own fault.
Hmm, I'm not sure I agree. Maybe we have different definitions of perfection, but I think that we are by nature imperfect, just like how we are by nature limited while God is unlimited. We can and do make mistakes. Making something in the 'best' form doesn't necessarily mean you are making it perfect, and from my understanding (which I admit, could be way off), man was made by God the way he is, partly because he could sin and then seek forgiveness. We were created imperfect, but this doesn't mean God is imperfect for creating something like us, since he did so intentionally and for a purpose. That's how I see it anyway.
Reply

IAmZamzam
03-22-2013, 12:33 PM
What is your definition of "perfection" anyway?
Reply

ccc
03-22-2013, 01:54 PM
we, the humans, share a common nature but are many persons. This nature is present in al of us, but we are not self suficient and our beiing does not exist trough itself our beiing is sustained by God, but before he fall we were all one, even if not in the way God is One in three ersons.
Reply

IAmZamzam
03-22-2013, 02:14 PM
"Before we fell we were all one." Where exactly did you come by this idea anyway? And that's not getting into all the mondo problems inherent in the very concept of a "fall of man". Mondo, mondo problems.

So we are not self-sufficient and must be sustained by something else. What of it? I could say the same thing of my car. That doesn't make it one with the mechanic and the can of gasoline.

Nothing can exist without God, including inanimate objects. Like, say for instance, my car.
Reply

ccc
03-22-2013, 02:31 PM
i mean that god is one being in three persons, but his being is self suficient so for him this does not mean separation of being or separate existence.
Reply

جوري
03-22-2013, 02:59 PM
God isn't three persons, the word person doesn't even enter into this picture!

best,
Reply

Berries'forest
03-22-2013, 03:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
But why can't it be just an 'aspect' of God that is embodied?

According to Christian doctrine God is omnipresent in both place and time. So even if God is said to inhabit a bush or a human form or anything else, that can never be the 'whole' of God. It wouldn't make sense to say that God is too powerful to come into our presence because he is supposed to be here already.

For us, we only have one consciousness that can focus on one thing at a time. But for God to exist, he has to be aware of what is going on in every person's head simultaneously - not just this second but throughout history and the future.

This is unimaginable for a human. (For instance, there is a rare mental condition which means that some people continue to experience their whole lives and memories as if they are always happening - and it drives them half insane. Imagine that multiplied many billions of times). The best way we can conceive of it is to imagine an infinite number of Gods looking at each circumstance individually, but of course this is just a convenience for our imagination and in no way represents what it must be like to be God. Therefore, there is no more reason for it to be impossible for God's consciousness to inhabit a human form than anything else. Surely it is not the 'whole' of God's consciousness that inhabits the body, but just an aspect?




Dissecting and subdiving a collectively whole entity into seperate independant branches which are functioning together still does not make the likely hood or possibility of God becoming human anymore happen. The arising problem with the thesis here is that you are reducing him in quantitive terms into non-existance. He is either existent inside of all His creatures and a part of them or a completely seperate and independant being. Again another extended version of a loaded question which does not only draw and redraw circles but also never gives you a solid answer. It's always relative and only subjective answers that are reached through these kind of questions. We are also speaking in hypethtical terms any of these sentiments are yet unproven. What would'nt make sense is not Him being too powerfull to become man but rather the staggering reason of why He ( an independant unique distinct autonomy whom is also self-suffiecient and certainly most wise) would choose to give up His immortal and umlimited powers to transform into a very different and opposite form for only to save and emancipate humanity from their original sin that He Himself had entitled them to. The only thing that comes up to mind here is to question actuall powers that He posesses making us only assume that He ran out of options and resources thus He inorder to carry out His own will had to restrict Himself and become a part of His own creation; otherwise He couldn't get the job done up there in the heavens all bu himself.The only objective the thesis really serves is likening the works of God to that of bacteria endlessy multiplying into inumberable parts yet at the same time without reducing the original state of the one bacteria from which all other bacteria' are subdivided. Notice the flaw in such a premise?

"For us, we only have one consciousness that can focus on one thing at a time. But for God to exist, he has to be aware of what is going on in every person's head simultaneously - not just this second but throughout history and the future."

You would also have to be fair enough to apply this for all other creatures that have existed since the begging of time. Why human consciousness in particular; humans are not even the smartest species existing in this world. And somehow you are contradicting your own given thesis. For God to exist? Or for Him to have fullfillled His beffited qualities? In that case we sinply are not aware of even our own subconscious let alone other people's or even the enitire inhabitants of this earth. Only leaving us to admit that not only are we not competent to have such a superior enitty embody our form but also leaving us wonder what power and abilities did He have left after transforming into a humanbeing.


"This is unimaginable for a human. (For instance, there is a rare mental condition which means that some people continue to experience their whole lives and memories as if they are always happening - and it drives them half insane. Imagine that multiplied many billions of times). The best way we can conceive of it is to imagine an infinite number of Gods looking at each circumstance individually, but of course this is just a convenience for our imagination and in no way represents what it must be like to be God."


Actually in reality it's not uminaginable infact humanity has fantasized through out ages for the event of having a God-human being. Mythology is a great evidence for that. We have conceived to imagine God inside of His creatures; only leading us to your alternative suggestion that He would also have to be inside everything and everyone that ever existed. No wonder why there are billions of dieties in polytheistic religions; and the real tragedy here is you are suggesting that God had experienced some kind of internal conflict He can't seem to reslove which drove Him half insane major plurality crisis for him ro multiplied into different gods because it was the only resolution available. How disgraceful, wouldn't you think? Is it really a sin to 'imagine' that God is much higher than to go this low? Or is it really the fact that this is the only cop-out argument invented to encounter monthesitic arguements.

"Surely it is not the 'whole' of God's consciousness that inhabits the body, but just an aspect?"

Yeah, and the consciousness of God or the aspect of it that does inhabit a human body. Should also inhabit other objects to restore the inadequecy created. On a seperate note; we have no knowledge of the state of God's consciousness and it can no where nearly be compared to that of ours. Our consciousness are operated through our senses. For example; without the functioning of my eyes; I lose my vision hence reducing my conciousness or even perception. Our awareness is mainly built through our five senses.
Reply

IAmZamzam
03-22-2013, 03:46 PM
That does not address what I said at all.

Look, it all boils down to my previous point. Of any particular action, ask yourself, Whence did it come? Is it from person A or person B? Of any particular trait ask the same. Is it the trait of person A or person B? Repeat this process for ten, a hundred, a million, a googolplex actions or traits and the situation will never change. You'll still be stacking things further up in the A and B columns respectively, with nothing ever crossing over from one into the other. Every person is separate, period.

But of course it's no use. The Trinity is a psychological death trap. It's perfectly designed (possibly by Satan himself) to be absolutely fortified against all reason. No argument could ever work against it. I mean, think about it:

* You have three interconnected persons which can always be used as a reference point for each other as a defense.
* The very inconsistent nature of the whole thing can also be used as proof it itself (though of course never in a way which is consciously acknowledged).
* The whole thing is supposed to be beyond our comprehension in the first place, so one can always just fall back on that as a last resort. Especially if two minutes ago the argument was, "No no no, you're not understanding this at all. Let me explain to you what it really means."

So no matter what we do there's always an out. We can't win. The Trinity doctrine is like a dreamcatcher placed at the window of the rational mind, only it's the good things being kept out.
Reply

Berries'forest
03-22-2013, 03:50 PM
^ I wasn't addressing what you said. I am responding to Independent's post.
Reply

IAmZamzam
03-22-2013, 03:54 PM
I was actually talking to ccc. No harm done.
Reply

Independent
03-22-2013, 05:12 PM
I'm simply saying that, for me, it is not logically impossible for an aspect of God to choose to experience the human condition in certain specific ways, especially human suffering. I don't see why it is degrading. And I don't think it makes the perfect imperfect, or the immortal mortal, because it doesn't mean He ceases to exist everywhere else.

However, as I am no longer a Christian, my views are now philosophically based rather than religious. I now understand this idea as a stunning act of empathy, with an impact that was revolutionary in moral thought, whatever its religious origins.

format_quote Originally Posted by Berries'forest
Actually in reality it's not uminaginable infact humanity has fantasized through out ages for the event of having a God-human being.
I don't mean that God-in-man is unimaginable, I mean that the multiple awareness that is consequent with the idea of an all seeing God is unimaginable for humans.

format_quote Originally Posted by Berries'forest
the real tragedy here is you are suggesting that God had experienced some kind of internal conflict He can't seem to reslove which drove Him half insane
Not God, I mean humans. A human can't cope with experiencing even their own life simultaneously, let alone everyone else's. I just gave this as an example to show how hard it is for us to imagine omniscience.
Reply

Berries'forest
03-22-2013, 05:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
However, as I am no longer a Christian, my views are now philosophically based rather than religious. I now understand this idea as a stunning act of empathy, with an impact that was revolutionary in moral thought, whatever its religious origins.
It only originates in christian dogma. The 'crucification' of Jesus in itself doesn't reresent anything empathetic; especially that it goes to prove the complete opposite of its irtue. A God demanding blood be spilled regardless of whether the offence was initially 'forgiven'. He supposedly tortured His own 'son' -where is empathy in that?- just to whipe out humanity's record of sinning; a record mind you that was predetermined 'by' Him before they even existed. What is remarkebly revolutionary what Christ's spiritual message, his teachings and not the christian doctrine there's nothing revolutionary about that it's far from uncommon it was another version of psuedo'monethesim' in a polytheistic form. Water and fire can not be the same elements at one time.



format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
Not God, I mean humans. A human can't cope with experiencing even their own life simultaneously, let alone everyone else's. I just gave this as an example to show how hard it is for us to imagine omniscience.
Thank you for making that clear.
Reply

Independent
03-22-2013, 05:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Berries'forest
What is remarkebly revolutionary what Christ's spiritual message, his teachings
I'm not sure how much of what I learned of Christ's teaching is included in Islam. i can't recognise much of it in what I read on this forum or elsewhere but on the other hand I haven't read anything specific on the subject. Some of the things that are missing I would regret.

Personally, I find Islam to be far more different from Christianity than I expected. The Muslim 'Allah' seems like a wholly different personality to that of the Christian 'God'.
Reply

Berries'forest
03-22-2013, 05:53 PM
^ What something is like and what it is are different things. God,Allah,Dieu,Dios,G-d..all the same person described differently. Judaism, Christianity and Islam all worship the God of Abraham, the same ancient figure. That's why they're called the Abrahamic religions. The fact that the different religions report different views about their god does not mean that they're actually different gods. The perception are definately different and yes they are not the same. But keep in my the version of story I telll about my life may not be the same as the one an autobiographer might write. Many things have been altered in christian doctrine; as a matter of fact there's no one consented reference on who exactly is the author of the Bible. It's not very handy to argue that it is the literall 'word of God' anymore and so it's not suffeicient to use as a valid refernce. Bottom line is they are the same God but the beliefs of both faiths are remotely different.
Reply

Berries'forest
03-22-2013, 05:58 PM
Typo mistake:

The perception are definately different and yes they are not the same-exclusively in that sense. Otherwise they're no different.
Reply

IAmZamzam
03-22-2013, 07:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
I'm not sure how much of what I learned of Christ’s teaching is included in Islam. i can’t recognise much of it in what I read on this forum or elsewhere but on the other hand I haven’t read anything specific on the subject. Some of the things that are missing I would regret.
I don’t ordinarily quote my old site anymore but since another reference point on this doesn’t spring immediately to mind…

There are three places in the Koran in which the teachings of Jesus (peace be on him) are recorded specifically, and those are Surah 3, Surah 5 and Surah 61. Together, these give a summary of his teachings in a nicely concise manner…

“I have come to you with a sign from your Lord. I will create for you out of clay as the likeness of a bird; then I will breathe into it, and it will be a bird, by the leave of God. I will also heal the blind and the leper, and bring to life the dead, by the leave of God. I will inform you too of what things you eat, and what you treasure up in your houses. Surely in that is a sign for you, if you are believers. Likewise confirming the truth of the Torah that is before me, and to make lawful to you certain things that before were forbidden unto you. I have come to you with a sign from your Lord; so fear you God, and obey you me. Surely God is my Lord and your Lord; so serve Him. This is a straight path.” (Noble Quran 3:49-3:51)

“Fear God, if you are believers." (5:112)

“And when God said, 'O Jesus son of Mary, didst thou say unto men, Take me and my mother as gods, apart from God?’ he said, ‘To thee be glory! It is not mine to say what I have no right to. If I indeed said it, Thou knowest it, knowing what is within my soul, and I know not what is within Thy soul; Thou knowest the things unseen.’ I only said to them what Thou didst command me: ‘Serve God, my Lord and your Lord.’ And I was a witness over them, while I remained among them; but when Thou didst take me to Thyself, Thou wast Thyself the watcher over them; Thou Thyself art witness of everything. If Thou chastisest them, they are Thy servants; if Thou forgive them, Thou are the All-mighty, the All-wise.’” (5:116-118)

…Every bit and piece of them can be found in the four Gospels. First, let’s take a look at the passage from Surah 3 and compare it to the Bible.

“I will also heal the blind and the leper, and bring to life the dead, by the leave of God.”

“And Jesus answered them, ‘Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them.” (Matthew 11:4-5)

“I will inform you too of what things you eat, and what you treasure up in your houses. Surely in that is a sign for you, if you are believers.”

“Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also...Do not be anxious about your life, what you shall eat or what you shall drink, nor about your body, what you shall put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?” (Matthew 6:19-25)

“Likewise confirming the truth of the Torah that is before me.”

“Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.” (Matthew 5:17-18)

“And to make lawful to you certain things that before were forbidden unto you.”

“One sabbath he was going through the grainfields; and as they made their way his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. And the Pharisees said to him, ‘Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the sabbath?’ And he said to them, ‘Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God, when Abi’athar was high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?’ And he said to them, ‘The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath; so the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath.’” (Mark 2:23-28)

“I have come to you with a sign from your Lord; so fear you God, and obey you me.”

This generation is an evil generation; it seeks a sign, but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of Jonah.” (Luke 11:29)

“What was the sign of Jonah (peace be on him), by the way? Why, it was that someone was supposed to die and didn’t!”…

“Surely God is my Lord and your Lord.”

“Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” (John 20:17)

“So serve Him. This is a straight path.”

“It is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.’” (Matthew 4:10)

...The greatest commandment of the Bible is contained in the Koran (and emphasized repeatedly, I should add)...

“And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him,’Which commandment is the first of all?’ Jesus answered, ‘The first is, Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.’” (Mark 12:28-29)

“Your God is one God.” (Noble Quran 2:163)

And it is only to be expected that God expects us to be merciful to each other, and both Books preach the principle of forgiveness...

“Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” (Matthew 5:39-44)

“Not equal are the good deed and the evil deed. Repel with that which is fairer and behold, he between whom and thee thereis enmity shall be as if he were a loyal friend.” (Noble Quran 41:34)

Both Books tell us to prepare more for the next life than for this one...

“Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” (Matthew 6:19-21)

“Prosperous is he who has cleansed himself, and mentions the Name of his Lord, and prays. Nay, but you prefer the present life; and the world to come is better, and more enduring.” (The Koran Intepreted 87:14-17; see also 28:60)

What are the other major teachings of Christianity that have not been mentioned so far? Well, let’s go through the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), which is at the heart of Christian teachings. In it you are told to pray and to give charity, but to do neither just for the sake of being seen. This is echoed in Koran 2:270-274. You are told to let your light from God shine before men, which is echoed in Koran 24:35-38. You are told not to insult people out of anger, and this matches Koran 16:125. You are told not to approach indecency inwardly as well as outwardly, and this matches Koran 6:150.

Then come the only real disagreements between the Koran and the Sermon on the Mount, which are over matters of divorce and oath-taking. Oath-taking is prohibited in the Sermon, but the Koran prohibits only the swearing of false oaths on purpose, and knowing in your heart that you are swearing falsely (2:225). The divorce rights of the Koran in Surah 2 are simply a matter of common sense, with both men and women getting rights, and you don’t automatically make someone an adulteress just by divorcing her excepting on the grounds of unchastity. The Koran’s philosophy is clearly superior here, but since this is the only disagreement between the two books, I would chock it up to textual corruption in the Bible. Look at the text notes in those passages in any Bible and see the textual variants and you’ll get an idea of what I’m talking about.

The “Lord’s Prayer” is given, and it is completely compatible with Islam (for instance, see 2:286 and 114:1-6). You are told not to pray empty prayers to be heard for your many words, which is very close to the statement in Koran 4:142. You are told not to be anxious about tomorrow, and this matches 6:151. Hypocrisy is preached against (in the vein of hypocritical judgment), as it is in Koran 4:145. You are told that they way to salvation is hard and that few ever find it, which matches Koran 3:110, 6:111, 26:174 and 41:4. You are told that you can tell evil by its evil fruit and what not, and this matches Koran 47:30. Finally, that not everyone who says to the blessed Jesus “Lord, Lord” will enter heaven, but those who do the will of God. I don’t think I need to explain that.


I wrote that article many years ago and naturally would have written it very differently now. But as long as you get the general idea I guess it's okay for there to be a few flaws in the details.

(In case you're wondering all of the above citations were from "The Koran Interpreted". I don't know why only a few of them are marked as such.)
Reply

Independent
03-23-2013, 11:16 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by IAmZamzam
There are three places in the Koran in which the teachings of Jesus (peace be on him) are recorded
Thank you for posting this. I will give you my reactions based solely on what you've given me to read. I'm not that interested in the theology or scripture, only in the philosophical and moral impact on society, so I have a very different perspective from you.

format_quote Originally Posted by IAmZamzam
Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven,
This is important morally but equally so for both religions. To be honest, I find the Biblical version better written - although both are in translation so I can only comment on what they sound like in English. (I should add that I am a big fan of the King James Bible as a piece of language.)

format_quote Originally Posted by IAmZamzam
‘The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath; so the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath.
To me this could be paraphrased as 'don't get too hung up on the rules, but follow the principle' which I would strongly agree with. My impression is that, by comparison, Islam is more rule-focussed on the grounds that the principle cannot be separated from the rules.

format_quote Originally Posted by IAmZamzam
if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also
'Turn the other cheek' is perhaps the single most morally impactful of all the sayings of Jesus. The line you quote from the Qu'ran (“Not equal are the good deed and the evil deed. Repel with that which is fairer and behold, he between whom and thee thereis enmity shall be as if he were a loyal friend.” ) is not entirely equivalent in meaning. For one thing is it a little harder to understand. In fact it seems to be closer to a different Christian principle: "Two wrongs don't make a right".

To me, 'turn the other cheek' is a far more radical moral concept that brings you to a complete halt and makes you consider everything about your behaviour. (I certainly am not a good enough person to live by it.) It's also very interconnected with the act of empathy involved in Jesus living as a human. Together these concepts give a completely different moral impact to Christianity compared to Islam, in my view. Parables like The Prodigal Son also add very powerfully to the message of empathy and understanding with weakness. In contrast, the message I take from Muslims is much tougher with an emphasis on the need for you to make the standard, or else. (eg people are always telling me I'm going to hell.)

format_quote Originally Posted by IAmZamzam
“And when God said, 'O Jesus son of Mary, didst thou say unto men, Take me and my mother as gods, apart from God?’ he said, ‘To thee be glory! It is not mine to say what I have no right to.
This doesn't have any moral impact but it's interesting for me to read all the same because it makes the Muslim claim (that Jesus is just another messenger) explicit. I assume there's nothing like that in the Bible? That would be very interesting.

Other powerful phrases such as 'Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's' and 'Father forgive them for they know not what they do' seem to be absent?

Overall, based on this, it seems to me that Jesus in the Koran has a relatively minor role with little to say that's new or impactful? (I understand he is supposed to be simply another messenger.)
Reply

جوري
03-23-2013, 03:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
To me, 'turn the other cheek' is a far more radical moral concept that brings you to a complete halt
Except of course when super-imposed on ''"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.'' Matthew 10:34
and well there's the entire christian hx to go with it which reconciles better with the sword the the other cheek:

WONDERFUL EVENTS THAT TESTIFY TO GOD'S DIVINE GLORY"Listed are only events that solely occurred on command of church authorities or were committed in the name of Christianity. (List incomplete)
Ancient Pagans


  • As soon as Christianity was legal (315), more and more pagan temples were destroyed by Christian mob. Pagan priests were killed.
  • Between 315 and 6th century thousands of pagan believers were slain.
  • Examples of destroyed Temples: the Sanctuary of Aesculap in Aegaea, the Temple of Aphrodite in Golgatha, Aphaka in Lebanon, the Heliopolis.
  • Christian priests such as Mark of Arethusa or Cyrill of Heliopolis were famous as "temple destroyer." [DA468]
  • Pagan services became punishable by death in 356. [DA468]
  • Christian Emperor Theodosius (408-450) even had children executed, because they had been playing with remains of pagan statues. [DA469]
    According to Christian chroniclers he "followed meticulously all Christian teachings..."
  • In 6th century pagans were declared void of all rights.
  • In the early fourth century the philosopher Sopatros was executed on demand of Christian authorities. [DA466]
  • The world famous female philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria was torn to pieces with glass fragments by a hysterical Christian mob led by a Christian minister named Peter, in a church, in 415.
    [DO19-25]

Mission


  • Emperor Karl (Charlemagne) in 782 had 4500 Saxons, unwilling to convert to Christianity, beheaded. [DO30]
  • Peasants of Steding (Germany) unwilling to pay suffocating church taxes: between 5,000 and 11,000 men, women and children slain 5/27/1234 near Altenesch/Germany. [WW223]
  • Battle of Belgrad 1456: 80,000 Turks slaughtered. [DO235]
  • 15th century Poland: 1019 churches and 17987 villages plundered by Knights of the Order. Victims unknown. [DO30]
  • 16th and 17th century Ireland. English troops "pacified and civilized" Ireland, where only Gaelic "wild Irish", "unreasonable beasts lived without any knowledge of God or good manners, in common of their goods, cattle, women, children and every other thing." One of the more successful soldiers, a certain Humphrey Gilbert, half-brother of Sir Walter Raleigh, ordered that "the heddes of all those (of what sort soever thei were) which were killed in the daie, should be cutte off from their bodies... and should bee laied on the ground by eche side of the waie", which effort to civilize the Irish indeed caused "greate terrour to the people when thei sawe the heddes of their dedde fathers, brothers, children, kinsfolke, and freinds on the grounde".
    Tens of thousands of Gaelic Irish fell victim to the carnage. [SH99, 225]

Crusades (1095-1291)


  • First Crusade: 1095 on command of pope Urban II. [WW11-41]
  • Semlin/Hungary 6/24/96 thousands slain. Wieselburg/Hungary 6/12/96 thousands. [WW23]
  • 9/9/96-9/26/96 Nikaia, Xerigordon (then turkish), thousands respectively. [WW25-27]
  • Until Jan 1098 a total of 40 capital cities and 200 castles conquered (number of slain unknown) [WW30]
  • after 6/3/98 Antiochia (then turkish) conquered, between 10,000 and 60,000 slain. 6/28/98 100,000 Turks (incl. women & children) killed. [WW32-35]
    Here the Christians "did no other harm to the women found in [the enemy's] tents - save that they ran their lances through their bellies," according to Christian chronicler Fulcher of Chartres. [EC60]
  • Marra (Maraat an-numan) 12/11/98 thousands killed. Because of the subsequent famine "the already stinking corpses of the enemies were eaten by the Christians" said chronicler Albert Aquensis. [WW36]
  • Jerusalem conquered 7/15/1099 more than 60,000 victims (jewish, muslim, men, women, children). [WW37-40]
    (In the words of one witness: "there [in front of Solomon's temple] was such a carnage that our people were wading ankle-deep in the blood of our foes", and after that "happily and crying for joy our people marched to our Saviour's tomb, to honour it and to pay off our debt of gratitude")
  • The Archbishop of Tyre, eye-witness, wrote: "It was impossible to look upon the vast numbers of the slain without horror; everywhere lay fragments of human bodies, and the very ground was covered with the blood of the slain. It was not alone the spectacle of headless bodies and mutilated limbs strewn in all directions that roused the horror of all who looked upon them. Still more dreadful was it to gaze upon the victors themselves, dripping with blood from head to foot, an ominous sight which brought terror to all who met them. It is reported that within the Temple enclosure alone about ten thousand infidels perished." [TG79]
  • Christian chronicler Eckehard of Aura noted that "even the following summer in all of palestine the air was polluted by the stench of decomposition". One million victims of the first crusade alone. [WW41]
  • Battle of Askalon, 8/12/1099. 200,000 heathens slaughtered "in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ". [WW45]
  • Fourth crusade: 4/12/1204 Constantinople sacked, number of victims unknown, numerous thousands, many of them Christian. [WW141-148]
  • Rest of Crusades in less detail: until the fall of Akkon 1291 probably 20 million victims (in the Holy land and Arab/Turkish areas alone). [WW224] Note: All figures according to contemporary (Christian) chroniclers.

Heretics


  • Already in 385 C.E. the first Christians, the Spanish Priscillianus and six followers, were beheaded for heresy in Trier/Germany [DO26]
  • Manichaean heresy: a crypto-Christian sect decent enough to practice birth control (and thus not as irresponsible as faithful Catholics) was exterminated in huge campaigns all over the Roman empire between 372 C.E. and 444 C.E. Numerous thousands of victims. [NC]
  • Albigensians: the first Crusade intended to slay other Christians. [DO29]
    The Albigensians (cathars = Christians allegedly that have all rarely sucked) viewed themselves as good Christians, but would not accept roman Catholic rule, and taxes, and prohibition of birth control. [NC]
    Begin of violence: on command of pope Innocent III (greatest single pre-nazi mass murderer) in 1209. Bezirs (today France) 7/22/1209 destroyed, all the inhabitants were slaughtered. Victims (including Catholics refusing to turn over their heretic neighbours and friends) 20,000-70,000. [WW179-181]
  • Carcassonne 8/15/1209, thousands slain. Other cities followed. [WW181]
  • subsequent 20 years of war until nearly all Cathars (probably half the population of the Languedoc, today southern France) were exterminated. [WW183]
  • After the war ended (1229) the Inquisition was founded 1232 to search and destroy surviving/hiding heretics. Last Cathars burned at the stake 1324. [WW183]
  • Estimated one million victims (cathar heresy alone), [WW183]
  • Other heresies: Waldensians, Paulikians, Runcarians, Josephites, and many others. Most of these sects exterminated, (I believe some Waldensians live today, yet they had to endure 600 years of persecution) I estimate at least hundred thousand victims (including the Spanish inquisition but excluding victims in the New World).
  • Spanish Inquisitor Torquemada alone allegedly responsible for 10,220 burnings. [DO28]
  • John Huss, a critic of papal infallibility and indulgences, was burned at the stake in 1415. [LI475-522]
  • University professor B.Hubmaier burned at the stake 1538 in Vienna. [DO59]
  • Giordano Bruno, Dominican monk, after having been incarcerated for seven years, was burned at the stake for heresy on the Campo dei Fiori (Rome) on 2/17/1600.

Witches


  • from the beginning of Christianity to 1484 probably more than several thousand.
  • in the era of witch hunting (1484-1750) according to modern scholars several hundred thousand (about 80% female) burned at the stake or hanged. [WV]
  • incomplete list of documented cases:
    The Burning of Witches - A Chronicle of the Burning Times

Religious Wars


  • 15th century: Crusades against Hussites, thousands slain. [DO30]
  • 1538 pope Paul III declared Crusade against apostate England and all English as slaves of Church (fortunately had not power to go into action). [DO31]
  • 1568 Spanish Inquisition Tribunal ordered extermination of 3 million rebels in (then Spanish) Netherlands. Thousands were actually slain. [DO31]
  • 1572 In France about 20,000 Huguenots were killed on command of pope Pius V. Until 17th century 200,000 flee. [DO31]
  • 17th century: Catholics slay Gaspard de Coligny, a Protestant leader. After murdering him, the Catholic mob mutilated his body, "cutting off his head, his hands, and his genitals... and then dumped him into the river [...but] then, deciding that it was not worthy of being food for the fish, they hauled it out again [... and] dragged what was left ... to the gallows of Montfaulcon, 'to be meat and carrion for maggots and crows'." [SH191]
  • 17th century: Catholics sack the city of Magdeburg/Germany: roughly 30,000 Protestants were slain. "In a single church fifty women were found beheaded," reported poet Friedrich Schiller, "and infants still sucking the breasts of their lifeless mothers." [SH191]
  • 17th century 30 years' war (Catholic vs. Protestant): at least 40% of population decimated, mostly in Germany. [DO31-32]

Jews


  • Already in the 4th and 5th centuries synagogues were burned by Christians. Number of Jews slain unknown.
  • In the middle of the fourth century the first synagogue was destroyed on command of bishop Innocentius of Dertona in Northern Italy. The first synagogue known to have been burned down was near the river Euphrat, on command of the bishop of Kallinikon in the year 388. [DA450]
  • 17. Council of Toledo 694: Jews were enslaved, their property confiscated, and their children forcibly baptized. [DA454]
  • The Bishop of Limoges (France) in 1010 had the cities' Jews, who would not convert to Christianity, expelled or killed. [DA453]
  • First Crusade: Thousands of Jews slaughtered 1096, maybe 12.000 total. Places: Worms 5/18/1096, Mainz 5/27/1096 (1100 persons), Cologne, Neuss, Altenahr, Wevelinghoven, Xanten, Moers, Dortmund, Kerpen, Trier, Metz, Regensburg, Prag and others (All locations Germany except Metz/France, Prag/Czech) [EJ]
  • Second Crusade: 1147. Several hundred Jews were slain in Ham, Sully, Carentan, and Rameru (all locations in France). [WW57]
  • Third Crusade: English Jewish communities sacked 1189/90. [DO40]
  • Fulda/Germany 1235: 34 Jewish men and women slain. [DO41]
  • 1257, 1267: Jewish communities of London, Canterbury, Northampton, Lincoln, Cambridge, and others exterminated. [DO41]
  • 1290 in Bohemian (Poland) allegedly 10,000 Jews killed. [DO41]
  • 1337 Starting in Deggendorf/Germany a Jew-killing craze reaches 51 towns in Bavaria, Austria, Poland. [DO41]
  • 1348 All Jews of Basel/Switzerland and Strasbourg/France (two thousand) burned. [DO41]
  • 1349 In more than 350 towns in Germany all Jews murdered, mostly burned alive (in this one year more Jews were killed than Christians in 200 years of ancient Roman persecution of Christians). [DO42]
  • 1389 In Prag 3,000 Jews were slaughtered. [DO42]
  • 1391 Seville's Jews killed (Archbishop Martinez leading). 4,000 were slain, 25,000 sold as slaves. [DA454] Their identification was made easy by the brightly colored "badges of shame" that all jews above the age of ten had been forced to wear.
  • 1492: In the year Columbus set sail to conquer a New World, more than 150,000 Jews were expelled from Spain, many died on their way: 6/30/1492. [MM470-476]
  • 1648 Chmielnitzki massacres: In Poland about 200,000 Jews were slain. [DO43]

(I feel sick ...) this goes on and on, century after century, right into the kilns of Auschwitz.
Native Peoples


  • Beginning with Columbus (a former slave trader and would-be Holy Crusader) the conquest of the New World began, as usual understood as a means to propagate Christianity.
  • Within hours of landfall on the first inhabited island he encountered in the Caribbean, Columbus seized and carried off six native people who, he said, "ought to be good servants ... [and] would easily be made Christians, because it seemed to me that they belonged to no religion." [SH200]
    While Columbus described the Indians as "idolators" and "slaves, as many as [the Crown] shall order," his pal Michele de Cuneo, Italian nobleman, referred to the natives as "beasts" because "they eat when they are hungry," and made love "openly whenever they feel like it." [SH204-205]
  • On every island he set foot on, Columbus planted a cross, "making the declarations that are required" - the requerimiento - to claim the ownership for his Catholic patrons in Spain. And "nobody objected." If the Indians refused or delayed their acceptance (or understanding), the requerimiento continued:

I certify to you that, with the help of God, we shall powerfully enter in your country and shall make war against you ... and shall subject you to the yoke and obedience of the Church ... and shall do you all mischief that we can, as to vassals who do not obey and refuse to receive their lord and resist and contradict him." [SH66]
  • Likewise in the words of John Winthrop, first governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony: "justifieinge the undertakeres of the intended Plantation in New England ... to carry the Gospell into those parts of the world, ... and to raise a Bulworke against the kingdome of the Ante-Christ." [SH235]
  • In average two thirds of the native population were killed by colonist-imported smallpox before violence began. This was a great sign of "the marvelous goodness and providence of God" to the Christians of course, e.g. the Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony wrote in 1634, as "for the natives, they are near all dead of the smallpox, so as the Lord hath cleared our title to what we possess." [SH109,238]
  • On Hispaniola alone, on Columbus visits, the native population (Arawak), a rather harmless and happy people living on an island of abundant natural resources, a literal paradise, soon mourned 50,000 dead. [SH204]
  • The surviving Indians fell victim to rape, murder, enslavement and spanish raids.
  • As one of the culprits wrote: "So many Indians died that they could not be counted, all through the land the Indians lay dead everywhere. The stench was very great and pestiferous." [SH69]
  • The indian chief Hatuey fled with his people but was captured and burned alive. As "they were tying him to the stake a Franciscan friar urged him to take Jesus to his heart so that his soul might go to heaven, rather than descend into hell. Hatuey replied that if heaven was where the Christians went, he would rather go to hell." [SH70]
  • What happened to his people was described by an eyewitness:
    "The Spaniards found pleasure in inventing all kinds of odd cruelties ... They built a long gibbet, long enough for the toes to touch the ground to prevent strangling, and hanged thirteen [natives] at a time in honor of Christ Our Saviour and the twelve Apostles... then, straw was wrapped around their torn bodies and they were burned alive." [SH72]
    Or, on another occasion:
    "The Spaniards cut off the arm of one, the leg or hip of another, and from some their heads at one stroke, like butchers cutting up beef and mutton for market. Six hundred, including the cacique, were thus slain like brute beasts...Vasco [de Balboa] ordered forty of them to be torn to pieces by dogs." [SH83]
  • The "island's population of about eight million people at the time of Columbus's arrival in 1492 already had declined by a third to a half before the year 1496 was out." Eventually all the island's natives were exterminated, so the Spaniards were "forced" to import slaves from other caribbean islands, who soon suffered the same fate. Thus "the Caribbean's millions of native people [were] thereby effectively liquidated in barely a quarter of a century". [SH72-73] "In less than the normal lifetime of a single human being, an entire culture of millions of people, thousands of years resident in their homeland, had been exterminated." [SH75]
  • "And then the Spanish turned their attention to the mainland of Mexico and Central America. The slaughter had barely begun. The exquisite city of Tenochtitln [Mexico city] was next." [SH75]
  • Cortez, Pizarro, De Soto and hundreds of other spanish conquistadors likewise sacked southern and mesoamerican civilizations in the name of Christ (De Soto also sacked Florida).
  • "When the 16th century ended, some 200,000 Spaniards had moved to the Americas. By that time probably more than 60,000,000 natives were dead." [SH95]

Of course no different were the founders of what today is the US of Amerikkka.

  • Although none of the settlers would have survived winter without native help, they soon set out to expel and exterminate the Indians. Warfare among (north American) Indians was rather harmless, in comparison to European standards, and was meant to avenge insults rather than conquer land. In the words of some of the pilgrim fathers: "Their Warres are farre less bloudy...", so that there usually was "no great slawter of nether side". Indeed, "they might fight seven yeares and not kill seven men." What is more, the Indians usually spared women and children. [SH111]
  • In the spring of 1612 some English colonists found life among the (generally friendly and generous) natives attractive enough to leave Jamestown - "being idell ... did runne away unto the Indyans," - to live among them (that probably solved a sex problem).
    "Governor Thomas Dale had them hunted down and executed: 'Some he apointed (sic) to be hanged Some burned Some to be broken upon wheles, others to be staked and some shott to deathe'." [SH105] Of course these elegant measures were restricted for fellow englishmen: "This was the treatment for those who wished to act like Indians. For those who had no choice in the matter, because they were the native people of Virginia" methods were different: "when an Indian was accused by an Englishman of stealing a cup and failing to return it, the English response was to attack the natives in force, burning the entire community" down. [SH105]
  • On the territory that is now Massachusetts the founding fathers of the colonies were committing genocide, in what has become known as the "Peqout War". The killers were New England Puritan Christians, refugees from persecution in their own home country England.
  • When however, a dead colonist was found, apparently killed by Narragansett Indians, the Puritan colonists wanted revenge. Despite the Indian chief's pledge they attacked.
    Somehow they seem to have lost the idea of what they were after, because when they were greeted by Pequot Indians (long-time foes of the Narragansetts) the troops nevertheless made war on the Pequots and burned their villages.
    The puritan commander-in-charge John Mason after one massacre wrote: "And indeed such a dreadful Terror did the Almighty let fall upon their Spirits, that they would fly from us and run into the very Flames, where many of them perished ... God was above them, who laughed his Enemies and the Enemies of his People to Scorn, making them as a fiery Oven ... Thus did the Lord judge among the Heathen, filling the Place with dead Bodies": men, women, children. [SH113-114]
  • So "the Lord was pleased to smite our Enemies in the hinder Parts, and to give us their land for an inheritance". [SH111].
  • Because of his readers' assumed knowledge of Deuteronomy, there was no need for Mason to quote the words that immediately follow:
    "Thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. But thou shalt utterly destroy them..." (Deut 20)
  • Mason's comrade Underhill recalled how "great and doleful was the bloody sight to the view of the young soldiers" yet reassured his readers that "sometimes the Scripture declareth women and children must perish with their parents". [SH114]
  • Other Indians were killed in successful plots of poisoning. The colonists even had dogs especially trained to kill Indians and to devour children from their mothers breasts, in the colonists' own words: "blood Hounds to draw after them, and Mastives to seaze them." (This was inspired by spanish methods of the time)
    In this way they continued until the extermination of the Pequots was near. [SH107-119]
  • The surviving handful of Indians "were parceled out to live in servitude. John Endicott and his pastor wrote to the governor asking for 'a share' of the captives, specifically 'a young woman or girle and a boy if you thinke good'." [SH115]
  • Other tribes were to follow the same path.
  • Comment the Christian exterminators: "God's Will, which will at last give us cause to say: How Great is His Goodness! and How Great is his Beauty!"
    "Thus doth the Lord Jesus make them to bow before him, and to lick the Dust!" [TA]
  • Like today, lying was OK to Christians then. "Peace treaties were signed with every intention to violate them: when the Indians 'grow secure uppon (sic) the treatie', advised the Council of State in Virginia, 'we shall have the better Advantage both to surprise them, & cutt downe theire Corne'." [SH106]
  • In 1624 sixty heavily armed Englishmen cut down 800 defenseless Indian men, women and children. [SH107]
  • In a single massacre in "King Philip's War" of 1675 and 1676 some "600 Indians were destroyed. A delighted Cotton Mather, revered pastor of the Second Church in Boston, later referred to the slaughter as a 'barbeque'." [SH115]
  • To summarize: Before the arrival of the English, the western Abenaki people in New Hampshire and Vermont had numbered 12,000. Less than half a century later about 250 remained alive - a destruction rate of 98%. The Pocumtuck people had numbered more than 18,000, fifty years later they were down to 920 - 95% destroyed. The Quiripi-Unquachog people had numbered about 30,000, fifty years later they were down to 1500 - 95% destroyed. The Massachusetts people had numbered at least 44,000, fifty years later barely 6000 were alive - 81% destroyed. [SH118] These are only a few examples of the multitude of tribes living before Christian colonists set their foot on the New World. All this was before the smallpox epidemics of 1677 and 1678 had occurred. And the carnage was not over then.
  • All the above was only the beginning of the European colonization, it was before the frontier age actually had begun.
  • A total of maybe more than 150 million Indians (of both Americas) were destroyed in the period of 1500 to 1900, as an average two thirds by smallpox and other epidemics, that leaves some 50 million killed directly by violence, bad treatment and slavery.
  • In many countries, such as Brazil, and Guatemala, this continues even today.

More Glorious events in US history


  • Reverend Solomon Stoddard, one of New England's most esteemed religious leaders, in "1703 formally proposed to the Massachusetts Governor that the colonists be given the financial wherewithal to purchase and train large packs of dogs 'to hunt Indians as they do bears'." [SH241]
  • Massacre of Sand Creek, Colorado 11/29/1864. Colonel John Chivington, a former Methodist minister and still elder in the church ("I long to be wading in gore") had a Cheyenne village of about 600, mostly women and children, gunned down despite the chiefs' waving with a white flag: 400-500 killed.
    From an eye-witness account: "There were some thirty or forty squaws collected in a hole for protection; they sent out a little girl about six years old with a white flag on a stick; she had not proceeded but a few steps when she was shot and killed. All the squaws in that hole were afterwards killed ..." [SH131]
    More gory details.
  • By the 1860s, "in Hawai'i the Reverend Rufus Anderson surveyed the carnage that by then had reduced those islands' native population by 90 percent or more, and he declined to see it as tragedy; the expected total die-off of the Hawaiian population was only natural, this missionary said, somewhat equivalent to 'the amputation of diseased members of the body'." [SH244]

20th Century Church Atrocities


  • Catholic extermination camps
    Surpisingly few know that Nazi extermination camps in World War II were by no means the only ones in Europe at the time. In the years 1942-1943 also in Croatia existed numerous extermination camps, run by Catholic Ustasha under their dictator Ante Paveli, a practising Catholic and regular visitor to the then pope. There were even concentration camps exclusively for children!

    In these camps - the most notorious was Jasenovac, headed by a Franciscan friar - orthodox-Christian serbians (and a substantial number of Jews) were murdered. Like the Nazis the Catholic Ustasha burned their victims in kilns, alive (the Nazis were decent enough to have their victims gassed first). But most of the victims were simply stabbed, slain or shot to death, the number of them being estimated between 300,000 and 600,000, in a rather tiny country. Many of the killers were Franciscan friars. The atrocities were appalling enough to induce bystanders of the Nazi "Sicherheitsdient der SS", watching, to complain about them to Hitler (who did not listen). The pope knew about these events and did nothing to prevent them. [MV]
  • Catholic terror in Vietnam
    In 1954 Vietnamese freedom fighters - the Viet Minh - had finally defeated the French colonial government in North Vietnam, which by then had been supported by U.S. funds amounting to more than $2 billion. Although the victorious assured religious freedom to all (most non-buddhist Vietnamese were Catholics), due to huge anticommunist propaganda campaigns many Catholics fled to the South. With the help of Catholic lobbies in Washington and Cardinal Spellman, the Vatican's spokesman in U.S. politics, who later on would call the U.S. forces in Vietnam "Soldiers of Christ", a scheme was concocted to prevent democratic elections which could have brought the communist Viet Minh to power in the South as well, and the fanatic Catholic Ngo Dinh Diem was made president of South Vietnam. [MW16ff]

    Diem saw to it that U.S. aid, food, technical and general assistance was given to Catholics alone, Buddhist individuals and villages were ignored or had to pay for the food aids which were given to Catholics for free. The only religious denomination to be supported was Roman Catholicism.

    The Vietnamese McCarthyism turned even more vicious than its American counterpart. By 1956 Diem promulgated a presidential order which read:

    • "Individuals considered dangerous to the national defense and common security may be confined by executive order, to a concentration camp."

Supposedly to fight communism, thousands of buddhist protesters and monks were imprisoned in "detention camps." Out of protest dozens of buddhist teachers - male and female - and monks poured gasoline over themselves and burned themselves. (Note that Buddhists burned themselves: in comparison Christians tend to burn others). Meanwhile some of the prison camps, which in the meantime were filled with Protestant and even Catholic protesters as well, had turned into no-nonsense death camps. It is estimated that during this period of terror (1955-1960) at least 24,000 were wounded - mostly in street riots - 80,000 people were executed, 275,000 had been detained or tortured, and about 500,000 were sent to concentration or detention camps. [MW76-89].

To support this kind of government in the next decade thousands of American GI's lost their life....
  • Rwanda Massacres
    In 1994 in the small african country of Rwanda in just a few months several hundred thousand civilians were butchered, apparently a conflict of the Hutu and Tutsi ethnic groups.

For quite some time I heard only rumours about Catholic clergy actively involved in the 1994 Rwanda massacres. Odd denials of involvement were printed in Catholic church journals, before even anybody had openly accused members of the church.
Then, 10/10/96, in the newscast of S2 Aktuell, Germany - a station not at all critical to Christianity - the following was stated:
"Anglican as well as Catholic priests and nuns are suspect of having actively participated in murders. Especially the conduct of a certain Catholic priest has been occupying the public mind in Rwanda's capital Kigali for months. He was minister of the church of the Holy Family and allegedly murdered Tutsis in the most brutal manner. He is reported to have accompanied marauding Hutu militia with a gun in his cowl. In fact there has been a bloody slaughter of Tutsis seeking shelter in his parish. Even two years after the massacres many Catholics refuse to set foot on the threshold of their church, because to them the participation of a certain part of the clergy in the slaughter is well established. There is almost no church in Rwanda that has not seen refugees - women, children, old - being brutally butchered facing the crucifix.

According to eyewitnesses clergymen gave away hiding Tutsis and turned them over to the machetes of the Hutu militia.
In connection with these events again and again two Benedictine nuns are mentioned, both of whom have fled into a Belgian monastery in the meantime to avoid prosecution. According to survivors one of them called the Hutu killers and led them to several thousand people who had sought shelter in her monastery. By force the doomed were driven out of the churchyard and were murdered in the presence of the nun right in front of the gate. The other one is also reported to have directly cooperated with the murderers of the Hutu militia. In her case again witnesses report that she watched the slaughtering of people in cold blood and without showing response. She is even accused of having procured some petrol used by the killers to set on fire and burn their victims alive..." [S2]
As can be seen from these events, to Christianity the Dark Ages never come to an end....
References:

[DA] K.Deschner, Abermals krhte der Hahn, Stuttgart 1962. [DO] K.Deschner, Opus Diaboli, Reinbek 1987. [EC] P.W.Edbury, Crusade and Settlement, Cardiff Univ. Press 1985. [EJ] S.Eidelberg, The Jews and the Crusaders, Madison 1977. [LI] H.C.Lea, The Inquisition of the Middle Ages, New York 1961. [MM] M.Margolis, A.Marx, A History of the Jewish People. [MV] A.Manhattan, The Vatican's Holocaust, Springfield 1986.
See also V.Dedijer, The Yugoslav Auschwitz and the Vatican, Buffalo NY, 1992. [NC] J.T.Noonan, Contraception: A History of its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists, Cambridge/Mass., 1992. [S2] Newscast of S2 Aktuell, Germany, 10/10/96, 12:00. [SH] D.Stannard, American Holocaust, Oxford University Press 1992. [SP] German news magazine Der Spiegel, no.49, 12/2/1996. [TA] A True Account of the Most Considerable Occurrences that have Hapned in the Warre Between the English and the Indians in New England, London 1676. [TG] F.Turner, Beyond Geography, New York 1980. [WW] H.Wollschlger: Die bewaffneten Wallfahrten gen Jerusalem, Zrich 1973.
(This is in german and what is worse, it is out of print. But it is the best I ever read about crusades and includes a full list of original medieval Christian chroniclers' writings). [WV] Estimates on the number of executed witches:

  • N.Cohn, Europe's Inner Demons: An Enquiry Inspired by the Great Witch Hunt, Frogmore 1976, 253.
  • R.H.Robbins, The Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology, New York 1959, 180.
  • J.B.Russell, Witchcraft in the Middle Ages, Ithaca/NY 1972, 39.
  • H.Zwetsloot, Friedrich Spee und die Hexenprozesse, Trier 1954, 56







best,
Reply

IAmZamzam
03-23-2013, 03:37 PM
I find the Biblical version better written
Maybe in English :P Try to find me anyone who will say that of an Arabic Bible.

My impression is that, by comparison, Islam is more rule-focussed on the grounds that the principle cannot be separated from the rules.
The reason for this assertion?

'Turn the other cheek' is perhaps the single most morally impactful of all the sayings of Jesus. The line you quote from the Qu'ran (“Not equal are the good deed and the evil deed. Repel with that which is fairer and behold, he between whom and thee thereis enmity shall be as if he were a loyal friend.” ) is not entirely equivalent in meaning. For one thing is it a little harder to understand. In fact it seems to be closer to a different Christian principle: "Two wrongs don't make a right".
What’s hard to understand? Find me a single place in The Bible that says, “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” That actually comes from Aesop (“two blacks do not make one white”—although I’d like to add that the morals were not explicitly stated in the original version of the fables and are instead the interpretations of later compilers). I’m pretty sure that “turn the other cheek” is the “two wrongs don’t make a right” part of The Bible.

Parables like The Prodigal Son also add very powerfully to the message of empathy and understanding with weakness.
The parable of the prodigal son is one of two analogies used in response to the Pharisees and scribes criticizing Jesus for consorting with lowlifes. The first is about a man going out of his way to rescue one stray sheep and abandoning ninety-nine others in order to do so. This follow-up tale about the prodigal son is much along the same lines. Note the resemblance that first story has to 2 Samuel 12:1-13, which also ends on a note of redemption. The subject is the forgiveness of sins by way of divine grace, not human beings having empathy for each other.

In contrast, the message I take from Muslims is much tougher with an emphasis on the need for you to make the standard, or else. (eg people are always telling me I'm going to hell.)
I’m surprised and puzzled to hear you speak of Islam and not Christianity as being the “people are always telling me I’m going to hell” religion. It’s Bible Bangers (mainly Protestants) who are infamous for that, at least where I live—and from what I can tell the worldwide web is very much the same. I thought that was common knowledge. Try finding me an Islamic website with a name like this.

Other powerful phrases such as 'Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's' and 'Father forgive them for they know not what they do' seem to be absent?
The latter is, false context aside, essentially just the Islamic doctrine that we are judged for our efforts or intentions and not for our successes or accidental actions, which is established at the end of surah 2 and elsewhere. The former is mentioned in various ahadith but if you want something from The Qur’an specifically then to give a quick answer you could say the knowledge is dispersed across 4:59, 5:1, 6:152 and 7:26.

If it's powerful phrases you're looking for, it's not like The Qur'an isn't extremely famous for them. As in "defining the entire Arabic language" famous.

Overall, based on this, it seems to me that Jesus in the Koran has a relatively minor role with little to say that's new or impactful? (I understand he is supposed to be simply another messenger.)
Minor role??! 43:61 speaks of him having a role in Judgment Day itself and the hadith collections fill this in with all sorts of humungously major details. Are you not familiar with them?

Finally, is there anything wrong with having little to say that’s new? The essentially Methodist writer on religion Huston Smith said the same thing about Jesus. In one of his books he talked about how it’s often been observed that practically none of his words in the Gospels didn’t consist of a quotation from the Old Testament or the Talmud: the trick was how he applied the message. And it was the Christian theologian C.S. Lewis who said that the common thread between all the great moral teachers in history was that they were invariably sent not to invent but to remind.
Reply

Berries'forest
03-23-2013, 03:59 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
To be honest, I find the Biblical version better written - although both are in translation so I can only comment on what they sound like in English. (I should add that I am a big fan of the King James Bible as a piece of language.)
Maybe you identify yourself as a non-theist but I think many viewers of your post can deduce that you are in some way or another heavily influenced by christian thought. You also seem to express your inclination towards christianity very openly. It's not my concern really, but if you want to grasp a more profound understanding of Islam and the affect it has on it's followers you'd have to be willing to let go of the post christian baggage you're carrying along with. It clouds the vision of learning accurately and also hinders making connections between the two faiths correctly.
Reply

جوري
03-23-2013, 05:23 PM
I rather think his influence is to be objectionable to anything Islamic much like Saul he's a Jew to the Jew a Christian to Christians am atheist to atheists!
Nothing to do with principal and everything with means to an end!

:w:
Reply

Independent
03-23-2013, 05:41 PM
As I have said, I'm not so interested in the scriptural aspects or the theology of it all. I'm interested in the history of ideas and morality, in which Jesus (the subject of this thread) played a big part. My focus is on the life and impact of the moral idea, rather than trying to prove its origin or who has the correct story. The NT sayings of Jesus are frequently brilliant and hard to fake.

format_quote Originally Posted by IAmZamzam
I’m surprised and puzzled to hear you speak of Islam and not Christianity as being the “people are always telling me I’m going to hell” religion
Well, it's happened plenty of times on this forum, and hardly ever to me in real life from Christians.

format_quote Originally Posted by IAmZamzam
Maybe in English :P Try to find me anyone who will say that of an Arabic Bible.
As i already said, I can't comment on this. I have just started reading the Koran again (in English).

format_quote Originally Posted by IAmZamzam
The reason for this assertion?
Look at all the debates on this forum about beards, hajibs, jobs, music, food, etc etc. It's so complicated!

format_quote Originally Posted by IAmZamzam
The subject is the forgiveness of sins by way of divine grace, not human beings having empathy for each other.
I don't care about the theology, I'm interested in empathy as a moral idea.

format_quote Originally Posted by IAmZamzam
Minor role??! 43:61 speaks of him having a role in Judgment Day itself and the hadith collections fill this in with all sorts of humungously major details. Are you not familiar with them?
Of course not, I'm not a Muslim. What you describe as a major role on Judgment Day is a functional role - I'm interested in the impact of Jesus philosophically and morally. From what you have posted (and that's all I'm judging it by) if Jesus was entirely absent from the Koran nothing much would be lost in terms of teaching.

format_quote Originally Posted by IAmZamzam
Finally, is there anything wrong with having little to say that’s new?
I understand that there is no obligation in Islam for Jesus to be revolutionary (in fact you could argue he shouldn't be) but that's not what I'm focussing on. In the Christian version of Jesus, his impact is enormous.

Answering Berries'forest:

format_quote Originally Posted by Berries'forest
Maybe you identify yourself as a non-theist but I think many viewers of your post can deduce that you are in some way or another heavily influenced by christian thought.
I said I was brought up as a Christian and my world view is clearly skewed that way. Today i reject the theology but that doesn't mean there aren't good things in it, as with Islam. For instance, if I compare the concept of the Trinity with that of Allah, the latter is simpler and more logical. (Some of the explanations for the Trinity given by Christians in this thread leave me confused).
Reply

IAmZamzam
03-23-2013, 07:08 PM
Some of the explanations for the Trinity given by Christians in this thread leave me confused.
Uh oh. You've opened the floodgates. Does this mean we’re going to hear more analogies?

Well, it's happened plenty of times on this forum, and hardly ever to me in real life from Christians.
All I can say is, you’re the first person who’s ever told me this. Literally ever. Christianity is the religion that’s actually famous for the whole fire and brimstone attitude. And if you think otherwise then I don’t know who you’ve been talking to.

Look at all the debates on this forum about beards, hajibs, jobs, music, food, etc etc. It's so complicated!
I’m sorry, how is this different from Christianity—or, for that matter, any other religion? The whole Eucharist debate, for example, mostly stems from a myriad of factions holding furiously sundry opinions over the minute differences in possible connotations in a single Greek verb.

Anyway, if you insist on looking at this matter purely as a student of sociological history then—forgive me—I'm afraid I'm going to lose interest very quickly. What’s important is what's true and what's false, not what has the most impact or anything like that. Theology is something to care about very, very much. Even if it doesn’t lead you to hell, it can impact quite a lot in your life on earth.
Reply

Berries'forest
03-23-2013, 07:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
I said I was brought up as a Christian and my world view is clearly skewed that way. Today i reject the theology but that doesn't mean there aren't good things in it, as with Islam. For instance, if I compare the concept of the Trinity with that of Allah, the latter is simpler and more logical.
I already know that you were raised a christian. I've read that sometime before I joined this forum. All the same; if you reread your posts you'll understand what I mean.
But since you have identified yourself as a non-theist more closely maybe an agnostic; analyzing subjects from a christian view-which I suppose you have renounced- doesn't seem like what a non-theist would do. By the way; on the note of it since it does relate to the topic more or less. Are you one of those people who believe that the more mysterious and complicated even illogical a religion is the more authentic it can be considered?. Just wondering...
Reply

Independent
03-23-2013, 07:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IAmZamzam
Christianity is the religion that’s actually famous for the whole fire and brimstone attitude. And if you think otherwise then I don’t know who you’ve been talking to.
I was brought up in the Church of England/Ireland which is very mild indeed in its requirements. Hell didn't get much of a mention.

format_quote Originally Posted by IAmZamzam
I’m sorry, how is this different from Christianity—or, for that matter, any other religion?
Catholicism is quite demanding, but not CofE/CofI!
Reply

IAmZamzam
03-23-2013, 07:26 PM
Just answer me, Independent: are you going to start taking theology at least a little bit seriously? Because it matters whether or not The Qur'an is a handbook to life, given to us by the same entity that made the whole universe. It matters whether or not Jesus is going to save the world someday and bring an age of peace and prosperity upon it. It matters whether or not God ever visited His people as a human being. These things sound vaguely important, don't they? Truth always matters, even when it comes to the small things in life.
Reply

Independent
03-23-2013, 07:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Berries'forest
But since you have identified yourself as a non-theist more closely maybe an agnostic; analyzing subjects from a christian view-which I suppose you have renounced- doesn't seem like what a non-theist would do. By the way; on the note of it since it does relate to the topic more or less. Are you one of those people who believe that the more mysterious and complicated even illogical a religion is the more authentic it can be considered?. Just wondering...
I am an agnostic. However, I find it very difficult to believe in any organised religion that I have come across.

No, the degree of complexity would not help me believe in it. I am very analytical and logical by nature. There are aspects of Islam that appeal to me on this score, but others which have very much the opposite effect.
Reply

Independent
03-23-2013, 07:30 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IAmZamzam
Just answer me, Independent: are you going to start taking theology at least a little bit seriously?
I take morality seriously. However, at this point I do not believe that the Koran is the dictated word of God which obviously affects how I regard and respond to it.
Reply

IAmZamzam
03-23-2013, 07:39 PM
You seem to have quite a detached, distant, removed way of looking at religion, though. I'm wondering if anything ever could convince you that it was the Word of God. What would do the trick? Have you even thought about that?
Reply

Independent
03-23-2013, 08:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IAmZamzam
I'm wondering if anything ever could convince you that it was the Word of God. What would do the trick? Have you even thought about that?
I knew very little about Islam before joining this forum 6 months ago. The claims about the Koran (impossible to replicate, scientific miracles, proofs of origin) are therefore all new to me and I have been interested to read about them.

So far i don't feel that what I have read in the Koran could only have been dictated by God but I have only read extracts - now I want to read the whole book.
Reply

Aprender
03-23-2013, 08:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
So far i don't feel that what I have read in the Koran could only have been dictated by God but I have only read extracts - now I want to read the whole book.
Most English translations simply don't do justice. Classical Arabic is fascinating and quite advanced. It's amazing how in-depth the linguistics of it goes.

If you want to read the whole book with a more modern English translation, I recommend this one:
The Qur'an (Oxford World Classics) translated by Muhammad A S Abdel Haleem - http://www.islamicbookstore.com/b8919.html

Most translations of the Qur'an I've read are written in old English and are sometimes hard to follow and confusing. In my opinion, Islamic scholarship in the Western world is gravely underdeveloped. Those of us in the West tend to miss out on a lot because of language barriers and incorrect translations from Arabic in a modern English context.
Reply

IAmZamzam
03-23-2013, 09:02 PM
Excellent!

I'm trying to think of what the best advice to give you is. I guess that one thing to mention for now would be that you mustn't judge the Word of Allah by a few internet trends. People, you see, have a way of misunderstanding and exaggerating things. For example there are indeed a few scientifically impressive statements in The Qur'an but some of the claims along these lines are so misconceived that they just make me want to bury my face in my hands. And the "surah like it" challenge, seen in context, was a counter-argument to shut up the Arab writers and skeptics of the time, not really for all people at all times. Although if you ask me there still isn't anything like The Qur'an, even in English, and I say that as a writer.

I read Arberry's translation first. I still find that one the most moving. Others find it too hard to follow. But it's a well known fact that every version has its flaws (a fact that's inevitable when you're talking about any ancient document written in an unconnected language) so approach with caution.
Reply

tearose
03-23-2013, 09:35 PM
Please avoid the N.J Dawood translation though - I have heard it is misleading.
Reply

MustafaMc
03-23-2013, 09:39 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Aprender
If you want to read the whole book with a more modern English translation, I recommend this one:
The Qur'an (Oxford World Classics) translated by Muhammad A S Abdel Haleem - http://www.islamicbookstore.com/b8919.html
I just bought this translation myself. It is also available on Kindle.
Reply

Independent
03-23-2013, 09:50 PM
Thank you for all the suggestions - however I already bought one by Abdullah Yusuf Ali!
Reply

Al-Mufarridun
03-23-2013, 09:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
Thank you for all the suggestions - however I already bought one by Abdullah Yusuf Ali!
Reading the Quran is like no other experience. I hope you take the time to read all through. It will be a journey you won't regret.
Reply

tearose
03-23-2013, 10:26 PM
Another thing that might help you is to listen to a recitation of each sura as you come to it, so that you get some sense of how it sounds in the original Arabic - that makes a big difference. You can find recitations by different recitors here: http://quranicaudio.com/
Reply

Independent
03-23-2013, 11:13 PM
I'm wondering if I ought to read a commentary at the same time. There's a lot that's hard to understand.
Reply

Al-Mufarridun
03-23-2013, 11:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
I'm wondering if I ought to read a commentary at the same time. There's a lot that's hard to understand.
If you did that it would be best. It would help you far more. Yusuf Ali has his own commentary, if you want to get that as well.

Here are some online links to his commentary;

Abdullah Yusuf Ali
Download Translation & CommentaryPdf 9.6 mb

http://www.quran4u.com/Tafsiraya/Index.htm - This site is useful if you want to quickly find the commentary for specific verses.
Reply

MustafaMc
03-30-2013, 12:17 PM
Christians honestly see that they believe in One God, but in three 'Persons'. Their basic concept or understanding of God can be reflected in the Biblical passage, "As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” " Matthew 3:16-17 Muslims do not see these verses or the Nicene Creed as a statements of Divine unity.

The Nicene Creed starts with, "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible." Muslims would fully agree that Christians believe in One God if they stopped there; however, this statement of unity is immediately negated with, "And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father from thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end." There are 20 words of the Nicene Creed allocated to the Father and 128 to Jesus which clearly reflects the Christian focus on Jesus in their worship. There is no Muslim who can disagree with the essence of the first statement except for the use of the word 'father' which implies having offspring. Likewise, there is no Muslim who will accept the second statement as they see it as ascribing partners (a human being, Jesus) with the One God (Allah, glorified and exalted is He).

Perhaps the single most quoted verse in the entirety of the Bible is John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." The word 'begotten' is defined as "(of offspring) generated by procreation; to procreate as the father". The word procreate is defined as "to beget and conceive (offspring), to produce or create; originate, to beget or bring forth (offspring)". Since we know that the Father did not physically sire or beget Jesus (astaghfir Allah), what does 'begotten' mean? A simplistic meaning for 'begotten' implies a beginning for a descendant (son or daughter) that began through the actions of a male parent (father). The word 'conceive' is the passive flip-side of this coin that is applied to the mother as indicated by the definition, "to become pregnant with (offspring)". Since we know that the Father did not physically beget Jesus in the normal human means, then the word begotten can be understood figuratively in the sense of "to produce or create; originate" for the term "begotten" which further sheds light on the title "SON OF GOD" as metaphorical, symbolic, or figurative. Can not this same figurative meaning be applied to Adam, which the Qur'an references with, "Verily, the likeness of Jesus before Allah is the likeness of Adam? He created him from dust, then (He) said to him: "Be!" - and he was." 3:59?

My understanding is that Allah's (swt) existence is unlike our existence. Our existence is defined by the miniscule space occupied by our bodies and by the infinitesimally small amount of time between our conception and our death. My understanding is that Allah (swt) is not bound by our human limitations of the space-time continuum. We do not perceive Allah (swt) as occupying one portion of space over here while not occupying another portion over there, but neither do we say that Allah (swt) physically exists everywhere and in everything at the same time (astaghfir Allah). The same can be said for any point in time from before the moment of creation until after its destruction.

Allah's (swt) existence is the only true reality which brings us to the question of what does it mean to be a man? What is the nature or central essence of our existence? We have a physical body that contains a few trillion cells each with 46 chromosomes that are all the same, but are unique to each individual (except identical twins). Am I really only that Caucasian male body, or am I more than my body? We go through stages of development and decline, but are we defined by any single moment between our birth and death? Do we cease to exist with our death? I have a certain ability to think and understand through the activity of my brain, but does that define who I am along the lines of, "I think, therefore I am"? When my brain ceases to function, do I then cease to exist? I have a certain will to act and to move my body a certain way or think about the solution to some problem. Is that capability or will to act and think define who I am, or is it the choices I make along the way? I have certain beliefs about the unseen, but are those beliefs what defines who I am? I could go on and on with asking the question of "Who am I?" with no clear answer other than an accumulation of choices, actions and intentions made be some essence (the soul) that exists within my body between my conception and death. If, in a sense, my essential existence is a mystery to me, then how much more so the existence of Allah who is beyond the limitation of occupying a human body (astaghfir Allah)?

If there is an intangible aspect of my being (soul) that defines who I am, then was that essential 'human' essence lacking in Jesus and replaced with a 'God' essence, or did the human essence coexist with the God essence inside Jesus' body? If the human essence coexisted with the God essence, then which one was dominant and took precedence? Matthew 26:38-39 should shed light on this, "Then He said to them, “My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even to death. Stay here and watch with me.” He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.” This shows to me that Jesus had a human soul and that his central essence was different and distinct from that of the Father; therefore, Jesus was fully man and in no way, shape or form was he 'God Incarnate.'

Muslims believe that Jesus was born miraculously to the virgin, Mary, without any human father; however, we reject the notion that Jesus was the 'only begotten Son of God' and at the same time literally God Incarnate. We do not believe that it behooves the majesty and glory of God for Him to become embodied inside one of His creatures or for Him to become fragmented into three persons with one coming up from being baptized, another descending in the form of a dove and a third speaking from Heaven of the first as His son. We believe that Jesus was a blessed Prophet, Messenger and Servant of Allah in the same manner that Moses, David, and Muhammad were (peace be upon them). May Allah (swt) remove the confusion from our minds so that we worship Him alone without ascribing any partners with Him. I write from my own limited understanding and I ask God to forgive me for any errors I may have made.
Reply

theplains
03-31-2013, 04:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
I write from my own limited understanding and I ask God to forgive me for any errors I may have made.
May I ask some hypothetical questions. Suppose that God really did become a man,
while at the same time remaining God in heaven. For a moment put aside what the
Quran and Bible teaches and see what ideas you come up with.

What would this man be like? What would he do and teach? Why would God really
want to come down to our level of existence? Would he go to a certain country or
would he visit all nations? If he allowed himself to be killed knowing he would rise
again, why would he go through this?

Thanks,
Jim
Reply

Hulk
03-31-2013, 04:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by theplains
May I ask some hypothetical questions. Suppose that God really did become a man,
while at the same time remaining God in heaven. For a moment put aside what the
Quran and Bible teaches and see what ideas you come up with.

What would this man be like? What would he do and teach? Why would God really
want to come down to our level of existence? Would he go to a certain country or
would he visit all nations? If he allowed himself to be killed knowing he would rise
again, why would he go through this?

Thanks,
Jim
The question is an absurd question because it wants you to accept that the Creator is also a creation both at the same time. That the All Powerful is also not All Powerful at the same time etc. This is plain absurdity, like telling someone to draw a shape which is both a square and not a square.
Reply

MustafaMc
03-31-2013, 09:30 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by theplains
May I ask some hypothetical questions. Suppose that God really did become a man,
while at the same time remaining God in heaven.
I have put forth a quite lengthy explanation why I believe that God did not in any way, shape or form become man. As Brother Hulk explain, for me to imagine the impossible is an absurdity. Why don't you take portions of what I wrote that disagrees with your concept of God and try to explain your position so I can better understand the Christian perspective? Take for instance, the part about Jesus having a core human essence and whether the essence of God dwelt alongside Jesus' human soul or not. If both coexisted within Jesus' body, then the human one must have taken precedence as Jesus stated "not as I will, but as You will." Jesus clearly and emphatically submitted his will to that of God as an obedient servant which is consistent with Acts 3:13 "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified His Servant Jesus..." Therefore Jesus was the servant of the God of Abraham.
Reply

Independent
04-01-2013, 10:43 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
Muslims believe that Jesus was born miraculously to the virgin, Mary, without any human father
In Islam, is Jesus the only Messenger with a miraculous birth? And is he also the only one with a miraculous death event (ie another dying in his place on the cross)? If so, does that affect the way he is regarded? Does it make him more special in any way?

What happened to Jesus after the crucifixion?
Reply

Independent
04-01-2013, 11:21 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by glo
As far as I understand the teachings of mainstream Islam say that Jesus was not crucified, but that somebody else died in his place.
I've read about this. I am wondering if the miraculous birth/death are unique to Jesus and also if we are told what happened after the substitute crucifixion.
Reply

Independent
04-01-2013, 11:38 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by glo
Here is an article about the view according to Shī‘ī Ismā‘īlī Islam:
Actually this article does look interesting but the links don't work very well for me - all the quotes don't display.
Reply

glo
04-01-2013, 11:46 AM
Sorry, I'm not sure what to do about that. It works for me.
Reply

Independent
04-01-2013, 12:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by glo
Sorry, I'm not sure what to do about that. It works for me.
Found it by another link, thanks.
Reply

MustafaMc
04-01-2013, 12:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
In Islam, is Jesus the only Messenger with a miraculous birth?
Yes and no, Jesus (as) was the only human born to a woman without a male parent, but Adam (as) was also miraculously created. "Verily, the likeness of Jesus before Allah is the likeness of Adam. He created him from dust, then (He) said to him: "Be!" - and he was." Quran 3:59.
And is he also the only one with a miraculous death event (ie another dying in his place on the cross)?
This view is accepted by some Muslims including the translators for the widely accepted Mohsin Khan translation of the Qur'an into English (as indicated by an interjected comment); however, I do not know of a hadith on which it is based. This view is documented in the Gospel of Barnabas, but this book is not accepted by anyone that I am aware of as entirely authentic. For myself, I do not have a belief about the how of Jesus' last days on earth except that it is reflected by the ambiguity of the Abdel Haleem translation of Qur'an 4:157-158 "and (the Jews) said, ‘We have killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of God.’ They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, though it was made to appear like that to them; those that disagreed about him are full of doubt, with no knowledge to follow, only supposition: they certainly did not kill him—God raised him up to Himself. God is almighty and wise."

With that said your premise of Jesus having a "miraculous death event" is rejected. I believe that both Jesus and Muhammad ascended to Heaven without dying, but Muhammad returned immediately after receiving instructions for prayer. I believe that Jesus will return during the Last Days to kill the Dajjal and establish Islamic rule on earth before he dies a human death.
If so, does that affect the way he is regarded? Does it make him more special in any way?
Yes, Jesus is among the most honored of prophets along with Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Muhammad. Jesus is clearly indicated as being "special" by his miraculous birth, his ascension to Heaven, and his prophesied return to earth at the Last Days.
What happened to Jesus after the crucifixion?
From above, "they certainly did not kill him—God raised him up to Himself"..
Reply

MustafaMc
04-01-2013, 12:53 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by glo
Here is an article about the view according to Shī‘ī Ismā‘īlī Islam:
While it is true that most Qur’ānic commentators came to deny the crucifixion of Jesus, this view is not actually rooted in the Qur’ānic verses but comes from commentaries which rely on non-Qur’ānic sources. The denial of the historical crucifixion was only one view among others on the subject to emerge from the Islamic world. There have been alternate interpretations of the same Qur’ānic verses which collectively offer a range of perspectives on the crucifixion – from total denial to actually asserting that the crucifixion did take place historically.
This statement is patently false. I have 9 different translations of the Qur'an and every single ones says basically that "they killed him not nor crucified him". This is not to deny that some translations may exist that mistranslates the Arabic into whatever doctrine the translator wants to falsely portray as being Qur'anic. For example the Islamophobe Usama Dakdo has his own translation that he uses to twist the Qur'an to his own agenda. The Shī‘ī Ismā‘īlī most definitely don't represent mainstream Muslims.
Reply

Independent
04-01-2013, 02:11 PM
Thank you for your reply. It's very strange and interesting for me to read about the same figure (Jesus) in parallel in two faiths, although I'm sure this is natural for you by now.

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
With that said your premise of Jesus having a "miraculous death event" is rejected
I wasn't trying to make a point - couldn't think how else to refer to it so I used the word 'event'.
Reply

glo
04-01-2013, 02:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, though it was made to appear like that to them
If I read this sentence alone, then as a Christian I would agree.
They did not kill Jesus. Death was unable to defeat him as he rose from the dead. That's the whole point of the Easter story.

To all who were watching it was apparent that Jesus had died ... but on the third day they were proved wrong. "He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay."

So by this interpretation of the Qu'ranic verse it does not seem to contradict my Christian thinking at all ...
Reply

Indian Bro
04-01-2013, 03:19 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by glo
If I read this sentence alone, then as a Christian I would agree.
They did not kill Jesus. Death was unable to defeat him as he rose from the dead. That's the whole point of the Easter story.

To all who were watching it was apparent that Jesus had died ... but on the third day they were proved wrong. "He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay."

So by this interpretation of the Qu'ranic verse it does not seem to contradict my Christian thinking at all ...
You don't think Jesus (PBUH) died on the cross?
Reply

glo
04-01-2013, 04:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Indian Bro
You don't think Jesus (PBUH) died on the cross?
As a Christian I believe that Jesus overcame death and rose to life again.
They did indeed not manage to kill him (if that makes sense).
Reply

MightyFeathers
04-01-2013, 06:22 PM
I'm not completely sure what glo means but the Christian understanding has always been that Jesus did die; as in his heart stopped beating, and his soul separated from his body; but that he did not stay dead. Because of who he was and what he had done, death could not hold him down and therefore resurrected back to life again. I think that might be what glo is trying to say but I really am not completely sure.
Reply

IAmZamzam
04-01-2013, 07:43 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Independent
In Islam, is Jesus the only Messenger with a miraculous birth?
Most certainly not. He wasn't even the only one at the time. John was conceived of a completely barren woman.

And is he also the only one with a miraculous death event (ie another dying in his place on the cross)?
No. Whatever the meaning of "they did not kill him, neither did they crucify him, but rather it [only] appeared so to them" may or may not be he is not the only one with a "miraculous death event". Idris's own ascension to heaven springs to mind. This is, in fact, part of the reason why the latter is generally identified with Enoch.

If so, does that affect the way he is regarded? Does it make him more special in any way?
To the degree that Jesus is "special", whatever that even means (we are not supposed to favor one prophet over another), it's more because of his eschatological role. There are many prophets but only one Messiah.

What happened to Jesus after the crucifixion?
He ascended alive, as I've said.
Reply

ccc
04-01-2013, 10:42 PM
The birth of Prophet John is miraculous because he is the offspring of a barren mother and an elderly father. His father, it should be noted, was also a Prophet named Zecheriah.
"'Zecheriah, We bring you the good news of the birth of a son whose name shall be John, one whose namesake We never created before.' He said: ‘My Lord! How can I have a boy when my wife is barren and I have reached an extremely old age?' He answered: ‘So shall it be.' Your Lord says: ‘It is easy for Me', and then added: ‘For beyond doubt, I created you earlier when you were nothing' (Quran 19:7-9).
"Zecheriah exclaimed: ‘My Lord! How shall I have a son when old age has overtaken me and my wife is barren?' He said: ‘Thus shall it be; Allah does what He wills'"(Quran 3:40).



So John had a father in the muslim version too
Reply

MustafaMc
04-02-2013, 12:05 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by IAmZamzam
Most certainly not. He wasn't even the only one at the time. John was conceived of a completely barren woman.
You are right from the perspective of an apparent infertile couple having offspring as also was the case with Abraham and Sarah.
Idris's own ascension to heaven springs to mind. This is, in fact, part of the reason why the latter is generally identified with Enoch.
Do you have a specific ayat or hadith that supports your claim about Idris?
Reply

MustafaMc
04-02-2013, 02:28 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by glo
They did not kill Jesus.
format_quote Originally Posted by glo
They did indeed not manage to kill him
hmmm ^o) Definition of Kill: Cause the death of (a person, animal, or other living thing). Whether Jesus was raised from the dead or not is a separate issue, but I think we can agree that he first had to have died (was killed) in order to be later resurrected. Do you not believe that Jesus was as dead from a spear thrust to his side while on the cross as John the Baptist was when his head was brought to Herod on a platter?
Reply

IAmZamzam
04-03-2013, 02:42 AM
You've probably seen it before, MustafaMc. If it's a friendly argument you're after then I'm afraid I don't have the board presence for it these days. I've kind of been doing my own thing. But when you see why I've been away, and what project I've been working on to keep myself busy because of it, you'll know why. I can only hope that some people will be pleasantly surprised.

Suffice to say Idris was "raised to a high station", and this is generally how the verse has been interpreted, especially due to the Enoch parallel and all the extra-Koranic traditions that have arisen surrounding the notion. If you want to interpret the verse in a different way then that's fine.
Reply

glo
04-03-2013, 06:36 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by MightyFeathers
I'm not completely sure what glo means
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
hmmm Definition of Kill:
I see that I have caused some confusion. ;D

Of course the traditional positions are clear:
Christians believe that Jesus died on the cross, was buried and rose to life again.
Muslim believe that Jesus did not die on the cross in the first place, but it was made to look like he did.

I was just interested to hear a group of people come up with a different interpretation of the Qu'ranic verses, which seemed to marry up the Christian view that Jesus did die without attributing divine qualities to him or going as far as believing in the resurrection.

Anyway, has this taken the thread off topic? :embarrass
Reply

MustafaMc
04-03-2013, 09:21 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by IAmZamzam
Suffice to say Idris was "raised to a high station", and this is generally how the verse has been interpreted
I merely asked for an ayat or hadith, but I should have just searched for it. I did find this, "And make mention in the Scripture of Idris. Lo! he was a saint, a prophet; And We raised him to high station." Quran 19:56-57 and from http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?opt...2673&Itemid=75 "Allah complimented Idris for being a truthful Prophet and He mentioned that he raised him to a high station. It has previously been mentioned that in the Sahih it is recorded that the Messenger of Allah passed by Idris on the night of the Isra (Night Journey) and he (Idris) was in the fourth heaven. Sufyan reported from Mansur that Mujahid said, (And We raised him to a high station.) "This means the fourth heaven.'' Al-Hasan and others said concerning Allah's statement, (And We raised him to a high station.) "This means Paradise.''

Yes, Prophet Muhammad (saaws) met Idris in Heaven during his ascension, but so also did he meet Adam, Jesus, Yahya, Joseph, Aaron, Moses, and Abraham. I understand that of this later list, only Jesus is believed to have not died. If Idris is believed to have not died, then I am not aware of that. If you have a hadith to share stating that he did not die, then I am interested in reading it.
Reply

MustafaMc
04-03-2013, 09:32 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by glo
I was just interested to hear a group of people come up with a different interpretation of the Qu'ranic verses, which seemed to marry up the Christian view that Jesus did die without attributing divine qualities to him or going as far as believing in the resurrection.
glo, the interpretation that you postulated calls for an extreme twisting of words in the Qur'an that have an obvious, simple meaning to me. It seemed that you were also doing so with saying, "They did not kill Jesus". This appears to me along the lines of trying to get me to see that white is black and black is white, if you know what I mean. You may have had a different intention, but that is how it seemed to me. Whether Jesus actually died and was resurrected is a different question than the opening one for this thread though they are probably not so different to you.
Reply

IAmZamzam
04-03-2013, 07:12 PM
I'm so sorry, brother Mustafa, I didn't know that you actually weren't aware of this. It sounded more like a challenge. Here, I don't want to copy two whole pages out of "Stories of the Prophets" so I'll just give you this link.
Reply

marwen
04-03-2013, 10:21 PM
Maybe many of you have watched this debate "IS JESUS GOD ?" [sh. Deedat VS Stanley Sjoberg]
It's too long, but worth it. hope it could benefit the thread.
Reply

Mustafa2012
04-03-2013, 11:19 PM
Say (O Muhammad ): "He is Allah, (the) One.
"Allah-us-Samad (The Self-Sufficient Master, Whom all creatures need, He neither eats nor drinks).
"He begets not, nor was He begotten;
"And there is none co-equal or comparable unto Him." (Interpretation of the meaning of The Holy Qur'an 112:1-4)

---

Allah! La ilaha illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He), the Ever Living, the One Who sustains and protects all that exists. Neither slumber, nor sleep overtake Him. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on earth. Who is he that can intercede with Him except with His Permission? He knows what happens to them (His creatures) in this world, and what will happen to them in the Hereafter . And they will never compass anything of His Knowledge except that which He wills. His Kursi extends over the heavens and the earth, and He feels no fatigue in guarding and preserving them. And He is the Most High, the Most Great. [This Verse is called Ayat-ul-Kursi.] (Interpretation of the meaning of The Holy Qur'an 2:255)

---

He is the First (nothing is before Him) and the Last (nothing is after Him), the Most High (nothing is above Him) and the Most Near (nothing is nearer than Him). And He is the All-Knower of every thing.

He it is Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days and then Istawa (rose over) the Throne (in a manner that suits His Majesty). He knows what goes into the earth and what comes forth from it, what descends from the heaven and what ascends thereto. And He is with you (by His Knowledge) wheresoever you may be. And Allah is the All-Seer of what you do.

His is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth. And to Allah return all the matters (for decision).
He merges night into day (i.e. the decrease in the hours of the night is added into the hours of the day), and merges day into night (i.e. the decrease in the hours of the day is added into the hours of the night), and He has full knowledge of whatsoever is in the breasts. (Interpretation of the meaning of The Holy Qur'an 57:3-6)

---

He is Allah, than Whom there is La ilaha illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He) the All-Knower of the unseen and the seen (open). He is the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.

He is Allah than Whom there is La ilaha illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He) the King, the Holy, the One Free from all defects, the Giver of security, the Watcher over His creatures, the All-Mighty, the Compeller, the Supreme. Glory be to Allah! (High is He) above all that they associate as partners with Him.

He is Allah, the Creator, the Inventor of all things, the Bestower of forms. To Him belong the Best Names . All that is in the heavens and the earth glorify Him. And He is the All-Mighty, the All-Wise. (Interpretation of the meaning of The Holy Qur'an 59:22-24)
---

They made not a just estimate of Allah such as is due to Him. And on the Day of Resurrection the whole of the earth will be grasped by His Hand and the heavens will be rolled up in His Right Hand. Glorified is He, and High is He above all that they associate as partners with Him! (Interpretation of the meaning of The Holy Qur'an 39:69)

Reply

IAmMuslim409
04-11-2013, 02:11 AM
Here are some verses from the Jewish Bible AKA Old Testament that prove God is NOT a man..


"To whom can you liken G-d; What likeness can you attribute to Him?" - Isaiah 40:18

"To whom can you liken Me that I should be his equal?' says the Holy One." -Isaiah 40:25

"Thus says the L-RD, 'The heavens are My 'throne,' and the earth My 'footstool;' What house can you build for Me? What place could be My resting place?" - Isaiah 66:1

"Really, would G-d dwell on earth with man? Behold, the heavens and the heaven of heavens can not contain You; Certainly not this House that I have built." - II Chronicles 6:18

"G-d is not a man that He should lie, nor a son of man that He should relent.." - Numbers 23:19

"I will not carry out My wrath, I will not recant and destroy Ephraim, for I am G-d and not a man, the Holy One in your midst; I will not enter a city." - Hosea 11:9

"For I am the ALL-TRANSCENDENT, and I do not change; Therefore you, sons of Jacob, you have not been destroyed." - Malachi 3:6

"Egypt is man and not G-d.." - Isaiah 31:3

"..sword of one who is NOT a man, and the sword of one who is NOT a human will consume him.." - Isaiah 31:8

"The sword of the L-RD..." - Isaiah 34:6
Reply

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

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!