Easy Target: Possible Analogies for Uncreated Triune Being

  • Thread starter Thread starter YieldedOne
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 82
  • Views Views 14K
Ah, am I sensing that you have difficulty in addressing br. Woodrow's questions and br. Hamza' s specific post to you?

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

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

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

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

i'm sorry yielded for somewhat taking the discussion off-topic but as you can see i am trying to get naidamar to substantiate some of the claims he has made in this thread and it would seem that he is doing everything to avoid having to back up his points.
 
Sol Invictus said:
now that's rather odd, i specifically told you to go post whatever you have written above in the very thread in question and now you claim that i'm trying to avoid such a discussion? funny how you seem to hear only what you want. let me try to make this perfectly clear for you: if you feel that you need to prod me in order to get me back into the discussion, then why is it that you're not posting it in that thread? please do go post whatever drivel you have above in the appropriate thread. i certainly welcome the fact that my return to the thread in question is being anticipated with so much fanfare. now let us stop this off-topic discussion, as a mod you should certainly know better. do know that the irony of you spamming this thread is not lost on me and as such i must ask you to please stop. once more, you are more than welcome to post whatever you feel in the appropriate section but you are diverting this thread and as a mod we certainly expect better of you.
Click to expand...

Ah, I am taking all this as an admission that your knowledge in christianity does not prepare you to have discussion about christianity that actually involve scriptural evidence and Jesus (p) alleged words so you have to resort to smoke and mirror tactic :)

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

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

Let us hear what kind of the father-the son-spirit you can come up with. YO's one was pretty boring, who knows you will provide a lot more entertaining analogies for christians' 3-in-1 deity, my hope is not too high of it being logical though.
 
naidamar said:
talking about off-topic, let me remind you the title of this thread:
Easy Target: Possible Analogies for Uncreated Triune Being
Click to expand...
yes, i'm quite aware of what this thread is called. yes, my debunking your logic was quite on-topic actually. you made blatantly false claims and i've shown them to be wrong. if you disagree with the fact that you are wrong then please disprove the syllogism. if you've forgotten, then here it is again:

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

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

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

Simply put ... a TRIUNE God is NOT Tawheed.......and you can try till the oceans run dry---Muslims are not going to budge from Tawheed.;D
 
Sol Invictus said:
yes, i'm quite aware of what this thread is called. yes, my debunking your logic was quite on-topic actually. you made blatantly false claims and i've shown them to be wrong. if you disagree with the fact that you are wrong then please disprove the syllogism. if you've forgotten, then here it is again:
Click to expand...

I think you are gonna be embarrassed and you may think you confuse people but I have to break the news for you: most people actually do have pretty good brain faculty, and once they figure out that there is no way 1+1+1=1 and it is actually juvenile to create a myth about God come down to earth, being born of a virgin, suckled from her breasts, took toilet breaks and cried helplessly, they either totally rid themselves of all those myth or coming to the truth that is Islam.

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

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

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

so if you have problem with that, than you need to talk with him.

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

I'm sure you have plenty of ideas and cannot wait to explain to us using analogies of the three distinct uncreated christian deities?
 
Last edited:
Sol Invictus said:
hanks! i'll make sure to post in the next day or two. make sure to keep reading naidamar.
Click to expand...


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

If you need time to study and brush up on your bible so you can thoroughly answer brother Hamza's questions in the central flaw's thread, maybe I shouldn't press you for your christian deities analogies in this thread. Although it would be a shame.
 
Last edited:
Siam:
In Islam, God DOES NOT have a "multiplicity of eternals"---which was the point of the mutazali/ashari perspective...that was mentioned in the other thread.
---which you refused to understand because it didn't suit your argument.:D

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

Let me get the questions again...

1) Are these analogies meaningful and coherent?

2) Are these analogical concepts logically viable within a simple monotheistic framework? (Note this is NOT asking what allowable for a particular religious context, Islamic or otherwise. This is asking about logical viability of the concepts given the belief in a singular, uncreated personal reality who originates Creation.)
 
Last edited:
YieldedOne said:
Anyways, PLEASE just answer the two questions I have concerning the analogies. That's all I'm asking. Don't simply think of this in terms of Islam. As I said, I'm talking in a simple MONOTHEISTIC context, not necessarily YOUR view of Tahwid.
Click to expand...

I still cannot believe you don't understand the basic of Islam:

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

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

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

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

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

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

So whats your next analogies?
 
Last edited:
This will help.

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

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


Bring your evidence or witness then.
 
Not everyone--including every Muslim--thinks as you do, brother Naidamar. I'm pretty clear on your take...so thanks.
 
Here's a repost from the other thread, Siam...
---------------------------------------------------

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

Siam: Therefore, Tawheed is clearly not monadic

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

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

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

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

If God has the ability for self-relationship--which I'm hearing so far is the case--then I don't see how this idea is logically impossible.
 
For me, the impetus for this whole thing is that I kept hearing that the idea of triunity in God is INCONCEIVABLE or completely contrary to reason. Basically, people kept thinking about it as 1+1+1=1 or some silliness like that. The analogies are to give people a DIFFERENT TAKE so as to see that it is not nonsensical to talk about a diversity of distinction within an single, indivisible reality. It CAN and DOES have meaning...if people want to be open to that. Oneness in monotheism is NOT merely thinking monadically.
 
Last edited:
YieldedOne said:
So all this means that this is NOT to be classified as idolatry or association per se at all. We are not talking about some demiurge or anything like that. It's NOT modalism in that the perspectival diversity of distinction is REAL and ACTUAL within God's inner life...not merely just in the perception of believers. It's NOT tri-theism in that the diversity of distinction within God's inner life is not SEPARATION of will, purpose, or power that any way severs the unity within God.
Click to expand...


not idolatry?

you christian worship Jesus (pbuh) right?

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

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

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

Similar Threads

Back
Top