Grace Seeker
IB Legend
- Messages
- 5,343
- Reaction score
- 617
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Christianity
MustafaMc, this is the second time in less than a month that you have made comments that demand feedback, but you neither post it in the thread nor make yourself available by PM. Rather you just post your comments by giving me some negative reps, and then expect that to be it.
I think that people who expect to be taken seriously need to make their comments in the light of day. So let's bring this one to light and if you want to make any more comments you can make your point here for all to see.
This series begins with Imam responding to one of Follower's posts:
I then picked up on part of what Imam said and made the following post:
Then you gave me the following negative rep:
Well there are several reasons that I didn't quote Imam in the full.
1) He made more than one statement. There was the statement that "If the the spirit of God is what had been thrown to Jesus,then we had the infinite inside the finite...." AND there was another statement "If the the spirit of God is what had been thrown to Jesus,then ... the father Jesus been talking to, was a void." The use of the conjunction made these two independent statements.
2) I only found one of the two statements that I felt merited a comment. It was in the first statement that I felt Imam said something quite extraordinary. Though I had the sense that he meant his comment to illustrate one of the problems of Christianity, I was glad to own it (whether he sees it as a problem or not) as at least being a proper statement about what we believe.
3) The second statement about a void I did not comment on because I see no need to counter every single statement that a Muslim makes with regard to Christianity. I have done enough of this. I suspect it is self-evident that even though I agree that the incarnation has the infinite within the finite that I don't believe this means that Jesus is praying to a void absent of the father. Further, when Imam put up his question marks in response to what I had written, I did go on to expand on my previous remarks and include that second concept in my discussion.
So, I guess you are really wrong in saying that I left of the remainder of Imam's comments. If you were read more than just the one post you would see that I did subsequently address that as well:
But most importantly, since when is one required to quote the whole of someone's post when one is neither attacking it, nor questioning it, nor even critiqueing it, but is simply adding a comment to one portion of it which was an independent thought all on its own? I did not misquote him. I acknowledged that I understood the way I was using the phrase was probably not what he intended when he wrote it. And the original context in which Imam had made his statement was right there for everyone to see and read for themselves, if they so desired. Yes, I think such an act of picking only the part not contrary to my dogma probably is typical for such a comment; not only typical, but also entirely appropriate.
I think that people who expect to be taken seriously need to make their comments in the light of day. So let's bring this one to light and if you want to make any more comments you can make your point here for all to see.
This series begins with Imam responding to one of Follower's posts:
whether breathed or thrown away to,we arrive to the same conclusion..
The spirit (which been blown,thrown away) is a spirit from God not the spirit of God.
If the the spirit of God is what had been thrown to Jesus,then we had the infinite inside the finite and the father Jesus been talking to, was a void.
I then picked up on part of what Imam said and made the following post:
the infinite inside the finite
I know you probably didn't intend to be so prophetic, but I actually think that is one of the better definitions of the incarnation that I have ever read. Do you mind if I use it?
Then you gave me the following negative rep:
from MustafaMc:
Quite typical to pick only the part not contrary to your dogma. Why don't you quote him in full and not leave off "...and the Father, (my edits) Jesus been talking to, was a void." Implying that the Father didn't exist if Jesus was God.
Well there are several reasons that I didn't quote Imam in the full.
1) He made more than one statement. There was the statement that "If the the spirit of God is what had been thrown to Jesus,then we had the infinite inside the finite...." AND there was another statement "If the the spirit of God is what had been thrown to Jesus,then ... the father Jesus been talking to, was a void." The use of the conjunction made these two independent statements.
2) I only found one of the two statements that I felt merited a comment. It was in the first statement that I felt Imam said something quite extraordinary. Though I had the sense that he meant his comment to illustrate one of the problems of Christianity, I was glad to own it (whether he sees it as a problem or not) as at least being a proper statement about what we believe.
3) The second statement about a void I did not comment on because I see no need to counter every single statement that a Muslim makes with regard to Christianity. I have done enough of this. I suspect it is self-evident that even though I agree that the incarnation has the infinite within the finite that I don't believe this means that Jesus is praying to a void absent of the father. Further, when Imam put up his question marks in response to what I had written, I did go on to expand on my previous remarks and include that second concept in my discussion.
So, I guess you are really wrong in saying that I left of the remainder of Imam's comments. If you were read more than just the one post you would see that I did subsequently address that as well:
What's your question? I was entirely serious. When we Christians speak of the incarnation, we are talking precisely about what you defined here: "the infinite inside the finite."
Jesus is the incarnation of the infinite God of the universe in the finite body of a human being. We're not ascribing partners to God at all. We are saying something much more than that. (And I expect even more troubling to Muslims; it certainly is to Jews.) We are saying that God has come in the flesh and walked among us. Of course we don't think that there is a void left in heaven simply because God is incarnated on earth. We understand that God being infinite is not limited to just being in the human body of Jesus, but can be everywhere and especially here both at the very same time and that there is no inherent contradiction in that statement. But your statement is just a an excellent way of saying what Paul said about Jesus -- that all the fullness of God was present and dwelling bodily in the person of Jesus.
But most importantly, since when is one required to quote the whole of someone's post when one is neither attacking it, nor questioning it, nor even critiqueing it, but is simply adding a comment to one portion of it which was an independent thought all on its own? I did not misquote him. I acknowledged that I understood the way I was using the phrase was probably not what he intended when he wrote it. And the original context in which Imam had made his statement was right there for everyone to see and read for themselves, if they so desired. Yes, I think such an act of picking only the part not contrary to my dogma probably is typical for such a comment; not only typical, but also entirely appropriate.