truthseeker63's Corner in Comparative religion

[siam]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

Quran---The "created/uncreated" aspect of a Quran does not really enter into any average Muslims understanding of the Quran----it only entered into this discussion because you brought it up----it was a philosophical discussion centuries ago---there are many philosophical discussions in Islamic history that remain as discussion/debates and have no impact on the actual practice of average Muslims.

Sunni/Shia label does not mattter---any Muslim can clarify the framework of Shirk/Tawheed in discussion/debates. Any Muslim, irrespective of label, would be able to see that speculation on the created/uncreated aspect of anything must be done carefully so as to not overstep the bounds of Tawheed.

The Questions on the other thread---It is like asking a Christian--Can God "self-reveal...etc...etc" in the form of half elephant- half man?---perhaps you might reply---God can do anything---but so what?---both the question and its answer is totally irrelevant to the Christian framework/religion.

Monad---sorry if I was confusing ---but I did touch on this subject with another Christain elsewhere---the discussion was about some theological concepts of the Catholic Church and its corresponding concepts-if any--in Islam. The problem in that discussion was a misunderstanding of terms---the Christian (or Western) terms used , came with "baggage"---an understanding of usage and definition within a Christian framework----there are as yet no corresponding terms/words of Islamic concepts in English---unless one transliterates the Arabic into English and then defines it.....such as Tawheed...Shirk...etc.....
Tawheed is not monad, pantheism, panentheism, tri-unity...etc....even if some corresponding elements of all these can be found in Tawheed.

 

[YieldedOne]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

Siam:
Quran---The "created/uncreated" aspect of a Quran does not really enter into any average Muslims understanding of the Quran----it only entered into this discussion because you brought it up----it was a philosophical discussion centuries ago---there are many philosophical discussions in Islamic history that remain as discussion/debates and have no impact on the actual practice of average Muslims.

Sunni/Shia label does not mattter---any Muslim can clarify the framework of Shirk/Tawheed in discussion/debates. Any Muslim, irrespective of label, would be able to see that speculation on the created/uncreated aspect of anything must be done carefully so as to not overstep the bounds of Tawheed.


It's important enough to some to separate themselves from other Muslims to call those others shirkers.

From wiki...

The Mu'tazilis liked to call themselves the men of the tawhid (ahl al-tawhid). In Maqalat al-Islamiyin, Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari describes the Mu'tazilite conception of the tawhid as follows[26]:

God is unique, nothing is like him; he is neither body, nor individual, nor substance, nor accident. He is beyond time. He cannot dwell in a place or within a being; he is not the object of any creatural attribute or qualification. He is neither conditioned nor determined, neither engendered nor engendering. He is beyond the perception of the senses. The eyes cannot see him, observation cannot attain him, the imagination cannot comprehend him. He is a thing, but he is not like other things; he is omniscient, all-powerful, but his omniscience and his all-mightiness cannot be compared to anything created. He created the world without any pre-established archetype and without an auxiliary.

According to Henry Corbin, the result of this interpretation is the negation of the divine attributes, the affirmation of the created Quran, and the denial of all possibility of the vision of God in the world beyond.[27] Mu'tazilis believed that God is deprived of all positive attributes, in the sense that all divine qualifications must be understood as being the essence itself. In contrast to Textualistic viewpoint, the Mu'tazilite attitude is known in the history of theology by the name of Agnosticism(ta'til), that is to say, it consists in depriving God of all operative action and ends finally in agnosticism. When, therefore, the Qur'an and certain hadith represent the divinity in anthropomorphic form, the Mu'tazilis saw it all as metaphor. The hand is the metaphorical designation of power; the face signifies the essence; the fact that God is seated on the Throne is a metaphorical image of the divine reign, and so on.


The Mu'tazilis are very, very clear that the idea that the Quran is uncreated in any way or that the Mother of the Book is a truly a "pre-established archetype" goes against Tawhid. They have seem to have a very apophatic take to theologizing. As I said before, some Shia believe this too. And it's not seen as some peripheral matter. They are willing to call their fellow Muslims shirkers for doing this...and acting accordingly. And that's a big deal.

We could say it like this: The Mu'tazilis and Shia take a strictly mondaic view of Tahwid such that even talking about the uncreatedness of divine attributes is WRONG interpretation of Tawhid. It seems that YOU, Siam, allow for a broader range of interpretation of Tawhid...which I think makes sense.

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

Siam:
The Questions on the other thread---It is like asking a Christian--Can God "self-reveal...etc...etc" in the form of half elephant- half man?---perhaps you might reply---God can do anything---but so what?---both the question and its answer is totally irrelevant to the Christian framework/religion.


I just knew you weren't going to straightforwardly answer the questions. I see that I'm just going to have to go to someplace local to talk to some Muslims about this face to face. Just so that I can get actual answers. It's so disappointing that there always seems to be such dismissive evasion. Especially when there's smart people can to do better than that. Oh, well.

I guess if I want some straightforward answers, I'd better just so somewhere local for some face-to-face conversations with some Muslims teachers here in town. I can't seem to get them otherwise, by and large.


*************************************************
Siam:

Tawheed is not monad, pantheism, panentheism, tri-unity...etc....even if some corresponding elements of all these can be found in Tawheed.

1) I agree that a form of tri-unity AND panentheism can be found in the essential meaning of Tahwid. Tawhid is not necessarily monadic, though some take it that way, like some Shia and the Mu'tazilis.

2) I agree pretty much wholeheartedly with the Sufi view of Tahwid. It's perfectly consistent with the same views of other mystical traditions in other religions that state that God is the ONE reality that is the true reality of all creation. That is to say, God as the "Absolute Unity of Existence" is the only reality...while Creation is no-thing but God's sustaining activity keeping Creation existent. Wahdat al-Wujud. Believe it or not, it's DEAD ON POINT with both Jewish and Christian mysticism!

 

[YieldedOne]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

Side comment: If I were to become a Muslim, it's clear to me that I could ONLY be a Sufi Muslim. It's the closest to what I genuinely believe about reality.

Christian mystics and Muslim mystics would NOT have that much to disagree about at all, particular when it comes to the importance of the rememberance of God and the extinction/self-emptying of the ego before God.

 

[Woodrow]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

Side comment: If I were to become a Muslim, it's clear to me that I could ONLY be a Sufi Muslim. It's the closest to what I genuinely believe about reality.

Christian mystics and Muslim mystics would NOT have that much to disagree about at all, particular when it comes to the importance of the rememberance of God and the extinction/self-emptying of the ego before God.

I have to agree there is much beauty in Sufism. I admit to having some thoughts (Thoughts not practices)that by some would be considered Sufi. I do see Sufi as Muslim and as my Brothers and sisters in the Ummah. But I do believe some of their practices are Bidah and in error. Sufis are my Brothers and Sisters and I love them deeply. But I do pray they will stop their erroneous practices.

 

[M.I.A.]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

Side comment: If I were to become a Muslim, it's clear to me that I could ONLY be a Sufi Muslim. It's the closest to what I genuinely believe about reality.

Christian mystics and Muslim mystics would NOT have that much to disagree about at all, particular when it comes to the importance of the rememberance of God and the extinction/self-emptying of the ego before God.

if you became muslim that would be more than sufficient lol, you start with a clean slate so putting yourself into a new pigeonhole is probably not the best start. i know you mean your most comfortable with sufi practices but to experience many different ways without narrowing your path is still the best advice i could give.
as woodrow has said, he may have set himself on one way but he still thinks for himself.

anyway i think this is a perfect time to throw this link in for you to peruse and if there are any errors please let me know.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090711220818AAGAJJu

 

[Fivesolas]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

There have been many posts since I posted last. Since I am several courses away from introductory Greek, I wanted to post the following link from Dr. James White. http://vintage.aomin.org/JOHN1_1.html

Regardless of what you think of Dr. White, he is proficient with Greek. That this article address is the translation of John 1:1 and its meaning. The auidence Dr. White has in mind are Jehovah's Witnesses, not Muslims, who have mistranslation John 1:1 in their New World Translation.

Himself being a Greek scholar and teacher, also refers to those who are reknowned Greek scholars such as A.T. Robinson and Kenneth Wuest. Consder a quote from Wuest:

The Word was God. Here the word "God" is without the article in the original. When it is used in this way, it refers to the divine essence. Emphasis is upon the quality or character. Thus, John teaches us here that our Lord is essentially Deity. He possesses the same essence as God the Father, is one with Him in nature and attributes. Jesus of Nazareth, the carpenter, the teacher, is Very God

The article linked is thorough and well cited. Let us be lovers of the truth not seeking to distort it. As a Muslim you may deny the teaching of John 1:1, but it is dishonest and dishonorable before Almighty God to mispresent its teaching.

 

[Zafran]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

Side comment: If I were to become a Muslim, it's clear to me that I could ONLY be a Sufi Muslim. It's the closest to what I genuinely believe about reality.

Christian mystics and Muslim mystics would NOT have that much to disagree about at all, particular when it comes to the importance of the rememberance of God and the extinction/self-emptying of the ego before God.

No muslim would disagree with that - You need to understand that sufism or Tasawuff (as its called in arabic although it has many names) is a science of Islam about the internal state of the human being - Just like fiqh/shariah law is the outward - both have to come togather - Sufis most of the time are masters of the internal state - But following the law is a Pre requisite. You can have sunni sufis or shia sufis.

No sufi is only a sufi he is ultimatly a follower of the prophet muhammad pbuh.

 

[M.I.A.]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

There have been many posts since I posted last. Since I am several courses away from introductory Greek, I wanted to post the following link from Dr. James White. http://vintage.aomin.org/JOHN1_1.html

Regardless of what you think of Dr. White, he is proficient with Greek. That this article address is the translation of John 1:1 and its meaning. The auidence Dr. White has in mind are Jehovah's Witnesses, not Muslims, who have mistranslation John 1:1 in their New World Translation.

Himself being a Greek scholar and teacher, also refers to those who are reknowned Greek scholars such as A.T. Robinson and Kenneth Wuest. Consder a quote from Wuest:



The article linked is thorough and well cited. Let us be lovers of the truth not seeking to distort it. As a Muslim you may deny the teaching of John 1:1, but it is dishonest and dishonorable before Almighty God to mispresent its teaching.

that passage is really simply written, is there scope for any interpretation or is it read and understood literally?

the only thing i cannot relate back to the quran is: bold

glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth...No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

the rest of the paragraph mirrors the quran.

i do not think this has brought us any closer as the bold is usually the contention that is continually between muslims and christians.

prophet muhammed pbuh saw god.
not sure if moses pbup saw god.
..not sure about other prophets seeing god, peace and blessings be upon them

 

[missy]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

prophet muhammed pbuh saw god.

Salaam Bro,

are you sure?

Because I came across these authentic Ahadeeth from Sahih Muslim...have a look at 'em...

It is narrated on the authority of Masruq that he said: I was resting at (the house of) 'A'isha that she said: O Abu 'A'isha (kunya of Masruq), there are three things, and he who affirmed even one of them fabricated the greatest lie against Allah. I asked that they were. She said: He who presumed that Muhammad (may peace be upon him) saw his Lord (with his ocular vision) fabricated the greatest lie against Allah. I was reclining but then sat up and said: Mother of the Faithful, wait a bit and do not be in haste. Has not Allah (Mighty and Majestic) said:" And truly he saw him on the clear horizon" (al−Qur'an, lxxxi. 23) and" he saw Him in another descent" (al−Qur'an, iiii. 13)? She said: I am the first of this Ummah who asked the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) about it, and he said: Verily it was Gabriel. I have never seen him in his original form in which he was created except on those two occasions (to which these verses refer) ; I saw him descending from the heaven and filling (the space) from the sky to the earth with the greatness of his bodily structure. She said: Have you not heard Allah saying." Eyes comprehend Him not, but He comprehends (all) vision. and He is Subtle, and All−Aware" (al−Qur'an, vi. 104)? (She, i. e. 'A'isha, further said): Have you not heard that, verily, Allah says:" And it is not vouchsafed to a human being that Allah should speak unto him otherwise than by revelation, or from behind a veil, or that He sendeth a messenger (angel), so that he revealth whatsoever He wills. Verily He is Exalted. Wise" (al. Qur'an, xii. 51) She said: He who presumes that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) concealed anything, from the Book, of Allah fabricates the greatest lie against Allah. Allah says:" O Messenger! deliver that which has been revealed to thee from thy Lord, and if thou do (it) not, thou hast not delivered His message" (al−Qur'an, v. 67). She said: He who presumes that he would inform about what was going to happen tomorrow fabricates the greatest lie against Allah. And Allah says" Say thou (Muhammad): None in the heavens and the earth knoweth the unseen save Allah" (al−Qur'an, xxvii 65).
(Sahih Muslim vol. 1 hadith # 337)


It is narrated on the authority of Abu Dharr: I asked the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him): Did you see thy Lord? He said: There was only Light;. how could I see Him?
(Sahih Muslim vol. 1 hadith # 341)

 

[Sol Invictus]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

prophet muhammed pbuh saw god.
not sure if moses pbup saw god.
..not sure about other prophets seeing god, peace and blessings be upon them

Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, No. 457: Narrated Aisha: “Whoever claimed that (the Prophet) Muhammad saw his Lord, is committing a great fault, for he only saw Gabriel in his genuine shape in which he was created covering the whole horizon.”

Bukhari Vol. 6, Book 60, No. 378: “Narrated Masruq: I said to 'Aisha, "O Mother! Did Prophet Muhammad see his Lord?" Aisha said, "What you have said makes my hair stand on end! Know that if somebody tells you one of the following three things, he is a liar: Whoever tells you that Muhammad saw his Lord, is a liar." Then Aisha recited the Verse: 'No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over all vision. He is the Most Courteous Well-Acquainted with all things.' (6.103) 'It is not fitting for a human being that Allah should speak to him except by inspiration or from behind a veil.' (42.51) 'Aisha further said, "And whoever tells you that the Prophet knows what is going to happen tomorrow, is a liar." She then recited: 'No soul can know what it will earn tomorrow.' (31.34) She added: "And whoever tell you that he concealed (some of Allah's orders), is a liar." Then she recited: 'O Apostle! Proclaim (the Message) which has been sent down to you from your Lord...' (5.67) 'Aisha added. "But the Prophet saw Gabriel in his true form twice."”

moses saw god, the prophets saw god, the disciples of christ saw god but muhammad never saw god.

 

[missy]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

With the Fire/Metal razor analogy, notice the fire is non-solid/intangible and gives off heat and light necessarily in being what it is. A metal blade is solid/tangible and does not give off heat and light necessarily in being what it is. (You can have an non-reflective ice-cold metal blade.) With the white hot metal razor, you have a metal razor that is solid/tangible that takes on the fire-like qualities of giving off heat and light because the metal razor is permeated by the fire.

The thing here is not about something intangible expressing its power in something tangible, cuz the metal razor could also be heated by keeping a piece of hot coal on it and it wud still acquire the property of heating/giving light.
In the case that u've provided, the power of fire gets expressed in solid form only because the object i.e. the razor is a metal and hence a conductor of heat, and its obvious that it would acquire the property of heating once heated (irrespective of the means used.)

The fire doesn't change to metal and the metal doesn't change to fire.

Isn't that obvious…given that the property of 'heating' is in harmony with the metal i.e. both are compatible with each other.

Instead of fire if u place the razor in water, the reaction will proceed in a manner based on what metal the razor is made of…like if it's Fe; it wud rust (or whateva)…and so on (I suck at Chemistry too!)
Or if u place an insulator in fire instead of the metal (a conductor), the heat won't have much effect on it….and there won't be any 'permeation' of properties…
So IMO this example is based on more of Science than Logic.

where two supposedly contradictory and/or mutually exclusive realities can be attributed to the same object.

This example is another aspect of Science exclusive for an atom. An atom is so very microscopic that it possessing the property of "complementarity" doesn't give us much sound evidence for proving the mutual co-existence of something as mighty as The Divine in something as meek as a human being.

Also this example is not much of a big deal either!....
Ever tried playing soccer with a basketball??...i did and it works!...so u see here, the basketball and the soccer ball are mutually-exclusive realities, contradictory (for the respective fans, u could say) but the basket ball can act as a soccer ball when u're short of one and wanna play soccer and even the vice-versa is possible.
So the basket ball acts as a soccer ball yet not ceasing to be the original.
Anything special?!

And comparing such simple/obvious things to support the Christian view of Jesus being mortal and immortal at the same time doesn't prove it to be logically sound.

And I would also want to say that Immortality and Mortality are two extremes and cannot be logically proved to exist mutually using the examples of natural phenomena/observations.
You understand the gravity of the matter??...

God Almighty is free of such discrepancies. He is Unique and there is none equal to Him.

What say you??

 

[missy]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

moses saw god, the prophets saw god, the disciples of christ saw god

No they DID NOT!!
No one has Seen God Almighty and no one ever will in this world!
Only in the Hereafter can those whom He Wills shall see Him (Almighty).

 

[Sol Invictus]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

No they DID NOT!!
No one has Seen God Almighty and no one ever will in this world!
Only in the Hereafter can those whom He Wills shall see Him (Almighty).

yes they did. but i suppose you mean to say that according to your faith they haven't seen him which on the whole isn't so much a problem for me. as far as my beliefs go, we follow individuals whom have actually seen their lord; you however follow an individual who has never seen his lord.

 

[M.I.A.]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

lol you are right, it was the prophet Ibrahim pbuh that the prophet pbuh saw.

sorry for my mistake

 

[Grace Seeker]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

yes they did. but i suppose you mean to say that according to your faith they haven't seen him which on the whole isn't so much a problem for me. as far as my beliefs go, we follow individuals whom have actually seen their lord; you however follow an individual who has never seen his lord.

I may agree with your Sol, but I wonder about its relevance with regard to faith. Would you agree with me that seeing with one's eyes is not the progenitor of faith, but seeing with one's heart and soul is?

 

[Sol Invictus]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

I may agree with your Sol, but I wonder about its relevance with regard to faith. Would you agree with me that seeing with one's eyes is not the progenitor of faith, but seeing with one's heart and soul is?

i certainly agree with what you have said gene but i do believe that everything in scripture is meant to teach a poignant lesson and i do surmise that god, in his divine wisdom, had a reason for allowing the prophets to behold him. an important question should be, why i should listen to an individual who only conversed with an angel (when quite clearly the bible says that even satan can pretend to be an angel of light and not to believe individuals who would claim that they received a new revelation from an angel) instead of individuals who actually conversed with god face to face:

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2 The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3 We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. 4 We write this to make our joy complete. --- 1 John 1-4 NIV

now contrast the above with: "Whoever tells you that Muhammad saw his Lord, is a liar". "He only saw an angel".

 

[siam]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

"We could say it like this: The Mu'tazilis and Shia take a strictly mondaic view of Tahwid such that even talking about the uncreatedness of divine attributes is WRONG interpretation of Tawhid. It seems that YOU, Siam, allow for a broader range of interpretation of Tawhid...which I think makes sense."

If you were trying to bait me into a response with that---you succeeded.............

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.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

We're getting farther and farther removed from discussing whether or not Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime. I'm OK with that if this is where people wish to head with this discussion, but will probably be dropping out of this thread as it is becoming like many other threads.So, any questions/comments related to how both statements could be true of Jesus as the same time, or are we ready for this thread to metamorphisize into something else?

 

[YieldedOne]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

Personally, GS, I ain't done just yet. On the specific "immortal/mortal" subject, that is.

I'll be hitting you back, Peacelover and Siam.

Gotta take care of some business...

 

[YieldedOne]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

Peacelover,

With respect to my Fire/Metal Blade analogy, I think you seem to be missing the forest for the trees here. What I basically hear you saying is that because the metal blade has heat conductivity, there is something that makes metal "compatible" with fire on that level. In other words, it's possible for metal to burn things and emit light under certain conditions. (In other words, metal doesn't burn things and emit light just by itself.) I don't know what your problem is with this. This idea is simple: The energy of the fire, which is distinct from the metal it energizes, permeates the metal such that the metal and fire are inseparable though distinct in one object. It seems like you are thinking that there can be no point of "compatiblity" in the process to make this work. That's not the case. Some aspects of fire and metal are mutually exclusive (fire=intangible, metal=tangible)...but there is also coinherency, the point of "compatibility" that you speak of.

Let's give an example of what this looks like theologically. God displays unsurpassable, infinite virtue. Sentient creatures display surpassable, finite levels of virtue. The "compatibility" is simple: Both God and sentient creatures can express virtue. Of course, infinitude and finitude are "two extremes"...but there is still "compatibility" such that we can speak of virtue in terms of God AND in terms of creatures. This doesn't negate the mutually exclusion between the full reality of God's infinitude and creaturely finitude.

Again, Peacelover, the main thing I'm trying to show is that there IS a category of thought (complementarity) that allows for things with seemingly contradictory properties belonging to the same singular object. In this case, the "Immortal" permeates, but not destroys, the "Mortal", such that both the "Immortal" and "Mortal" can coexist in the same singular object.

**************************
Siam:
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.


Um...is this true?

The Mihna was instituted in 833, during the last year of al-Ma'mun's life and reign. This Inquisition-type policy required Muslim scholars to be questioned in regards to the nature of the Qur’an as eternal and created or uncreated. This was a debate on which the Mu'tazili maintained the created nature of the Qur’an, as their tenet of the Unity of God would not allow the existence of the Qur’an as eternal and uncreated, yet separate from God. Al-Ma'mun required scholars to profess belief in the Mu’tazili position. Those who refused were subject to torture or imprisonment. Although initially quietly instituted, the refusal of one Muslim scholar, Ahmed ibn Hanbal (died 855), to profess this position and his eventual release signaled a victory for the traditional schools of thought that upheld the uncreated nature of the Qur’an.

Is this a true depiction, Siam?