truthseeker63's Corner in Comparative religion

[missy]

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

If I'm not mistaken, I believe that all of these works are grounded in the celestial archetype called the "Mother of the Book" which is supposed to antedate the creation of the universe...and be "with God." Am I right on that?

I dunno much about this…….'Mother of the Book", I do have some idea about it tho….but can't say much now….a li'l bit of reading would definitely help…so for now, I'm keeping this on a hold....

In my opinion, this is EXACTLY right. Christians view Jesus as an act of DIVINE SELF-REVELATION from God...just like Muslims view the Qur'an as such.

Nopes…this analogy doesn't work…
I'll tell ya why…
Because…The Quran being a part of God's Speech is similar to the Torah and the Injeel. So it's these two that you could compare with the Quran and not Jesus. The Quran was "revealed" as Guidance just the same way the Injeel was revealed to Jesus (pbuh). Whatever Jesus preached was inspired to him by the Divine thru "revelation"…So u see the difference here??....the Quran is "revelation" in itself (uncreated), whereas Jesus "preached" the Divine Message (the Message is uncreated and not the preacher).

" DIVINE SELF-REVELATION"….Jesus…can't be!!
The Holy Quran righty being the Word of God has no error in it. Unlike, Jesus; who confessed that "My Father is Greater than I", he prayed, fasted etc…
You guys argue that he was a perfect man…ok…agreed he was…that doesn't make him Divine does it?!....Bro, See the seriousness of what u're claimin about!! It's HUGE, literally.
Like Jesus had limitations, the Quran doesn't…it is perfectly perfect…not a single typo, no grammatical error, no inferiority, nothing wrong whatsoever!!
Jesus is inferior to God…don't you agree?...The Shema…does it ring a bell??

Jesus is the embodiment of divine guidance for humanity.

yup....u got it right…embodiment of Divine Guidance and not The Divine!! There's a great deal of difference there...
Glad u see it clearly now =)….plz don't go off-track, by again claiming the opposite!

I believe Jesus perfectly "embodied" the content of the Reality symbolized by the "Mother of the Book."

but the divine Reality ("Word/Memra", "Mother of the Book" content, etc) expressed by his body and soul is uncreated, such that something uncreated is being communicated to us through created means.

"divine Reality expressed by his body and soul is uncreated"....In what way e x a c t l y?!.........
w8 a sec!!...what the?! dint u just say he is the embodiment of Divine Guidance?!
*sigh*....u're saying the opposite now…
Plzzz stick to the first…
"Jesus", "embodied", "The Reality"….these words don't go along…
It's not at all justifiable….God Almighty is PERFECT….
"There is none like unto Him"

 

[YieldedOne]

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

Peacelover:
I dunno much about this…….'Mother of the Book", I do have some idea about it tho….but can't say much now….a li'l bit of reading would definitely help…so for now, I'm keeping this on a hold....

It's gonna be extremely important for this discussion for you to read about and understand about the "Mother of the Book" concept.

*********************************************
Peacelover:
The Quran being a part of God's tSpeech is similar to the Torah and the Injeel. So it's these two that you could compare with the Quran and not Jesus. The Quran was "revealed" as Guidance just the same way the Injeel was revealed to Jesus (pbuh). Whatever Jesus preached was inspired to him by the Divine thru "revelation"…So u see the difference here??....the Quran is "revelation" in itself (uncreated), whereas Jesus "preached" the Divine Message (the Message is uncreated and not the preacher).


1) The "Mother of the Book", as pre-existent heavenly archetype, has all of the divine revelation of all the holy writs of the "People of the Book" and the Quran.
2) I'm saying that Jesus is the divinely created embodiment of the divine self-revelation within the pre-existent heavenly archetype as uncreated speech of God.

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

Peacelover:
The Holy Quran righty being the Word of God has no error in it. Unlike, Jesus; who confessed that "My Father is Greater than I", he prayed, fasted etc…


Surely, you are not interpreting Jesus's statement there as some admission that he was LESS than sinless...right? Even in Islam, it is believed that Jesus had absolutely NO sin before God...ever. And you are not suggesting that Jesus' human limitations make it impossible for him to embody divine truth sinlessly (perfectly), right? If so, I'd think you'd be wrong on both counts.

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

Peacelover:
yup....u got it right…embodiment of Divine Guidance and not The Divine!! There's a great deal of difference there...
Glad u see it clearly now =)….plz don't go off-track, by again claiming the opposite!


It really seems that you keep getting hung up here. You keep putting this antinomy between Jesus' created being and uncreated, pre-existent divine reality (Like unto the Mother of the Book). It seems like you keep pitting Jesus' humanity against the uncreated reality where the two cannot coincide. I think you really need to look at the "white hot blade" complemetarity analogy again. Jesus has divine aspects insofar as he is the embodied localization of the Word/Memra...and he has created aspects insofar as he is a full human being.

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

Peacelover:
"divine Reality expressed by his body and soul is uncreated"....In what way e x a c t l y?!

By the Word/Memra becoming flesh, it conformed to the NATURAL mode of human existence. That is to say, human existence that conformed fully to God's original intentions for humanity...ala human existence completely circumscribed by obedience to God's commandments and reality. When I say that Jesus is the embodiment of Divine Guidance, I mean that his very life is a supreme example and teaching in and of itself of what God is like and how human beings can approximate what God is like.

Remember the analogy. Jesus' humanity, like a metal blade permeated by fire, demonstrates characteristics of heavenly knowledge, love, wisdom, understanding, etc that go well beyond mere human functioning...while Jesus' being the Word/Memra, like the fire that permeates the metal blade, becomes physically manifested such that looking at Jesus' human actions reveals divine activity, wisdom, and power.

 

[YieldedOne]

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

Please note. The model is to show how Jesus is "immortal" (uncreated) and "mortal" (created) at the same time WITHOUT any fusion, conflation, or confusion of the two realities. It cannot be the case that that which is uncreated in Jesus can all of a sudden be created--and vice versa--which both realities are attributable to the same Jesus. Again, given the supposed uncreated nature of the Quran and the heavenly archetypal Mother of the Book ideas, I really don't see how this can be seen as absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for God to do.

 

[YusufNoor]

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

wow, our little christian crusaders are really telling quite a few doozies!

how can the make contradictory statements regarding their phony beliefs?

the matter is addressed in the Qur'an, from al Kahf:

"These our people have taken for worship aliha (gods) other than Him (Allah). Why do they not bring for them a clear authority? And who does more wrong than he who invents a lie against Allah."

no need for a ton of BS

it's all crap

chow

 

[YieldedOne]

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

YusufNoor,

1) Is that any way to talk about your brothers and sisters in humanity? Would Allah be pleased with your demeanor in this way?
2) If you believe that I, YieldedOne, worship another God besides the One God of Abraham, Moses, David, and Jesus...then you haven't been reading me. And you don't know me. So...
3) The word is "ciao". It's an Italian expression. Just FYI.

 

[siam]

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

;D "crazy smart"?!!---an interesting choice of words there---I'd agree with the "crazy" part myself since I am going to attempt to answer your question again!!!---though I've already answered it previously......but the way you phrased it is interesting.......

"In your personal view, Siam, does the claim that the Quran is uncreated, pre-existent speech of God expressed in created form constitute SHIRK to you?"


I think it is possible for the "Quran/Mother of the book" to be "speech"and/or "uncreated" would not be Shirk---but to take that and posit that this "speech" exists in "created form" and therefore the form is divine WOULD be Shirk.

Before I explain my answer---let me define the terms as I understand them.

Quran/Mother of the book"----the way I understand this term is that there is a "blueprint" of wisdom teachings that are with God. I would understand this as an attribute of God being All Wise, Full of Wisdom, Most Knowledgeable.

Speech---I don't know about the created/uncreated aspect of this---however, I view "speech/Word" as a "process of creation"

Existence of Creation-in-Divine---Since I feel it is likely that the created and finite exist IN the Uncreated and Infinite---I hold the view that the Divine permeates ALL existence---but this does not make ANY creation Divine.

Attribute---These are facets of God's totality that we humans use to understand the Divine because of the limitations imposed by both language and the created/finite "reality/illusion" we find ourselves in. (In Islam, attributes are not limited to 3, therefore the argument of a "necessary triune" within the concepts of attributes, would not work for us---it limits God)

For Muslims, a concept of "God incarnate" limits/imprisons the Divine into space-time/finite/created. This contradicts the Muslim understanding of God as the Uncreated, Limitless, Infinite. (If the Divine permeates all---incarnation is "unnecessary")----I seem to be repeating myself from previous posts---and that is really boring^o).....

Anyway, here are my thoughts about the Quran.....
I do not worship the Quran as God.
I do not worship the Quran as "speech" of God.
I do not see the Quran that I hold in my hands as the "Uncreated, Infinite" God.
I read/recite the Quran TO worship/prayer the ONE God to whom all worship is directly due.
The Quran is not a being/entity/Divine/Semi-Divine intercessor. My prayers are directly to the ONE God.
However---I also Believe that the Quran was revealed by God through agencies such as Angel Gabriel and/or Holy Spirit for the purpose of Guidance. This revelation has been preserved to this day exactly as it was revealed and in the exact order it was intended. (which was not chronologically). This revelation was in the form of "speech" meant to be memorized---which it was, and still is meomorized in its entirety. This aspect makes it possible to somewhat recreate the "revealed speech" through recitation by a human agent. This does not make the "recitation" God, nor does it require Muslims to worship the reciter or the recitation as God or part of God---or Godhead. If such a recitation were to take place through a man-made device---it would not make the device "God" either. ----Once again I am repeating myself---I've already explained all this previously----so try to pay attention ok....:shade:

As to my statement about a "blueprint" of a "Mother of the Book"---I would understand this as an attribute of God---God is Uncreated, Infinite, Unique but in order to understand his totality we take aspects of him such as Wisdom, All-Knowing, Ever-Present....etc. These attributes are not confined to a particular finite number----Since attributes are apects of the Uncreated Divine, they would necessarily be understood as "Uncreated"--however, this does not mean attributes be worshipped---for to do so would be to divide the Divine and elevate an attribute to Divinity. God alone in his totality is to be worshipped.----I believe this is where Islam and Trinitarianism differ in our respective understanding of God?

In view of the theories from quantum physics--- it might be possible that the recited Quran may be a "force". If as quantum physics posits, all things are made of vibrating strings---then certain sounds/frequencies/vibrations may possibly have a "force" to them. The Hindus say that their "sound" the recited "OM" is a "primordial sound". Chanting has also been used in many religious beliefs---maybe there is something to it, maybe not. My opinion is not yet fixed on this matter----in any case----"force" or not, since it would not be worshipped as God or part of a Godhead, it matters little in the overall scheme of things.......

Because of the 2 aspects of Tawheed and Shirk---our concept of God is more definite----the boundary is very clear for us Muslims.---which is why some people refer to us Muslims as "radical monotheists";D----perhaps Chrsitans can be reffered to as "flexible monotheists";D

 

[YieldedOne]

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

Alright, Siam. I'm gonna take this in sections. I want to deal with two premier concepts before actually analyzing your answer to my question.

Soo...

About worship
It seems, Siam, that your most consistently repeated concern seems to be worship of Jesus as God. You were even willing to allow universal veneration ala all "bowing of the knee" to Jesus as Messiah...as long as that was held absolutely distinct from worship of God. For the sake of this conversation, I want you to just take it that Christians worship wrongly. I know that you do that anyways, but I want you to really just do that. Why? Because it seems to hinder the hypostatic union discussion. It feels like you argue by way of doing everything possible for Jesus NOT to be worshipped as God. I'd much rather you focus on the idea that the there is a meaningful way of describing how the uncreated and the created can coexist inside the singular human being, Jesus. That's all I'm looking for right now. Is the complementarity motif a MEANINGFUL, CONSISTENT way of describing how that which is "immortal" and "mortal" coincides in Jesus without fusion or confusion. So for the sake fo this discussion, let's just say that worshipping of Jesus (rather than veneration) is out of bounds. Hopefully, this will clear space for discussion on that. (Christians, I ask that you please hold your indignation of this allowance. Just this once. Pretty please. )

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

About limitation
You mention two forms of limitation that are not allowable for God.

1) The idea of a necessarily triune activity by God
2) the incarnation of the Word/Memra of God.

First, you think that saying that God enacts a necessarily triune self-relational activity that that limits the infinity of God's attributes. I'd like you to show me how that is. I've never said that God only has 3 attributes. No where. And if you look closely at what I've said about the necessarily triune activity you would see that. I'm assuming that you've read enough Christian literature to know that Christianity does not limit the attributes of God (God's goodness, wisdom, etc) in such a way. Actually, the opposite, God has unlimited attributes in thie vein. So, I contend that claiming that God eternally enacts a necessarily triune activity with respect to divine self-relationship does NOT constitute a limitation of divine attributes.

Second, you seem to think of the incarnation in spatial terms. Let me get your exact words...

For Muslims, a concept of "God incarnate" limits/imprisons the Divine into space-time/finite/created. This contradicts the Muslim understanding of God as the Uncreated, Limitless, Infinite. (If the Divine permeates all---incarnation is "unnecessary")

Your depiction sounds like the Word/Memra is "trapped" in some localization, such that the localization of action itself is spatial limitation of God. That's simply not the case. As I tried to tell you before, it is completely viable that the Omnipresent God can manifest Himself in certain ways in certain locations that he does not do in other locations. Just because God is everywhere present and active does NOT mean that God cannot express himself particularly and uniquely in some specific locations and times. This is exactly why theophanies in the Bible were not seen as imprisoning localizations of God. For our discussion, saying that God's Word/Memra is fully expressed through Jesus' humanity does NOT mean that the Word/Memra is delimited solely to the human body and soul of Jesus per se; it's to say that God's Word/Memra is uniquely manifested through Jesus. I'm really hoping that you can see that this is DISTINCT from saying that God's Word/Memra is "trapped" in the human body of Jesus.

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

Question and Answer

"In your personal view, Siam, does the claim that the Quran is uncreated, pre-existent speech of God expressed in created form constitute SHIRK to you?"

Your answer, Siam:

I think it is possible for the "Quran/Mother of the book" to be "speech"and/or "uncreated" would not be Shirk---but to take that and posit that this "speech" exists in "created form" and therefore the form is divine WOULD be Shirk.

Basically, you take the position that the uncreated speech of God is an attribute of God and thus, doesn't constitute shirk. Basically, because God is uncreated, God's speech is uncreated. It seems that you don't fill out the created/uncreated aspect, ala saying that the uncreated speech antedates Creation. I'd like to remind you that this is a clear aspect of what's been taught: that God speaks when he wishes and HAS SPOKEN sans Creation. That's important to get. Unless you want to demonstrate how, for some arbitrary reason, that God didn't speak at all before Creation...you have to allow for that theologically.
Beyond all that, let's go back to this part of your statement...

but to take that and posit that this "speech" exists in "created form" and therefore the form is divine WOULD be Shirk.

Ok. What you are saying here is that the created can NOT be taken for uncreated, just because the uncreated is expressed through it. The created form which expresses the divine reality cannot be worshipped as divine in and of itself. Ok, that's fine, well, and good. At the same time, this doesn't say that the created form cannot be VENERATED for how it expresses the divine. For example, no Muslim worships the Qur'an...but let someone try to descrate it or dishonor it, even in DISPOSING of one...and you'll see mad issues. Why? Because of what the divine Word that Muslims believe the Qur'an "houses." I don't see how the same logic cannot apply to Jesus. Even if you consider the Word/Memra of God to be an attribute of God (which is entirely possible within the general framework of my idea), that doesn't mean that the human flesh that houses said attribute is not worthy of ANY veneration.

[Digression: I'm beginning to think that a new thread on "Worship VS Veneration" needs to take place. I think this will clear up a LOT of things, specifically on the Mariology, saints, etc.]

In other words, given your answer, I don't see how it's philosophically or theologically impossible to say that Jesus is the uncreated speech of God in created form. You can rail all day long about the particularities of who should be worshipped and who shouldn't be. But that's irrelevant to the viability of the embodiment of God's Word/Memra. Moreover, as I've said before, saying that God can peform unique manifestations of self-revelation in time and space does NOT equal spatial "imprisonment" of God.

Ok...I think that'll do for now...

 

[YieldedOne]

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

Siam:
Because of the 2 aspects of Tawheed and Shirk---our concept of God is more definite----the boundary is very clear for us Muslims.---which is why some people refer to us Muslims as "radical monotheists"----perhaps Chrsitans can be reffered to as "flexible monotheists"

Insofar as some Muslims seem incapable of conceiving Tawhid in any other way except for God-as-absolute-monad, I'd say that said Muslims are "philsophically bound" monotheists. Saying that God is one is NOT the same thing as saying that God can be nothing other than an absolute monadic being. But it seems that that can't be understand by many Muslims. Don't know why, but that's the way it seems to be. Christians see God-as-triunity. There is STILL only ONE God in sight, but in a different depiction. My thought is that if Christians and Muslims could actually sit down and NOT BE AFRAID to change their beliefs (either side) that much more light could come from the discussion can come. But, as ThisOldMan told me before, there is such hesitation and reticence to even be OPEN to these ideas (in fear of shirking), it takes lots of energy just to get to first base on much of this stuff.

 

[missy]

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

It's gonna be extremely important for this discussion for you to read about and understand about the "Mother of the Book" concept

oh:

1) The "Mother of the Book", as pre-existent heavenly archetype, has all of the divine revelation of all the holy writs of the "People of the Book" and the Quran.
2) I'm saying that Jesus is the divinely created embodiment of the divine self-revelation within the pre-existent heavenly archetype as uncreated speech of God.

:hmm:

Surely, you are not interpreting Jesus's statement there as some admission that he was LESS than sinless...right? Even in Islam, it is believed that Jesus had absolutely NO sin before God...ever. And you are not suggesting that Jesus' human limitations make it impossible for him to embody divine truth sinlessly (perfectly), right? If so, I'd think you'd be wrong on both counts.

wrong?!...i don't get u! :-\

It really seems that you keep getting hung up here. You keep putting this antinomy between Jesus' created being and uncreated, pre-existent divine reality (Like unto the Mother of the Book). It seems like you keep pitting Jesus' humanity against the uncreated reality where the two cannot coincide. I think you really need to look at the "white hot blade" complemetarity analogy again. Jesus has divine aspects insofar as he is the embodied localization of the Word/Memra...and he has created aspects insofar as he is a full human being.

u talkin about the "complementarity" theory...hmm...right!...u really think it works for Jesus (a human after all) being both mortal and immortal at the same time ?!

By the Word/Memra becoming flesh, it conformed to the NATURAL mode of human existence. That is to say, human existence that conformed fully to God's original intentions for humanity...ala human existence completely circumscribed by obedience to God's commandments and reality. When I say that Jesus is the embodiment of Divine Guidance, I mean that his very life is a supreme example and teaching in and of itself of what God is like and how human beings can approximate what God is like.

Remember the analogy. Jesus' humanity, like a metal blade permeated by fire, demonstrates characteristics of heavenly knowledge, love, wisdom, understanding, etc that go well beyond mere human functioning...while Jesus' being the Word/Memra, like the fire that permeates the metal blade, becomes physically manifested such that looking at Jesus' human actions reveals divine activity, wisdom, and power.

<_<

 

[siam]

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

@ YO
---No, God is not understood as a "monad" in the Western definition of the concept which has a plural---"monads" (not to mention, other aspects of the concept (liebnitz?)would contradict Tawheed---unless you want to define the term for purposes of discussion......)

 

[YieldedOne]

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

Siam:
No, God is not understood as a "monad" in the Western definition of the concept which has a plural---"monads" (not to mention, other aspects of the concept (liebnitz?)would contradict Tawheed---unless you want to define the term for purposes of discussion.


What I mean, Siam, is that idea that God is a "fundmentally singular metaphysical entity" (Collins English Dictionary) such that "oneness" is ONLY be taken in the unitary sense. In other words, God being "One" is seen as unique and indivisible whole without any possibility of diversity of distinction within the unique, indivisible whole. An absolutely monadic being.

The problem is that diversity of distinction is NOT a mutually exclusive idea from being a unique, indivisible whole, per se. Much of Islam seems to just take it that way off top, saying that ANY type of diversity of distinction in God's self-existence is tantamount to divisions within God. But no one that I've seen shows this to necessarily be the case. They just assume the monadic idea of "oneness" and run with it.

THIS is why some Muslims (Shia) see positing the Qur'an as "uncreated speech" as shirk. That's seen as TOO MUCH diversity of distinction being allowed in the uncreated, even as some kind of attribute.

 

[YieldedOne]

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

Part of my issue with God-as-absolute-monad is this:

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.

 

[YieldedOne]

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

Intrapersonal communication is language use or thought internal to the communicator. It can be useful to envision intrapersonal communication occurring in the mind of the individual in a model which contains a sender, receiver, and feedback loop.

Although successful communication is generally defined as being between two or more individuals, issues concerning the useful nature of communicating with oneself and problems concerning communication with non-sentient entities such as computers have made some argue that this definition is too narrow.

In Communication: The Social Matrix of Psychiatry, Jurgen Ruesch and Gregory Bateson argue that intrapersonal communication is indeed a special case of interpersonal communication, as "dialogue is the foundation for all discourse."

As far as we know, only human beings can really do this. Personally, I believe it's part of how we are created in God's image. The ability for inner and outer dialogue. Remember, this is one of the CORE METAPHORS that we live by as humans! See Chapter 13. page 267

Here's a GREAT example from a Psalm of David (43)...

Why are you cast down, O my soul,
and why are you in turmoil within me?
Hope in God; for I shall again praise him,
my salvation and my God.

 

[YieldedOne]

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

Yo! I've just started a thread called "Can Allah Have Interpersonal Communication?" or something like that in the "Clarification about Islam" section. I did this so that we wouldn't be taken so far afield from the hypostatic union discussion here. If anyone wants to respond to the thoughts in the last 2 posts, I'd ask that you please place them there. I think that's gonna be a good convo!

 

[Chavundur]

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

Yo! I've just started a thread called "Can Allah Have Interpersonal Communication?" or something like that in the "Clarification about Islam" section. I did this so that we wouldn't be taken so far afield from the hypostatic union discussion here. If anyone wants to respond to the thoughts in the last 2 posts, I'd ask that you please place them there. I think that's gonna be a good convo!

Only that Question is a big sign of mental balance. What this question for ? Why can't you clearly believe Hypostasis Union ? If you have lofty meanings clearly, why you walk around Muslims or other transient beings ? If you are Saint why you try to sell your elevated knowledge so cheap ?

 

[siam]

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

Part of my issue with God-as-absolute-monad is this:

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.

----Therefore, Tawheed is clearly not monadic

 

[siam]

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

YO---Western philosophical ideas are inadequate to express Islamic concepts because these ideas are often reductionist and without nuance. Quranic concepts have more nuance, are based on a wholistic perspective and are sophisticated. I know this may be difficult to grasp without a thorough understanding of Quranic concepts in order to compare.

There is also another aspect --- when discussing Quranic concepts, purpose is an important element. The Guidance of the Quran is given with purpose.
I think Woodrow tried to explain with God lifting a stone (?) example---purposeless propositions/questions are simply inane and not worth the effort.

Often Western Christians enter into discussions with 2 flaws, 1) assumptions about Islamic concepts based on Western philosophical concepts and/or word definitions and, 2) a Christian-centric perspective to issues that assumes that a Christian perspective is a valid perspective for Muslims also. (and yes---we Muslims also have our assumptions about Christians/Christianity)

You, at least, have made attempts to understand Islamic concepts on their own terms---the effort is appreciated---though your understanding is/was inadequate.

I think it was Piper that wrote a comparision between the Quran and the Christian concept of Jesus Christ(pbuh) and then proceeded to imply that the reason Muslims are upset with Quran being destroyed is because of this view. Such an assumption is based on error. Muslims do have a deep respect for the Quran and Prophet Muhammed(pbuh) and do not take insults to either lightly. However, apart from the politics of it, this is based on the intentions of the perpetrators and not because the Quran or Prophet Muhammed(pbuh) is considered God. Torn and damaged Qurans are buried without anyone resorting to riots......

As for the Quran and Shirk---I can't say I know a lot on the subject of uncreated/created Quran and the debates about it---but again your interpretation is probably in error---Shirk is about "creating partners unto God" and not about attributes.

 

[YieldedOne]

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

Siam:
Therefore, Tawheed is clearly not monadic.


I honestly didn't understand what you meant by this statement. Were you saying this because "diversity-in-unity" (ala divine self-relationship) IS possible in Tawhid? Could you explain your statement please?

Actually, for a change of pace, you can actually DIRECTLY ANSWER some questions that I ask on that other "Can Allah Have Intrapersonal Communication?" thread. It'd be nice for a change...but I should probably know better by now. Heh.;D

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

Siam:
I think it was Piper that wrote a comparision between the Quran and the Christian concept of Jesus Christ(pbuh) and then proceeded to imply that the reason Muslims are upset with Quran being destroyed is because of this view. Such an assumption is based on error. Muslims do have a deep respect for the Quran and Prophet Muhammed(pbuh) and do not take insults to either lightly. However, apart from the politics of it, this is based on the intentions of the perpetrators and not because the Quran or Prophet Muhammed(pbuh) is considered God.


Um, of course no Muslim thinks that either the Quran or Muhammed is considered God. I'm saying that the reverence given to both is OBVIOUS...outside of any political situations. My point is that the created aspect of the Quran is revered/venerated BECAUSE of the uncreated Reality that it testifies to.

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

Siam:
As for the Quran and Shirk---I can't say I know a lot on the subject of uncreated/created Quran and the debates about it---but again your interpretation is probably in error---Shirk is about "creating partners unto God" and not about attributes.


1) How do you know my interpretation is wrong when you don't know a lot of the subject? Shouldn't you do that first before you declare me "probably in error'?
2) If I were you I'd really look at those conversations. Specifically the Shia take on the Sunni view. I'm tellin' ya, bro. There are Muslims that think that saying the Quran is in any way uncreated is tantamount to shirk. Just read up...and you'll see.

 

[missy]

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

@ Bro YO
Sooo...i think i'm finally gonna give u direct answers to u're analogies.......lazy to search for u're exact words (so not quoting 'em), will have to go back sooo many pages u see...

First: Metal-Razor Analogy
U're point was that when a sharp metal razor is put in fire it becomes capable of giving light/heat without losing it's property of cutting...simply that, both the properties exist in the razor without actually affecting each other.
^this is bcuz the property of "giving heat" and that of "cutting" can be attributed to a "metal" (ofcourse that of giving heat is in presence of a medium, not necessarily fire, cud be electricity or simply a bright sunny morning!)...and the other reason is that both these properties are "compatible" with each other with the razor as the object....
In the same case the theory of "complementarity" wont work if instead of a metal blade u try putting a plastic knife in fire with the hope that it'll give u heat and still work as a knife...u'll only find urself polluting the environment...ofcourse the plastic will melt!!

Second: Wave-Particle Duality
An atom has both the properties, that of a wave and of a particle...
First i need to understand this properly...my Physics sucks! ....anyway, lemme give it a try....
being like a wave helps an atom to...no..umm...i think it helps us to know the wave-length/position of the atom and; as lay-peep understand it..an atom is a particle. So basically, an atom has two distinct properties which are wave-like property and particle-like property which co-exist together at the same time w/o affecting one another....
I find this similar to a person saying "I'm a human being and I can breathe and walk/stand at the same time......unless i fall off a cliff and don't have a parachute"....
An atom (being a particle) exists at a place but we don't know where exactly that particular atom could be but bcuz it's also a wave, we are able to determine it's position by finding out it's wave-length (if that's how they do it)....just as we might know of a 'man', existing somewher cuz of our knowledge that he might be breathing (if alive), but what makes us know exactly of his position is by the fact that he would be 'standing' at some place of a specific latitude and longitude.

So in a nutshell, an atom is similar to a human being in it being a particle just as a person breathes (both exists somewhere) and it being a wave just as a person stands/walks at some place.......Big Deal!! Right?! ^o)

Coming to the most important part....Why Jesus (in the light of these 2 examples and even otherwise) cannot be both mortal and immortal at the same time....

First: Metal-razor-heat...
---properties: 'giving heat', 'cutting'...
1) both properties applicable to metal
2) both compatible with each other

Whereas, Jesus (pbuh)...
---the 2 properties talked abt here are "mortality" and "eternity"....attributed to Jesus...
1) N.A to Jesus (as he was a human), according to the general norm....
2) Are the 2 properties 'compatible' with each other.....they are two extremely extreme extremes least to say opposites!!...So No, not compatible, logically.
Lets take an example....say, instead u wanna make a metal give heat and a good fragrance at the same time...so u spray a lot of deo on it and then u heat it so now the metal is very hot and i don't think it'll give the fragrance (neva tried this)...and even if u wanna check if fire and fragrance can both work on a metal and u try getting the odor u'l end up burning u're nose.... :giggling:

So u see how the 2 factors of 1. compatibility and 2. application (on a 'specific' object) play an important role....

Second: W-P duality
As for this analogy, i think it's just 2 different attributes/properties that an atom has...just like we can breathe and walk at the same time...
Jesus (pbuh) could do the same...does it make him any different?!

i hope i made sense... XD

 

[YieldedOne]

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

Peacelover,

Thanks for engaging the analogies. Good stuff. I do think I may to clarify some things though.

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. And you have the power of fire being expressed in a solid form, able to work in and through that solid blade form. Both attributes of metal and fire can now be attributed to the metal blade. You have the fire and the metal blade coinciding in one object without confusion or fusion of realities; The fire doesn't change to metal and the metal doesn't change to fire. This is how the analogy is supposed to work.

Immortality (uncreated Word/Memra of God) <=> Fire

Mortality (created human soul/body) <=> Metal


With the W-P duality analogy, I'm just saying that it's use as a heuristic in science demonstrates that it is meaningful to talk about the principle of complementarity, where two supposedly contradictory and/or mutually exclusive realities can be attributed to the same object. This is distinct from walking and breathing at the same time.

Just clarification. Good engagement!