Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Allah is only one
12-26-2017, 05:50 PM (This post was last modified: 12-26-2017 05:51 PM by muhammad_isa.)
Post: #31
RE: Allah is only one
(12-26-2017 04:39 PM)Matthias Wrote:  ..
Adam was not created in the same way that Jesus was. Nevertheless, both Adam and Jesus are sons of Yahweh/God.

Mmm .. it starts to become confusing, doesn't it? I mean, what a son of God actually is..
It just seems an excuse to me, to make a human being into a god .. and to confuse things even more, make God and His human son into ONE Smile

He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: He leadeth me beside the still waters.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-26-2017, 06:10 PM
Post: #32
RE: Allah is only one
(12-26-2017 05:50 PM)muhammad_isa Wrote:  Mmm .. it starts to become confusing, doesn't it? I mean, what a son of God actually is..

A son of God is someone who isn't God.

Quote:It just seems an excuse to me, to make a human being into a god .. and to confuse things even more, make God and His human son into ONE Smile

There is only one God. God is not a human being and no human being is God. I was under the impression that Islam is in agreement with me on that point.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-26-2017, 06:43 PM (This post was last modified: 12-26-2017 06:45 PM by muhammad_isa.)
Post: #33
RE: Allah is only one
(12-26-2017 06:10 PM)Matthias Wrote:  ...
There is only one God. God is not a human being and no human being is God. I was under the impression that Islam is in agreement with me on that point.

Your impression would be right..
Yet you say that "a son" is part of a family, and that Almighty God has a son.
A begotten son that is/was a human being and has none of the attributes of God? Is that it?

In any case .. Yahweh and Allah are one and the same. The problem seems to be one of definition of "a son".

He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: He leadeth me beside the still waters.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-26-2017, 07:04 PM
Post: #34
RE: Allah is only one
(12-26-2017 06:43 PM)muhammad_isa Wrote:  Your impression would be right.

Thank you for confirming.

Quote:A begotten son that is/was a human being and has none of the attributes of God? Is that it?

Apparently answering your question in this thread would be viewed as a violation of the rules. Thanks for the conversation.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2018, 07:11 AM
Post: #35
RE: Allah is only one
(12-25-2017 09:44 PM)Satyros Wrote:  Did you know that Arabic Christians call their god "Allah," too?

I think that most Muslims and Christians will agree that they worship the same deity, even if they hold very different opinions regarding that deity’s nature. A questionable English translation in the King James bible’s famous John 3:16 has caused endless confusion over whether Jesus was born of God in the same way a boy is born of his father: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Let’s compare appellations for the Son in several renderings of John 3:16:

τον υἱον τον μονογενη (SBL Greek New Testament)
his only begotten Son (Authorized Version)
his only Son (New Revised Standard Version)
his one and only Son (New International Version)

Note that the Greek uses μονογενης “monogenes,” meaning “one of a kind.” No Greek word for birth or the begotten condition (for instance, γέννηση and γεννήθηκε) occurs anywhere in the verse. In other words, the original text never says that Jesus was “begotten,” nor do the recent English translations include that word.

In fact, John 1:1 tells us precisely the opposite: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” by verse 14 unequivocally identifying Jesus as this Word, and therefore as God: “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” Christian doctrine takes Jesus as co-eternal with God. He is not a created being.

Hence, where Islam disagrees with Christianity is on the point of Jesus’s divinity, Muslims believing him an ordinary man, numbered among the prophets. Neither religion has ever asserted that God bore a son, despite the familial sonship relation in the Christian Trinity. As far as I know, Islam does not have a trinity; its conception of God is unitary. The Hebrew and Arabic words for God, “El” and “Allah,” respectively, are cognates as both these languages belong to the Semitic branch of the Afroasiatic language family. El may have originally denoted a specific deity before assuming its generic character, the Hebrew bible using it in the masculine plural, “Elohim.”

While we monotheists all have our own words for God, this basic term symbolizes a category, the proper name being “Yahweh” (vowels uncertain), which English bibles often translate with small caps as “the LORD,” to make reference clear.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2018, 09:25 AM (This post was last modified: 01-07-2018 09:30 AM by muhammad_isa.)
Post: #36
RE: Allah is only one
(01-07-2018 07:11 AM)Amememhab Wrote:  ...
Christian doctrine takes Jesus as co-eternal with God. He is not a created being.

That's just about it ..

"The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are referred to as the Synoptic Gospels because they include many of the same stories, often in a similar sequence and in similar or sometimes identical wording. They stand in contrast to John, whose content is comparatively distinct."

So do Christians follow Jesus or John? Wink

Jesus, peace be with him, was most surely a human being. He ate food, used the toilet ie.had human needs. I know, people believe him to be "God incarnate" ... I wonder why God didn't think of that before!?

He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: He leadeth me beside the still waters.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2018, 11:44 AM (This post was last modified: 01-07-2018 11:53 AM by Amememhab.)
Post: #37
RE: Allah is only one
(01-07-2018 09:25 AM)muhammad_isa Wrote:  So do Christians follow Jesus or John? Wink

Personally, I relax in the Johannine Christ, the most spiritual of the gospel accounts, as if in a bubble bath. Published about ten years after Luke, perhaps 95 CE, the gospel of John represents a slightly more advanced state of Christology, written by scholars who were almost certainly aware of Mark, Matthew and Luke—along with the gospel of Thomas and other gnostic materials, and a source we call Q, which is now lost.

It’s not that Christians follow one or the other. Each gospel presents its own unique view of Jesus, the synoptics more closely aligned to a single theme than John is, yet all bearing agendas the authors, or authorship groups, wished to place on the table of church life. Matthew takes the most Jewish road of the four; Luke addresses himself to the gentiles in a more Pauline fashion.

Unlike many Christians and Muslims, even though I believe God ordained the bible come down to us in the form we know it in, I cannot subscribe to the theories of inerrancy attached to scriptures. No book written in a human language can be infallible, given how ambiguous and imprecise our languages are to begin with—not to mention the redactions and interpolations which affected biblical documents and Quran alike. The Quran, as a single project completed within 20 to 50 years of Muhammad’s death, is the least edited of the bunch; the Hebrew bible, compiled over centuries, the most.

The New Testament, nearly as contemporaneous at 20 to 65 years post-Jesus as Quran was to Muhammad, was yet composed as a collection of separate, somewhat independent letters and pamphlets, in turned canonized over hundreds of years in a process ending only in 397 CE, thus doctrinally less uniform than the Quran. I don’t profess to know all the details. I think what I’ve just said is a reasonable overview.

Unfortunately, we lack access to the historical Jesus. Plutarch's Lives omits him; Josephus gives him just a single line of commentary; the gospels were never biographical at all. We know only that he was an itinerant preacher and that he died on the cross. Christians believe he was resurrected.

(01-07-2018 09:25 AM)muhammad_isa Wrote:  Jesus, peace be with him, was most surely a human being. He ate food, used the toilet...I know, people believe him to be "God incarnate" ... I wonder why God didn't think of that before!?

While the Word walked the Earth in a suit of human flesh (John 1:14), Jesus was indeed a man. He had to eat—to the end, when he ate the last supper with his disciples. His urethra had to piss the excess nitrogen out onto the ground. He had to squat so his anus could drop its logs. In the gospels, he does a lot of supernatural stuff during his ministry—miracles like feeding the 5000—accounts which I find a bit doubtful; these point me once again to John, which describes only 7 miracles. However, the synoptic gospels are needed to gain a picture of Jesus’s public message, John instead focusing on his private discussions with his inner circle, the more spiritual side, and less concerned with formal principles of ethics than the synoptics had been.

Most Christians, including me, think the canonization reasonably governed by God, the texts inspired by and mindful of him, yet a liberal Christian is willing to read apocryphal or extra-Christian sources (including Quran) for more insight. Contra popular opinion, canonization never declares books false; it merely prescribes those suitable for use in worship. I don’t use Quran in worship, but that hardly means I’m forbidden to read it, or that it contains no revealed truths.

All ancient religious books are priceless. We’ve sadly gotten the Norse line only in distorted forms due to late arrivals of full literacy and literary technique in the Nordic world circa 1000 CE, despite the first runic letters having been present there by the mid-2nd century. Writing a connected text is an art requiring pedagogy and reference to extant texts; the Egyptians had had hieroglyphs and hieratic scripts since 3200 BCE, but first achieved compositions 600 years later, during the 4th Dynasty.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2018, 07:18 PM (This post was last modified: 01-12-2018 07:26 PM by Amememhab.)
Post: #38
RE: Allah is only one
Let’s take a look at your Quranic quote. From Maulima Ali’s English translation (1917), we read 4:34, with his footnotes:

Quote:So the good women are obedient (to Allah, note a), guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded (note b). Footnotes:

a Obedience here signifies obedience to Allah. This...is made clear by a comparison with 33:31, 33:35, and 66:5.

b This refers to their guarding the husband’s rights. The two qualifications of a good wife as given here are her obedience to God, and chastity.

My guess is the original text doesn’t say to whom she was obedient; Ali says to God. He also says women defended their husband’s right to exclusive sexual access, as to do so would benefit her. She didn’t welcome horners any more than he did, unless a marital breakdown occurred, in which case her own rights and options were severely limited as she couldn’t pronounce a divorce at will. Yet women needed protection they had to get from their men, in such a predatory world where no police existed to prevent rape.

(01-12-2018 04:16 PM)nomorebadhombres Wrote:  ...besides Muslim sexist pigs who believe in Allah, do you believe this to be the one true God?

Before using the word “pigs,” I think you should have quoted more of Quran 4:34 for context:

Quote:On whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in their beds... if they obey you, do not seek a way against them…And if you fear a breach between the two, appoint an arbiter from his people and an arbiter from her people. If they both desire agreement, Allah will effect harmony between them.

I quibble not with the fact that women’s rights in most Muslim lands do not meet modern standards. Yet I’m hardly sure what the (lower) seventh century Arabian standards were, or whether Islamic innovations represented improvement or decline. I suspect the former, as Islam took an interest in quelling feud so that its caliphate would enjoy more domestic peace—a thing which Hatfield-McCoy scenarios disrupt!

So the problem is modernizing the status of women today. Early Islam likely offered women better economic and sexual security than the previous tribal arrangements had; hence the religion’s enduring attraction. Islam required financial support for women and kids, for instance Quran 65:6-7:

“Lodge them where you live according to your means, and do not injure them in order to impose hardship upon them. And if they are pregnant, spend on them until they lay down their burden. Then if they suckle for you, give them their recompense...Let him who has abundant means spend out of his abundance, and whoever has his means of subsistence restricted for him, let him spend out of what Allah has given him.”

The injury in question may have been the breaking of women’s feet to ensure they’d stay housebound and not run away. This was done in China, but whether the custom had entered Arabia is unknown. Most men could take up to four wives, with a few having even more, but only if they could afford it.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)