The Ontology Of God In Islam & Christianity (For Jameel)
Imran Aijaz
At a personal request, I have decided to write up some thoughts on the
ontology of God in Islam and Christianity. This comes primarily from
my initial paper on the Trinity (which will be updated in the near
future):
http://www.geocities.com/critical_discourse/trinity.htm
In response, I have received many criticisms, postive and negative,
good and bad, by a number of Christians. One person who responded was
Jameel (along with a few others) at the "Muslim-Christian Dialogue"
forum:
http://f24.parsimony.net/forum54389/
Jameel believes my criticisms against trinitarian ontology are fatally
flawed, and that a trinitarian ontology is far superior to a monadic
one (i.e. the Judaeo-Islamic conception). I, of course, disagree, and
therefore, both of us have agreed to discuss the concept of God in
Islam and Christianity on SRI.
So let me begin by sketching out a few thoughts I have, so that Jameel
can respond with his own. It will have to be a sketch since I have
little time at the moment.
The fundamental disagreement between Islam and (orthodox) Christianity
involves the nature of God. For the Muslim, God's Oneness is absolute;
but the Christian wishes to claim something very peculiar, viz., that
although God is One, He is a being that is *composed* of three
separate and distinct persons. Thus, the Athanasian Creed:
"[T]he Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and
Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the
Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son,
and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the
Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty
Co-Eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the
Holy Ghost ... So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy
Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God ... there
is One Father, not Three Fathers; one Son, not Three Sons; One Holy
Ghost, not Three Holy Ghosts ... He therefore that will be saved, must
thus think of the Trinity."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02033b.htm
Now, for many, this doctrine cannot claim acceptance on *rational*
grounds. That is, it is accepted de fide:
"The Vatican Council has explained the meaning to be attributed to the
term mystery in theology. It lays down that a mystery is a truth which
we are not merely incapable of discovering apart from Divine
Revelation, but which, even when revealed, remains "hidden by the veil
of faith and enveloped, so to speak, by a kind of darkness" (Const.,
"De fide. cath.", iv). In other words, our understanding of it remains
only partial, even after we have accepted it as part of the Divine
messege."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm#IV
For those, however, who do wish to look at the problem rationally, the
difficulty involves showing that the following set (articulated by
Richard Cartwright) is one which is logically coherent:
1. The Father is God.
2. The Son is God.
3. The Holy Spirit is God.
4. The Father is not the Son.
5. The Father is not the Holy Spirit.
6. The Son is not the Holy Spirit.
7. There is exactly one God.
Thus far, I cannot see even a remote possibility of how this is to be
done, so perhaps Jameel can begin by explaining this, and we can
discuss. The reason why the concept of God in Islam is far superior to
the Christian one, is, quite simply, because to assert that "God
exists" in Islam does not involve a logical contradiction, unlike
(orthodox) Christianity.
Regards,
Imran.
Altway
"Imran Aijaz" <imran...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:aoninn$h0f$1...@blue.rahul.net...
Re: Trinity
> "The Vatican Council has explained the meaning to be attributed to the
> term mystery in theology. It lays down that a mystery is a truth which
we are not merely incapable of discovering apart from Divine
Revelation, but which, even when revealed, remains "hidden by the veil
of faith and enveloped, so to speak, by a kind of darkness" (Const.,
"De fide. cath.", iv). In other words, our understanding of it remains
only partial, even after we have accepted it as part of the Divine
messege."
Comment:-
But the problem is that it is not a revelation.
Jesus did not teach it.
Nor did Paul.
"And this is Eternal Life that they might know THEE THE ONLY TRUE GOD and
Jesus Christ whom Thou has sent." John 17:3
"While I was with them in the world I kept them in THY NAME..." John 17:12
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man
Christ Jesus" 1 Tim 2:5
"There is actually to us one God the Father,...and there is one Lord,
Jesus Christ" 1 Cor 8:6
"One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all" Eph
4:6
"And ye are Christ's, and Christ is God's" 1 Cor 3:23
The Trinity is mere human speculation.
If it is claimed that those who proposed this theory centuries later had
revelation then this is merely a claim that anyone can make either
mistakenly
or in pursuit of some purpose (e.g to convert certain Pagans) or by
deliberately lying
As belief in the Trinity is not a matter of rationality, rational arguments
are
futile. We are left with the other two sources of knowledge, sensory
experience and
various degrees of insight, inspiration, revelation.
Failing this, we are left with purposes - i.e. The idea serves some good
purpose and that makes it valid.
Or with illusions, delusions, hallucinations, wishful thinking, desires,
habits, addictions, obsessions etc.
--
Hamid S. Aziz
Understanding Islam
www.altway.freeuk.com
.
MalcomX
was He begotten, NOR DID HE HAVE AN EQUAL"
You can go to any Arabic dictionary. Any Arabic source or any Arabic
scholar and he will tell you "al-samad" means somebody who is
independent of everything, yet everything depends on HIM.
2.trinity paradox
Why is it that the 3 rd piece (son) of the trinity calls for mercy
from the first piece (father)? Why does the first piece turn his back
on the 3rd piece? The father of the trinity should have given much
support; is this the kind of love the trinity portrays? If they cannot
even show love and compassion towards each other , how would they show
love towards humanity?
I believe the son would have done the same to the father if the son
had ordered his only father to bear the sin of mankind. Why
can’t he when both are equal?
Now I shall move along to the christian creed.
1. The Father is God.
2. The Son is God.
3. The Holy Spirit is God.
4. The Father is not the Son.
5. The Father is not the Holy Spirit.
6. The Son is not the Holy Spirit.
7. There is exactly one God.
God is exactly ONE *WHAT*? One thing? One thing with three pieces?
Is God a victim of multiple personality syndrome? Or does God just
shape-shift when convenient? Is God siamese triplets? According to
the
Bible, Jesus is not identical to God. Is there any way to construct
the trinity so that it makes sense, or do we have to resort to
"mystery?" I'm looking for a model here. Maybe this God thing is
like
3-in-1 Oil? Why is God a trinity instead of a binity,quaddity or
quinity? Do they ever argue? Isn't the third piece a little
underused? But I understand that it (piece #3) was responsible
for impregnating Mary, so maybe piece #3 becomes dependant? I'm
eager to believe in something so revolutionary, but I'm terribly
confused.
Unless you or someone can give a coherent explanation, I will
reluctantly conclude that the whole trinity notion is beneath
stupid.
Khurram Rashid
Imran Aijaz wrote:
> to assert that "God
> exists" in Islam does not involve a logical contradiction
This statement could contain a logical contradiction as well.
I think you need to define 'exists' .
Khurram
dave
> 1. "Say He is Allah the one, Allah the (samad) , He did not beget nor
> was He begotten, NOR DID HE HAVE AN EQUAL"
>
> You can go to any Arabic dictionary. Any Arabic source or any Arabic
> scholar and he will tell you "al-samad" means somebody who is
> independent of everything, yet everything depends on HIM.
>
> 2.trinity paradox
>
> Why is it that the 3 rd piece (son) of the trinity calls for mercy
> from the first piece (father)?
He asks the Father "why have you forsaken me?"
The reason is that as Jesus has sin imputed to him, then the
fellowship with the father is broken. It is the response of the
humanity of Jesus to the breaking of fellowship with the Father.
> Why does the first piece turn his back on the 3rd piece?
The presence of sin that Jesus carried.
> The father of the trinity should have given much support;
Think about this for a moment; IF the trinity is true, then God the
Father as well as Jesus knew from all eternity that this moment would
come to pass. The reason given for the death of Jesus is to pay the
price for all sin, so that humanity could be redeemed. Now you may
dispute that, but IF it is true, then the response of the Father
toward sin is the ONLY response possible. What kind of "support" would
you have him give? If it is true that Jesus needed to come and die for
sins, then sin is a natural barrier to God. God must turn from it.
Jesus carried it in our place, so God turned from him. "Support" means
that God carries through with his plan to save humanity by paying the
price HIMSELF….again, you may dispute, it, but the doctrine is that
Jesus is God, so God himself paid that price… and THEN "support" came
in the fact that God raised him to the highest place. Philippians
2:5-11
> is this the kind of love the trinity portrays? If they cannot
> even show love and compassion towards each other, how would they show
> love towards humanity?
Now I understand that this is totally contrary to Islamic doctrine,
but your telling me that an absolutely Holy God, who pays the price of
humanities sin by HIMSELF, so that we don't have to, is NOT
compassionate?
Would you sacrifice yourself for your kids? Would you ever decide
between your wife and yourself, that you will both do without some
comforts so that your kids could have a better life? Does that mean
that you are insensitive to your wife and therefore incapable of
showing any love towards your kids?
The analogy will inevitably fall short somewhere, but I hope you can
get the picture. If God decides to pay the price for sin, then he IS
loving. Yeah the price is steep, but God was willing to do it. You
will probably try and portray it as God the Father brutally killing
his innocent son, who probably didn't want to go, but was forced…
That is NOT the Biblical portrayal. It makes for a nice neat case for
you, but is a straw man argument.
> I believe the son would have done the same to the father if the son
> had ordered his only father to bear the sin of mankind. Why
> can't he when both are equal?
Not sure exactly what you are asking here. Both are God, but one of
the things the trinity teaches is "priority without inferiority". God
the Father has the priority in the relationship, but that does not
make the Son or the Holy Spirit "inferior". Now that is really
un-Islamic, since in Islam, God is Master, and all else are slaves.
> 1. The Father is God.
> 2. The Son is God.
> 3. The Holy Spirit is God.
> 4. The Father is not the Son.
> 5. The Father is not the Holy Spirit.
> 6. The Son is not the Holy Spirit.
> 7. There is exactly one God.
>
> God is exactly ONE *WHAT*? One thing?
Did you read the creed that Imran posted? One essence/substance.
> One thing with three pieces?
One substance. Three persons
> Is God a victim of multiple personality syndrome?
No. the three are distinct.
> Or does God just shape-shift when convenient?
No. the three are distinct
> Is God siamese triplets?
Umm, are you trying to be funny?
> According to the Bible, Jesus is not identical to God.
Wrong. Jesus IS said to be God. He is not identical with the Father.
Islamic practice is to start eliminating the parts of the Bible that
confirm this until there is no bible left. First, you'll blame Paul
for all this, then when the same doctrine is shown to be infused
throughout the Gospels, you will have to do away with the book of
John, and change the words of Jesus. Finally you will have to ignore
OT messianic passages
> Is there any way to construct the trinity so that it makes
> sense, or do we have to resort to "mystery?"
Maybe not. But there are physical things that cannot be explained
either. Does that mean that you won't believe them either? And is it
Islamic practice or doctrine to say that unless God is understandable
by human minds, then you need not believe it? Is it so hard to believe
that maybe God is beyond your understanding in this area?
The Muslim will believe, not based on his grasp of the reality, but on
his consideration of divine revelation. If the Qur'an were to say it,
then you would believe it. The same is true of the Christian. The
Bible does teach the trinity.
> I'm looking for a model here.
Why? Are you looking for a model of Allah? Does he have to conform to
your model? Isn't Allah said to be wholly other? Why then are you
insisting on full understanding of the Christian God?
> Maybe this God thing is like 3-in-1 Oil?
Another joke? Or are you actually trying to say something here?
> Why is God a trinity instead of a binity, quaddity or
> quinity?
Richard Swinburne attempts an answer to this in his book, "The
Christian God". The reason is love. Love cannot exist when there is
only one, and love is best expressed in the work of two for a third. I
don't have the book with me at them time, so I can't check on the
exact wording. I know Imran has read this book. Any corrections?
> Do they ever argue? Isn't the third piece a little underused?
No, and No. The Holy Spirit is said to "convict the world of sin and
guilt" (Jn. 16:15), so he's pretty busy.
> But I understand that it (piece #3) was responsible for impregnating
> Mary, so maybe piece #3 becomes dependant?
If you understand that the Holy Spirit came down and had sex with
Mary, then you're way off. If you understand that by the Holy Spirit,
Jesus was created in Mary, in much the same way as God would create
the earth; out of nothing, then you are on. But explain how that makes
him "dependent"?
> I'm eager to believe in something so revolutionary,
> but I'm terribly confused.
Some of the confusion seems to be from not looking into the issue with
more diligence. I don't mean to insult, but Muslims in general are
terribly ignorant of the basics of this doctrine and misrepresent it.
It is difficult enough to understand without misrepresenting it, but I
suppose believers on both sides are willing to forego truth in order
to make more black and white cases. While I don't agree with Imran on
the issue, I will say that he has an understanding of the issue that
is much truer than any Muslim I have ever seen. If I were going to
attack it, I would go about it in much the same way.
> Unless you or someone can give a coherent explanation, I will
> reluctantly conclude that the whole trinity notion is beneath
> stupid.
Couple of issues:
1) When you say that "unless someone can give a coherent explanation",
does that mean it has to be coherent "to you"? or just coherent? What
will constitute coherence? What if it really is coherent, but you
can't understand it? Are you the measuring stick of intelligence?
These are reasonable questions to ask, since it is perfectly plausible
that something can be true, and yet not all are able to understand it.
It is also perfectly plausible, that you be in the category of those
who are unable to see the truth of the issue. (I'm quite sure that if
I really knew you, I would find that not to be the case, but since I
don't, I will have to accept the possibility that you may be in that
category)
If it is the case that ‘you' are simply unable, because of God-given
levels of intelligence (nothing wrong with that, by the way, God has
gifted us all with different levels of intelligence), to understand
the intricacies of the issue, then must we all reject the truth? Or
are you ready to concede that those who understand it are perfectly
justified in believing it, while you yourself cannot intellectually
assent?
Is it possible that God could have an understanding of an issue, and
it be true, even if we don't get it? I am not talking about breaking
the laws of logic, I grant that a square cannot be a circle by
definition.
2) Will that hold for anything in Islam too? If you cannot give
coherent explanations for all aspects of Islam, will you therefore
conclude that it is "beneath stupid"?
dave
Altway
news:ap94mn$4kj$1...@blue.rahul.net...
> He asks the Father "why have you forsaken me?"
> The reason is that as Jesus has sin imputed to him, then the
fellowship with the father is broken. It is the response of the
humanity of Jesus to the breaking of fellowship with the Father.
Comment:-
We have seen that the concept of the "Trinity" is not a revelation and was
not taught by Jesus or even by Paul.
So it is either the result of observation or the result of reasoning.
Or else it has a purpose.
Or else it is an error owing to speculation, misinterpretation, fantasy etc.
But the concept cannot be validated either by observation or reason.
The purpose might be to make people feel love for God and grateful to Him
or to induce guilt feelings that every time they sin they persecute Christ.
This might work and probably did, but only if people believe and do not
examine the
doctrine. But in the age which the Prophet Muhammad (saw) was sent to
introduce, teachings and reason were to be more important. That is why
the Word of God for Islam is not a man but a Book. The emphasis in
Christianity is Love, but in Islam it is Truth. As predicted by Jesus the
Spirit of Truth would come
and lead people into all truth and set them free.
The argument given by Dave is not reasonable. It is only at his crucifixion
that God abandons Jesus. All the rest of the time he was at one with God
and the Holy Spirit was with him. Was the sin of the world placed on him
only then?
If it was removed, then why is there sin in the world now? What happens to
the "As a man sows so shall he reap"
In fact, the doctrines which Jesus came to bring from God, which Islam
accepts, requires no man made doctrine of Trinity at all.
(1)
God is all-powerful and is quite able to forgive sins without all these
indirect methods. Ultimately, it is still God who has to forgive.
(2)
But yes, salvation requires that the Messenger sent by God has to be
accepted, otherwise they would not follow the instructions sent by God
through him.
And it is also true that they are opposed and persecuted because of the sins
of the
persecutors and not their own - this is because the teaching makes them feel
guilty
and as this is an uncomfortable state as long as they are addicted to the
sins, then they must try to remove the source of their discomfort.
(3)
It is much more reasonable to suppose that Jesus was a man who was
informed or led by the Spirit or Word of God (that is the meaning of the
phrase son of God in John 1:12-13 and Romans 8:14 and also
according to John 10:34-35 which refers to Psalms 82:6.
(4)
No twisted reasoning is required to see that sin kills man spiritually, (sin
can be defined as that which causes spiritual death or alienation from God).
But God sends Prophets and Messengers with the teaching and techniques, the
application of which, leads to spiritual regeneration i.e resurrection.
(5)
The Prophet or Messenger devotes or sacrifices his life to bring this
message.
This shows the love of God for man (in that he sends messengers) and the
love
of the Prophet that he devotes himself to serve God and mankind.
This is the Islamic position.
It is not the Prophet's sacrifice that saves people, but the application of
the teaching.
"O ye who believe! Respond unto Allah and His Messenger when He calls you to
that which quickens you; and know that Allah comes in between a man and his
own heart; and that He it is unto Whom ye shall be gathered." Quran 8:24
As Jesus said:-
"Not every one that saith unto me Lord, Lord shall enter into the kingdom of
heaven, but He THAT DOETH THE WILL OF MY FATHER WHICH IS IN HEAVEN. Many
will say to me in that Day: Lord, Lord, have we not prophecied in thy name?
and in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful
works? And then will I profess unto them, I NEVER KNEW YOU: DEPART FROM ME,
YE THAT WORK INIQUITY." Matthew 7:21-23
As Paul says:-
"Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall
he also reap." Galatians 6:7
Kavalec
<big snip>
> Now I understand that this is totally contrary to Islamic doctrine,
> but your telling me that an absolutely Holy God, who pays the price of
> humanities sin by HIMSELF, so that we don't have to, is NOT
> compassionate?
Dave
Of course; we know Him as the Compassionate.
I would say our real objection to all of this is contained in your
phrase "pays the price for humanity's sins".
He assigns the price(s) for our lack of faith and lack of righteous
deeds. He only needs say BE and it is. So what need does He have for
all the theatrics?
Peace
G.
dave
> > He asks the Father "why have you forsaken me?"
> > The reason is that as Jesus has sin imputed to him, then the
> > fellowship with the father is broken. It is the response of the
> > humanity of Jesus to the breaking of fellowship with the Father.
>
> Comment:-
> We have seen that the concept of the "Trinity" is not a revelation and was
> not taught by Jesus or even by Paul.
> So it is either the result of observation or the result of reasoning.
> Or else it has a purpose.
> Or else it is an error owing to speculation, misinterpretation, fantasy etc.
All the points of the trinity: 1) there is one God, 2) the Father is
God, 3) the son is God, 4) the Holy Spirit is God, and 5) the three
are yet distinct, are revealed in the scriptures, taught by both Jesus
and the apostles. I suppose that saying it is a result of observation
and reasoning is correct. As is saying that it has a purpose.
> But the concept cannot be validated either by observation or reason.
If you mean by physical observation of God, then true. We can observe
it in the scriptures. As for reason, there are other things that exist
in the physical world that cannot be made to conform to reason. The
wave/particle duality of light does not work in our three dimensional
world. One must postulate more spatial dimensions. Please explain how
there can be more than three spatial dimensions. If you cannot, would
you say that light cannot exist? That it does not exist? I understand
that mathematically it can be explained, but maybe if we could put God
in a mathematical test, we could explain how he could be three persons
and yet one essence. As for me, I am not willing to throw out a
concept of God simply because I can't figure it all out. I sort of
expect God to be more than my comprehension.
In Islam, is God completely knowable? Must you be able to explain all
there is about Allah before you can accept him?
> The purpose might be to make people feel love for God and grateful to Him
> or to induce guilt feelings that every time they sin they persecute Christ.
> This might work and probably did, but only if people believe and do not
> examine the
> doctrine. But in the age which the Prophet Muhammad (saw) was sent to
> introduce, teachings and reason were to be more important. That is why
> the Word of God for Islam is not a man but a Book. The emphasis in
> Christianity is Love, but in Islam it is Truth.
The purpose has nothing to do with these things.
> As predicted by Jesus the Spirit of Truth would come
> and lead people into all truth and set them free.
The Spirit of Truth did come but that has nothing to do with Islam at
all.
> The argument given by Dave is not reasonable. It is only at his crucifixion
> that God abandons Jesus. All the rest of the time he was at one with God
> and the Holy Spirit was with him. Was the sin of the world placed on him
> only then?
The penalty for sin was paid.
> If it was removed, then why is there sin in the world now? What happens to
> the "As a man sows so shall he reap"
Sin as a concept was not abolished, nor is it possible to make sin
impossible. As long as a will exists, and a will must exist for a
being to act, then sin will be possible. So Jesus could not have
eliminated sin. What he did was pay the penalty of it, which is death.
The doctrine of Hell is the removal of sin from the presence of God.
A man does reap as he sows. Is there a particular problem with my
stance that seems to you to render that inoperable or impossible?
Perhaps if you clarify, I can explain it more. Until then, I'm not
sure where you may think the problem is, or why Jesus paying the price
for sin would render this inoperative.
> In fact, the doctrines which Jesus came to bring from God, which Islam
> accepts, requires no man made doctrine of Trinity at all.
Strictly speaking this is true; the doctrines Jesus brought -WHICH
ISLAM ACCEPTS, don't require acceptance of the trinity. But that is
only because Islam rejects great chunks of what Jesus brought from
God.
> (1)
> God is all-powerful and is quite able to forgive sins without all these
> indirect methods. Ultimately, it is still God who has to forgive.
God is not so powerful that he can cease to be who he is, or violate
his own holiness and justice. This is actually not a limitation of his
power at all, but a function of his holiness, his perfection. In
Islam, God is all powerful, but neither holy nor just. Sovereignty is
maintained at the cost of holiness. However, without holiness, the
being is hardly worth being called God.
> (2)
> But yes, salvation requires that the Messenger sent by God has to be
> accepted,
OK
> (3)
> It is much more reasonable to suppose that Jesus was a man who was
> informed or led by the Spirit or Word of God (that is the meaning of the
> phrase son of God in John 1:12-13 and Romans 8:14 and also
> according to John 10:34-35 which refers to Psalms 82:6.
As it is much more reasonable to suppose that Muhammed made up his
teachings rather than receiving them from some Angel. But that is
neither here nor there. The Bible reveals that he is much more. He
makes statements that can not be reasonably attributed to a mortal
man. All the apostles understood him to be more than a man, in fact he
was understood to be God. The early church understood him to be more
than a mere mortal.
The Quran may insist:
"And behold! Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say
unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah'?"
He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to
say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou
knowest what is in my heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine. For
Thou knowest in full all that is hidden." 5.116 (Yusuf Ali)
But that is not the biblical record. Notice that no biblical scholar
or scholar of Christianity, no matter how liberal, is going to search
the Qur'an for insight to what Jesus actually did. It is too far
removed from the scenario to count for any kind of testimony.
Rather Jesus claims (John 5:17-27)
The Father shows the son ALL that he does. V.19
The Son has the same power as the Father to give life to whom he
pleases. V. 21
The Father has relinquished judgment to the Son!! V. 22 Pretty strong
statement for one who is not the supreme power!!
So that all may honor the Son JUST AS they honor the Father. V. 23
The son has life in himself, just as the Father has life in himself.
V. 26 This is absolutely incredible- Jesus is claiming to be self
existent just as the Father is self existent.
Jesus claims to have been in heaven,( John 6:33,38) pre-existence
(8:23), glory that he had with the Father, before creation (17:5). In
Matthew 28:18 Jesus says "All authority in heaven and on earth has
been given to me".
In Colossians 1:15-18 we read that Jesus is the image of God, All
things were created by Him, He holds all things together and is before
all things, and He has supremacy over all.
In Philippians 2:5-11, we see that Jesus was in very nature God, He
was exalted by the Father, Everyone will bow to Jesus and that will
glorify the Father.
Hebrews 1:3 says "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact
representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful
word"
Peter called him "our God and Savior Jesus Christ", and John wrote
"even in His Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life".
James and Jude both refer to Jesus as "the Lord". Both refer to
themselves as the servants, not of Allah, but of Jesus Christ.
While it may be more reasonable to you personally to believe that
Jesus was only a man, that is simply not what the record shows. The
only recourse left is to claim the record was corrupted and then
invent things for him to have said that are much more sympathetic to
an Islamic viewpoint. That is pure invention. Commit no excess in your
religion!
> (4)
> No twisted reasoning is required to see that sin kills man spiritually, (sin
> can be defined as that which causes spiritual death or alienation from God).
> But God sends Prophets and Messengers with the teaching and techniques, the
> application of which, leads to spiritual regeneration i.e resurrection.
That was never the message of the OT, nor the message of Jesus. We do
not find that man can make himself better by using techniques. We are
both on the same page as far as the consequence of sin, but of course,
as a Christian, I see this in a far more reaching context. As much
difficulty as some may have with the concept of Original sin, that it
is true seems so patently obvious even from an observational stand,
that to deny it is ridiculous. Man may change his outward appearance
for a time, he may fool others into believing that he is pious, but
without something to change the heart, there can be no lasting change.
> (5)
> The Prophet or Messenger devotes or sacrifices his life to bring this
> message.
> This shows the love of God for man (in that he sends messengers) and the
> love
> of the Prophet that he devotes himself to serve God and mankind.
>
> This is the Islamic position.
> It is not the Prophet's sacrifice that saves people, but the application of
> the teaching.
This is called the Moral influence theory of Christ death. While it is
certainly true that Jesus is inspirational, it is in direct
contradiction to Jesus' own words that he did not come to be a
sacrifice for peoples sins. This was foretold by the Prophets, claimed
by Jesus and understood by his apostles in the same way. The Islamic
position is therefore at odds with ALL previous revelation.
> "O ye who believe! Respond unto Allah and His Messenger when He calls you to
> that which quickens you; and know that Allah comes in between a man and his
> own heart; and that He it is unto Whom ye shall be gathered." Quran 8:24
>
> As Jesus said:-
>
> "Not every one that saith unto me Lord, Lord shall enter into the kingdom of
> heaven, but He THAT DOETH THE WILL OF MY FATHER WHICH IS IN HEAVEN. Many
> will say to me in that Day: Lord, Lord, have we not prophecied in thy name?
> and in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful
> works? And then will I profess unto them, I NEVER KNEW YOU: DEPART FROM ME,
> YE THAT WORK INIQUITY." Matthew 7:21-23
"Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"
Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has
sent:"
John 6:28-29
> As Paul says:-
> "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall
> he also reap." Galatians 6:7
Typically, Muslims seem to think that salvation by grace must lead to
a life a licentiousness. Not sure why they would think we teach that,
but they do. No denial on my part of the truth of this verse.
dave
MyTajMahal
writes:
>Salaams,
Greetings Imran and to all
I apologise for the delay in responding to the post by Imran. When I was
invited to engage in this discussion I was under the impression that a Muslim
would first put forward a rational ontology for God in Islam. I was intrigued
as I had never come across such a presentation and despite many requests I am
still very keen to see such presentations.
I was surprised and disappointed to see that all Imran did was to use some of
his criticism of an old Roman Catholic trinitarian creed to have a go at the
Christian ontology of God. Imran is wise enough to know that if he attempts to
discredit "A" it does not necessarily prove "B" to be valid. I was
disappointed that all he had to say on the ontology of God in Islam was that
"For the Muslim, God's Oneness is absolute" which is a sentence void of content
or meaning and a second comment to assert that "God exists" is not something
which is unique to Islam and again is a statement without content, meaning or
significance (especially in regard to any kind of faith).
I should briefly state that the Christian faith is unlike Islam in that it is
not a "Traditional Faith". The revelation of God to the believer is personal
and individual by the Spirit of God and not dependant upon embracing some 4th
century creed or some second-hand divine revelation which is then promoted as
"absolute truth" which can never be falsified.
I could possibly sketch out a framework for the ontology of God in Islam based
upon the information I imbibed while growing up, books and articles I have read
(including those on SRI) and the some of the discussions I have had here on SRI
with people including Mohammed Ghounem, Jeremiah McAuliffe, rjaffer (RiDwaan),
H S Aziz, Asim Mehmood, Abdullah Alothman and Imran to name a few. But when
the Shia, Sunni and Sufis are not even in agreement on this issue how far would
I get with the readers on SRI?
In the words of Jay Smith "One of the more difficult aspects of dialogue with
Muslims concerns the problem of finding a unifying authority behind the
precepts to which they hold" and this why I was interested to see Imran present
a rational ontology of God in Islam.
Muslims have offered me many links to web articles over the years, yet I have
not yet come across one which could be considered to be acceptable to any large
body of Muslims (except possibly Shia). The general offerings on "Tawheed" are
pathetic and show a superficiality in thinking on the subject which is
breathtaking. The discussions on the views of the 17th century Mullah Sadra to
those of Muhammad Iqbal and other mystically inclined Muslims are frankly
irrational.
An article which might gain some general acceptance and form the basis for
discussion (despite it being by a Christian, Norman Geisler) can be found here:
http://f27.parsimony.net/forum66639/messages/52.htm (I hope the link works)
But this may be counter productive as I can hardly see any Muslim on SRI (apart
>from a very few) agreeing with a Christian on anything at all simply as a
matter of principle. (Or maybe I am being too harsh - sorry).
But I would not necessarily address the details of the subject in the same why
that Norman Geisler has done. I am simply seeking to encourage Imran and his
fellow Muslims to make a presentation for a rational ontology of God in Islam.
With kind regards
Jameel
dave
> > an absolutely Holy God, who pays the price of humanities sin
> > by HIMSELF, so that we don't have to, is NOT
> > compassionate?
>
> Of course; we know Him as the Compassionate.
But "Malcom X" originally stated "is this the kind of love the
trinity portrays? If they cannot even show love and compassion towards
each other, how would they show love towards humanity?", thereby
questioning the love and compassion that the Christian God has. This
is the problem with tag team responses. I don't know what happened to
"Malcom X", he is not owning up to his statements. Now you are
answering instead and maybe you do not make the same claims as he did.
I don't mean that you don't see the Islamic version of God as
compassionate, but the response was to the charge that the Christian
version of God is not.
> I would say our real objection to all of this is contained in your
> phrase "pays the price for humanity's sins".
>
> He assigns the price(s) for our lack of faith and lack of righteous
> deeds. He only needs say BE and it is. So what need does He have for
> all the theatrics?
1) "he assigns the price"
Does Allah assign the price of sin arbitrarily or does he assign it
according to his nature/essence? It will be important to understand
where you are coming from on this point before we can spend a lot of
time discussing the issue? If the price is arbitrary, it will have far
reaching consequences for the nature of God; if it is according to his
nature, then what changed? That second question is dealt with more
below
2) "He only needs say BE and it is."
I accept this under certain conditions: God can declare something to
exist and it will exist. But can he declare squares to be circles? Can
he declare good to be bad? Can he declare that what he declared to be
sin is no longer sin?
Since Islam has a doctrine of Hell, Allah is apparently somewhat
offended by certain actions, called sin, of humanity. After all, he is
sending those who disobey him to eternal punishment. What is it about
certain actions that offended him in the first place? And WHY, if it
is deemed to be offensive to him, would he change his mind and then
say it is no longer a problem? Why did he declare it a problem in the
first place?
So, can Allah simply declare his original price no longer valid?
3) "So what need does He have for all the theatrics?"
By "theatrics", I presume you mean the death of Jesus to atone for
sin. If the wages of sin is death, and God doesn't just change his
mind about it, then the wages must be paid. I don't see it as
theatrics at all, but a process that must be done IF God is to effect
restoration of his people. Otherwise the sin will remain, separation
must be maintained and there is no way to restore us to himself.
dave
asimm...@yahoo.com
> not a "Traditional Faith". The revelation of God to the believer is personal
> and individual by the Spirit of God and not dependant upon embracing some 4th
> century creed or some second-hand divine revelation which is then promoted as
> "absolute truth" which can never be falsified.
>
The problem with TajMahal is that he does not understand the
significance of what he is talking about, and he ends up turning such
points into a debate about Christianity and Islam, when the issue
really has nothing to do with it.
Mystics, from all over the world, have claimed things based upon
'revelation' of God. John Smith claimed that he witnessed the very
image of Jesus and before this, he was a staunch Christian. Paul
claimed he witnessed Jesus (AS) in all his glory upon the former's
journey to persecute some more followers of Jesus (AS). Samiri
asserted, when questioned by Musa (AS) why he made the calf, that he
experienced a vision to perform such acts. The real issue or question
is "How does one determine the validity of revelation?" (As a side
note: this is where the discussion always end up with Jameel, because
he cannot give any reason on how does one verify the religious claims
of an individual, except "Love God with all your heart, and your
neighbor as thyself.")
The Quran, i.e. surah Najm, refers to the personal experiences of
Prophets (AS) as something unique to them. "Will you dispute with him
about what He saw?" Such experiences are not motivated by any
internal feeling of the Prophet. "Your Companion is neither astray nor
is he being misled nor does He follow His desires." In fact, in surah
Qiyamah, the Quran alludes to how the Prophet (S), himself, desired
that the whole Quran be revealed to him at once. "Do not move your
tongue in haste of this Quran." He has absolutely no control of the
revelation, and sometimes revelation would be separated by periods of
time, giving ample oppurtunity for the disbelievers to mock the Noble
Soul. These revelational experiences are so real that they are not
the result of any subjective imagination "He saw him on the clearest
horizon and He approached to two bows length, nay even nearer. He saw
him again at the farthest lote-Tree."
What is very interesting is that the Quran, in this description,
refers to the bearer of the Quran as, "YOUR Companion." Those who
witnessed this man, knew that he possessed integrity, and character,
and was an unmatached pearl in a sea of corruption and idolatry. Even
after he began receiving these visions, he did not take to worshipping
idols, or seeking wealth. At the epitome of Islam's success, he (S)
slept on a rough mat, and he stood in prayers most of the night at the
age of sixty-three. Even though the revelational experience of a
Prophet is beyond normal affairs "The spirit is from the Coomand of
thy Lord. The knowledge you have is only LITTLE", it does not mean
that one cannot judge its truth.
Immediately after recounting the prophetic experience, God Almighty
refers to what the idolaters worship, inlcuding Lat, Manat, and Uzza.
Even before this, there is mention of the disbelievers conjectures,
including their assertion that the angels are FEMALES. The relation
between the former and the latter is extremely clear, for even the
main goddessess of the Quraysh were females and the idolas were often
presented in naked form. Such graphic imagery is prevalent all over
India, and the enlightened West including Rome and Greece.
So the Quran has two opposites:
The 'psychology' of the Prophet (S), who is known for his impeccable
character, and whose revelation is beyond reproach in speaking about
the transcendency of God Almighty and his Holiness, and righteuous
behaviour
and
The sexual perversion of the idolaters, whose 'revelational
experiences' are rooted in their hawaa and desires. What is very
interesting to note is that this type of description is the same
evidence from the other Semitic religions. "By your fruits you will
know them." Moses, in Deuternomy, referred to how the false Prophets
would speak about idolatry and many of them would practice sorcery.
Magic and sorcery, by nature, are based upon illusion, desire, and
subjective imagination. What is interetsing to note about the Quran
is that God has selected the very words and there is no chance for
even the subjective conscious of a Prophet (S) to interfere in it, as
in the case of religious experiences of non-Prophets, whether good or
bad people. Further, the Quran refers to how it has been revealed on
the very heart of the Prophet (S), and some narrations describe that
the Prophet (S) said that it was like the words being written on the
heart.
The Quran has given an argument for its truth, from its very message
and the conduct of the deliverer of the message. The Quran also
refers to how such perverted nature of this idolaters causes them to
fabricate rituals that have no substance, including many of the rites
of Hajj. Religious fabrications or bidaas, whether they are from the
Eastern religions or the Western ones, are often rooted in man's
failures to abide by the coduct demanded by their faith, i.e. to
appease their conscience. Jeremiah spoke eloqeuntly about the
fabricated rituals of the Israelites and their not fulfilling the
dictates of justice. Jesus often referred to the Pharisees as "wolves
in sheeps clothing." The trinity is a clear example of the
degeneration of the living conviction of God Almighty, and is a clear
example of philosophy taking hold of religion. It is a clear example
of the attempts to reconcile God's transcendency with His Immanence,
and such a construct has absolutely NO BEARING on a Christians action.
"In case of absence of conviction, a religious belief is reduced to a
mere philosophical hypothesis or the final product of a confused
collection of a few spiritual experiences."
Everybody, who is anybody in religion, understands that men do not
seek in religion, 'intellectual concepts' of God, but they seek the
living connection with the One, whom neither slumber nor sleep
overtakes. Reality tells us that among the most deeply religious of
men are the poor and uneducated. There is more to life then simply "I
think therefore I am." Philosophical concepts do not bring about
conviction, nor do intellectual constructs. They do not drive men to
action, and if they did, such constructs can only lead to action for a
short period of time because they cannot satisfy men. Many people
turn away from Christinaity because they struggle with the
unreasonableness of trinity. The higher sufis often spoke about this
very fact and concerned themselves with the superiority of 'love' over
intellect.
Iqbal (R) has said:
"Love through itself into the fire,
while reason looked on from above."
When any person calls on God, whether He is Christian, Hindu, Muslim,
Jew, or Buddhist, he in no way perceives of a 3-1 1-3 being, or God
manifesting himself in the countless forms as in Hinduism and
panththeistic sufiism, but of the UNIQUE AND ACTIVE SELF and "They
make their deen pure for Him". The trinity, wahdutul wujood, and every
other rational construct, is thrown out of the window, i.e. has no
basis in one's experience and is simply DOGMA. God becomes the one
whom the Quran says "Call upon me. I am Near and I respond to the one
who calls." This is the perfect description of a SELF, and no words
can becomes clearer than this.
This does not mean that religious experience is not based upon reason
or reason does not serve its purpose, as Iqbals was oft to speak
about. Reason is a tool to serve the SELF, not the other way around.
As I stated above, many people simply turn away from Christianity
because of its unreasonableness, and this is a clear example of the
use of reason to serve the self and direct it to what is proper.
Reason can take one to the conclusion that there is a wise and
omnipotent Creator, and His oneness, but if this knowledge is not
combined with the heart, such knowledge is useless. The main point
that is conveyed is that truth is already imbibed in human nature,
i.e. the fitra, and intellect serves this fitra if the human being
keeps his good-nature intact by not following his whims and desires.
The above ayahs in reference to the contrasting characters is a very
powerful description of one who kept his good-nature in tact and
others who followed their whims and desires.
God is NOT AN intellectual construct and the simple fact that our
intellects cannot even conceive of "nothingness" gives ample-evidence
to the point. The main point is that their is a difference between
knowing our limitations and being unreasonable.
The Quran refers to the living experience of God as IMAN. The parable
in Surah Nur illustrates that intellect is NOT sufficient in attaining
this "life-impulse", but the intuition, i.e. the heart, that is
present within man. "It is not the eyes that are blind, but the
heart." God likens the action of 'his revelation' or 'the spirit
blown into man' as what made the angels 'prostrate', and the actual
key to man's success in this very life, and the cause of their success
as being God's vicegerents or khaleephas on Earth.
How does one attain imaan? This conviction is given strength through
PRAYER. All men seek conviction through prayer, and continually ask
God's help for guidance. Human beings have prayed, and will continue
to pray. If there prayer is true, and they listen to their
conscience, and use their God-given ability to think, they will begin
to feel the God, who has always been there and is always active. But
the stage they will be as follows:
"Why should I ask the sages regarding my origin?
It is my ultimate destiny that I am really concerned about.
Elevate your khudi to such heights that before every decress
God himself asks you "Tell me, what is your wish?"
As a siue note:
The Quran oftens refers to limitations of intellect, but these
limitations do not mean that we cannot comprehend the truth or that
reason contradicts faith. Reason and feeling are part of an organic
unity and that the two will be in total consonance in the next life,
if man chose to keep his will in accordance with God's will during
this very life. "O servant at PEACE. Enter my Paradise."
Reason can tell us that man's perception will become sharpened or in
the imagery of the Quran:
"The veils will be lifted on that Day", "We have tarried only a day or
two", "The sights will be sharp" and "Every man will see his deeds in
an open book". But only when we experience that Day, will the truth
become manifest to us.
The Quran often refers to how the unbelievers would jest at the
Quranic parables, "What does God mean by such parables?". One finds
such a statement immediately after God Almighty recounts some of the
blessings of Paradise, i.e. the pleasures that would continually
increase despite the 'fruits looking the same'. God then says "Only
the men of UNDERSTANDING believe." Further, in other ayahs, God says
how such descriptions always increase the believers in their faith,
while they always increase the disbelievers in their loss.
The point being: Intellect serves the good-natured people in the cause
of truth and it increases their iman, while those who refuse to accept
such realities despite their not contradicting the intellect and their
conscience will increase in thier loss and lose the God-given insight.
Our imagination is based upon our what our senses and intellect have
perceived in this very life. It is the height of arrogance to assume
that man, despite its being self-evident, thinks and knows all and
that such things that we have never experienced cannot exist. Human
beings conceive of aliens as a mixture of creatures that have been
witnessed on this very earth, and the notion of creating without
likeness is not possible with man. For God Almighty, it is part of
his very nature and all things exist because of him. This is the
exact meaning of God Almighty's attribute, Al-Badii. God creates
whatever He wills, and the fact that "Over it are nineteen" does not
serve as any stumbling block in accepting the truth, because God
creates what He wills.
asimm...@yahoo.com
> kav...@hotmail.com (Kavalec) wrote in message news:<apcceq$6ri$1...@blue.rahul.net>...
>
> > > an absolutely Holy God, who pays the price of humanities sin
> > > by HIMSELF, so that we don't have to, is NOT
> > > compassionate?
> >
> > Of course; we know Him as the Compassionate.
>
> But "Malcom X" originally stated "is this the kind of love the
> trinity portrays? If they cannot even show love and compassion towards
> each other, how would they show love towards humanity?", thereby
> questioning the love and compassion that the Christian God has. This
> is the problem with tag team responses. I don't know what happened to
> "Malcom X", he is not owning up to his statements. Now you are
> answering instead and maybe you do not make the same claims as he did.
> I don't mean that you don't see the Islamic version of God as
> compassionate, but the response was to the charge that the Christian
> version of God is not.
>
The difference between Islam and Christianity is from the perspective
of sin. In islam, sin is a NECESSITY of the right to choose one's
destiny. When God created man, he informed the angels of this very
fact and the angels perceived that the trust of free-will would lead
to corruption in the earth. God then clarified, through the incident
of the recounting of names by Adam (AS), that there would be among men
that would use their free-will correctly and perform good deeds
necessary to earn man's unique position as the vicegerent of God
Almighty. Further, in Islam God inspired ALREADY in man the knowledge
of good and evil.
Christianity assumes sin as something that was taken on by man when he
ate from the tree of good and evil. God is attributed to be very
jealous of this knowledge and desired that it be protected, such that
after Adam ate from it the first time, God placed a flaming sword,
along with angels to protect it.
The main point being:
1. In Islam life is a TEST and God always intended to place Adam (AS)
in the Earth to develop his personality. "I am going to place a
khaleepha in the EARTH." In Surah Mulk, God Almighty says "We have
created death and life to see whom among you is best in deeds." The
story of the garden was to teach man that he was not yet qualified for
Paradise and he had to earn it. Thus, the type of mistake Adam
commited, as the Quran aptly puts it, was "forgetfulness and lack of
will." In order to develop man's personality, Satan was used and the
enmity between the two was made known. Even before this incident, God
Almighty relates the origins of this enmity as being rooted in
arrogance and pride.
In Christianity, man was expelled from the garden as a punishment. He
bears the sin of his forefather and he awaits that occasion when he
will be redeemed, i.e. it is a story full of pessimism.
2. The parable of the garden in Islam illsutrates the role of
repentance in the choice of good and evil. Adam and His wife, when
they became CONSCIENCE of their sin, felt shame and desired to remove
the effects of their sin by covering their private parts. Because of
their actions, God TAUGHT them words of repentance and forgave them.
It becomes abudnantly clear that in this life, men commit mistakes and
it is upto them to repent and reform themselves and seek God's
forgiveness. Thus, taubah in Islam is a dynamic concept which leads
to the growth of human personality. If one does not make mistakes, he
has NO CHANCE to develop his personality. Further, after referring to
the acceptance of the couples repentance, God Almighty tells the two
to out of the garden.
One may conclude from this that this was part of their punishment, but
this is a total misreading of the Quran. This becomes known because:
1. When God forgives, the forgiveness is perfect.
2. The statement of the acceptance of repentance is made TWICE, the
second time, IMMEDIATELY after the command to get down from Paradise.
So what is the point of this? The Quran is affirming the point that
man was not yet ready for Paradise, the place God had intended him to
be created, but he had to earn it. Thus, in the context of the
command to get down, God Almight refers to the enmity between Satan
and man. Also, what is deeply moving is that, because of Adam's
repentance he was further honoured with Guidance, i.e. revelation and
man's success could not be achieved merely through his intellect and
self, but he needed the assistance of revelation from on high to guide
him through.
> > I would say our real objection to all of this is contained in your
> > phrase "pays the price for humanity's sins".
> >
> > He assigns the price(s) for our lack of faith and lack of righteous
> > deeds. He only needs say BE and it is. So what need does He have for
> > all the theatrics?
>
> 1) "he assigns the price"
>
> Does Allah assign the price of sin arbitrarily or does he assign it
> according to his nature/essence? It will be important to understand
> where you are coming from on this point before we can spend a lot of
> time discussing the issue? If the price is arbitrary, it will have far
> reaching consequences for the nature of God; if it is according to his
> nature, then what changed? That second question is dealt with more
> below
>
The Quran says that when man sins, he sins against HIW OWN SELF. Sin
does not hurt God Almighty, and man faces the consequences of his OWN
ACTIONS. "We have tied man's fate to his own neck." "He will see his
deeds in an open book." God fully understands that man sins as
illustrated in the Quran and in fact, this reality was stated
eloquently by a Companion of the Prophet (S) when he said "If man did
not sin and did not repent, God would replace them with those that
did."
Sin is a NECESSARY COROLLARY of free-will. Repentance is meant to
serve for the reformation and growth of man's personality. If man
makes a mistake, and does not reform, it is the demand of justice that
he begins to gradually lose his ability to accept the truth. Man's
refusal to weight his own actions leads to the natural consequence
that he become more and more heedless. Thus, it is a simple demand of
justice.
As a side note, the Quran constantly refers to how God Almighty deals
with men in a merciful manner. He, may he be glorified, continues to
overlook the mistakes of his servants and when his servants turn to
him, not only does God forgive but he honours and grants further
guidance. "I seek forgievness from God Alkmighty over 100 hundred
times a day." Only when man becomes arrogant, and it is arrogance
that leads man to not accept what he has done as wrong, does God begin
to close his grip on that person. And when God begins to close his
grip, then nobody can stop it.
Death is an inevitable and NATURAL reality of this life, and
vegetation and animals cannot stop it. Death brings about rebirth and
resurrection, and the personality that has hardened his self in
obedience to God cannot be killed by death and earns immortality. It
is through their death, that they move on to the next phase of life's
continued movement. "Do not think of those that have been killed in
the way of God as dead. Nay, they are alive finding their sustenance
from their Lord."
Saqib Virk
>
> > I would say our real objection to all of this is contained in your
> > phrase "pays the price for humanity's sins".
> >
> > He assigns the price(s) for our lack of faith and lack of righteous
> > deeds. He only needs say BE and it is. So what need does He have for
> > all the theatrics?
>
> 1) "he assigns the price"
>
> Does Allah assign the price of sin arbitrarily or does he assign it
> according to his nature/essence?
SV
Sin is an act that furthers you from God. Sincere repentance moves one
closer to God. There is no "price" or "debt" to be paid.
> Since Islam has a doctrine of Hell, Allah is apparently somewhat
> offended by certain actions, called sin, of humanity.
SV
God is not offended by our actions. We cannot injure or harm God in any way.
> After all, he is sending those who disobey him to eternal punishment.
SV
What kind of God would that be? Not one I would accept.
> By "theatrics", I presume you mean the death of Jesus to atone for
> sin. If the wages of sin is death, and God doesn't just change his
> mind about it, then the wages must be paid.
SV
Whether or not we accept that these wages must be paid, the "theatrics" of
the supposed crucifixion, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus are
completely unnecessary (not to mention fabricated) to pay such wages. It is
the most unreasonable of beliefs.
> Otherwise the sin will remain, separation
> must be maintained and there is no way to restore us to himself.
SV
Sin separates us from God and we pray and seek forgiveness to bring us back
towards Him.
--
Peace,
Saqib Virk
Chadly
> "dave" <dlwa...@adelphia.net> wrote in
>
> > All the points of the trinity: 1) there is one God, 2) the Father is
> > God, 3) the son is God, 4) the Holy Spirit is God, and 5) the three
> > are yet distinct,
The problem I have with this idea is the word Distinct.
So you mean that the Father who is infinite has to have
an edge where he stops to provide the Son to start ,
then the Son has to have an edge so the Holy Spirit
can be Distinct.
To distinguish between them 3 , you have to make an edge
to there infinity.
Now in Islam the nut shell of the idea of deity is hidden
in the Shahada or the testimony of La Ilaaha Illa Allah,
There is no God only Allah.
Allah is unlimited infinity, therefore to add to Allah is not
possible , unless you have a God that have a stopping
edge to allow the son to start, that God can not be Allah.
dave
Whatever happened to "Malcom X" and "Kavalec"? More tag team
responses. Does anybody ever follow up their own posts here?
> > Does Allah assign the price of sin arbitrarily or does he assign it
> > according to his nature/essence?
>
> SV
> Sin is an act that furthers you from God. Sincere repentance moves one
> closer to God. There is no "price" or "debt" to be paid.
I took this from a Muslim website
http://www.thetruereligion.org/creed.pdf
One of the 6 basic beliefs that must be accepted for anyone to be
considered a Muslim is:
"Belief in the Last Day includes the belief in all that which will
happen after death and about which Allah and his Messenger ! informed
us. This includes the trial in the grave, the torment or the bliss
therein. This also includes the belief in all that will be witnessed
on the Day of Judgment, such as the Bridge set over the Hell-fire, The
Balance, Reckoning, Reward and Punishment, the giving of the records,
which the successful
believers will be given in their right hand while the wretched
disbelievers will be given in their left hand behind their back. This
also includes the belief in the River that will be given to Prophet
Muhammad !, belief in Paradise and Hell-fire, belief in the believers'
looking at their Lord and His talking to them. A Muslim should believe
in all these facts and others that are clearly mentioned in the Qur'an
and authentically reported to
have been said by the Prophet."
Now if there is a "last day" where all will be recompensed for their
deeds and sin is wrong deeds, AND the punishment will be "Hell-fire",
then there certainly IS a price to be paid for sin. The price is being
tossed into Hell. I don't know how else you may explain this, but
Allah seems very serious on this count; there is a price for sin.
> > Since Islam has a doctrine of Hell, Allah is apparently somewhat
> > offended by certain actions, called sin, of humanity.
>
> SV
> God is not offended by our actions. We cannot injure or harm God in any way.
I suppose I need to define "offend". I am using "offended", not in the
sense of having one's feelings hurt, but in the sense of an act
committed. We commit "offenses against the law". That is not to say
that we hurt the law's feelings, the law does not even have feelings.
We have committed an act "against" the nature of the law.
If I grant that God is in NO way offended by any humans sin. Then WHY
is he judging our actions and putting those who disbelieve into Hell?
I once asked on this newsgroup why the sin of shirk was the one sin
that could not be forgiven. I was told that to deny who God is to deny
the fundamental reality of the creation. On your terms, it shouldn't
be a problem, after all why is God so perturbed about what we believe?
But apparently even in Islam God is offended by certain things….
> > After all, he is sending those who disobey him to eternal punishment.
>
> SV
> What kind of God would that be? Not one I would accept.
Given that Muhammed taught a particularly descriptive and nasty
version of Hell, I can only imagine you do not accept it as being
"eternal", not that you don't accept the concept of Hell. The Qur'an
is explicit that the punishment for disbelievers is Hell.
> > By "theatrics", I presume you mean the death of Jesus to atone for
> > sin. If the wages of sin is death, and God doesn't just change his
> > mind about it, then the wages must be paid.
>
> SV
> Whether or not we accept that these wages must be paid, the "theatrics" of
> the supposed crucifixion, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus are
> completely unnecessary (not to mention fabricated) to pay such wages. It is
> the most unreasonable of beliefs.
I understand that you don't accept the need to pay for sin. If you
were to accept that a price for sin need to be paid, then the
theatrics may or may not be necessary. I suppose that Jesus could have
come down and simply died for our sins in a less gruesome manner. The
setting happened to be prophesied, and whether or not it had to be in
such a manner, I do not know. One of the theories of the atonement is
that it is an inspiration to believers to live in a certain way. It
is, but also much more. So it may be that the death could have been
simpler, but whether or not the type of death was necessary for the
payment, the payment was nonetheless necessary.
As for being unreasonable. I completely disagree. But more on that in
the next section.
> > Otherwise the sin will remain, separation
> > must be maintained and there is no way to restore us to himself.
>
> SV
> Sin separates us from God and we pray and seek forgiveness to bring us back
> towards Him.
Here is the problem: we sin, he forgives us. We sin again, he forgives
us again, the cycle repeats endlessly. What will change EVER? If we
are basically good now, and we still sin, then nothing will change
when we are in paradise. We will still continue to sin, repent, sin,
repent in an endless cycle.
Now the God revealed in the Bible cannot tolerate sin. Allah may be OK
with it on a metaphysical level, but he punishes it for his own
personal reasons. However, the God revealed in the bible is absolutely
Holy.
Holiness is the sum of all perfections. Of those perfections,
Omniscience coupled with omnipotence, will insure that God is
absolutely perfect in his actions. Omniscience is defined as knowing
everything, including both things actual and things possible, and
knowing them effortlessly and equally well. The sum of God's
knowledge, already being perfect and encompassing all that is possible
to know, cannot be added to nor can it be lessened. It can be said of
God that he knows any and all true propositions, and is aware of but
believes no false ones. From Gods omniscience and omnipresence, it
follows that God is perfectly good and Holy. He knows all truth and is
aware of but believes no false propositions. Therefore he will always
act in accordance with truth. There could be nothing that can act on
him externally, to cause him to act in a false way, and internally,
since God innately knows all truth, to act in a false way would be to
act counter to what he knows to be true. This perfection or innate
‘rightness' is referred to as Holiness. Holiness, for God, is the sum
of all perfections, and God has this attribute essentially. As God he
cannot be without this attribute.
So then God, by definition, necessarily embodies all perfections. He
is absolutely holy. God cannot be inconsistent with himself and remain
God. By his very nature, he cannot violate his perfection and be both
non-perfect and perfect at the same time. Since God, of necessity,
embodies all perfections, for him to even have the capacity to be less
than holy or just or perfect would signal that he is not God. He is
perfect, not because of some law higher than himself, but because he
can do no less than be perfect, by his very nature.
Sin is inherently a difficult thing for us to understand. As sinners
ourselves, we tend to downplay the importance of it. Yet the Biblical
stance is perfectly just, and by that I mean severe. Our inability to
comprehend not only the grievous nature of sin, but the absolute
holiness of God as well, both result in a natural human reluctance to
see the argument correctly. Nonetheless, I shall try to make the case.
Sin is defined as breaking any law of God given to men. Men preferred
to put themselves up over everything else, including God. Men exalt
themselves naturally, and blaspheme not only each other, but God as
well. Mankind has such an exalted view of himself that he refuses to
submit to God or his order. So Gods laws are broken.
A few things must be added; Failure to do what the law enjoins is just
as much a sin as doing what it forbids. There are sins of omission as
well as sins of commission. Since the law of God expresses the
holiness of God as the only standard for his creature, man must live
according to this standard.
Sin is essentially selfishness. Inasmuch as the Bible teaches that the
essence of Godliness is to love God, the essence of sin seems to be
love of self. Granted that a proper love of self exists, sin is rather
an exaggerated love of self; where it puts self-interests above the
interests of God.
>From Gods holiness, it follows that any sin must be removed from his
presence. The very act of sin is an act of separation and a move
toward autonomy. Would it be possible for a perfect God to dwell with
imperfection?
I would state the argument as such:
a) God is absolutely holy. He is absolutely perfect.
b) As a function of his holiness, he can never cease to be holy, nor
can his holiness lessen. His perfection, by its very definition,
demands that he be nothing less. If he were to be any less than
perfect at any time, then he ceases to be who he is. By virtue
therefore of who he is, he necessarily will remain perfect at all
times. He can do nothing less.
c) His being just is a part of his perfection and holiness. To be just
is to be right, proper, equitable, fair and impartial. Justice is the
practice of being just. Holiness and perfection encompass justice. A
perfect God will necessarily be just, and will necessarily practice
justice.
d) God is the creator of the universe and therefore responsible for
maintaining order in it. Given that God created the universe without
flaw, and according to his laws, he is responsible for maintaining
justice in the universe. He has created all that is within the
universe and his holiness necessitates that he will practice justice.
He will practice it perfectly.
e) Any violation of the order in God's universe necessitates that God
bring justice.
f) Sin is a rebellion against the order of God's universe.
g) Therefore, it is impossible by Gods very nature that he can dwell
with sin. His holiness, which includes justice, necessitates that he
maintain the perfect order of his creation. Disorder must be removed.
That removal of sin from himself is called death.
As I see it, it is not only reasonable but necessary that God be
absolutely Holy. His holiness is simply the sum of his perfections
which he must have to be God, and those perfections demand that sin be
punished and removed from his presence. That removal is the wages of
sin.
If Allah is simply forgiving sin without the price being paid then the
conclusion is that Allah is not perfect; he is an imperfect god and
not fit to be called God in the first place. Such a concept of God
cannot stand.
This is not to say that God cannot forgive, but he must act according
to his own nature and be absolutely just as well as forgiving. He
cannot forego justice to show mercy without denying his own nature.
dave
dave
> The difference between Islam and Christianity is from the perspective
> of sin. In islam, sin is a NECESSITY of the right to choose one's
> destiny.
Isn't the belief in predestination one of the fundamental creeds of
Islam that MUST be accepted in order to be called Muslim?
Islamic Creed
>From the USC Muslim Association
"1. I believe in God, and His angels, and His books, and His
messengers, and resurrection after death, and that the good and evil
of destiny are from God Most High. I believe too in the accounting and
the scales, hell and paradise. All the foregoing is reality.
5. He it is Who determined and predestined all things. Nothing exists
in this world or hereafter except by His will, His knowledge, His
determining and predestining, and except it be written on the
Preserved Tablet (al-Lauh al-Mahfuz). He inscribed everything there in
the sense of description, not that of foreordaining. Determining,
predestining and will are pre-eternal attributes of unknowable
modality.
"Taqdir, or the absolute decree of good and evil, is the sixth article
of the Islamic creed, and the orthodox believe that whatever has, or
shall come to pass in this world, whether it be good or bad, proceeds
entirely from the Divine Will, and has been irrevocably fixed and
recorded on a preserved tablet by the pen of fate."
All deeds of God's servants, both of commission and omission, are in
truth acquired by them; God Most High is their creator. All of them
take place by His will, knowledge, determining and predestining.
Obligatory acts of obedience and worship take place by the command,
love, satisfaction, knowledge, will, determining and predestining of
God Most High, and all facts of sinful rebellion take place by His
knowledge, determining, and predestining and will, but not by His
love, satisfaction and command."
>From the Quran:
9.51 "Nothing will happen to us except what Allah has decreed for us:"
Yusuf Ali
14.4 "Allah makes whom He pleases err and He guides whom He pleases
and He is the Mighty, the Wise." Shakir
32.13 "If We had so willed, We could certainly have brought every soul
its true guidance: but the Word from Me will come true, "I will fill
Hell with Jinns and men all together" Yusuf Ali
As one can see, Islam teaches a radical form of predetermination. The
talk of free-will does not seem compatible with Islamic
predetermination. In fact, under the Islamic version, basic decision
making seems to be out of our hands, so that "whatever has, or shall
come to pass in this world, whether it be good or bad, proceeds
entirely from the Divine Will, and has been irrevocably fixed".
This is entirely fatalistic and in no way allows for free will, which
is a necessity for us even being called persons. Free will is
necessary to a moral universe. "Will" is one of the essential traits
of personality.
Will is defined as "The mental faculty by which one deliberately
chooses or decides upon a course of action", "A desire, purpose, or
determination", or "Deliberate intention or wish", "Free discretion;
inclination or pleasure" [Dictionary.com]
By the very definition of the word, we must have it to "decide upon a
course of action". A being without a "will" would lack the ability to
perform anything. If it has intelligence but no will, then it is a
database, with no inclination to act; and if it has a will, but no
intelligence, then it is a vegetable, unable to act for lack of any
data to act on. So "will" is absolutely necessary for action. On this
understanding, the term free-will is redundant. Will by it's very
definition is the ability to decide or choose, if that will is taken
away, then we are automatons and not "persons" even at a minimal
level. One may assert that our wills are acted upon by the data, and
in that sense the will is not free, I grant that. In fact, it would be
impossible to act in any capacity if there was no data to act upon,
but in this broader sense the ability to choose at the base level is
necessary, even if the choices are limited.
Therefore I will posit that "will" or "free-will" is necessary not
only for a moral universe, but even more basically; it is necessary
for a being to perform any action whatsoever. IF the being in question
has no free will, then the being in question is not performing
anything. He is a mere puppet of a greater being (God?) who by his
will causes the 層ill-less' being to act.
I have a particularly difficult time believing that God simply chose
some for hell and others for heaven, wholly apart from any decision of
man. I would state the argument as such:
(1) Sin is rebellion against God
(2) rebellion is an act of will
(3) Sin therefore is by necessity an act of the will
(4) Will is of necessity free (I clarify free to choose, not free from
influence)
(5) If an act of person P has been causally determined beforehand,
then the act is not an act of
person P's own will.
(6) Therefore the act is not an act of sin, since sin is an act of
will, by it's definition.
(7) It is contradictory that an act of sin be BOTH
a) causally predetermined by God, and therefore according to Gods plan
b) an act of rebellion against Gods plan
Yet in Islam we have a picture of God sending some to Hell, and others
to paradise, though they can do nothing other than what they do. Men
are condemned for following Allah's plan. They are will-less bags of
meat that do exactly what they were created to do, and could do
nothing other.
You have spoken of the necessity of free will, and I believe that. I
cannot accept that "sin is a NECESSITY of the right to choose one's
destiny". I will accept that free-will entails the "possibility" of
sin, but not the "necessity" of it. God is free, but does not sin. If
we MUST sin in order to be free, then we are not free to not sin. Free
will means that we individual humans decide, and not God. But that
contradicts the Qur'an and Islamic creed (Taqdir, or the absolute
decree of good and evil, is the sixth article of the Islamic creed)
which says that "all facts of sinful rebellion take place by His
knowledge, determining, and predestining and will"
dave
Altway
"dave" <dlwa...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:apui9f$j76$1...@blue.rahul.net...
> > Sin is an act that furthers you from God. Sincere repentance moves one
closer to God. There is no "price" or "debt" to be paid.
> Now if there is a "last day" where all will be recompensed for their
> deeds and sin is wrong deeds, AND the punishment will be "Hell-fire",
then there certainly IS a price to be paid for sin. The price is being
tossed into Hell. I don't know how else you may explain this, but
Allah seems very serious on this count; there is a price for sin.
Comment:-
The Quran tells us:-
"Say: O mankind! There has come to you the Truth from your Lord, and he who
is guided by it, his guidance is only for his own soul; and he who errs,
errs only against it; and I am not a warder over you." 10:109
"He who accepts guidance (or does right), accepts it only for his own soul:
and he who errs, errs only against it; nor shall one burdened soul bear the
burden of another. Nor would We punish until we had sent a Messenger (with
warnings)." 17:15
God has created this world with certain laws such that actions have
certain consequences.
The acts that bring bad consequences are errors rather than "sins" in the
Christian sense.
If you put your hand into the fire, it burns.
But the pain may lead you to withdraw and avoid burning.
This is a law about our own nature.
But human nature does get perverted and they may lose
touch with it and fail to perceive the damage they do to themselves -
they may become sadists and masochists.
So Messengers are sent with a teaching and techniques by which
they can again get into contact with their inherent nature.
> > Whether or not we accept that these wages must be paid, the "theatrics"
of
> > the supposed crucifixion, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus are
completely unnecessary (not to mention fabricated) to pay such wages. It is
the most unreasonable of beliefs.
> I understand that you don't accept the need to pay for sin. If you
> were to accept that a price for sin need to be paid, then the
theatrics may or may not be necessary. I suppose that Jesus could have
come down and simply died for our sins in a less gruesome manner.
Comment:-
Many people were crucified by the Romans.
The verse quoted above tells
"nor shall one burdened soul bear the burden of another."
A person's sin cannot be paid for by another.
Each person has to repent and make amends himself.
Praying sincerely for forgiveness is also a method of counteracting sin.
> Here is the problem: we sin, he forgives us. We sin again, he forgives
> us again, the cycle repeats endlessly. What will change EVER?
If we are basically good now, and we still sin, then nothing will change
when we are in paradise. We will still continue to sin, repent, sin, repent
in an endless cycle.
Comment:-
Yes God is forgiving, but not to those who do not repent.
> Now the God revealed in the Bible cannot tolerate sin. Allah may be OK
> with it on a metaphysical level, but he punishes it for his own
personal reasons. However, the God revealed in the bible is absolutely
Holy. Holiness is the sum of all perfections.
Comment:-
Now this is an unwarranted piece of prejudice.
(My God is greater than your God!)
>From Gods omniscience and omnipresence, it
> follows that God is perfectly good and Holy. He knows all truth and is
aware of but believes no false propositions. Therefore he will always
act in accordance with truth. There could be nothing that can act on
him externally, to cause him to act in a false way, and internally,
since God innately knows all truth, to act in a false way would be to
act counter to what he knows to be true.
So then God, by definition, necessarily embodies all perfections. He
is absolutely holy. God cannot be inconsistent with himself and remain
God. By his very nature, he cannot violate his perfection and be both
> non-perfect and perfect at the same time.
> Sin is inherently a difficult thing for us to understand. As sinners
ourselves, we tend to downplay the importance of it. Yet the Biblical
stance is perfectly just, and by that I mean severe. Our inability to
comprehend not only the grievous nature of sin, but the absolute
holiness of God as well, both result in a natural human reluctance to
> see the argument correctly.
Comment:-
If as you say we cannot comprehend the nature of sin and God's holiness
why are you presenting these futile arguments. Will they not be nonsense?
We go by what God has revealed. That His perfection includes Forgiveness
and Mercy.
"Allah, the Merciful, the Benevolent".
>Nonetheless, I shall try to make the case.
> Sin is defined as breaking any law of God given to men. Men preferred
to put themselves up over everything else, including God. Men exalt
themselves naturally, and blaspheme not only each other, but God as
well. Mankind has such an exalted view of himself that he refuses to
submit to God or his order. So Gods laws are broken.
A few things must be added; Failure to do what the law enjoins is just
as much a sin as doing what it forbids. There are sins of omission as
well as sins of commission. Since the law of God expresses the
holiness of God as the only standard for his creature, man must live
according to this standard.
> Sin is essentially selfishness. Inasmuch as the Bible teaches that the
> essence of Godliness is to love God, the essence of sin seems to be
> love of self. Granted that a proper love of self exists, sin is rather
> an exaggerated love of self; where it puts self-interests above the
> interests of God.
Comment:-
Depends on what you mean by "self".
If you mean the "ego", then it is an illusion - it is an idea about oneself
created around our body and name, the things that are always common to all
our experiences.
The real Self is the soul created when Allah breathed His Spirit into man.
(Quran 32:9 and 15:29)
> >From Gods holiness, it follows that any sin must be removed from his
> presence. The very act of sin is an act of separation and a move
toward autonomy. Would it be possible for a perfect God to dwell with
imperfection?
Comment:-
This argument does not make sense.
God is not made imperfect because human beings sin.
If God forgives human beings then they are perfected.
> I would state the argument as such:
a) God is absolutely holy. He is absolutely perfect.
Comment:-
Your idea of perfection appears to mean He has limitations.
> b) As a function of his holiness, he can never cease to be holy, nor
can his holiness lessen. His perfection, by its very definition,
demands that he be nothing less. If he were to be any less than
perfect at any time, then he ceases to be who he is. By virtue
therefore of who he is, he necessarily will remain perfect at all
times. He can do nothing less.
Comment:-
He can do nothing less? A God that is not omnipotent?
Must he conform to perfection, and is perfection greater than Him?
No, No. No.
We define all virtues as attributes of Allah.
It is not that He cannot do other than tell truth or act with Goodness,
but that whatever He says and does that is Truth and Goodness -
after all He is the Creator!
> c) His being just is a part of his perfection and holiness. To be just
is to be right, proper, equitable, fair and impartial. Justice is the
practice of being just. Holiness and perfection encompass justice. A
perfect God will necessarily be just, and will necessarily practice
justice.
Comment:-
Justice is not the only virtue, Love and Truth are also.
>d) God is the creator of the universe and therefore responsible for
maintaining order in it. Given that God created the universe without
flaw, and according to his laws, he is responsible for maintaining
justice in the universe. He has created all that is within the
universe and his holiness necessitates that he will practice justice.
He will practice it perfectly.
Comment:-
As above.
> e) Any violation of the order in God's universe necessitates that God
bring justice.
f) Sin is a rebellion against the order of God's universe.
Comment:-
No. Sin is rebellion against God, it is alienation.
g) Therefore, it is impossible by Gods very nature that he can dwell
> with sin. His holiness, which includes justice, necessitates that he
maintain the perfect order of his creation. Disorder must be removed.
That removal of sin from himself is called death.
Comment:-
No. Sin is spiritual death which is the same as alienation from God.
It is suppression of the Spirit of God within one. It is alienation
from one's true self.
Therefore:-
"Then set your purpose for religion as a man upright by nature - the nature
made by Allah in which He has made men; there is no altering (the laws of)
Allah's creation; that is the right religion, but most people do not know -
turning to Him only, and be careful of your duty to Him and keep up prayer
and be not of those who ascribe partners to Him." Quran 30:30-31
> As I see it, it is not only reasonable but necessary that God be
> absolutely Holy. His holiness is simply the sum of his perfections
which he must have to be God, and those perfections demand that sin be
punished and removed from his presence. That removal is the wages of
sin.
If Allah is simply forgiving sin without the price being paid then the
conclusion is that Allah is not perfect; he is an imperfect god and
not fit to be called God in the first place. Such a concept of God
cannot stand.
Comment:-
You could have reduced the whole argument to one line
that you think that God's Forgiveness flouts His Justice.
Therefore, He must sacrifice something to pay for the sin.
But these are human arguments whereas God is the creator of all
the rules.
Apart from this, it still makes no human sense either. If as you say
Jesus is God and he took the sins on himself then
(a) he became contaminated by the sin
If he paid by his death, then
(b) his resurrection nullified the sacrifice.
If you say Jesus was a man when the sins were put on him then
(c) there was no payment for the sins of mankind.
(d) If God made the rule that Jesus must be sacrificed for the sin of Adam
before man can be forgiven, then it is still God who does the forgiving.
> This is not to say that God cannot forgive, but he must act according
> to his own nature and be absolutely just as well as forgiving. He
> cannot forego justice to show mercy without denying his own nature.
Comment:-
God does not deny His own nature by forgiving
because God is Loving even according to your own Theology.
It is a severe misunderstanding of the nature of God to
suppose that He is only capable of Justice, and even that only
in the limited form human beings can understand.
Indeed, even a more restricted form which you understand.
In fact, Jesus did not teach anything like this.
Altway
"dave" <dlwa...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:apui9g$j77$1...@blue.rahul.net...
>
> > The difference between Islam and Christianity is from the perspective
of sin. In islam, sin is a NECESSITY of the right to choose one's
destiny.
> Isn't the belief in predestination one of the fundamental creeds of
> Islam that MUST be accepted in order to be called Muslim?
> 5. He it is Who determined and predestined all things. Nothing exists
> in this world or hereafter except by His will, His knowledge, His
determining and predestining, and except it be written on the
Preserved Tablet (al-Lauh al-Mahfuz). He inscribed everything there in
the sense of description, not that of foreordaining. Determining,
predestining and will are pre-eternal attributes of unknowable
modality.
Comment:-
Yes, "asimmehmood" is wrong.
There is no free will. All power comes from Allah
The Prophet denied that there was Free will.
But he is right that God knew man would sin, as did the angels,
and that the world was created to facilitate his further development.
He was made to be a vicegerent.
"Surely, We have created man in the best of moulds.
Then We reduced him to the lowest of the low;
Save those who believe and act right; for theirs is a reward unfailing."
Quran 95:4-6
The Perfection of man lies in this ability to learn and to become an Agent
of God.
However, there is freedom, in the sense that human beings have
several alternative ways of behaving, though each requires the
appropriate causal forces.
The teachings sent by God through the Messengers are also causal forces
and we have to put ourselves under the appropriate causes.
However, God's knowledge transcends human knowledge and
all Time may be regarded like space for Him. He can see all
of it. This is not the case for man. Therefore, the future seems
open-ended for him.
It is also the case that data processing happens within the brain or
mind of the individual. So he can be regarded as responsible for it.
But obviously the various forces involved in this processing are not
of his creation.
If man has "free will" then he would neither be constrained by causes nor
by reasons and his actions would be wholly frivolous and he would
bring chaos to the world by introducing unpredictable forces.
Nor would God be omnipotent if man were able to do as he pleased.
he
> Therefore I will posit that "will" or "free-will" is necessary not
> only for a moral universe, but even more basically; it is necessary
> for a being to perform any action whatsoever. IF the being in question
> has no free will, then the being in question is not performing
> anything. He is a mere puppet of a greater being (God?) who by his
> will causes the 'will-less' being to act.
> I have a particularly difficult time believing that God simply chose
> some for hell and others for heaven, wholly apart from any decision of
> man. I would state the argument as such:
Comment:-
No. In order to perform any action we need knowledge, motives and power.
We acquire knowledge from the environment made by God,
and by the faculties God has given us.
Our motives and powers depend on our inherent nature and what we acquire
from the culture and environment we are brought up in, and also from our own
efforts.
But these efforts also depend on our God-made nature and what we learn.
The fact is that we have an inbuilt need to do what will benefit us, but we
need
knowledge and awareness to know what is good for us. That is why
God sends Messengers to teach us.
> (1) Sin is rebellion against God
> (2) rebellion is an act of will
Comment:-
No it is an act of ignorance, stupidity or perversity - a disease.
Sin occurs when a person is not consciously in control,
but acts automatically byconditioned reflexes, prejudices, addictions,
habits
desires, fantasies etc.
These are not acts of Will.
Will is an aspect of God.
> (3) Sin therefore is by necessity an act of the will
> (4) Will is of necessity free (I clarify free to choose, not free from
influence)
> (5) If an act of person P has been causally determined beforehand,
then the act is not an act of person P's own will.
> (6) Therefore the act is not an act of sin, since sin is an act of
will, by it's definition.
> (7) It is contradictory that an act of sin be BOTH
> a) causally predetermined by God, and therefore according to Gods plan
> b) an act of rebellion against Gods plan
> Yet in Islam we have a picture of God sending some to Hell, and others
to paradise, though they can do nothing other than what they do. Men
are condemned for following Allah's plan. They are will-less bags of
meat that do exactly what they were created to do, and could do
nothing other.
Comment:-
You are mistaken.
God has sent guidance.
But He knows the destiny of all.
asimm...@yahoo.com
> asimm...@yahoo.com wrote in message news:<aprrl9$mdu$1...@blue.rahul.net>...
>
> > The difference between Islam and Christianity is from the perspective
> > of sin. In islam, sin is a NECESSITY of the right to choose one's
> > destiny.
>
> Isn't the belief in predestination one of the fundamental creeds of
> Islam that MUST be accepted in order to be called Muslim?
>
The word in Islam is taqdeer, and it does not mean 'predestination'.
Qadar is used in the sense of "power" and "measuring", and the Quran
used them in both cases.
To understand the term, one must also grasp the historicial context.
Pre-Islamic Arabia had a very pessimistic view of life, and it could
border on the realm of predestination or "Fate". This fate was often
viewed as a BLIND force that measured out everything BEYOND men's
control.
A Pre-Islamic poet said:
"Anything indeed can kill you when you meet your own AJAL (appointed
time)."
Another word for this powerful will was DAHR or time. The Quran
references how the disbelievers made an excuse for their disbelief of
resurrection from time. "They say" there is nothing but this present
life of ours: we die and we live, and it is only DAHR that destroys
us."
But this does not mean that "fate" according to the pre-Islamic Arabs
meant the lack of moral choice. "When Dahr bites you with his
dog-teeth in misfortune, BITE HIM BACK WITH ALL YOUR MIGHT AS MUCH AS
HE BITES YOU."
Thus, it becomes abdundantly clear that even in pre-Islamic Arabia,
the word qadar did not have any implications on the moral choice of
man, and his free-will. It was used by the Arabs for those things
beyond man's control.
The Quran actually reformed the whole concept and used the term QADAR
for the potentialities in nature. Surah Aala refers to the creative
purpose.
"Glorified be Your Lord, the Most High
Who Created, then perfected,
And Set the QADR, and guided and showed the way."
The manifestation of God Almighty's rububiyyah includes his measuring
out each creatures inherent potentialities (i.e. QADR), including his
instincts. Not only does it include the the physical aspects of man's
existence, but his spiritual as well. Thus, the concept of hidayah
(i.e. guiding and showing the way) from God to manifest the
potenialities is included and is part and parcel of God's lordship.
Thus, after recounting his creative ativity, God speaks about how he
brings forth the lush vegetation to a state of lush green. Man's
spiritual growth is also dependent on God Almighty, and man must make
a conscious effort to seek guidance from God through both prayer and
His word. Thus, in the past post I alluded to the mercy of God when
he promised Adam (AS) that guidance would be sent to his progeny.
Even in the moral realm, man is bound by laws.
"[No this is not so]; in fact [the truth is that] man wants to be
mischievous before his [conscience]. He asks: ‘When will the Day
of Judgement be?’ (75:1-6)"
Man has a conscience that urges him with what is right, and warns him
when he is about to do wrong. It has also been equipped with a
mechanism that corrects man after the fact, praising him when he has
done good and rebuking him when he does bad. If man listens to the
conscience it grows in strength, and if man fails to heed it, it
eventually dies. No man can ESCAPE the reality within him, and this
is what the Quran also refers to as an aspect of taqdeer, the law of
growth or decay of the soul. The Quran refers to the cultivation of
the conscience as tazkiyah. "Successful is he who purifies and causes
to grow his soul."
> Islamic Creed
> >From the USC Muslim Association
>
> "1. I believe in God, and His angels, and His books, and His
> messengers, and resurrection after death, and that the good and evil
> of destiny are from God Most High. I believe too in the accounting and
> the scales, hell and paradise. All the foregoing is reality.
>
Taqdeer is NEVER mentioned in the Quran with the above aspects of
belief. "The good and evil of destiny" comes from a hadeeth, in which
Gabriel (AS) came to the Prophet (S) in the form of a man to teach the
Companions their religion. The hadeeth has been narrated through
different chains, and the above statement is missing in different
accounts of the same incident. It's insertion most likely, not that
it is incorrect, is probably from a narrator.
But even if we were to assume it was narrated properly, Muslims recite
"We seek refuge from the evil of that which he created." This verse
clearly does not ascribe any evil to God Almighty, and in fact,
attributes it to the created thing. The confusion happens when
Muslims say "This thing happened by the command of the Lord." In
Arabic, the word command implies permission and does not mean God
created the evil acts.
> 5. He it is Who determined and predestined all things. Nothing exists
> in this world or hereafter except by His will, His knowledge, His
> determining and predestining, and except it be written on the
> Preserved Tablet (al-Lauh al-Mahfuz). He inscribed everything there in
> the sense of description, not that of foreordaining. Determining,
> predestining and will are pre-eternal attributes of unknowable
> modality.
>
Besides the fact that the author is totally confused, al-Lauh al
Mahfuz, often called the Preserved Tablet, is in no place in the Quran
used for what is written. The disbelievers used to assert that the
Prophet (S) was possessed by a djinn, despite there having witnessed
those type of phenomenon before and the Prophet's revelation was
unlike anything they ever saw. The Preserved Tablet is used in the
context of the unsullied transmission of the Quran and is used to
demonstrate that even in the realms of the unseen, the Quran is
protected. The djinn cannot in any way even come near its
transmission.
But, even the author here, does not refer to the act of foredaining,
but of God Almighty's encompassing knowledge. "He inscribed
everything there in the SENSE OF DESCRIPTION, NOT THAT OF
FOREDAINING." Thus the author denies the claim that man is not
responsible for his choices or is not free.
Another thing that causes confusion is the term "BOOK". The term
"Kitab" is used in the sense of events beyond men'c control, even in
pre-Islamic Arabia.
> "Taqdir, or the absolute decree of good and evil, is the sixth article
> of the Islamic creed, and the orthodox believe that whatever has, or
> shall come to pass in this world, whether it be good or bad, proceeds
> entirely from the Divine Will, and has been irrevocably fixed and
> recorded on a preserved tablet by the pen of fate."
>
Read the above.
> All deeds of God's servants, both of commission and omission, are in
> truth acquired by them; God Most High is their creator. All of them
> take place by His will, knowledge, determining and predestining.
> Obligatory acts of obedience and worship take place by the command,
> love, satisfaction, knowledge, will, determining and predestining of
> God Most High, and all facts of sinful rebellion take place by His
> knowledge, determining, and predestining and will, but not by His
> love, satisfaction and command."
>
Read the above.
> >From the Quran:
> 9.51 "Nothing will happen to us except what Allah has decreed for us:"
> Yusuf Ali
>
This, as the above indicates, does not refer to the moral actions, but
refers to the results that happen as happening according to God's
will. This verse is actually in response to the sill excuses of the
hypocrites. Thus, before the verse the Quran says:
"If good befalls you, it is unpleasant for them, and if any misfortune
befalls you, they say "We indeed took our precautions before hand,"
and they turn away well-pleased." There hypocrisy is quite
astonishing because they claim nothing when good happens to the
believers and get angry, but when some setback happens for the
believers, the hypocrites attribute their not having suffered the
setback because of their "wise and great planning".
God Almighty instructs the believers to tell them that if we succeed,
it is because of God and if we suffer a setback it is because God has
allowed it. Our setback may have been because of our moral failure or
to try us with patience, and we will continue in our ways to please
Him.
> 14.4 "Allah makes whom He pleases err and He guides whom He pleases
> and He is the Mighty, the Wise." Shakir
>
This, once again refers to his permission. Thus, an equivalent in
English, as Farrahi has pointed out would be, "The king built the
bridge", when in actuality he did not. The verb refers to the act
happening by the permission of the King. Thus, in other places God
refers to the leading astray of people as the necessary corollary to
their arrogance.
Also, this statement is made in the context of the complete
deliverance of the message. The Quran is actually instructing the
Muslims, because the truth is so obvious to them after God has made
it. God makes the truth manifest to the people during the period of
Messengers, and people often wondered why the people wouldn't accept.
God tells them that it is because of his law, i.e will, and hat these
people have proven themselves unworthy of guidance through their own
actions.
Thus, the Quran often says "We set a seal on their hearts." In
Arabic, verbs are often used as the culmination of an act. Such
statements are often made in the context of the wonderment of the
Prophet (S) in certain people not accepting the message despite the
truth being made so clear. The Quran would often console the Prophet
(S) and say that their lack of acceptance is not because of your lack
of efforts, but because of their own arrogance that has led to their
hearts being sealed. "Ya seen, By the wise Quran. You are indeed the
Messenger on a Straight path. A revelation from the Mighty, the
Merciful. Revealed to a people to warn them and before this their
fathers were not warned and because of this are heedless... The word
is proved true against the gretaer part of them: for they do not
believe" The Quran then refers to the manifestation of God's law or
his word, because of their actions.
"We hav put yokes around their necks right upto their chins." The
freedom of action becomes restricted and sin is fastened around their
neck, "So they cannot bow down." There arrogance has has led to their
not being able to recognize the truth, and thsu they cannot submit to
it and "bow down". God places a bar in front and a bar behind, and
covered them up so they cannot see.
Thus, we find a graphic description of man losing his sense of right
and wrong, and no longer does his intellect function properbly. As
Yusuf Ali quotes a Sanskrit proverb "When destruction comes near,
understanding is turned upside down." The taqdeer of Allah is that
the more man engagaes in moral inequity, the more narrow and
restricted his life becomes, (he is like a cattle, nay even worse)
following only his lust and being enslaved to it, and his spiritual
tension is lost.
A very powerful example of such usage of verbs in the Quran is found
in the prayer of Noah. The actual destruction is mentioned before the
prayer even finishes referring to the "fated" destruction of the
disbelievers. Another example is Surah Fil, where God Almighty
mentions the fate of the army of Abraha, i.e. the birds flying
overhead before the actual destruction.
> 32.13 "If We had so willed, We could certainly have brought every soul
> its true guidance: but the Word from Me will come true, "I will fill
> Hell with Jinns and men all together" Yusuf Ali
>
This refers to the exact same phenomenon of guidance. The Quran is
describing the very same law as illsutrated above. What is further
interesting to note as before this verse even takes place, God
Almighty says:
"But he fashioned him in due proportion, and breathed into him of his
spirit. AND HE GAVE YOU THE FACULTIES OF HEARING AND SIGHT AND
UNDERSTANDING. LITTLE THANKS DO YOU GIVE." As a side note, one may
ask what does gratefulness have to do with the usage of intellect.
The Quran considers one who does not use his God=given facilities to
seek the truth as an ingrate. Very beautiful indeed, and God's wisdom
is prfound for He selected the UMMIY Prophet, whose greatest miracle
was a BOOK.
Also, after the above quoted description, God refers to those whomhe
guides. They are the ones who possess humility, i.e. "Only those who
believe in our signs, who, when they are recited to them Fall down in
adoration. And celebrate the praises of their Lord, NOR ARE THE
PUFFED UP IN PRIDE."
Thus, it is arrogance that leads to man;s downfall and he cannot
escape Allah's laws.
> As one can see, Islam teaches a radical form of predetermination. The
> talk of free-will does not seem compatible with Islamic
> predetermination. In fact, under the Islamic version, basic decision
> making seems to be out of our hands, so that "whatever has, or shall
> come to pass in this world, whether it be good or bad, proceeds
> entirely from the Divine Will, and has been irrevocably fixed".
>
Not in one single instance have you proved that moral choices are
fixed, and in fact you even misread the person you quoted. But I
don't blame you because of your lack of knowledge of the Quran and its
style. Many Muslims are infected with the same malady and the excuse
of predestination gained currency in the political misfortunes of
early Islam. The caliphs after the Companions often said that they
were in power because of the will of God. In fact, this excuse was
put before Hasan al-Basri, the famous and pious tabieen, who himself
was inclined towards predestination, who got very angry and retorted
"They are liars." Such beliefs gained theological currency with the
Ashaarites who consistently proclaimed everything as happening
according to the will of Allah, and such beliefs were not spared by
the great champion ibn Taymiyya and in fact, he considered the
Mutazilah better because of it. In the modern era, Shibli Numaani had
criticized the Ashaari position and referred to it as childish.
> This is entirely fatalistic and in no way allows for free will, which
> is a necessity for us even being called persons. Free will is
> necessary to a moral universe. "Will" is one of the essential traits
> of personality.
>
Read the above, and by the way, you completely ignored the other post.
The rest of your post is an argument against free-will and based upon
your misunderstanding. It is invalid, nor does it even deal with the
theological psoition of Christianity. The whole topic was the
perspective of sin between Islam and Christianity. Even if we were to
assume what you said is true for aguments sake, it still does not
absolve Christiniaty of the points laid out.
Peace be upon you
asimm...@yahoo.com
> Here is the problem: we sin, he forgives us. We sin again, he forgives
> us again, the cycle repeats endlessly. What will change EVER? If we
> are basically good now, and we still sin, then nothing will change
> when we are in paradise. We will still continue to sin, repent, sin,
> repent in an endless cycle.
>
It seems you continue to insist on the same mistake. Taubah is
grounded not only in acknowledging one's own fault, but reforming
one's self. As I stated in the last post, taubah leads to the
strengthening of will and the growth of human personality. It is a
necessity in the test of free will.
Otherwise, the whole notion of free will, as is the case in
Christianity clearly an absurdity. Repentance plays not role in the
development of man.
> Now the God revealed in the Bible cannot tolerate sin. Allah may be OK
> with it on a metaphysical level, but he punishes it for his own
> personal reasons. However, the God revealed in the bible is absolutely
> Holy.
One can only wonder where he derives his claims from. The next lesson
is from the world of philosophy and has no scriptural basis.
> Holiness is the sum of all perfections. Of those perfections,
> Omniscience coupled with omnipotence, will insure that God is
> absolutely perfect in his actions. Omniscience is defined as knowing
> everything, including both things actual and things possible, and
> knowing them effortlessly and equally well.
This is what can be called 'passive' omniscience and is actually based
upon the notion of absolute space and time. It assumes that God's
knowledge is a mirror of events that unfold, and leads to
predestination. This is not the belief of one who creates, but one
who moulds. A creator brings forth things from existence out of
nothing, and his knowledge is the ESSENCE of all things. There is no
separation between his thought and deed, and this is what the Quran
refers to as amr or command. "The command is but a twinkling of an
eye, nay even less."
But then again, this has nothing to do with concept of sin. Holiness
is equated for God in Islam, and it means God only does good. The
statement "Subhanallah" is the clear pronouncement of the Holiness of
God, and one of his attributes if Al-Quddooos. Simply affirming that
holiness means the sum total of all good attributes, as if this is
something unique to Christianity, will not suffice your point.
He knows all truth and is
> aware of but believes no false propositions. Therefore he will always
> act in accordance with truth. There could be nothing that can act on
> him externally, to cause him to act in a false way, and internally,
> since God innately knows all truth, to act in a false way would be to
> act counter to what he knows to be true.
The truth essentially springs from God, and only by his will do things
exist. God cannot be compelled to act in any false way, because He is
the Creator of everything. One of his attributes if Al-Haqq, or the
Truth. "We have not created the heavens and earth for sport."
What is your point?
This perfection or innate
> ‘rightness' is referred to as Holiness. Holiness, for God, is the sum
> of all perfections, and God has this attribute essentially. As God he
> cannot be without this attribute.
It is an inherent quality of God, and it is through his will that
everything exists. He DEFINES the patterns of creation, and it is an
inherent contradiction to say that God does something wrong when He
has created everything,
> So then God, by definition, necessarily embodies all perfections. He
> is absolutely holy. God cannot be inconsistent with himself and remain
> God. By his very nature, he cannot violate his perfection and be both
> non-perfect and perfect at the same time.
This is an absurdity in language. What is your point?
> Sin is defined as breaking any law of God given to men. Men preferred
> to put themselves up over everything else, including God.
This is not always the case and is a denial of reality. In fact, it
is not even close to the norm and assumes a pessimistic view of
reality. Not all men are arrogant and they are definitely not born
arrogant. Men often sin because they forget and lack of will as in
the case of Adam (AS), or they sin in acts of emotion. The parable of
Adam and Satan also recounts this very notion of how one who was
humble turned in repentance and one who was arrogant could not.
Nobody can sin such that it hurts God. Thus the Quran says that God
ALmighty is Al-Ghani, free of all needs, but at the same time He is
al-Hameed, the one deserving of All praise. Thus, even though man can
assume that God does not need our worship, it does not mean that God
will let such things slide, because it is in the dictates of justice
that man worship God, who is inherently deserving of All Praise. The
Quran puts it very eloquently when it says "He who does wrong, does
wrong against his own soul." The Prophet (S) is attributed to have
said in meaning that he who digs a well for his neighbour to fall in,
will fall in himself.
Men exalt
> themselves naturally, and blaspheme not only each other, but God as
> well. Mankind has such an exalted view of himself that he refuses to
> submit to God or his order. So Gods laws are broken.
There needs to be a distinction here. God's will or desire is broken,
but it does not mean God's law is broken. God has given man choice
once again, and if one comes from your pespective the whole notion of
free-will is an absurdity. If man sins, God's law is still in effect
and that is what is termed as taqdeer. The more man chooses to not
succumb to his inner conscience and recognize his mistakes, repent and
reform himself, the more he is actually leading to its death.
But then again, what do your arguments have to do with original sin?
Islam affirms that man has free-will in a certain sphere and it is
God's will that man make mistakes. It is how man reacts to these
mistakes that ultimately decides his fate. In Christianity, one has
original sin and no matter what man does He still cannot escape what
has been fated for him, that moment of redemption which does not lead
at all in the growth of personality.
Geoff Wright
[...]
> I once asked on this newsgroup why the sin of shirk was the one sin
> that could not be forgiven. I was told that to deny who God is to deny
> the fundamental reality of the creation. On your terms, it shouldn't
> be a problem, after all why is God so perturbed about what we believe?
> But apparently even in Islam God is offended by certain things….
Sin means "to miss the mark" etymologically. My view of God is very
different from the commonly held Islamic or Christian views. Some
would consider it to be atheist, though I don't consider it so.
However, judging by what I've read here and elsewhere, I think many
Muslims may agree that to view God in the way one views a human judge
or to see the Creator God the way one sees one a man who creates a
work of art is entirely too simplistic, and all too common,
unfortunately.
My ideas were picked up from other teachers who are not Muslim, but I
am interested in hearing the Islamic interpretation of them, if anyone
cares to comment.
The unforgivable sin is the turning away from God. If such a sin is
unforgivable, there must be something about it that epitomizes sin
itself, that makes it an ultimate act. It is not unforgivable because
God is not forgiving after some point, but it is because the one who
commits it will not accept forgiveness. He has moved beyond the point
where forgiveness is even an option. It is the ultimate act of
"missing the mark", which as long as it continues creates the very
condition whereby forgiveness is kept away. I believe that, if such a
person ceases to commit this sin, then forgiveness again becomes
possible. The conditions that allow forgiveness are again a part of
ones being, and the sin is no longer taking place. I think it is
simplistic to view this sin as a permanent act incapable of being
undone even if the person recognizes the error and again turns to God.
That would presuppose a God whose mercy has its limits. I feel there
is entirely too much anthropomorphism in ideas about God, both in
Christianity and Islam, but that is another argument.
Geoff
Kavalec
> Yes, "asimmehmood" is wrong.
> There is no free will. All power comes from Allah
I find this hard to accept. What then is 'the trust' referred to in
verse 72 of Sura-i-Aliab?
And more important than this is the fact that He is Al-Adl (The Just).
Where is there justice in creating a being with no free will, destined
for eternal punishment, for actions he never had the ability to
choose? No, we are told to use our good sense and such a combination
does not fit good sense.
I know this subject has been discussed to death, and in my humble
opinion we here in this physical life will never arrive at the truth
about it.
He will inform us of things about which we differ.
For now I will believe that I can choose good over evil.
And I will strive to do so.
Peace
G.
asimm...@yahoo.com
> Comment:-
> Yes, "asimmehmood" is wrong.
I have posted two other messages on the net and I hope they have not
'slipped through the cracks', but to comment:
Thank you for your conclusion. But, when I use the term free-will, I
do not mean it in the absolute sense. There are a wide variety of
factors that lead to a human beings decision, among them, emotion. The
past effects a persons decision also. But man is also motivated by
the future, and imagination is not simply a result of causal forces.
The only FREE Being in the absolute sense is God Almighty.
But there is no doubt that the Quran puts the final resopnsibility of
man's choices on his own shoulders. The Quran vehemently condemns the
disbelievers that used the excuse of lack of free will for their
disbelief. Thus, the arguement is actually one of semantics.
> There is no free will. All power comes from Allah
> The Prophet denied that there was Free will.
The Quran says man is soleley responsible for his own actions, and the
Quran is the ultimate criterion on what the Prophet (S) said. And the
Quran consistently holds man accountable for his use of will. There
are many hadeeths attributed to the Prophet (S), especially in
relation to the workings of qadr. Such beliefs sparked a wide variety
of disagreement and many hadeeth were fabricated in his name.
But then again, we are talking about free-will in the limited sense.
> But he is right that God knew man would sin, as did the angels,
> and that the world was created to facilitate his further development.
> He was made to be a vicegerent.
God knew man would sin, because He gave the option. That is why the
angels expressed their wonder at God for giving them this authority.
Even the angels knew there would be men who would abuse this right.
Further, He inspired the soul with what is right and wrong.
But that is what I said in my past post and we do not disagree.
>
> "Surely, We have created man in the best of moulds.
> Then We reduced him to the lowest of the low;
> Save those who believe and act right; for theirs is a reward unfailing."
> Quran 95:4-6
>
> The Perfection of man lies in this ability to learn and to become an Agent
> of God.
>
How do we disagree? The rest of your post is a criticism of free-will
in the absolute sense. I never meant it in that way and I don't think
one can logically derive that from my post. Also, in my second
response I have expanded on that.
dave
> > > Sin is an act that furthers you from God. Sincere repentance moves one
> closer to God. There is no "price" or "debt" to be paid.
>
> > Now if there is a "last day" where all will be recompensed for their
> > deeds and sin is wrong deeds, AND the punishment will be "Hell-fire",
> then there certainly IS a price to be paid for sin. The price is being
> tossed into Hell. I don't know how else you may explain this, but
> Allah seems very serious on this count; there is a price for sin.
>
> God has created this world with certain laws such that actions have
> certain consequences.
> The acts that bring bad consequences are errors rather than "sins" in the
> Christian sense.
> If you put your hand into the fire, it burns.
> But the pain may lead you to withdraw and avoid burning.
> This is a law about our own nature.
> But human nature does get perverted and they may lose
> touch with it and fail to perceive the damage they do to themselves -
> they may become sadists and masochists.
> So Messengers are sent with a teaching and techniques by which
> they can again get into contact with their inherent nature.
I agree that God created this world with certain laws, and actions
have consequences. As I will argue later on, it is for precisely those
reasons that sin has consequences. God has not arbitrarily assigned
some punishment/reward system for disbelief/belief. In fact, disbelief
has a perfectly natural consequence of separation from God.
That acts that bring bad consequences are "errors" rather than "sins"
is to oversimplify on such a grand scale, that it is ridiculous. One
cannot maintain that every action with negative consequences is simply
an error, unless one lives with no contact with the outside world.
People can and do things in full rebellion and complete knowledge of
what they are doing. To deny that this happens is folly. I do not
claim that every act with negative consequences is an act of overt
rebellion against the order of God. But neither can you maintain that
"sin" in exactly that manner is not committed.
> > > Whether or not we accept that these wages must be paid, the "theatrics"
> of
> > > the supposed crucifixion, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus are
> completely unnecessary (not to mention fabricated) to pay such wages. It is
> the most unreasonable of beliefs.
>
> > I understand that you don't accept the need to pay for sin. If you
> > were to accept that a price for sin need to be paid, then the
> theatrics may or may not be necessary. I suppose that Jesus could have
> come down and simply died for our sins in a less gruesome manner.
>
> Comment:-
> Many people were crucified by the Romans.
>
> The verse quoted above tells
> "nor shall one burdened soul bear the burden of another."
Very Good. Jesus was not a burdened soul. Any man with sin would not
have been able to be the sacrifice for another. That is not the case
with Jesus. BUT, the Pentateuch is filled with the atonement; the
basic idea is that when we sin, the laying of that sin upon the
sacrifice alongside our repentance, brings restoration with God.
> A person's sin cannot be paid for by another.
> Each person has to repent and make amends himself.
> Praying sincerely for forgiveness is also a method of counteracting sin.
Ah, but wait a minute, there are two different ideas here:
1) A persons sin can be paid for by another. That is taught in the OT
through the sacrificial system.
2) But even in Christianity, we do not preach a universal salvation of
mankind through the atonement of Jesus. We teach that each must
appropriate that by repentance.
If you attempt to connect these two points: 1) that by the person of
Jesus paying for our sin, then 2) we need not repent and make amends;
you have built a straw man argument against the doctrine. Do not
neglect that point.
The problem in Islam is that Allah is forgiving sin without any amends
being made (rather I should say that the amends made do not cover the
price of sin). If he can do that, then the price of sin was never
separation in the first place. But then we must question why Allah is
sending people to hell for their sin.
> > Here is the problem: we sin, he forgives us. We sin again, he forgives
> > us again, the cycle repeats endlessly. What will change EVER?
> If we are basically good now, and we still sin, then nothing will change
> when we are in paradise. We will still continue to sin, repent, sin, repent
> in an endless cycle.
>
> Comment:-
> Yes God is forgiving, but not to those who do not repent.
Of course, but that is a given in my example. The problem is that even
in paradise we would continue to sin/repent/sin/repent. WHY? Because
nothing has changed. If you claim that those in paradise will sin no
longer, then what is different?
> > Now the God revealed in the Bible cannot tolerate sin. Allah may be OK
> > with it on a metaphysical level, but he punishes it for his own
> personal reasons. However, the God revealed in the bible is absolutely
> Holy. Holiness is the sum of all perfections.
>
> Comment:-
> Now this is an unwarranted piece of prejudice.
> (My God is greater than your God!)
Not so, it is the outcome of believing that God can ignore sin. The
Qur'an teaches it, the Bible doesn't. it has far reaching consequences
for the nature of God and it ultimately means that God is not perfect,
which is unacceptable.
> >From Gods omniscience and omnipresence, it
> > follows that God is perfectly good and Holy. He knows all truth and is
> aware of but believes no false propositions. Therefore he will always
> act in accordance with truth. There could be nothing that can act on
> him externally, to cause him to act in a false way, and internally,
> since God innately knows all truth, to act in a false way would be to
> act counter to what he knows to be true.
> So then God, by definition, necessarily embodies all perfections. He
> is absolutely holy. God cannot be inconsistent with himself and remain
> God. By his very nature, he cannot violate his perfection and be both
> > non-perfect and perfect at the same time.
> > Sin is inherently a difficult thing for us to understand. As sinners
> ourselves, we tend to downplay the importance of it. Yet the Biblical
> stance is perfectly just, and by that I mean severe. Our inability to
> comprehend not only the grievous nature of sin, but the absolute
> holiness of God as well, both result in a natural human reluctance to
> > see the argument correctly.
>
> Comment:-
> If as you say we cannot comprehend the nature of sin and God's holiness
> why are you presenting these futile arguments. Will they not be nonsense?
> We go by what God has revealed. That His perfection includes Forgiveness
> and Mercy.
> "Allah, the Merciful, the Benevolent".
I didn't say we COULD NOT understand the nature of sin, only that we
are reluctant to, since it is convicting. For example, you seem to
have stated that we don't sin, we simply make errors. I believe that
to be grossly injust to the reality of the situation.
> >Nonetheless, I shall try to make the case.
> > Sin is defined as breaking any law of God given to men. Men preferred
> to put themselves up over everything else, including God. Men exalt
> themselves naturally, and blaspheme not only each other, but God as
> well. Mankind has such an exalted view of himself that he refuses to
> submit to God or his order. So Gods laws are broken.
> A few things must be added; Failure to do what the law enjoins is just
> as much a sin as doing what it forbids. There are sins of omission as
> well as sins of commission. Since the law of God expresses the
> holiness of God as the only standard for his creature, man must live
> according to this standard.
> > Sin is essentially selfishness. Inasmuch as the Bible teaches that the
> > essence of Godliness is to love God, the essence of sin seems to be
> > love of self. Granted that a proper love of self exists, sin is rather
> > an exaggerated love of self; where it puts self-interests above the
> > interests of God.
>
> Comment:-
> Depends on what you mean by "self".
> If you mean the "ego", then it is an illusion - it is an idea about oneself
> created around our body and name, the things that are always common to all
> our experiences.
> The real Self is the soul created when Allah breathed His Spirit into man.
> (Quran 32:9 and 15:29)
This seems very straightforward to me, but I will try to give an
example.
I know, as a man who loves God, that he has given one wife and that I
am not to lust after other women. I see a pretty woman on the street,
and decide to look her over. Now, I know that such an action is not
pleasing to God, and that my looking with any kind of lust in my heart
is a sin. If I decide that I will look at her because to do such a
thing is pleasing to ME, even if I know that it is not pleasing to
God, then I have put my own self above God. I have broken his will to
please myself. Do not try to downplay the situation by giving more
harmless parameters, we all know what I am talking about. This happens
every day in the lives of men all over the globe, even among those who
consider themselves to be seeking after God. I do not mean that we
lust after every woman that walks down the street, nor do I mean that
we lust in the worst possible way, but it is futile and naive to deny
that it happens.
These kinds of situations happen constantly in areas of anger, pride,
arrogance, covetousness, etc. They are examples of putting self over
God. We know what we should do, but sometimes we do what pleases
ourselves even though we know it is disobedient. That this is a
struggle at all tells us what our true nature is. If we were
inherently good, then we would by our very nature do good. That we
have to train ourselves to do good tells us that we have to work hard
to overcome our fleshly natures. Being godly is NOT easy, because our
nature is to please ourselves, not God.
> > >From Gods holiness, it follows that any sin must be removed from his
> > presence. The very act of sin is an act of separation and a move
> toward autonomy. Would it be possible for a perfect God to dwell with
> imperfection?
>
> Comment:-
> This argument does not make sense.
> God is not made imperfect because human beings sin.
> If God forgives human beings then they are perfected.
I didn't say that our sin makes God imperfect, I said he will not
dwell with sin. By dwell I clarify that he will not have any communion
with sinners. There is another sense in which by his definition of
omnipresent, then he is of course in the presence of sin/sinners and
could not possibly be otherwise. What I am speaking of here is
communion. In the Bible this is the goal of redemption. If I am not
mistaken, in Islam, Allah is utterly transcendent and does not have
communion with believers. Is that a correct understanding?
> > I would state the argument as such:
> a) God is absolutely holy. He is absolutely perfect.
>
> Comment:-
> Your idea of perfection appears to mean He has limitations.
Of course. Perfection means that he cannot be imperfect. And you
chastised me for "unwarranted prejudice" earlier!!
Are you claiming that Allah has no limitations? None? He can lie,
cheat, be unjust, imperfect, forgetful?
Of course God is limited in that sense. At least in the Bible he is.
He cannot be imperfect. If you want to call that a limitation, OK.
> > b) As a function of his holiness, he can never cease to be holy, nor
> can his holiness lessen. His perfection, by its very definition,
> demands that he be nothing less. If he were to be any less than
> perfect at any time, then he ceases to be who he is. By virtue
> therefore of who he is, he necessarily will remain perfect at all
> times. He can do nothing less.
>
> Comment:-
> He can do nothing less? A God that is not omnipotent?
> Must he conform to perfection, and is perfection greater than Him?
> No, No. No.
> We define all virtues as attributes of Allah.
> It is not that He cannot do other than tell truth or act with Goodness,
> but that whatever He says and does that is Truth and Goodness -
> after all He is the Creator!
Perhaps we are going to have a huge difference here in the way we
approach our philosophy. I believe God is perfect because it is his
essence. All perfections come from his essence. I know this as
Essentialism. Plato seemed to think that there were universals
floating around out there, so that God would have to follow these and
would be subject to them; hence it is called Platonism. Then there is
Voluntarism (from the latin: voluntas, or will), whereby things are
good or evil simply because God declares them to be. It could be that
he could have declared rape and murder to be good, and we would
thereby be commanded to do those things.
I reject Platonism for the simple reason that I accept God as creator,
therefore there can be nothing higher than himself that he is subject
to. I also reject voluntarism because God, as creator, cannot repeal
certain laws even being the creator. For example: the laws of logic.
Could God in his omnipotence repeal the law of logic that he declared,
and be both God and non-God at the same time? Of course not. This has
nothing to do a lack in his omnipotence, rather as part of his
essence, he cannot deny who he is. I reject voluntarism, in favor of
essentialism. But as part of that, God will be limited to being
perfect. [sly smile along with that last comment]
> > c) His being just is a part of his perfection and holiness. To be just
> is to be right, proper, equitable, fair and impartial. Justice is the
> practice of being just. Holiness and perfection encompass justice. A
> perfect God will necessarily be just, and will necessarily practice
> justice.
>
> Comment:-
> Justice is not the only virtue, Love and Truth are also.
I didn't say they weren't. But Justice IS one of his virtues, and it
is the one pertinent to the situation here.
> >d) God is the creator of the universe and therefore responsible for
> maintaining order in it. Given that God created the universe without
> flaw, and according to his laws, he is responsible for maintaining
> justice in the universe. He has created all that is within the
> universe and his holiness necessitates that he will practice justice.
> He will practice it perfectly.
>
> Comment:-
> As above.
>
> > e) Any violation of the order in God's universe necessitates that God
> bring justice.
> f) Sin is a rebellion against the order of God's universe.
>
> Comment:-
> No. Sin is rebellion against God, it is alienation.
Fair enough, I am just breaking it down a little more. But I agree,
that sin is rebellion against God and it leads to separation.
> g) Therefore, it is impossible by Gods very nature that he can dwell
> > with sin. His holiness, which includes justice, necessitates that he
> maintain the perfect order of his creation. Disorder must be removed.
> That removal of sin from himself is called death.
>
> Comment:-
> No. Sin is spiritual death which is the same as alienation from God.
> It is suppression of the Spirit of God within one. It is alienation
> from one's true self.
No need to disagree with me on this one. I too would call it spiritual
death. But it is death. The spirit is dead. Not suppressed, or in
remission, but dead.
> > As I see it, it is not only reasonable but necessary that God be
> > absolutely Holy. His holiness is simply the sum of his perfections
> which he must have to be God, and those perfections demand that sin be
> punished and removed from his presence. That removal is the wages of
> sin.
> If Allah is simply forgiving sin without the price being paid then the
> conclusion is that Allah is not perfect; he is an imperfect god and
> not fit to be called God in the first place. Such a concept of God
> cannot stand.
>
> Comment:-
> You could have reduced the whole argument to one line
> that you think that God's Forgiveness flouts His Justice.
> Therefore, He must sacrifice something to pay for the sin.
I could have reduced it, but it's much more fun to show it in this
form. Plus it has the advantage of proving the point so that it cannot
be dismissed so easily.
Either something else pays the price of our sin, or we pay it
ourselves. Being as the price is death, it kind of makes it difficult
to restore us to him if we are removed from his presence. So IF he
wants to restore us, THEN something other than us will need to pay the
price.
> But these are human arguments whereas God is the creator of all
> the rules.
And there is the consequence I was talking about. Your argument seems
to be that God doesn't need to be perfect, because he made the rules
so he can bust them. Since I have already discussed this point in the
section on Voluntarism/essentialism I will not rehash the arguments.
But I will maintain that in your Islam, God is not perfect, whereas in
the Bible he is. You have argued as much yourself. It is therefore
hardly an "unwarranted piece of prejudice" on my part to call it such.
> Apart from this, it still makes no human sense either. If as you say
> Jesus is God and he took the sins on himself then
> (a) he became contaminated by the sin
But having not actually committed any sin, it was impossible that
death could keep its hold on him. Just as the scapegoat in Leviticus,
he paid for the sin, but did not commit them.
> If he paid by his death, then
> (b) his resurrection nullified the sacrifice.
Nice try. That doesn't really work. The price of sin was death; Jesus
died, so the price is paid. Nothing was said about staying dead.
[should have checked the fine print]
> If you say Jesus was a man when the sins were put on him then
> (c) there was no payment for the sins of mankind.
BOTH fully God and fully man, remember? But out of curiosity, what
exactly is your argument here? Do you have some metaphysical reason
why this would be impossible?
In Isaiah 53, the Messiah was predicted to do just this, so I would be
interested in hearing why you believe it to be impossible.
> (d) If God made the rule that Jesus must be sacrificed for the sin of Adam
> before man can be forgiven, then it is still God who does the forgiving.
Absolutely. But he does it in such a way that his justice is not
simply ignored, but neither is universal salvation applied to those
who do not want to accept him. No ones free will is violated, and
repentance is a necessary act in appropriating salvation from God. I
see no other way it could be. Repentance, as you have noted, is
absolutely necessary to restoration to God. Since it was God that paid
the price for sin, then he gets to set the terms as to how we will
appropriate restoration. He says it is through repentance and
acceptance of the atoning sacrifice.
In this we are in agreement. Muslims are adamant that repentance from
sin and to God be rendered. I agree, it must be so.
> > This is not to say that God cannot forgive, but he must act according
> > to his own nature and be absolutely just as well as forgiving. He
> > cannot forego justice to show mercy without denying his own nature.
>
> Comment:-
> God does not deny His own nature by forgiving
> because God is Loving even according to your own Theology.
> It is a severe misunderstanding of the nature of God to
> suppose that He is only capable of Justice, and even that only
> in the limited form human beings can understand.
> Indeed, even a more restricted form which you understand.
>
> In fact, Jesus did not teach anything like this.
But the fatal error in this reasoning is that somehow God is ONLY
just in the atonement. Consider this though, IF Jesus was God and he
paid the price for our sin, did he have to? No. He did it out of LOVE.
I don't mean to be crass, but of Allah it is said "Accordingly, when
God ...resolved to create the human race, He took into His hands a
mass of earth, the same whence all mankind were to be formed, and in
which they after a manner pre-existed; and having then divided the
clod into two equal portions, He threw the one half into hell, saying,
'These to eternal fire, and I care not'; and projected the other half
into heaven adding, 'and these to Paradise, I care not"
Mishkatu 'l-Masabih Babu '1 Qadr
I believe it is a grave misstatement to conclude that simply because
God is just, that he therefore has no mercy or love. All three must be
made to fit together, rather than throwing some of Gods perfections
out to make room for others.
And Jesus did explicitly teach that he came to die and give his life
as a ransom for many.
dave
dave
> > > The difference between Islam and Christianity is from the perspective
> > > of sin. In islam, sin is a NECESSITY of the right to choose one's
> > > destiny.
> >
> > Isn't the belief in predestination one of the fundamental creeds of
> > Islam that MUST be accepted in order to be called Muslim?
>
> The word in Islam is taqdeer, and it does not mean 'predestination'.
[comments on islamic creed snipped. You do not believe in
predestination]
>
> > 5. He it is Who determined and predestined all things. Nothing exists
> > in this world or hereafter except by His will, His knowledge, His
> > determining and predestining, and except it be written on the
> > Preserved Tablet (al-Lauh al-Mahfuz). He inscribed everything there in
> > the sense of description, not that of foreordaining. Determining,
> > predestining and will are pre-eternal attributes of unknowable
> > modality.
>
> Besides the fact that the author is totally confused, al-Lauh al
> Mahfuz, often called the Preserved Tablet, is in no place in the Quran
> used for what is written.
>
> But, even the author here, does not refer to the act of foredaining,
> but of God Almighty's encompassing knowledge. "He inscribed
> everything there in the SENSE OF DESCRIPTION, NOT THAT OF
> FOREDAINING." Thus the author denies the claim that man is not
> responsible for his choices or is not free.
The author does seem to try to cover his tracks here because of how
obviously odious this would be if taken at face value. But he has just
finished saying how "all things" are by his "will, knowledge,
determining and predestining". Then he tries to claim it is only in
the sense of knowledge, but that contradicts what he just said,
wherein he proclaimed that it was not only by gods knowledge, but also
by his "will", "determining" and "predestining". Then he tops it all
off with it being of "unknowable modality". Indeed. The nonsense just
spewed would certainly have to be of unknowable modality. It is
"unknown" how it could possibly work!! But as you have already pointed
out, he doesn't know what he is talking about.
> > As one can see, Islam teaches a radical form of predetermination. The
> > talk of free-will does not seem compatible with Islamic
> > predetermination. In fact, under the Islamic version, basic decision
> > making seems to be out of our hands, so that "whatever has, or shall
> > come to pass in this world, whether it be good or bad, proceeds
> > entirely from the Divine Will, and has been irrevocably fixed".
>
> Not in one single instance have you proved that moral choices are
> fixed,
"Irrevocably fixed" is a quotation! I didn't have to prove it, Muslims
said it straight out. Quite frankly I'm not trying to prove that moral
choices are fated. In fact my argument was to expressly prove the
opposite; we must be free to make these decisions. I found the ideas
presented in the so-called Islamic creeds to be repulsive. Now if, as
you say, those creeds are false, then I take back my statements
> and in fact you even misread the person you quoted.
I simply read what Muslims had written to other Muslims. The author
made contradictory statements.
> But I
> don't blame you because of your lack of knowledge of the Quran and its
> style. Many Muslims are infected with the same malady and the excuse
> of predestination gained currency in the political misfortunes of
> early Islam.
Thank you. As I noted earlier, I got all the information from Muslim
websites, where "they" certainly seem to believe in predestination.
Maybe they don't understand the Quran as well as you do…. But maybe
they would argue that YOU are misinformed (as does "altway")
> > This is entirely fatalistic and in no way allows for free will, which
> > is a necessity for us even being called persons. Free will is
> > necessary to a moral universe. "Will" is one of the essential traits
> > of personality.
>
> Read the above, and by the way, you completely ignored the other post.
What ‘other' post? Do you mean the ‘rest' of your post?
> The rest of your post is an argument against free-will and based upon
> your misunderstanding.
My own position is FOR free-will. I argued that it is absolutely
necessary for a moral universe.
> It is invalid, nor does it even deal with the
> theological psoition of Christianity.
You must have misunderstood, since my argument is pro free will. You
would not be calling it invalid since it agrees with your own
position.
And you may have noticed that this is s.r. ISLAM, where "Christians"
don't get to defend "Christianity".
> The whole topic was the
> perspective of sin between Islam and Christianity.
But there is no use discussing it further when you speak so
pervasively about free-will and Islamic creed denies it. You of course
have set me straight on this issue, but I did not have the benefit of
your understanding when I wrote the post.
> Even if we were to
> assume what you said is true for aguments sake, it still does not
> absolve Christiniaty of the points laid out.
If you want to discuss Christianity then you should take this over to
soc.religion.christianity. Well, YOU can discuss it here, but I won't
be able to.
Christianity, for its part, does not need to be "absolved" of the
points that you made. You offered nothing but your personal opinion of
it; "it is a story full of pessimism". The rest is Islamic, it has
nothing to do with Christianity.
Such statements as "Sin is a NECESSARY COROLLARY of free-will." Are
patently false. If one MUST sin to be free then one is not free. Free
will means that humans choose, not someone else. But if we MUST
perform certain actions, then that is the opposite of free. Free will
carries the risk of sin, but not the necessity of it.
dave
Altway
"Geoff Wright" <geof...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aq6evp$f0r$1...@blue.rahul.net...
> > I once asked on this newsgroup why the sin of shirk was the one sin
that could not be forgiven. I was told that to deny who God is to deny
the fundamental reality of the creation. On your terms, it shouldn't
be a problem, after all why is God so perturbed about what we believe?
But apparently even in Islam God is offended by certain things..
Comment:-
It is not God who is perturbed, and His plan cannot be flouted.
We are required to do things for our own soul.
"Say: O mankind! There has come to you the Truth from your Lord, and he who
is guided by it, his guidance is only for his own soul; and he who errs,
errs only against it; and I am not a warder over you." 10:109
"He who accepts guidance, accepts it only for his own soul: and he who errs,
errs only against it; nor shall one burdened soul bear the burden of
another. Nor would We punish until we had sent a Messenger (with
warnings)." 17:15
Man was made from earth and the Spirit of God (Quran 15: 29 and 32:9)
Sin is alienation from God, and therefore, from the spirit within us.
"And be not like those who forgot (or forsook Allah) , so He made them
forget (or forsake) their own souls: these it is that are the
transgressors." 59:19
It is the Spirit within us that produces consciousness, conscience and will.
Without it we are automatons - we are spiritually Dead.
There is no "I" that exists about which it can be said "I am", "I do", "I
choose".
Those who believe that fallen man has "free will" are completely wrong.
Even when man is spiritually regenerated the "will" is an aspect of God
that is why it is said that it is a state of "Surrender" (Islam) and
it is God who works through them.
Even in the Christian Scripture Jesus said that about himself
The spiritually dead need "resurrecion" , and
that is why Messengers are sent with
appropriate teachings and techniques.
"O ye who believe! Respond unto Allah and His Messenger when He calls you to
that which quickens you; and know that Allah comes in between a man and his
own heart; and that He it is unto Whom ye shall be gathered." 8:24
> Sin means "to miss the mark" etymologically.
Comment:-
Yes. That is the meaning in the Quran. (2:286).
> My view of God is very different from the commonly held Islamic or
Christian views. Some
would consider it to be atheist, though I don't consider it so.
However, judging by what I've read here and elsewhere, I think many
Muslims may agree that to view God in the way one views a human judge
or to see the Creator God the way one sees one a man who creates a
work of art is entirely too simplistic, and all too common,
unfortunately.> My ideas were picked up from other teachers who are not
Muslim, but I
am interested in hearing the Islamic interpretation of them, if anyone
cares to comment.
Comment:-
We do not, or ought not to invent our views of God. He reveals Himself in
the scriptures through the Messengers and to the Spirit within.Certainly
Allah should not be regarded as anthropomorphic. He is not a man, though His
Spirit is in us such that we could say man is an image of God. But the
reverse is not true.According to the Quran Allah is the fundamental ultimate
Reality, the originator, creator and maintainer of all other things. There
is nothing like Allah and no images are to be made of Him. He is the Inner
and Outer, and He pervades all things. He is Truth and all else is the
false.
Ambrose Garbocha
Oxford University Press, 1964]. Most Muslims would agree--at least in
principle, following the argument is a different thing--that God, being the
creator before anything else, is outside this world. His essence and that of
this world are two separate things. Therefore, there is no empirical way to
know about Him.
The Qur'an is also full of other descriptions of God: His Hand, Throne, Him
the Omnipotent, Omnipotent... The interpretations of these images caused
some serious debate in the early days of Islam. the Moatazila thought of
them as metaphor, and stressed the fact that God, by definition, is hidden.
The Asharites, and generally the Sunnites, believe in a more literal
interpretation (to them explanation) of the images: God has a hand, although
it is not like the idea we have for hands. The Sufis, or mystics if you
want, were less concerned with the argument, and sought the religious
experience instead.
I hope that makes a decent start.
"MyTajMahal" <mytaj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:apiuup$lvg$1...@blue.rahul.net...
Altway
"Ambrose Garbocha" <sublun...@balooshy.com> wrote in message
news:aq9r97$61n$1...@blue.rahul.net...
> "Like Him there is naught" [42:11, the Koran Interpreted, Arthur J.
Arberry,
> Oxford University Press, 1964]. Most Muslims would agree--at least in
> principle, following the argument is a different thing--that God, being
the
> creator before anything else, is outside this world. His essence and that
of
> this world are two separate things. Therefore, there is no empirical way
to
> know about Him.
Comment:-
This is not strictly true.
God is not transcends the Universe, but is also imminent in it and he is
personal.
"He is the First and the Last and the Evident (or Outer) and the Imminent
(or Hidden or Inner), and He is Aware of all things." 57:3
"Then He fashioned him (man) and breathed into him of His spirit, and made
for you the faculties of hearing, and sight and hearts (feeling); little is
it that you give thanks." 32:9
"We will soon show them Our signs on the horizons (in the Universe) and
within themselves (or their own souls), until it become manifest unto them
that it is the truth. Is not your Lord sufficient , since He is Witness over
all things?" 41:53
Altway
"Kavalec" <kav...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aq9glp$1le$1...@blue.rahul.net...
> > Yes, is wrong.
> > There is no free will. All power comes from Allah
> I find this hard to accept. What then is 'the trust' referred to in
> verse 72 of Sura-i-Aliab?
Comment:-
You find it hard to accept that all power comes from Allah?
That nothing can be done without power?
If man had power independent of Allah, could Allah be Omnipotent?
But see my answer to "asimmehmood"
> Where is there justice in creating a being with no free will, destined
> for eternal punishment, for actions he never had the ability to
> choose? No, we are told to use our good sense and such a combination
> does not fit good sense.
Comment:-
Justice depends on laws.
Laws imply that actions have consequences that are proportional to those
actions.
We have been given faculties to assess these.
These faculties are powers from God.
> For now I will believe that I can choose good over evil.
> And I will strive to do so.
Comment:-
(1) Your ability to recognize good and evil,
(2) your motive to try to do good
(3) your ability to actually do good and avoid evil
depend on your inherent genetic nature and the environment
in which you develop (the upbringing, culture, education)
all arise from Allah and not from your own creation.
Altway
"dave" <dlwa...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:aq9gm1$1m1$1...@blue.rahul.net...
> > God has created this world with certain laws such that actions have
> > certain consequences.
> I agree that God created this world with certain laws, and actions
> have consequences.
> That acts that bring bad consequences are "errors" rather than "sins"
> is to oversimplify on such a grand scale, that it is ridiculous.
Comment:-
Really. Perhaps you have a restricted idea of what "error" means.
> The problem in Islam is that Allah is forgiving sin without any amends
> being made (rather I should say that the amends made do not cover the
price of sin). If he can do that, then the price of sin was never
separation in the first place. But then we must question why Allah is
sending people to hell for their sin.
Comment:-
You have lost me here.
Are you telling me how Allah judges and what He cannot do?
Islam requires a person to make amends and Allah has promised
forgiveness to the repentant.
> > > Now the God revealed in the Bible cannot tolerate sin. Allah may be OK
with it on a metaphysical level, but he punishes it for his own
personal reasons.
> > Now this is an unwarranted piece of prejudice.
(My God is greater than your God!)
> Not so, it is the outcome of believing that God can ignore sin. The
> Qur'an teaches it, the Bible doesn't. it has far reaching consequences
> for the nature of God and it ultimately means that God is not perfect,
> which is unacceptable.
Comment:-
We do not think that Allah has limitations.
Comment:-
Yes we know man has fallen.
But to fall he must have been originally at a higher state.
If man was not in that higher state he could not climb back to it.
To say that man was made perfect is to say that he has the potentiality
of development.
So we do not concentrate our attention on his fall but on his
perfectability.
> I didn't say that our sin makes God imperfect, I said he will not
> dwell with sin. By dwell I clarify that he will not have any communion
> with sinners. There is another sense in which by his definition of
omnipresent, then he is of course in the presence of sin/sinners and
could not possibly be otherwise. What I am speaking of here is
communion. In the Bible this is the goal of redemption. If I am not
mistaken, in Islam, Allah is utterly transcendent and does not have
communion with believers. Is that a correct understanding?
Comment:-
That is utter nonsense.
Why do you speak about Islam when you nothing about it
and have made no attrempts to study it or read the replies here.
"Then He fashioned him and breathed into him of His spirit, and made for you
the faculties of hearing, and sight and hearts (feeling); little is it that
you give thanks." 32:9
"And certainly We created man, and We know what his soul suggests to him,
and We are nearer to him than his life-vein (Jugular and Carotid)." 50:16
"O ye who believe! Respond unto Allah and His Messenger when He calls you to
that which quickens you; and know that Allah comes in between a man and his
own heart; and that He it is unto Whom ye shall be gathered." 8:24
> > He can do nothing less? A God that is not omnipotent?
Comment:-
Sorry. I cannot agree with you.
You are making the laws out to be something over which God has no control.
We call this Shirk - making other gods.
God is the creator of all including the laws.
As for logic these are not laws but techniques of thinking.
Unless you are confusing Logic with the faculty for reasoning.
That is also created by God.
> > You could have reduced the whole argument to one line
> > that you think that God's Forgiveness flouts His Justice.
Therefore, He must sacrifice something to pay for the sin.
> I could have reduced it, but it's much more fun to show it in this
> form.
Comment:-
Is this the purpose of argument - to have fun?
Yes I did think these purely verbal argumentations since
the time of Aristotle were a kind of intellectual game, part of their
olympics,
played by the masters when all the work and contact with reality was done
by slaves.
I can see we have a fundamental philosophical difference as well as of
attitude.
> > If he paid by his death, then
(b) his resurrection nullified the sacrifice.
> Nice try. That doesn't really work. The price of sin was death; Jesus
> died, so the price is paid. Nothing was said about staying dead.
Comment:-
Nice try. So if I give a shop a sum of money for some goods, and then get
the
money back (or cancel the cheque), the shop will not ask for the goods
because they have been paid for and nothing is said in the contract about
keeping the money?
> BOTH fully God and fully man, remember? But out of curiosity, what
> exactly is your argument here? Do you have some metaphysical reason
> why this would be impossible?
Comment:-
The Quran describes God as Eternal, Infinite, Self-sufficient, omnipotent,
omniscient,
all pervading.
Even your Bible says:-
"No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son which is in the
bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."
I take the only begotten Son refers to the Word.
All this does not apply to Jesus who was visible, a man with a limited life
span, he was born
at a certain time and died. He needed air and food to live.
He said he could do nothing himself, but obeyed God.
So it seems that symbolic language has been taken literally by naive people
(probably under the influence of Aristotle). There is compromise in
Christianity
between the Strict Monotheism of Hebrewism and Idoltrous Pagan cults which
made
men into gods, e.g. the Pharaohs and Caesars.
> And Jesus did explicitly teach that he came to die and give his life
> as a ransom for many.
Comment:-
Those are the teachings of Paul.
Jesus is reported to have said:-
"Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister,
and to give his life a ransom for many." in Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45
But I doubt that that was the original meaning.
It seems to me that what is meant is that Jesus was willing to bear
the persecution which would result when he brought the Word of God to
people.
It is obedience to the Word of God that brings salvation as Jesus
pointed out in Matthew 7:21-23 and elsewhere.
Altway
<asimm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:aq9glo$1lc$1...@blue.rahul.net...
> > Yes, "asimmehmood" is wrong.
> I have posted two other messages on the net and I hope they have not
'slipped through the cracks', but to comment:
> Thank you for your conclusion. But, when I use the term free-will, I
> do not mean it in the absolute sense.
> The only FREE Being in the absolute sense is God Almighty.
>But there is no doubt that the Quran puts the final responsibility of
> man's choices on his own shoulders. The Quran vehemently condemns the
disbelievers that used the excuse of lack of free will for their
disbelief. Thus, the arguement is actually one of semantics.
Comment:-
Yes I have read your other articles.
I understand what you mean.
But things required clarification.
As Allah is the origininator and creator He is free and
above the laws and ordinances He creates, whereas
all other things are under those laws.
"And unto Allah do prostrate whosoever is in the heavens and the earth,
willingly or unwillingly, as do their shadows in the morning and the
evening." 13:15
It is the Spirit of Allah within us that produces Will.
Surrender to Allah implies that Allah works through us.
There is no " Free Will".
To say that there are entities floating about the Universe that are
not subject to Allah and act independently is to say that
Allah is not omnipotent and there is chaos in the Universe.
> > There is no free will. All power comes from Allah
> > The Prophet denied that there was Free will.
> The Quran says man is soleley responsible for his own actions, and the
> Quran is the ultimate criterion on what the Prophet (S) said. And the
> Quran consistently holds man accountable for his use of will.
Comment:-
Yes, but some Hadith, in so far as they are genuine, illuminate what the
Quran means.
Yes, the Quran also tells us:-
"O ye who believe! Ye have charge of your own souls; he who errs can do you
no hurt if ye are rightly guided: unto Allah will you all return, and He
will declare to you the truth of that which ye did." 5:105
"Say: O mankind! There has come to you the Truth from your Lord, and he who
is guided by it, his guidance is only for his own soul; and he who errs,
errs only against it; and I am not a warder over you." 10:109
These verses do not teach "Free will" i.e. that there are causeless actions.
They refer to the fact that we have alternative modes of behaviour
and the processing of information takes place within us.
The Quran begins (after the Fatiha) by describing different kinds of
believers and disbelievers (2:2-21)
We read:- "Allah has set a seal upon their hearts and on their hearing; and
on
their eyes is dimness."
> Further, He inspired the soul with what is right and wrong.
> But that is what I said in my past post and we do not disagree.
> > "Surely, We have created man in the best of moulds.
> > Then We reduced him to the lowest of the low;
> > Save those who believe and act right; for theirs is a reward unfailing."
> > Quran 95:4-6
> > The Perfection of man lies in this ability to learn and to become an
Agent
> > of God.
> How do we disagree? The rest of your post is a criticism of free-will
> in the absolute sense. I never meant it in that way and I don't think
one can logically derive that from my post. Also, in my second
response I have expanded on that.
Comment:-
Yes, we do not disagree.
You are making a distinction between Absolute and Relative Free Will.
The latter presumably refers to the faculties Allah has given us.
I was trying to dispel the semantic confusion which results from
the phrase "Free Will". I would prefer the word "responsibility".
It is something like light which is corpuscular from one point of view
and wavelike from another, though the two views contradict each other.
dave
> >
> > Here is the problem: we sin, he forgives us. We sin again, he forgives
> > us again, the cycle repeats endlessly. What will change EVER? If we
> > are basically good now, and we still sin, then nothing will change
> > when we are in paradise. We will still continue to sin, repent, sin,
> > repent in an endless cycle.
> >
>
> It seems you continue to insist on the same mistake. Taubah is
> grounded not only in acknowledging one's own fault, but reforming
> one's self. As I stated in the last post, taubah leads to the
> strengthening of will and the growth of human personality. It is a
> necessity in the test of free will.
Saqib had originally written that Jesus atonement "is the most
unreasonable of beliefs" and that "Sin separates us from God and we
pray and seek forgiveness to bring us back towards Him"
My response is to that idea of sin separating and repentance bringing
us back.. I probably need to distinguish that for Christians this is a
valid idea, but that it is only valid after the heart is renewed.
However, if I take the view that the heart is not affected by sin in
any deep way, it still seems problematic.
I don't know what "Taubah" is, you have not explained it and I'm not
sure why some Muslims insist on speaking Arabic words to those who are
not Arabs, but could you explain it?
I have no problem with humans growing, or even a measure of reforming
oneself. But I see an endless cycle. You see my judgment on this as an
error: How so? What is the "SAME mistake" that I keep making? Will
Muslims finitely reform themselves until they finally reach perfection
and sin no more? What is it that will finally remove sin from you?:
because as I argue, sin will necessarily keep us removed from God, so
there can be no restoration to God until the problem is dealt with.
> Otherwise, the whole notion of free will, as is the case in
> Christianity clearly an absurdity. Repentance plays not role in the
> development of man.
Maybe you could explain what you're talking about here. Free will is
free will: the ability of the creature to choose. You merely claim
that the notion is absurd in Christianity. Why? Why is the notion
absurd in Christianity but not in Islam? And considering that many
Muslims, (though not yourself) deny it through belief in fate and
predetermination, it seems massively hypocritical to simply assert
that free will is absurd in Christianity.
I believe your statement about repentance is ignorant. I should like
for you to spell out exactly what "you" think we believe so that any
false ideas will be exposed. I would say that it most likely plays the
exact same role in Christianity as it does in Islam. But that the
development of man is not development unto perfection and therefore
leads to salvation. In Christianity repentance develops sanctification
(personal growth as you call it), but we need redemption to begin the
process. The difference is not the growth, the difference is in
whether it leads to salvation or comes from it.
> The next lesson is from the world of philosophy
> and has no scriptural basis.
>
"no scriptural basis"? Do you actually mean to assert that the Bible
does not claim holiness for God? Or that sin is not a barrier? Deut.
32:4 and Hab. 1:13
> > Holiness is the sum of all perfections. Of those perfections,
> > Omniscience coupled with omnipotence, will insure that God is
> > absolutely perfect in his actions.
>
> ['passive' omniscience snipped]
>
> But then again, this has nothing to do with concept of sin. Holiness
> is equated for God in Islam, and it means God only does good.
> Simply affirming that
> holiness means the sum total of all good attributes, as if this is
> something unique to Christianity, will not suffice your point.
In general: Don't get ahead of yourself.
1) I'm building a case, point by point, don't assume yet that it "has
nothing to do with sin".
2) If I had meant for this to "suffice" I would have stopped here. But
I didn't. This is just one in a string of statements that will lead to
one conclusion: God is holy, in the sense that the Bible defines him
to be Holy
3) Nor did I say that Gods holiness is unique to Christianity, it may
or may not be, but don't get so uptight. You don't need to disagree
with everything I say simply because I am Christian.
> > He knows all truth and is
> > aware of but believes no false propositions. Therefore he will always
> > act in accordance with truth. There could be nothing that can act on
> > him externally, to cause him to act in a false way, and internally,
> > since God innately knows all truth, to act in a false way would be to
> > act counter to what he knows to be true.
> What is your point?
Patience asim, maybe God is using this to build character in you.
> > This perfection or innate
> > 喪ightness' is referred to as Holiness. Holiness, for God, is the sum
> > of all perfections, and God has this attribute essentially. As God he
> > cannot be without this attribute.
>
> > So then God, by definition, necessarily embodies all perfections. He
> > is absolutely holy. God cannot be inconsistent with himself and remain
> > God. By his very nature, he cannot violate his perfection and be both
> > non-perfect and perfect at the same time.
In sum God is perfect and he can't be anything but perfect. Simple
enough, shouldn't be contradicted, but you will probably want to
chastise me for false understanding, tack on a verse from the Qur'an,
and restate it so that you get the final word.
> > Sin is defined as breaking any law of God given to men. Men preferred
> > to put themselves up over everything else, including God.
>
> This is not always the case and is a denial of reality
> Not all men are arrogant and they are definitely not born
> arrogant.
OK, you may be jumping to a conclusion here: I did not mean to imply
that every action of man is to put himself over God. Only that in
general it is true. Although I do believe that all men are born with a
sin nature, even that does not mean that everything a man does is an
open rebellion against God. But it would be foolish to deny that at
times men DO openly rebel against God. In general men put themselves
first over God. To deny that would be a denial of reality. And I will
offer that even YOU and others who seek God, will frequently put your
own desires over those of God. Any honest assessment of the true
situation will render the same conclusion. This is not an indictment
of your personal character, it is simply human nature. We can hide our
faults from others, but not from God.
I will offer several situations:
1) lust.
This is an area that every man will deal with. We may know that God
has not created woman to be objects of our fleshly desires, but we are
still tempted to lust after them. If I allow that, knowing that God
has told me not to, then I have put my desire up over Gods.
2) arrogance.
How many times I have been driving and someone does something that
bugs me: the reaction? Some insult towards them. I know that I should
not judge them in this area, but my own pride gets in the way.
Or sometimes I tell a joke or make some insulting comment(even if only
in "jest") to poke fun at another. I know better, but I decided that I
would have other people laugh at my joke than consider the other
persons feelings.
I may engage in some mild form of gossip about another person. That is
wrong, but my desire to tell my side is put up over the command of
God.
I can go on in areas of anger, pride, coveting, etc. the point is that
I know that God has commanded that these things be put out of my life,
and yet I continue to do them. That is not to say that I am not
growing in these areas, but I simply must admit that I have put my own
desires over those of God. This happens everyday even among those who
are actively seeking after God. For those who don't; even more.
You can change the definition of sin so that these things are not
included, but how can we ignore that to do these things is still
acting against the nature of God? I am not saying that it hurts God
physically or even wounds him emotionally, but it IS an act contrary
to his will. I am aware that you will argue that it is Gods will that
we do such things, so that we can grow, but I find it difficult to
imagine how you may reconcile this notion of it being Gods will that
we defy Gods law. The only recourse is to radically reconstruct what
constitutes sin.
> > Men exalt
> > themselves naturally, and blaspheme not only each other, but God as
> > well. Mankind has such an exalted view of himself that he refuses to
> > submit to God or his order. So Gods laws are broken.
>
> There needs to be a distinction here. God's will or desire is broken,
> but it does not mean God's law is broken. God has given man choice
> once again, and if one comes from your pespective the whole notion of
> free-will is an absurdity. If man sins, God's law is still in effect
> and that is what is termed as taqdeer. The more man chooses to not
> succumb to his inner conscience and recognize his mistakes, repent and
> reform himself, the more he is actually leading to its death.
You have completely misread my own position on Free will. Free will is
a necessity for a moral universe, not an absurdity.
You note an interesting distinction. Explain how Gods "will" is
different from his "Law"?
I find it hard to imagine that he would declare a law; such that
breaking that law would be an offense against him, but yet his "will"
would be that his law is broken. It would seem natural that IF God is
holy (and by your own definition he can only do what is good), and he
sets up a law, then therefore that law would be good. How then can it
be that his will (which should be good since he can only do good) that
his good law will be broken? He would be contradicting his own nature
to require such a thing. If this is not what you meant then ignore
what I just wrote, and simply define what you did mean.
> But then again, what do your arguments have to do with original sin?
> Islam affirms that man has free-will in a certain sphere and it is
> God's will that man make mistakes. It is how man reacts to these
> mistakes that ultimately decides his fate. In Christianity, one has
> original sin and no matter what man does He still cannot escape what
> has been fated for him, that moment of redemption which does not lead
> at all in the growth of personality.
As a matter of fact original sin does come into play here, but what
makes you think that the argument was "supposed" to be about that? I
was arguing really for the necessity of the atonement.
Now I have to admit that you have really thrown me on your account: I
would have never imagined that you could say both that "Holiness is
equated for God in Islam, and it means God only does good" and that
"it is God's will that man make mistakes" together. I suppose we are
getting to the heart of what Islam really thinks about sin: it is
nothing more than errors.
I agree that men make errors but to redefine sin as only errors would
seem to fly in the face of the Quran. Would you really assert that man
never openly defies God? As I tried to reason earlier, I believe it
happens consistently in very quiet ways. We downplay it, but the fact
of the matter is that we DO defy God. That is sin. Now how you derive
that our actions are fated in Christianity is unclear. I would argue
against it. Neither redemption or rejection is fated.
The difference I see is that Islam sees the process of sanctification
as the means of redemption, whereas in Christianity, redemption comes
through the atonement, and sanctification is a process that begins
afterward.
Here is where I see the problem: God cannot tolerate sin. There can be
no communion with him UNTIL sin is covered. Gods holiness demands his
separation from sin. One cannot downgrade sin by claiming error or
forgetfulness, those things exist, but are not sin. Sin does exist,
and it exists in everyone cognizant enough to recognize it.
My case is that given Gods holiness, and what sin is, that it is
unacceptable to God and demands its removal according to the nature of
God.
If that is true, then the process of sanctification (personal growth
that you mentioned) must be completed before we can hope to have
communion in the presence of God.
Your rebuttal has been two-fold. First you seem to have denied the
perfection or holiness of God, by claiming that it is his will that we
sin; and second you have denied that sin is a barrier to God, claiming
that it is necessary for us to sin in order to personally grow.
I can only say that I reject the imperfection of God as I believe you
have stated. It may be that this is not what you meant, but then it
will be up to you to explain what exactly you did mean by claiming
that God has set up good laws, and that his good will is that we break
his good laws. That seems to imply that God is breaking his own laws.
You may say that his law is good, but not perfect, but that implies
that his law was imperfect in the first place and that is unacceptable
since it makes God imperfect.
I reject that sin is no barrier to God since by definition it is
rebellion against god. Redefining it is useless; men do rebel and that
rebellion must be punished since it is an offense against Gods
perfection.
Therefore, IF God is holy and men have sin, then sin must be dealt
with before they can be restored to God. That can only happen through
the atonement. We will never reach perfection in this life. After this
life we will face judgment. If we have sin, then it must be judged.
Islam says it is a matter of the quantity; the bible says that sin
separates us necessarily from God. I believe that has been shown. And
IF we have sin, then we must be judged as sinners. Only the atonement
that has the ability to cover our sins can be sufficient; so that God
will accept the life of Jesus in place of ours. If we attempt it on
our own righteousness, we will fail. Sin must be judged, if we are to
escape judgment then that sin must be covered.
dave
surayya
>Free
>will means that humans choose, not someone else.
Thats like saying that we choose when we are born or when we die, not
someone else.
But we don't choose, do we?
Did you choose to get created?
Did someone give you the option?
No-one asked me. Allah didn't give me a choice in that, but HE did in
other matters.
I would have liked to hand-pick all my own relatives, when I was born,
what I look like, and when I die. But I had no choice, no free-will in
the matter.
>But if we MUST
>perform certain actions, then that is the opposite of free.
But we MUST die. We are not immortals.
>Free will
>carries the risk of sin, but not the necessity of it.
But realistically we are all going to sin, aren't we?
If you've met an adult who hasn't sinned please introduce them to me.
This is a bit of a silly thread isn't it?
asimm...@yahoo.com
> Such statements as "Sin is a NECESSARY COROLLARY of free-will." Are
> patently false. If one MUST sin to be free then one is not free. Free
> will means that humans choose, not someone else. But if we MUST
> perform certain actions, then that is the opposite of free. Free will
> carries the risk of sin, but not the necessity of it.
>
You misunderstood me once again and are playing on semantics.
"Sin is the necessary corollary of free-will."
Your argument is more akin to "If men have free-will, then they do not
necessarily have to son."
But then again, with man it is inevitable that he sins. Men were not
made to be perfect and no man is perfect. Men are overcome by
passions, lust, emotion, and lack of knowledge. And it was that God
placed these things within us. "He created death and life to see
those who are best in deeds."
But even then, passions, lust and emotion are not absolute evils, just
as a father's emoiton for his son is not a necessary evil, but in fact
a mercy and blessing, or just as a man's passion for his wife is not.
In fact, love leads to the cultivation of a baby into a grown man.
Free-will means the choice between good and evil. If men could not
make mistakes than the whole notion of sin is totally irrelevant.
Even Christianity acknowledge this when Adam ate from the tree of the
asimm...@yahoo.com
> unreasonable of beliefs" and that "Sin separates us from God and we
> pray and seek forgiveness to bring us back towards Him"
>
> My response is to that idea of sin separating and repentance bringing
> us back.. I probably need to distinguish that for Christians this is a
> valid idea, but that it is only valid after the heart is renewed.
Thus, Christinaity boils down to two basic beliefs:
1. The actual atonement is only relevant to God's power to forgive.
2. Man is still dependent upon repentance.
It is illogical because Christianity assumes that because of Adam's
sin, man could not be forgiven until God atoned for the sin. But even
after the atonement, man still needs to repent. Thus, what is offered
through the act of atonement if man still requires his heart to be
renewed? The perspective is grounded in the notion that man was never
meant to sin, and this is contradictory to the whole notion of
free-will. Further, it is in direct contradiction to reality because
man makes choices based upon experiences and lack of knowledge, and
not only arrogance. To assume that man would not make mistakes and
that an atonement is necessary is only illogical and pessimistic.
What is further 'irrational' is God's jealous nature over guarding the
tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It further strengthens the
concept that man was never meant to have moral choice if the Christian
idea is accepted. It is interesting to note that in the Quran, God
simply commands the couple not to go near the "tree". It is Satan who
adds the grand titles to the tree in order to delude man.
Thus, as I have continually asserted, God always intended that man
choose between good and evil, and it is essential to personality.
There was no surprise in man failing to use his free-will, and even
the angels recognized this, let alone God Almighty. But, mistakes are
part of one's learning experience and one cannot grow in spiritual
stature if one does not "live" and use his God given tools. The
difference between Adam's act and Satan's act was intention. While
Adam recognized that he made a mistake, and tried to correct his
mistake by feeling shame and hiding his private parts, Satan was
arrogant and refused to submit to God's command. Adam's mistake, as
the Quran says, was "forgetfulness and lack of will". Thus, his
mistake led to his repentance which moved him to higher spiritual
heights and he was further blessed with guidance.
Thus, mistakes are part and parcel of this very life, and this is the
fundamental difference between Islam and Christianity. A sin in
Christianity is an attempt to reconcile the perfectness of God with
forgiveness, while Islam says that sin is essential in the test, and
it leads for the reformation and growth of man. If man did not sin,
he would not learn and further, taubah leads to the strengthening of
will. That is why God Almighty, in the Quran, refers to those that
return to Him are not only forgiven but granted further guidance, and
one of the reasons why God Almighty recounted the story to teach man
that he was not yet ready for Paradise. Satan had tempted Adam
through desire, and he succeeded through the sexual act, i.e. the
"tree of eternal life". He used other forms of deception including
"Your Lord does not desire you to be like angels", and he made Adam
forget that just recently the angels were commanded to bow down before
Adam. Adam "forgot", and it was his desires that made him forget. He
needed to be "thrown into the fire" to be moulded, and the enmity
between Satan and Adam was made known right in the very beginning.
"Get down from here, you are enemies to one another."
Thus, this very life is for "tazkiyah", the purification and
development of human personality, and this is the goal of all
Messengers (AS).
> However, if I take the view that the heart is not affected by sin in
> any deep way, it still seems problematic.
>
> I don't know what "Taubah" is, you have not explained it and I'm not
> sure why some Muslims insist on speaking Arabic words to those who are
> not Arabs, but could you explain it?
>
Taubah is the Arabic word for repentance and it means to "return".
> I have no problem with humans growing, or even a measure of reforming
> oneself. But I see an endless cycle. You see my judgment on this as an
> error: How so? What is the "SAME mistake" that I keep making? Will
> Muslims finitely reform themselves until they finally reach perfection
> and sin no more? What is it that will finally remove sin from you?:
Once again, this is your mistake. You are assuming that all sins are
acts of arrogance and that sins are imprinted on the person forever.
Whether it is Christianity or Islam, the sin is ultimately forgiven by
God. Christianity has placed the whole story of atonment in-between,
but in both cases, man still has to acknowledge God and his mistake,
otherwise the atonement would not benefit those that rejected. While
Christianity assumes that man's perfection lies in his being God-like,
i.e. cannot make mistakes or sins, thus having to await grace, Islam
assumes man does commit mistakes, whether it is through lack of
knowledge, failing to curb his desires, or arrogance.
The growth of human personality is infinite, and the Quran refers to
this very fact. This is alluded to in the continual evolvement of the
rewards of Paradise. The PRIMARY difference between the state of
Paradise and the state of this world is that in the former, Man's
desire is in total accordance with his will to be the vicegerent of
God Almighty. Among such things in this life that curb this very will
are "Fear and grief", and the Quran uses these simple terms to
describe the bliss of Paradise. The first refers to fear of what the
future holds, and grief refers to the feelings of wrong one did in the
past. "If I had done this ..." Thus, one can fully enjoy one's
present in such a state.
> because as I argue, sin will necessarily keep us removed from God, so
> there can be no restoration to God until the problem is dealt with.
>
Either way, God still has to forgive, whether through the atonement or
not. Man still has to come to the realization that he sinned and he
still has to repent. Atonement is actually a limitation on the power
of God to forgive.
> > Otherwise, the whole notion of free will, as is the case in
> > Christianity clearly an absurdity. Repentance plays not role in the
> > development of man.
>
> Maybe you could explain what you're talking about here. Free will is
> free will: the ability of the creature to choose. You merely claim
> that the notion is absurd in Christianity. Why? Why is the notion
> absurd in Christianity but not in Islam? And considering that many
> Muslims, (though not yourself) deny it through belief in fate and
> predetermination, it seems massively hypocritical to simply assert
> that free will is absurd in Christianity.
>
See above with respect to why Christinaity is irrational in "this
sense".
By the way, there are Christinas that are very strongly oriented
towards pre-destination. The notion of fate has found root in all
religious creeds, and it has more to do with man's arrogance than
anything else. Man fails to admit his own wrong, thus blaming it on
somebody else. "If he never did this to me, I wouldn't have done what
I did." Somebody else's actions does not excuse how I act. In fact,
the unbelievers of the Prophet's time tried this very argument "If we
did not find our forefathers doing it, we would not have done it."
The Quran sometimes condemns them in very strong terms, and sometimes
gives them the cold shoulder consoling the Prophet (S) in such
circumstances. "If God had willed, everybody would be on the straight
path." But, as the Quran says, God's will was that man be given a
choice and those that fail to use it properly will be punished. Also,
as the Quran illustrates, God has provided man with the faculties to
see the truth, including not only his rational faculties but guidance
as well. That is why the Quran also refers to the dual aspect of
guidance in the parable of Adam and Eve, to guide those who desire to
be guided and to remove all excuses for their arrogant one's to
persist in their arrogance.
"Did not a warner come to you?"
"They will acknowledge their sin on that Day, and will be thrown into
the blazing fire."
There acknowledgement of their wrong makes it the culmination of a
perfect act of justice.
> I believe your statement about repentance is ignorant. I should like
> for you to spell out exactly what "you" think we believe so that any
> false ideas will be exposed. I would say that it most likely plays the
> exact same role in Christianity as it does in Islam. But that the
> development of man is not development unto perfection and therefore
> leads to salvation. In Christianity repentance develops sanctification
> (personal growth as you call it), but we need redemption to begin the
> process. The difference is not the growth, the difference is in
> whether it leads to salvation or comes from it.
>
Again, we are on the same track. Salvation in Christianity means a
restoration to his original position of sinlessness, yet man still
sins. In fact, what it actually does is limits God and not man. It
provides no change or optimism in man's unique position. Islam views
this life as a test, thus repentance is a NATURAL CORROLLARY to this
life. Men sin and continue to sin, and there sins are of varying
degrees. Among them is man placing his lust over truth. Man needs to
be disciplined so he overcomes this quality, and this is what is
referred to as tazkiyah as stated before.
With free-will comes the responsibility to use it wisely, and as man
uses it wisely he becomes more and more eligble to be God's
vicegerent.
"Tell them 選t is He who has sown you in the earth [so that He may
reap what He has sown and separate the chaff from the wheat].
And [for this] towards Him you shall [certainly] be gathered.'"
Jesus alluded to this very fact in Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43.
> > The next lesson is from the world of philosophy
> > and has no scriptural basis.
> >
> "no scriptural basis"? Do you actually mean to assert that the Bible
> does not claim holiness for God? Or that sin is not a barrier? Deut.
> 32:4 and Hab. 1:13
>
No, I am saying all your arguments are rooted in philosophy and have
no textual basis. All religions assert God is Holy, but your defense
of God's holiness is not based upon scripture.
>
> In sum God is perfect and he can't be anything but perfect. Simple
> enough, shouldn't be contradicted, but you will probably want to
> chastise me for false understanding, tack on a verse from the Qur'an,
> and restate it so that you get the final word.
>
Exactly. God is PERFECT. Man is NOT PERFECT. The effects of sin is
related to man, not God.
> > > Sin is defined as breaking any law of God given to men. Men preferred
> > > to put themselves up over everything else, including God.
> >
> > This is not always the case and is a denial of reality
> > Not all men are arrogant and they are definitely not born
> > arrogant.
>
> OK, you may be jumping to a conclusion here: I did not mean to imply
> that every action of man is to put himself over God. Only that in
> general it is true. Although I do believe that all men are born with a
> sin nature, even that does not mean that everything a man does is an
> open rebellion against God. But it would be foolish to deny that at
> times men DO openly rebel against God. In general men put themselves
> first over God. To deny that would be a denial of reality. And I will
> offer that even YOU and others who seek God, will frequently put your
> own desires over those of God.
>
Exactly. So MEN PUT THEMSELVES over God, and men continue to put
themselves over God even after the atonement. So what is the point of
atonement? What is the purpose of this world? Why was man given
free-will? You then go on to give reasons why men sin, and that has
been the exact point I have been telling you.
> You can change the definition of sin so that these things are not
> included, but how can we ignore that to do these things is still
> acting against the nature of God? I am not saying that it hurts God
> physically or even wounds him emotionally, but it IS an act contrary
> to his will. I am aware that you will argue that it is Gods will that
> we do such things, so that we can grow, but I find it difficult to
> imagine how you may reconcile this notion of it being Gods will that
> we defy Gods law. The only recourse is to radically reconstruct what
> constitutes sin.
>
It is NOT contrary to His will, and this is where you continue to make
the same mistake. You are confusing will and pleasure. As a side
this is one of the reasons taqdeer is often misunderstood in Islam and
all faiths in general. People take it in a theological sense, when it
is often used primarily in a rhetorical sense. The same is the case
in all languages including English. "Your will is my command." "You
have disobeyed my will." Will in such instances refer to a person's
pleasure and desire. If God granted man the choice between good and
evil, then it means that mistakes are but NATURAL and they are not
against God's 'will' but in total conformance with His will. You are
simply limiting God's power to forgive.
This is the whole argument about free-will. It is God's desire that
men succeed and develop his will, and He has provided men with all the
availiable tools to succeed, but it does not mean all men will
succeed. Men will fail and God has allowed men to fail. Thus, even
that is God's will. As Umar (R) very buatifull put it, when it was
remarked to him that he was trying to escape the fate of contracting
the plague "I am running away from God's will to God's will."
>
> You have completely misread my own position on Free will. Free will is
> a necessity for a moral universe, not an absurdity.
>
I am not saying you do not believe in free-will. I am saying the
issue of atonement is in direct contradiction to reality and it makes
free-will an absurdity. Men hold many contradicting beliefs.
> You note an interesting distinction. Explain how Gods "will" is
> different from his "Law"?
Again, you are making the simple mistake of language. If one means
will as in pleasure, then men with FREE-WILL who obey his law will be
rewarded. But if one refers to will as in His Laws and decrees, it is
part of his will that those who misuse their free-will and persist in
their arrogance, the doors will become more open for them to persist
in their wrong-doing.
> I find it hard to imagine that he would declare a law; such that
> breaking that law would be an offense against him, but yet his "will"
> would be that his law is broken.
Thus, once again you have made free-will an absurdity. God has given
men the free-will to choose, and if he uses it wrong, he still does
not escape God's law of being led on the road to perdition.
>
> Now I have to admit that you have really thrown me on your account: I
> would have never imagined that you could say both that "Holiness is
> equated for God in Islam, and it means God only does good" and that
> "it is God's will that man make mistakes" together. I suppose we are
> getting to the heart of what Islam really thinks about sin: it is
> nothing more than errors.
>
God always does good. His granting free-will to man is good, and
man's wrong use of it cannot be attributed to God Almighty, nor does
his sin hurt God Almighty. "O my Lord, I have sinned against MY OWN
SELF, and none forgives sin except you. So Lord, forgive me. You are
the Forgiving the Merciful."
But at the same time, "God loves those who do good." "God does not
love those that do wrong."
> I agree that men make errors but to redefine sin as only errors would
> seem to fly in the face of the Quran. Would you really assert that man
> never openly defies God? As I tried to reason earlier, I believe it
> happens consistently in very quiet ways. We downplay it, but the fact
> of the matter is that we DO defy God. That is sin. Now how you derive
> that our actions are fated in Christianity is unclear. I would argue
> against it. Neither redemption or rejection is fated.
>
Of course men openly defy God. But that has no relevance to the issue
of atonement. God has the power to forgive all sins, including open
defiance. Man is not so great that the sins he does can effect God's
greatness and transcendency. And it is only through God's grace, that
God chooses to be merciful to Him. Atonement is the belief that man
somehow affected God's ability to forgive sins.
God does not forgive those that persist in their arrogance and die
will in a state of arrogance whether the atonement is there or not..
>
> Therefore, IF God is holy and men have sin, then sin must be dealt
> with before they can be restored to God. That can only happen through
> the atonement. We will never reach perfection in this life. After this
> life we will face judgment. If we have sin, then it must be judged.
> Islam says it is a matter of the quantity; the bible says that sin
> separates us necessarily from God.
Here it is again: Atonement has no relevance to man, but is relevant
to God.
Men continue to sin after the atonement and man will continue to sin
after the atonement, and atonement has absolutely no relevance on
human personality. What you have essentially stated throughout this
post is that God is limited, and he somehow has to get over his
limitations through killing himself.
And by the way, Islam does not say that, and you are asserting things
without evidence. Islam asserts that good deeds are the result of
faith, and there is no faith that is devoid of action. "Only those
who come forth with a sound heart". It does not preach the dualism
of soul and matter, that one can have faith and deeds don't matter.
Psychologically speaking, one cannot find the point in which mind and
body's actions merge together.
I believe that has been shown. And
> IF we have sin, then we must be judged as sinners. Only the atonement
> that has the ability to cover our sins can be sufficient; so that God
> will accept the life of Jesus in place of ours. If we attempt it on
> our own righteousness, we will fail. Sin must be judged, if we are to
> escape judgment then that sin must be covered.
>
Sin must be judged, but not good deeds right? Once again, back to
square one and once again free-will has become an absurdity.
jackkincaid
[snip]
>
> The fundamental disagreement between Islam and (orthodox) Christianity
> involves the nature of God.
Yes...
> For the Muslim, God's Oneness is absolute;
> but the Christian wishes to claim something very peculiar, viz., that
> although God is One, He is a being that is *composed* of three
> separate and distinct persons. Thus, the Athanasian Creed:
>
Yeah, I think you're missing the point. The standard explanation for
the trinity is that each component is an *aspect* of God, not a
seperate deity. It's intetresting that you bring it up, since - as I'm
sure you know - Mohammed himself believed that Christians worshipped
three seperate gods.
Arguably, it isn't necessary to believe in the trinity - or even in
the virgin birth - to be a Christian.
Your description 'orthodox Christianity', BTW, is misleading. Orthodox
Christianity is a Christian rite in its own right (so to speak), which
broke away from the Catholic church when Byzantium broke from the
vestiges of the Roman Empire (the division between Roman Catholic and
Eastern Orthodox Christianity is analogous to the division between
Sunni and Shia Islam; to complete the analogy, Protestantism can
perhaps be compared to Sufism).
You were referring there to Roman Catholicism. Protestant Christians
also reject the interpretation of the trinity given in the Athanasian
Creed.
>
> For those, however, who do wish to look at the problem rationally,
For those who wish to look at the 'problem' rationally, proof of the
existence of God must first be provided. Again, your terminology is
wrong: you mean ... who wishto look at it *logically*.
[snip]
>
> The reason why the concept of God in Islam is far superior to
> the Christian one,
Oh dear...
> is, quite simply, because to assert that "God
> exists" in Islam does not involve a logical contradiction, unlike
> (orthodox) Christianity.
Only if you misundertand the nature of the trinity, of course. Which
you have done.
I suppose the 'holy ghost' that many Christians believe impregnated
Mary is analogous to the angel Gabriel that (many?) Muslims believe
dictated the Qurun to Mohammed. There is no evidence for either: to
feel squeamishness at different interpretations of one impossible
event, while accepting a single interpretation of another, is an
affectation. To suppose that squeamishness grants one 'superiority'
over others is obnoxious.
The reason the misunderstanding of the Christian notion of God is
present in Islam is because its founder made that misunderstanding in
the first place. The reason the misunderstanding persists is because
his followers wish to claim a non-existant superiority. The reason for
*that* only you can answer.
But you were right in the first place: there are differing concepts of
God, both between Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and within each
faith. We come to understand a slightly different God in reading the
Qurun than we do in reading the Gospels. There is a good reason for
this, but it has nothing to do with interpretations of the meaning of
the trinity made hundreds of years after Christ's (alleged) death.
dave
blue.rahul.net>...
> >Free
> >will means that humans choose, not someone else.=20
>=20
> Thats like saying that we choose when we are born or when we die, not
> someone else.
>=20
> But we don't choose, do we?
>=20
> Did you choose to get created?
> Did someone give you the option?
>=20
> No-one asked me. Allah didn't give me a choice in that, but HE did in
> other matters.
>=20
> I would have liked to hand-pick all my own relatives, when I was born,
> what I look like, and when I die. But I had no choice, no free-will in
> the matter.
Yeah I suppose I should have made more of a distinction so as to guard
against this kind of interpretation. But then when one tries to cover
all possible ways that someone may take any statement, we end up with
pages of legal verbiage.
The issue is whether of not we have the ability to choose our
responses to a given situation. That is a necessity for morality, and
moral responsibility. I of course do not mean that we choose
everything, only that free will must be present if we are to be held
responsible for actions. As far as I can see this is the Muslim
understanding. Although free will is not consistent with determinism,
it seems that many of you reject fate or predestination, so it is not
a problem.
To try and clarify; one does need freedom to choose his course of
action in order to be held morally responsible. I recognize that that
does not mean I will choose everything about myself, but that it would
be ridiculous for God to hold us accountable for what we could not do
otherwise. For example; I plant a birch tree in the yard, I do not
hold it morally accountable for being a birch tree. There is no
"accountability" in the tree, since it has no faculty for acting in
any other way.
Likewise unless we have the faculty to choose: called a will; and the
base level of freedom =96 so that no external forces can force us to act
in only certain ways, then it would be as silly to hold us morally
responsible for our actions as it would be to hold the birch tree
responsible for its being birch.
The wording in the creed that I posted said as much, and as such- is
absurd. You do not believe that we are predetermined so there is no
longer an issue.
=20
> >Free will
> >carries the risk of sin, but not the necessity of it.
>=20
> But realistically we are all going to sin, aren't we?
> If you've met an adult who hasn't sinned please introduce them to me.=20
>=20
> This is a bit of a silly thread isn't it?
No, I don't think it is silly. On my view, "sin" is a choice to
disobey [in very general terms]. The statement was that sin is a
necessity of free will. I disagree and say that sin by definition is
the result of the choice that one makes. So the choice cannot be
necessary or it was not free. I am speaking on more of a metaphysical
level.
You are correct in that we are all going to sin. Neither have I EVER
met anyone who doesn't. I believe that is because we are all born with
a sin nature.
The Quran says in Surah 7.19-25
"And (We said): O Adam! Dwell you and your wife in the garden; so eat
from where you desire, but do not go near this tree, for then you will
be of the unjust. 20 But the Shaitan made an evil suggestion to them
that he might make manifest to them what had been hidden from them of
their evil inclinations, and he said: Your Lord has not forbidden you
this tree except that you may not both become two angels or that you
may (not) become of the immortals. 21 And he swore to them both: Most
surely I am a sincere adviser to you. 22 Then he caused them to fall
by deceit; so when they tasted of the tree, their evil inclinations
became manifest to them, and they both began to cover themselves with
the leaves of the garden; and their Lord called out to them: Did I not
forbid you both from that tree and say to you that the Shaitan is your
open enemy? 23 They said: Our Lord! c, and if Thou forgive us not, and
have (not) mercy on us, we shall certainly be of the losers. 24 He
said: Get forth, some of you, the enemies of others, and there is for
you in the earth an abode and a provision for a time. 25 He (also)
said: Therein shall you live, and therein shall you die, and from it
shall you be raised. 26 O children of Adam! We have indeed sent down
to you clothing to cover your shame, and (clothing) for beauty and
clothing that guards (against evil), that is the best. This is of the
communications of Allah that they may be mindful. 27 O children of
Adam! let not the Shaitan cause you to fall into affliction as he
expelled your parents from the garden, pulling off from them both
their clothing that he might show them their evil inclinations, he
surely sees you, he as well as his host, from whence you cannot see
them; surely We have made the Shaitans to be the guardians of those
who do not believe"
Surah 20.117-122
"So We said: O Adam! This is an enemy to you and to your wife;
therefore let him not drive you both forth from the garden so that you
should be unhappy; 118 Surely it is (ordained) for you that you shall
not be hungry therein nor bare of clothing; 119 And that you shall not
be thirsty therein nor shall you feel the heat of the sun. 120 But the
Shaitan made an evil suggestion to him; he said: O Adam! Shall I guide
you to the tree of immortality and a kingdom which decays not? 121
Then they both ate of it, so their evil inclinations became manifest
to them, and they both began to cover themselves with leaves of the
garden, and Adam disobeyed his Lord, so his life became evil (to him).
122 Then his Lord chose him, so He turned to him and guided (him)."
In the Islamic version of the story, God commands them not to eat of
the tree [of immortality? (20.120)] or they would 1) "be of the
unjust" (Shakir) 2) "run into harm and transgression" (Yusuf Ali) 3)
"become wrong-doers" (Pickthal)
They eat of the tree. Therefore if God is not a liar, THEN they have
become either "unjust", "transgressors" or "wrong doers" depending on
the word you want to use.
In fact, God questions them as to whether they knew of his
prohibition: "did I not forbid you both from that tree..?", and they
affirm that what God said: "do not go near this tree, for then you
will be of the unjust", had indeed happened to them: "We have been
unjust to ourselves". They tacitly admit their rebellion when they
declare that they are in need of forgiveness and mercy.(7.23)
Interestingly, the Qur'an states "that their evil inclinations became
manifest" [7.20,7.22,20.121] through this action. So the Qur'an itself
affirms an inclination toward evil. That is really the claim of the
sin nature in Christianity, which is denied in Islam. But in the
Quran, it existed as an "inclination" even before they sinned. Were
they created with this "inclination"? If not then where did it come
from?
In 20.121 "Adam disobeyed his Lord, so his life became evil"
If we are all sinners, and God is absolutely perfect, then that sin
must be judged. God cannot overlook rebellion and disobedience since
it is an affront against who he is. If, as you have noted, we are all
guilty of sin, and sin brings judgment, then we have a problem. God
must judge us for our sin.
As all Muslims and Christians agree, we need to repent and ask
forgiveness in order to be restored to God. Without repentance we are
at odds with God, our sin is a barrier.
In Islamic thought, God can simply forgive the sin.
In Christian thought, that is not possible without the price of sin
being paid.
It is not possible that God could ignore our sin, even if he has no
intention of dwelling with us. In other words he could not put those
he wants into a paradise, and those he doesn't like into hell. Even if
he himself would not be in the paradise, given his nature, he must
judge sin to maintain his holiness. For God to overlook such a
rebellion would be for him to ignore justice, which is impossible for
him. So even if we imagined a paradigm where God had no intention of
dwelling with his people, overlooking sin would be a violation of his
holiness. However, the Bible states clearly that restoration and
dwelling with his people is the goal.
Since sin by its very nature requires the removal of creatures that
have it from communion with God, and the price it brings is death,
then IF the creatures are ever to be restored, the price must be paid.
Satisfaction of the innate justice of God must be rendered. It is here
that we see God's mercy and wisdom. God will permit another creature
to pay the price of sin in place of the one who has committed the
sins. The requirement is that the sacrifice itself must be without
sin. If the sacrifice itself has sin, then it would not be able to pay
the price, because it would need redemption. But if the sacrifice were
perfect, then God could accept the sacrifice in place of the one who
sins as payment rendered in full. This trade of one life for another
meets the requirement of Gods holiness. It is not compulsory for God
to do this, but IF mankind is to be restored to him, then the price of
death for sin must be paid. If no substitution is allowed, then each
individual sinner would pay with eternal separation from God, which
would make it impossible for any of the creatures to be restored to
God.
The law of Moses was to show such a thing. The law gave the standard
of Holiness: perfection- and the consequence of compliance; God would
dwell with his people, as well as the consequence of disobedience: God
would be removed and judgment would occur. But he gave a system of
sacrifice, wherby, when we sin, then the sacrifice would be made to
pay the price in our place. By this means, we would learn that the
standard is perfection, that our missing that standard had the
consequence of death, but that God would allow that to be transferred
to another, in our place. After all, if we pay the price for our own
sins with our own separation from God, then we cannot be restored to
him.
God then provides a mechanism by which we as humans can be restored to
communion with him. The sacrifice will pay the ransom price for sin,
buy us back from death and satisfy the legal requirements of Gods
innate holiness and justice. With a sacrifice, the legal requirement
of sin is covered. If the individual sinner will accept the gracious
offer, then a way has been found to pay the price of sin and restore
the man to God.
It is here that we see another glimpse of God's genius. The sacrifice
must be perfect if it is to suffice in paying the debt. And those
individuals who will be redeemed by the sacrifice will need to place
their trust in the ability of the sacrifice to pay the price and cover
their sin. I would suggest that in light of those two requirements,
only God himself could possibly be the sacrifice.
If the sacrifice must be perfect and devoid of sin, then only God
himself can meet that requirement. But more importantly, since
individual humans will need to put their trust and faith in this
sacrifices ability to cover their sin and save them, then if the
sacrifice is any person other than God himself, it would mean that
humans would be putting their trust in someone other than God.
Given, then God's holiness, our sin, and his desire to restore us, the
only possible way to cover sin is through God himself taking on human
flesh and becoming the atoning sacrifice.
Dave
dave
...
> >=20
> > Such statements as "Sin is a NECESSARY COROLLARY of free-will." Are
> > patently false. If one MUST sin to be free then one is not free. Free
> > will means that humans choose, not someone else. But if we MUST
> > perform certain actions, then that is the opposite of free. Free will
> > carries the risk of sin, but not the necessity of it.
> You misunderstood me once again and are playing on semantics. =20
>=20
> "Sin is the necessary corollary of free-will."
> Your argument is more akin to "If men have free-will, then they do not
> necessarily have to son."
> But then again, with man it is inevitable that he sins. Men were not
> made to be perfect and no man is perfect. Men are overcome by
> passions, lust, emotion, and lack of knowledge. And it was that God
> placed these things within us. "He created death and life to see
> those who are best in deeds."
> Free-will means the choice between good and evil. If men could not
> Even Christianity acknowledge this when Adam ate from the tree of the
> "knowledge of good and evil".
1) I'm really not trying to misunderstand you. My apologies for that.
It seems to me that when I take your statements at face value, they
are saying certain things. I do not try to purposely misrepresent
anyone- it does no good.
2) Yes, my argument is that if we have free will then we do not have
to sin. I hold that to be true for any situation that we face, we are
not constrained causally to act in certain ways. For all I can see, we
are agreed on this.
3) I find this intriguing that so many Muslims say that it is
inevitable that we will sin, only because that is the very thing that
is posited with the Christian idea of the sin nature, which Islam
denies. I know that the doctrine of Original sin is rejected by Islam.
The doctrine is that 1] Adams sin introduced sin into a perfect world,
2] that sin nature is passed on to all progeny, and 3] we are all
guilty of sinning IN Adam.
Now I confess that I reject 3]. I do not think that it is taught in
the bible, but was formulated by Augustine, possibly based on a small
mistranslation of the Latin, and a desire to be polar opposite of
Pelagius.
1] Seems true. Given that=20
(a) The world must have been perfect to start since God could not make
something imperfect.
1.God is absolutely perfect.
>From http://www.islamic-paths.org/Home/English/Discover/Concepts/Sin_Mai=
n.htm
"God, by definition, is Just, Wise, Merciful, Compassionate, and
Perfect. God is the absolute infinite good and His Spirit the absolute
perfect one;"
2. Therefore everything God does is perfect.
3. If we are created by him, then we are perfect since we are created
by him and he only does what is perfect. Same goes for the world. He
cannot create an imperfect world.
(b) Adam did sin, so it must have come from him. The world is no
longer perfect so It must have been become imperfect at a specific
time.
2] Also seems true. While difficult to explain exactly how,
nonetheless the effects are obvious: universal, pervasive sin. Such
that all men are affected.
So while a doctrine of sin nature is rejected, it seems to show up in
such as "the evil inclinations became manifested".
God could not have created man imperfect, so I am a little unsure of
what to make of this; does it simply speak of mans free ability to
sin, or does it actually purport that God created us to sin?
I would also reject that since God would not create man to sin. If God
is perfect and everything he does is perfect, then the standard by
which his creation must live, is perfection. He cannot give us a
imperfect standard by which we must live, since that would make him
the author of imperfection. God is perfect so his creation: laws,
standards, beings, etc. =96 must be perfect.
I fully acknowledge that God foreknew what would happen and uses the
situation to better us, but that is different from saying that we were
created to sin, and that sin is necessary for personal growth. It is
at these levels that I have a problem with the Islamic conception of
God.
In effect, God is made to be imperfect and man is not made out to be
so bad. While Islam claims to exalt God, it actually lowers him, and
instead exalts man.
In the Genesis account of Adam and Eve, they are aware of the
consequences of disobedience, and deliberately disobey. Adam tries to
shift the blame to Eve, in essence blaming God for giving him this
woman who caused him to sin, Eve in turn shifts blame to the serpent.
God has none of it and demands that they accept responsibility for
their actions.
Returning to free-will, Adam had free will to choose disobedience or
not. HE choose to disobey. Call it a mistake or a sin, it was
deliberate. It is impossible to deny that he is the one who chose to
perform that act of disobedience in full knowledge of the prohibition.
He therefore put his own desires up [ I want to eat this fruit] over
those of God {Adam; don't eat that fruit!]. This is the essence of
sin, placement of self over all else.
At any rate the standard for man's conduct must be perfect, for God
could not create a non-perfect standard for man to live by. As I hope
I have conveyed, all the doctrine I have supported and the response I
hold as necessary, is based around one thing: God is absolutely
perfect. IF that is acknowledged, then sin must be either judged or
paid for, and that necessitates atonement. And atonement can only be
made by God.
dave
Altway
"jackkincaid" <theov...@another.com> wrote in message
news:aqf09f$213$1...@blue.rahul.net...
> Yeah, I think you're missing the point. The standard explanation for
> the trinity is that each component is an *aspect* of God, not a
seperate deity. It's intetresting that you bring it up, since - as I'm
sure you know - Mohammed himself believed that Christians worshipped
three seperate gods.
Comment:-
Not true.
The three personalities are regarded as separate, at least in
Catholicism.
Apart from this the man Jesus is included in the Trinity.
If it was merely a question of aspects, there would be no
problem seeing that Islam recognizes many attributes of God.
Allah, His Word and His Spirit are also one.
Moreover, no distinctions are to be made between Allah and His Messengers.
This does not mean that they are identical,
but one in purpose.
> Arguably, it isn't necessary to believe in the trinity - or even in
> the virgin birth - to be a Christian.
Comment:-
This is a new version of Christianity.
If Jesus is not god then his sacrifice in the crucifixion
has no meaning either. There is no vicarious atonement.
There is then no difference of doctrine
between Christianity and Islam!
That is, of course, what Islam asserts in the first place!
dave
You ask=20
> So what is the point of atonement? What is offered through the act of a=
tonement?
Your concern is that a "man still requires his heart to be renewed",
and "even after the atonement, men will continue to put themselves
over God".
Good questions. What is the point of atonement? Imperfection causes a
necessary break between God who is perfect, and man who has rejected
the right to follow the wrong. Our rejection is an offense against
God. The price of that offense is death. the atonement is the process
whereby the price of sin is paid by one in place of another. The OT
sacrificial system was built to model this.
When sin was committed in Israel, a perfect animal was offered, the
one offering it would place his hands on it and confess his sins over
it so that symbolically that sin was laid on the head of the animal
(who had done no wrong) then that animal was killed in place of the
sinner. It atoned for the sin of the offerer.
The atonement pays the price of sin -which is death- to God, because
it is against God that sin has been committed. This has always been
the biblical view. The quran says that sin is against man, but that is
a break from what was taught by the prophets. God is supreme and it is
to him that we must answer, not to ourselves.
Man does still require his heart to be renewed. The atonement restored
the repentant sinner to right standing before God. It is a legal
proceeding, not magic. In fact a procedure cannot override mans free
will and cause him to be sinless- man will still make choices at every
juncture. Man must identify with the sacrifice and then strive to be
holy. This is the process of personal growth that you have spoken so
passionately about.
The atonement restores the man to right standing before God, but it
cannot possibly override the free will and make him only choose the
right. He will need to decide for himself.
> Atonement is the belief that man
> somehow affected God's ability to forgive sins
You consistently call this a limit on God and declare that he is free
>from these limits. But the limit I have placed on him is his
perfection. That is what causes him to 1) create a perfect man, 2)
insist on a perfect standard, and 3) judge perfectly if that standard
is broken.
You have stripped him of his perfection so that he can forgive man.
You claim that "sin is NOT contrary to His will" so that it is Gods
will that we are imperfect. You have then caused God to make an
imperfect standard. Yet If he makes something that is imperfect, then
he himself cannot be perfect. You say, "God is PERFECT" but then
attribute imperfection to him. I reject any imperfection in God. I
accept the =91limitation' on God that he must be perfect.
I choose perfection as Gods essence, you choose to exalt sovereignty.
But if perfection is lost in order to overcome any "limitations", then
you destroy who he is in the process.
Oddly enough, while God has lost his perfection so that he is not
hampered by any kind of limitation, it is stated that "The growth of
human personality is infinite". There is the essence of Islam: bring
God down and lift man up. Once we strip away all the rhetoric about
God being exalted and man is mere slave, we arrive at the true
philosophy behind it all: God is imperfect while mans "potential is
infinite".
> Atonement has no relevance to man, but is relevant
> to God.
It is made primarily to God, but of course has relevance to man since
it is what restores him to God. But it is not necessary that
everything be about man; God is the supreme one, and it is to him we
must answer. Do not make man the supreme object in all this.
> atonement has absolutely no relevance on
> human personality
Atonement is not the sanctification process. But it does have
relevance for us in that without being restored to God, then we will
not grow towards him. Again I warn not to make man the supreme object
of all. That is the rightful place of God alone.
> I am saying the issue of atonement is in direct contradiction
> to reality and it makes free-will an absurdity.
Then you are simply misrepresenting what it is. It is not involved in
our free will at all. It is a payment to God made in our behalf, that
we may choose or reject. It is made to God apart from our will
completely. But of course in order to appropriate it, then our wills
come into play. At no point are our wills overridden.
Perhaps you can explain how you arrive at the conclusion that "it
makes free-will an absurdity", and then I can see where the error is.
> Your arguments are rooted in philosophy and have
> no textual basis. All religions assert God is Holy, but your defense
> of God's holiness is not based upon scripture.
I am of a mind to ignore this kind of comment, but let me just say in
my own defense, that I am on an Islamic newsgroup: this is not the
place to post Bible verses. The post will be rejected for being
"irrelevant to Islam" if I attempt it. I use philosophy because it is
searching for the nature of God. I could show pages of scriptural
support for the atonement, but would you accept it anyways? You would
probably either claim that the words don't mean what they say or that
it was corrupted.
Your assertion that my arguments have no textual basis needs
clarification: basis in WHICH text? In the Qur'an? In the Bible? Your
answer may be true if you are referring to some text which I do not
acknowledge.
To assert that the arguments have no biblical basis is foolish. If you
dare: challenge it on the Christian NG, soc.religion.christian, and I
will meet you there.
dave
Altway
> The issue is whether of not we have the ability to choose our
> responses to a given situation. That is a necessity for morality, and
moral responsibility. I do > not, of course, mean that we choose
everything, only that free will must be present if we are to be held
responsible for our actions. As far as I can see this is the Muslim
understanding. Although free will is not consistent with determinism, it
seems that many of you reject fate or predestination, so it is not a
problem.
> It would be ridiculous for God to hold us accountable for what we could
not do otherwise. For example; I plant a birch tree in the yard, I do not
hold it morally accountable for being a birch tree. There is no
"accountability" in the tree, since it has no faculty for acting in any
other way.
Comment:-
The idea of "free will" appears to have crept into some sections of Islam
>from Christianity. It is not an Islamic idea. But pure "determinism" in the
classical scientific sense is also incompatible with Islam. So is the notion
of "Chance" which had to be invented when it was found that things were not
really determined and calculatable as was thought and yet they wished to
cling to determinism at the same time while not willing to admit ignorance
of causes. Allah can do as He likes and He has also ordained certain things
directly and permitted certain other things. There is a degree of freedom in
all things - there are alternative courses of actions but each nevertheless
requires appropriate causal forces. This is like a marble in a bowl - it
could move in numerous pathways depending on what forces act on it.
There are not only external forces but also internal ones. In the example
you give, the tree certainly grows by internal genetic forces, though its
fate is also affected by its environment. The tree, therefore, has a degree
of autonomy. You could say that these inner forces bestow "responsibility"
on it. Human beings have been given superior inherent faculties.
The Quran, as I see it, makes no absolute distinction between human beings
and other creatures - there is only a difference of degree - e.g.
"There is not a beast upon the earth nor a bird that flies with both its
wings, but is a people like to you; We have omitted nothing from the Book.
Then to their Lord shall they be gathered." 6:38
I would like to make a small addition to a previous reply:-
Studies of the Quran show that Human behaviour is determined by:-
(a) Inherent factors - Hereditory or genetic.
(b) Environment - i.e the physical and cultural environment, upbringing,
traumas including those in the womb etc.
(c) Efforts at learning and self-modification through a discipline.
But the capacity for this is also produced by the two other factors and
previous efforts. These Efforts can modify both the inherent and acquired
factors.
Although we (a)react directly to stimuli, we also (b) perceive and act
according to our interpretation of experiences and (c) consciously and
deliberately. We can interpret new experiences and reinterpret old
experiences according to knowledge and values.
All these depend ultimately on the laws and processes made by God.
There is no "free will". Free will implies that there are bits of will that
are unconnected, each acting independently and arbitrarily according to whim
without cause or reason, contradicting and conflicting with each other. So
that the Universe is a chaotic mixture. This idea is included in the notion
of Shirk - attributing equals or partners to Allah.
But God has given us certain faculties with which we can process the
information or data of experience, (both external from the environment and
internal from within ourselves.)
The Will we have is part of the Divine Will. I.e. As vicegerents who have
the Spirit of God in us we can and should act on behalf of God - or God acts
through us. This identity is called Surrender - Islam.
dave
ul.net>...
> > That acts that bring bad consequences are "errors" rather than "sins"
> > is to oversimplify on such a grand scale, that it is ridiculous.
>=20
> Comment:-
> Really. Perhaps you have a restricted idea of what "error" means.
Perhaps you are right. Even the most egregious Rebellion against God
would definately be "an error" in a certain sense. But if you want to
look at it like that then you have no reason for saying that your
"errors" are not "sins in the Christian sense".
Error:
(1) "An act, assertion, or belief that unintentionally deviates from
what is correct, right, or true" (American Heritage=AE Dictionary of the
English Language)
or
(2) "A wandering or deviation from the right course or standard;
irregularity; mistake; inaccuracy; something made wrong or left wrong"
(3) "A departing or deviation from the truth; falsity; false notion;
wrong opinion; mistake; misapprehension"
(4) "A moral offense; violation of duty; a sin or transgression;
iniquity; fault"
(Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary,)
Sin:=20
(5) "Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God."
Now you claimed that these actions (those that bring bad consequences)
are "errors" rather than "sins" in the Christian sense". The Christian
sense is especially (5), but also (4) and would include (2) and (3) as
long as the intention is involved. And unless you are willing to claim
that we have no control over ourselves, then we are left to conclude
that we are responsible for our actions, and we do what we intend.
The only definition that does not fit the Christian notion of "sin" is
(1). So if these actions you mentioned are of category (1), then you
have oversimplified. If you understand that errors include (2)-(4)
then your statement that they are different than sins in the Christian
sense is false. At any rate, it would be foolish to deny that (5)
happens, and that those actions also bring bad consequences, so you
have still oversimplified.
That is not to say that errors do not have bad consequences at times.
Maybe you have redefined sin to mean something else and now you speak
of the category of actions that are deliberate as "errors" rather than
"sin". In that case, then Allah seems very serious about the price of
errors, since men are put into hell for committing them. The original
poster (Saqib Virk) of that comment said that there was no price/debt
for sin. I disagree on the grounds that Allah is punishing people for
having it.
=20
> > The problem in Islam is that Allah is forgiving sin without any amend=
s
> > being made (rather I should say that the amends made do not cover the
> price of sin). If he can do that, then the price of sin was never
> separation in the first place. But then we must question why Allah is
> sending people to hell for their sin.
>=20
> Comment:-
> You have lost me here.
> Are you telling me how Allah judges and what He cannot do?
> Islam requires a person to make amends and Allah has promised
> forgiveness to the repentant.
I'm telling you that he cannot be perfect and do what Islam says he
does. Islam says God is perfect, but then attributes acts to him that
are imperfect.
1)God is absolutely perfect.
>From http://www.islamic-paths.org/Home/English/Discover/Concepts/Sin_Mai=
n.htm
"God, by definition, is Just, Wise, Merciful, Compassionate, and
Perfect. God is the absolute infinite good and His Spirit the absolute
perfect one;"
2) Therefore everything God does is perfect
> > Not so, it is the outcome of believing that God can ignore sin. The
> > Qur'an teaches it, the Bible doesn't. it has far reaching consequence=
s
> > for the nature of God and it ultimately means that God is not perfect=
,
> > which is unacceptable.
>=20
> Comment:-
> We do not think that Allah has limitations.
Then your concept of God is as incoherent as you claim the trinity is.
If Allah has no limitations, then he does not have to be good. He does
not have to be perfect. He can lie to you. He can be both perfect and
imperfect at the same time, he can be both God and non-god at the same
time and in the same way. He can be three gods and one god and not
even exist all at the same time. He can have a body and be limited as
well as unlimited. He can do all these things because he is not
limited by the laws of logic, nor is he limited by any cumbersome
notion of perfection. He can be limited because he has no limitations.
If you say he cannot be limited, are you yourself putting a limitation
on him?
I assert that God MUST be limited in certain capacities; he CANNOT
make creatures that are morally free and then cause their actions.
They will either be free (moral) or not (amoral). He CANNOT be
imperfect; he cannot lie, he cannot be unjust, he cannot deny his own
nature. Those are limitations. If God does not have some limitations
than he is incoherent as a concept.
> Comment:-
> Yes we know man has fallen.
> But to fall he must have been originally at a higher state.
> If man was not in that higher state he could not climb back to it.
> To say that man was made perfect is to say that he has the potentiality
> of development.
> So we do not concentrate our attention on his fall but on his
> perfectability.
And from the time the law was given to the time of Jesus, so did the
Jews. But it didn't get them any closer to God. What it did was expose
them for who they were. And in case you are inclined to take that as
some kind of anti-Semitic statement, don't. They are representative of
all of us. They were shown the perfect standard of God, and the more
they were shown the more the rejected. That is not because Jews are
bad, it is because the heart of man is to throw off all yokes and rule
himself. Man is irrevocably in love with himself, and desires to be
his own master. He will throw off the rule of men and God. It is that
innate rebellion against God that is the essence of sin.
=20
> In the Bible this is the goal of redemption. If I am not
> mistaken, in Islam, Allah is utterly transcendent and does not have
> communion with believers. Is that a correct understanding?
>=20
> Comment:-
> That is utter nonsense.
> Why do you speak about Islam when you nothing about it
> and have made no attrempts to study it or read the replies here.
Hold on a sec, I was not trying to insult you or Islam here. I even
asked if I was correct-
The biblical focus of history is to redeem man to God, so that he can
dwell in the midst of his people.
You are correct in that I spend no real time trying to understand
Islam other than what I see are its attacks on the very heart of Gods
redemptive history, but it was my understanding that in paradise
Muslims will not expect to be in the presence of Allah. If I am wrong
on that count, I accept that.
=20
> > Perhaps we are going to have a huge difference here in the way we
> approach our philosophy. I believe God is perfect because it is his
> essence. All perfections come from his essence.=20
=20
> Comment:-
> Sorry. I cannot agree with you.
> You are making the laws out to be something over which God has no contr=
ol.
> We call this Shirk - making other gods.
1) The "laws" are not over God, so that he has to obey them though he
really feels hampered by them and wishes he could act otherwise. They
spring from who he is- perfection. He simply is truth; so these laws
are not a hindrance to him, they are what allow the orderly
continuance of the universe. His essence is perfect, so these
universals are true as well. He would no sooner break these laws than
he would stop being who he is, that is not because he is limited, it
is because he is true. All these truths come from who he is.
2) As I argued above, the very concept of God without any limitations
is absurd. I will not restate it here.
=20
> > > You could have reduced the whole argument to one line
> > > that you think that God's Forgiveness flouts His Justice.
> Therefore, He must sacrifice something to pay for the sin.
>=20
> > I could have reduced it, but it's much more fun to show it in this
> > form.
>=20
> Comment:-
> Is this the purpose of argument - to have fun?
> Yes I did think these purely verbal argumentations since
> the time of Aristotle were a kind of intellectual game, part of their
> olympics,
> played by the masters when all the work and contact with reality was d=
one
> by slaves.
The purpose is to show point by point the truth of the matter. God
must be holy/perfect. That should be acceptable to any theist, but
when we get right down to it some of the concepts that are put forward
do not allow it: such as God simply forgiving sin without the price
being paid. So I attempt to explain point by point why God must be
holy and how sin must be removed from him.
=20
> > > If he paid by his death, then
> (b) his resurrection nullified the sacrifice.
>=20
> > Nice try. That doesn't really work. The price of sin was death; Jesus
> > died, so the price is paid. Nothing was said about staying dead.
>=20
> Comment:-
> Nice try. So if I give a shop a sum of money for some goods, and then g=
et
> the
> money back (or cancel the cheque), the shop will not ask for the goods
> because they have been paid for and nothing is said in the contract abo=
ut
> keeping the money?
Ahh, but the parameters just changed, didn't they?
In your scenario, a person P pays a sum X to shop S in exchange for L.
Then P takes back X from S while attempting to retain L.
Now Jesus is obviously meant to be P, his life is meant to be sum X,
the shop S is God, and L represents freedom from the price of sin;
eternal separation from God.
So in your scenario, Jesus pays the price of sin to God with his life,
and buys freedom from condemnation. Two things: 1) you forgot to
include something to denote US. HE wasn't buying his OWN life back, he
was paying for someone else. IT was not necessary on that count for
him to pay for his own sin. 2) In Christian thought, Jesus was not
just a man, but God. So when he pays the price, he pays it essentially
to himself. God himself paid the price, not some third party. 3) IF
God himself pays the price, then he gets to set the terms of our
appropriation. And He can decide to raise Jesus up if he wants.
So lets reset the parameters to read as they do in the bible and see
if the story makes sense.
Customer C comes to shop S needing to have L or he will die. P who is
working at the counter and happens to be joint store owner with his
father, offers to come around from around the counter, take his own X
and put it into the cash register to pay X for C, IF C thanks him.
Since S is owned by P, then P can decide if that is acceptable or not.
He does (it was his own plan), and now that the books are balanced, it
all goes back to P/S anyways.
Now analogies are both similar and dissimilar by definition, so you
will be able to point our flaws in this, but it is much closer than
the original situation, and it illustrates a fundamental difference in
how we see what happened.
If you say Jesus was a man when the sins were put on him then
> (c) there was no payment for the sins of mankind.
=20
> > BOTH fully God and fully man, remember? But out of curiosity, what
> > exactly is your argument here? Do you have some metaphysical reason
> > why this would be impossible?
>=20
> Comment:-
> The Quran describes God as Eternal, Infinite, Self-sufficient, omnipote=
nt,
> omniscient,
> all pervading.
> Even your Bible says:-
> "No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son which is in the
> bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."
> I take the only begotten Son refers to the Word.
>=20
> All this does not apply to Jesus who was visible, a man with a limited =
life
> span, he was born
> at a certain time and died. He needed air and food to live.
> He said he could do nothing himself, but obeyed God.
OK, I would love to discuss this more here, but as I have learned, SRI
is no place to try and post Bible verses. Maybe we could continue on
SRC.
Briefly, that God is eternal, infinite, self-sufficient, etc is not
really a problem. If as the Bible states, Jesus took on human flesh so
that his soul/spirit- the immaterial center of consciousness existed
before, but at a specific point in time he added human nature to his
divine nature and grew up and lived a limited life, but then bodily
died, was raised up immortally, then there is nothing inconsistent
with that.
Just as Moses heard the voice of God in a burning bush, God can be
=91understood' locally while not being limited exclusively to that
locale. Moses heard God in a specific place, the voice probably did
not boom throughout the universe, yet God was not constrained in one
place. He was manifested in one place, not limited to it. Likewise God
was manifested in a body (Jesus in human flesh), but not completely
contained in it. That his soul was still eternal, infinite,
self-sufficient, omnipotent, or omniscient or omnipresent is not a
difficulty
Jesus does say that no man has seen God, but he says "No one has seen
the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the
Father". So he claims to have seen him.
"For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only
was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own
Father, making himself equal with God.
19Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do
nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing,
because whatever the Father does the Son also does. 20For the Father
loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, to your amazement he
will show him even greater things than these. 21For just as the Father
raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to
whom he is pleased to give it. 22Moreover, the Father judges no one,
but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23that all may honor the
Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does
not honor the Father, who sent him.
24"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who
sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed
over from death to life. 25I tell you the truth, a time is coming and
has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and
those who hear will live. 26For as the Father has life in himself, so
he has granted the Son to have life in himself. 27And he has given him
authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.
28"Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in
their graves will hear his voice 29and come out--those who have done
good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be
condemned. 30By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and
my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent
me." John 5
some notes:
1) The Jews who heard him understood that Jesus was claiming equality
with God
2) the Son does bow his own will to that of the Father, BECAUSE
whatever the Father does the son does also.
3) the Father reveals all he does to the son
4) the son gives life to whom he please, just as the Father does
5) the father has relinquished his judgment to the son, so that all
may honor the son equally with the father.
6) the son is self existent just as the father is self existent
What you said was true, it just wasn't the whole story. Jesus came as
a model of how we are to submit, but that is not all; he was a man,
but not only a man. No mere man could make the statements he made. All
apostles understood what he said and proclaimed that he was God. He
himself proclaimed it. Taking on human flesh does not rule out that he
could have been God. It is true that God cannot be fully contained in
human flesh, but that is not what the word said of Jesus anyway.
=20
> > And Jesus did explicitly teach that he came to die and give his life
> > as a ransom for many.
>=20
> Comment:-
> Those are the teachings of Paul.
>=20
> Jesus is reported to have said:-
> "Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister=
,
> and to give his life a ransom for many." in Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:4=
5
>=20
> But I doubt that that was the original meaning.
> It seems to me that what is meant is that Jesus was willing to bear
> the persecution which would result when he brought the Word of God to
> people.
> It is obedience to the Word of God that brings salvation as Jesus
> pointed out in Matthew 7:21-23 and elsewhere.
You "doubt that was the original meaning"? It seems to you=85.?=20
You are changing the meaning based on what? You posted your views on
Paul on SRC before and never responded to any of the criticisms. You
admit that Jesus himself said those words but deny they mean what they
do. Peter, and John taught the same things as well. The conclusive
evidence is that Jesus came as an atonement sacrifice for the sins of
humanity. It was not an invention of Paul although Paul did teach it
(as he should have; since Jesus and the apostles who were with him
during his earthly ministry taught it as well.)
dave
asimm...@yahoo.com
> longer perfect so It must have been become imperfect at a specific
> time.
We are back to square one, and how the two religions view sin. =20
WMan's perfectability lies in his being able to overcome his desires
and grow spiritually. If men did not make mistakes, he would not
learn. When a person becomes self-cosncious, only then does he view
hiw own self in light of the will of God, and only then does he begin
to change himself and strive for higher spiritual heights.
> 2] Also seems true. While difficult to explain exactly how,
> nonetheless the effects are obvious: universal, pervasive sin. Such
> that all men are affected.
>=20
Men are affected by all actions, whether good or bad. But this has
absolutely no relevance on how you or I react to the situations that
befall us. If a king was a tyrnat, and his tyranny laid waste to
villages, it does not mean that we are affected by the sin. A person
who was given the chance to defend his honour and the oppressed could
gain in greate spiritual heights and develop himself further on the
lines of righteuousness. This world was created as a test. Men are
affected by the actions of others, whether GOOD or bad.
Men are tried with goodness, whether they be grateful, or are tried
with evil, whether they be patient. The issue of atonement has no
relevance to the reality of the human situation and it puts
limitations of God Almighty.
> They eat of the tree. Therefore if God is not a liar, THEN they have
> become either "unjust", "transgressors" or "wrong doers" depending on
> the word you want to use.
There is no question that Adam (AS) did not make a mistake. This is
what this whole discussion is about. "Thus did Adam stray and strayed
>from the right path." In the classical Arabic language, a verb 'may
imply the result of an action.' The Quran says "We had made a
covenant with Adam but He forgot and We found Him lacking in
steadfastness.' Thus it is very clear that because of his forgetting,
it caused Adam to disobey his Lord.
The issue has nothing to do with Adam committing a mistake, the issue
revolves around the atonement. We already went through the fact that
God knew men would make mistakes, and even the angels understood it.
> In fact, God questions them as to whether they knew of his
> prohibition: "did I not forbid you both from that tree..?", and they
> affirm that what God said: "do not go near this tree, for then you
> will be of the unjust", had indeed happened to them: "We have been
> unjust to ourselves". They tacitly admit their rebellion when they
> declare that they are in need of forgiveness and mercy.(7.23)
> Interestingly, the Qur'an states "that their evil inclinations became
> manifest" [7.20,7.22,20.121] through this action. So the Qur'an itself
> affirms an inclination toward evil.=20
You have TOTALLY misunderstood the whole post.
First, in reference to "Do not go near the tree, for then you will be
of the unjust." The Quran refers to the culmination of disobedience
as injustice. It does not qualify as Adam taking on some sin. This
is similar to the case of Jonah (AS), when God Almighty says:
"Had it not been for the favor of his Lord upon him, he would indeed
have been left thrown away upon the barren shore, disgraced."
The verb in this case refers to the continuance or perpetuity of the
action. That is why immediately after mentioning Adam's mistake, God
Almighty says:
"Then His Lord granted him mercy, accepted his repentance, and rightly
guided him."
Second, this was the result of Adam and Eve becoming self-conscious of
their nakedness and their trying to hide their private parts. The
Quran does not affirm Adam's inclination to evil, but the Quran
affirms them becoming self-cognizant and because of this God showed
them mercy and taught them words of repentance. As I stated before,
the Quran draws a comparison between the attitude of Satan and the
attitude of Adam. The former became arrogant and did not admit to his
wrong, while Adam accepted fully his wrong and repented. Because of
this God Almighty further guided him. A person who measures his own
progress and his own failings are the only ones that can grow. If a
person is heedless of his own mistakes, he will never learn from them.
Thus, we find that Adam was not yet qualified for Paradise and he
succumbed to temptation. He had to be placed in the world and tried
by 'fire' so that he could purify himself and grow as an individual.=20
Thus, taubah is an essential element in the test.
Christianity assumes man was in a perfect state of bliss, a kind of
childish kingdom, and because he ate from the tree of 'the knowledge
of good and evil' he fell. He could not overcome the impulse of the
original sin and God had to come and save him.
That is really the claim of the
> sin nature in Christianity, which is denied in Islam. But in the
> Quran, it existed as an "inclination" even before they sinned. Were
> they created with this "inclination"? If not then where did it come
> from?
First of all, as I stated before, the Quran says that man is born with
the inherent capability to distinguish between right and wrong. He
has been honoured with the moral conscience. Christianity assumes
that the knowledge of right and wrong came when the couple at from the
tree of "the knowledge of good and evil." Thus, it becomes abundantly
clear that in Islam, man requires the cultivation of his mral
conscience while Christianity views this knowledge as something God is
'very jealous' about such that he has to place a flaming sword around
it, so nobody would eat from it again.
Second, the inclination was from their desires. The tree is actually
the 'sexual act'. As I have stated before, Adam was tempted by Satan
through his desires. The story is meant to illustrate that Adam was
not yet ready for Paradise and had to develop control over his own
self to be worthy to be the Khaleepha or vicegerent of God. A person
can only be free, when he brakes the shackles of the desires that lead
him away from His Lord. Thus, it requires that man be tested in this
very world.
Third, as stated before, in Islam man has to demonstrate his self to
earn Paradie, while in Christianity there is the fall.
> In 20.121 "Adam disobeyed his Lord, so his life became evil"
Where are you getting this translation from? Read the above and read
the next verse to better understand it. You do not even need to
appreciate Arabic to understand the very next verse, that because Adam
and Eve felt shameful for their act God had mercy on them and taught
them words of repentacne and further blessed them with guidance.
> God could not have created man imperfect, so I am a little unsure of
> what to make of this; does it simply speak of mans free ability to
> sin, or does it actually purport that God created us to sin?
>=20
What do you mean as perfect? Men were given free-will and put in this
life to be tested. If they were not tested, they would remain
children, subjected to the desires of Satan. Man has to overcome his
passions and desires and submit to the truth to become a 'free'
personality.
You are making the simple mistake of assuming perfectness of God and
the perfectness of man are the same thing. Whatever God does is good,
because He is the Creator of everything. Men can only harm
themselves.
> At any rate the standard for man's conduct must be perfect, for God
> could not create a non-perfect standard for man to live by. As I hope
> I have conveyed, all the doctrine I have supported and the response I
> hold as necessary, is based around one thing: God is absolutely
> perfect. IF that is acknowledged, then sin must be either judged or
> paid for, and that necessitates atonement. And atonement can only be
> made by God.
>=20
You have not proven anything. Sin is related to the individual. He
can repent and learn from it, becoming a stronger person, or he can
fail to repent and continue to live in his ways leading to perdition.=20
God Almighty can forgive whomever He wills and He is not subjected to
any weakness, and the condition He has stated is that man repents and
strives to not fall in that sin again. God Almighty will provide him
with more guidance and strengthen and develop his personality more.
jackkincaid
ul.net>...
> > Yeah, I think you're missing the point. The standard explanation for
> > the trinity is that each component is an *aspect* of God, not a
> seperate deity. It's intetresting that you bring it up, since - as I'm
> sure you know - Mohammed himself believed that Christians worshipped
> three seperate gods.
>=20
> Not true.
> The three personalities are regarded as separate, at least in
> Catholicism.
>=20
> Apart from this the man Jesus is included in the Trinity.
In general terms, you're mistaken. *Usually* Catholic dogma states
that the trinity are different aspects of God. However, the
explanation of the virgin birth has been reiterated many times, and
I'm certain that some Christian sects - and some Popes - have
explained it in such a way that it appears to be three seperate
entities. That the word 'trinity' is used ought to give the game away
- it means the 'unity of three into one', not simply 'three things'
(that would be 'trio' - I think you'd have to go back to the original
Greek or Latin to see the original difference).
I was replying to someone who said that 'orthodox' Christianity (by
which I assume he meant mainstream Catholicism, Orthodoxy and
Protestantism alike) states that the trinity is three entities, and in
this he was wrong.
It is also true that Mohammed beleived the trinity represented three
deities, which presumably is why the mistake has persisted - however I
may have been wrong in assuming that Mohammed hismelf was mistaken. He
may have only come across Christian sects in Syria which believed in
three gods.
BTW, it is transubstantiation that is by far hardest part of Catholic
dogma to swallow (no pun intended), not the trinity. And even if you
insist in the wrong interpretation of the word trinity I see no
greater difficulty in belief in three unproven things - or three
million - than in one.
>=20
> If it was merely a question of aspects, there would be no
> problem seeing that Islam recognizes many attributes of God.
> Allah, His Word and His Spirit are also one.
>=20
> Moreover, no distinctions are to be made between Allah and His Messenge=
rs.
> This does not mean that they are identical,
> but one in purpose.
I wasn't aware that the phrase 'Allah, His Word and His Spirit'
appears in Islam but yes, that is the same kind of thing. That too is
a trinity (three things resolved into one). In Catholic dogma, as you
know, the trinity is the father (God), the son (Christ) and the holy
spirit, which all resolve into one.
>=20
> > Arguably, it isn't necessary to believe in the trinity - or even in
> > the virgin birth - to be a Christian.
>=20
> Comment:-
> This is a new version of Christianity.
Yes, I am its prophet. (I'm kidding BTW).
> If Jesus is not god then his sacrifice in the crucifixion
> has no meaning either. There is no vicarious atonement.
...in which case the question becomes (I said 'arguably' remember):
can one be a Christian while rejecting the supernatural elements
recounted in the gospels - which would mean, to put it crudely, taking
an Islamic view of Christ's life - but would also mean rejecting the
supernatural elements in Islam, such as Mohammed's visitation by the
angel Gabriel and the dictation of the Qurun.
One would be rejecting any notion of direct contact between God and
man (in this case, God and Christ), so that Christianity would depend
on two things: the value of Christ's teachings as a philosophy of
life, and the Christian conception of God, which would be a metaphor
for the ideal man.
I think this is possible - Confucianism, which requires no
supernatural elements, is a parallel example - and I also think
Christianity is *perforce* developing in that way, as are most other
religions.
Whether Islam could develop that way is an interesting question.
Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism (and all myth cycles) are
metaphorical religions - their teachings are given to us in the form
of stories and parables (if you ever see a literal translation of the
Hebrew OT you can see that illiteration and simile is being used, sure
signs of a *novelistic*, not a literalistic, approach to its
creation).
Because we read them that way we are allowed the freedom, to some
extent, to interpret them as we wish - literally or metaphorically -
and in all cases we can use them to create great art.
Islam is presented to us in a different form. We don't hear stories
about great or holy men told by intermediaries, we are told the
thoughts of the holy man himself (or as you would see it, the thoughts
of God as articulated by the holy man) - though some are presented as
metaphor. The scope for interpretation is more limited; as I've said
to you before, if we decide that one *sura* is metaphorical, why
should we not decide all of them are? And if we do, where do we locate
the basis for faith?
Yet Muslims have been reinterpreting the Qurun for 1400 years, so
there is obviously a hunger to find difference in meaning within the
Qurun (or as I assume you'd put it, exactitude of meaning - it comes
to the same thing) among them.
Could Islam be recreated without the necessity of belief in the Qurun
as the word of God? You'd know the answer better than me.
>=20
> There is then no difference of doctrine
> between Christianity and Islam!
> That is, of course, what Islam asserts in the first place!
If there is no difference in doctrine between Islam and Christianity,
by definition both must be monotheistic religions, and so the
confusion over the trinity must be just that - confusion.
I don't think I said there was a difference in doctrine, I said there
was a difference in conception of God, and clearly there is.
Whether, as a Muslim, you can agree with that, I'm not sure...
Altway
> Atonement issue
> When sin was committed in Israel, a perfect animal was offered, the
> one offering it would place his hands on it and confess his sins over
it so that symbolically that sin was laid on the head of the animal
(who had done no wrong) then that animal was killed in place of the
sinner. It atoned for the sin of the offerer.
Comment:-
I am sure the writer knows that the sacrifice of the goat was done in
commemoration of the sacrifice Abraham was willing to make of his
son in obedience to God, and the goat was a substitute.
This sacrifice is also commemorated by Muslims.
It symbolizes the sacrifice of the fleshly or worldly concerns in favour of
spiritual ones. It is done as an act of repentence. Clearly, the slaughter
of the animal itself has no spiritual significance. It is done daily in
millions for food without the ceremony.
That event should have brought to an end all human sacrifice.
> The atonement pays the price of sin -which is death- to God, because
>it is against God that sin has been committed. This has always been
the biblical view. The Quran says that sin is against man, but that is
a break from what was taught by the prophets. God is supreme and it is
to him that we must answer, not to ourselves.
Comment:-
This is either deliberate mirepresentation or a naive understanding.
What the Quran says is :-
"Say: O mankind! There has come to you the Truth from your Lord, and he who
is guided by it, his guidance is only for his own soul; and he who errs,
errs only against it; and I am not a warder over you." 10:109
God has placed His spirit in man and sin is rebellion against God.
"Nay, verily, man is indeed rebellious in that he thinks himself independent
(of God)." 96:6-7
If "sin" means "error" or doing damage, then certainly we cannot sin against
God because we cannot do any damage to God or flout Him.
But it is not really difficult to grasp that the Quran contains instructions
>from God and that sin is to flout those instructions.
Or that Islam means "Surrender to God" and that sin is rebellion.
The Quran is more "scientific" in telling us what the consequences are.
The Quran is teaching the same thing in different words and from a different
point of view - but persons who have fixations on dogmas - on a particular
way of presentation or formulation - cannot really be said to understand the
teaching.
Another Christian wrote:-
> Setting aside these arguments, the fact remains that the Bible teaches:-
"Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and
to give his life a ransom for many." Matthew 20:28
"Jesus said unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes
unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6
Comment:-
The surrounding verses to Matthew 20:28 and the other teachings of Jesus
indicate that Jesus meant that he was willing to suffer persecution in order
to bring the Word of God by which salvation was to be achieved. If this were
not so he would not have insisted on obedience to the Commandments of God in
Matthew 7:21-23.
Certainly, in order to accept the Word of God one must accept the Messenger
as being genuine. Muslims accept Jesus, but we wish to know what he was
really teaching and what the Word of God is for the Age that was to come
after him.
As for John 14:6, this was true also of Moses before him and Muhammad after
him and by the other Prophets sent by God. He was speaking on behalf of the
Word of God. Jesus is dead, but the Word of God is still being taught by
many other people. Are they the "way and the truth"? The Word of God was
also taught by Muhammad. And the Quran says:-
"Say (O Muhammad): If ye love Allah then follow me, and Allah will love you
and forgive you your sins, for Allah is Forgiving and Merciful." 3:31
So the question is this: Is one going to understand and accept the Word of
God or is one going to adhere to a particular book literally?
--
surayya
>But then when one tries to cover
>all possible ways that someone may take any statement, we end up with
>pages of legal verbiage.
Not at all. What I was illustrating was that it was quite clear that we
have only a limited form of free-will, and even *that* amount is subject
to God's will.
Once you agree to that, there is no point in arguing about the amount or
extent. Free will is not all it is made out to be, in fact the most
important defining decisions, which I alluded to in my post, are totally
out of your grasp, they are decided by God.
>I of course do not mean that we choose
>everything, only that free will must be present if we are to be held
>responsible for actions.
Indeed, I do not have to choose being a girl/boy to be held account for
being a girl/boy. That may seem unfair to some, but the fact that I have
been given free-will makes it just, because I am not a birch tree, I can
decide what I do about it.
> As far as I can see this is the Muslim
>understanding. Although free will is not consistent with determinism,
>it seems that many of you reject fate or predestination, so it is not
>a problem.
We do not reject predestination at all. I don't know where you get that
idea from.
>No, I don't think it is silly. On my view, "sin" is a choice to
>disobey [in very general terms]. The statement was that sin is a
>necessity of free will. I disagree and say that sin by definition is
>the result of the choice that one makes.
Okay, it is the result of the choice that one makes, but what if you
knowingly make that choice knowing full well that it is a sin and that
you are choosing sin?
>So the choice cannot be
>necessary or it was not free. I am speaking on more of a metaphysical
>level.
Muslims believe that the more you submit yourself to Allah, the more
choices you lose, free-will begins to diminish as you hand over your
entire self to Allah. Those that sin are left astray and free-will is
abound. Free-will and choices provide them with the opportunity to obey
and return.
If you feel you have been given a choice, then as a believer you know it
is a path back to the correct path, that you have been astray. The
choice is necessary so that you learn, even if the outcome has already
been decided. The choice can be necessary even if the outcome was
decided, and your free-will was just a delusion on your part.
I'm involved in the teaching sector, teachers are predicting outcomes
all the time and they are 95% correct in the student's ability, and they
are just humans. And yet despite already knowing a student's ability and
outcome, they still put that kid through test after test.
What makes you think that God doesn't know the outcome of providing you
with a choice?
>You are correct in that we are all going to sin. Neither have I EVER
>met anyone who doesn't. I believe that is because we are all born with
>a sin nature.
Well I believe it is because we are incapable of perfection, no matter
how good our nature is, and due to the forces of Satan who vowed to lead
us astray.
>Interestingly, the Qur'an states "that their evil inclinations became
>manifest" [7.20,7.22,20.121] through this action. So the Qur'an itself
>affirms an inclination toward evil.
Yes it became manifest because they are not perfect, they made a
mistake, Satan tempted them and they listened to him. But they repented.
Satan's hold over humans became manifest, the fact that they would
listen to him became manifest.
We have no other record in history, before this account of Satan's hold
on us humans, so it became manifest.
I've heard christians say that the greatest trick Satan played is
convincing people that he doesn't exist, well we muslims would expand
that to include people who think they have some sort of 'holy'
protection against him.
>But in the
>Quran, it existed as an "inclination" even before they sinned. Were
>they created with this "inclination"? If not then where did it come
>from?
Was it an inclination before Satan appeared and whispered to them? Or
did the inclination arise as Satan whispered to them?
>In Islamic thought, God can simply forgive the sin.
Yes God can do whatever he likes, he doesn't need mine or your dogma.
>In Christian thought, that is not possible without the price of sin
>being paid.
What you have written is an affront to God. Its an abomination, that you
think you can tell God how HE is to forgive and by what means.
God can do whatever HE likes, HE is capable of anything and everything.
You try to restrict HIM to some feeble human mechanism. The god you
believe in is very weak and feeble, its a man made horror, if he has to
defer to you and your commands about how he is to forgive.
You can't boss God around like that and tell HIM how HE is to forgive,
you do not get to define how HE is to forgive.
Altway
Altway:-
That acts that bring bad consequences are "errors" rather than "sins"
Dave:-
This is to oversimplify on such a grand scale, that it is ridiculous.
Altway:-
> > Really. Perhaps you have a restricted idea of what "error" means.
Dave:-
> Perhaps you are right. Even the most egregious Rebellion against God
would definately be "an error" in a certain sense. But if you want to
look at it like that then you have no reason for saying that your
"errors" are not "sins in the Christian sense".
Error:
(1) "An act, assertion, or belief that unintentionally deviates from
what is correct, right, or true" (American Heritage=AE Dictionary of the
English Language)
or
(2) "A wandering or deviation from the right course or standard;
> irregularity; mistake; inaccuracy; something made wrong or left wrong"
......etc etc.
Sin:=20
(5) "Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God."
Comment:-
No need to quote the American dictionary. We do not take
the meaning from there.
I was not saying that the the Quranic idea of "error" is different from the
the idea of "sin" as taught by the Moses and Jesus.
When I say "Christian" I mean that which those who call themselves
Christians believe. It seems to me that this idea of "sin" is connected with
"paralyzing disgust", hence the need for someone else to cleanse them.
The notion of "error" does not carry that connotation and implies that
the error can be corrected given knowledge.
Dave:-
> Now you claimed that these actions (those that bring bad consequences)
> are "errors" rather than "sins" in the Christian sense". The Christian
sense is especially (5), but also (4) and would include (2) and (3) as
long as the intention is involved. And unless you are willing to claim
that we have no control over ourselves, then we are left to conclude
that we are responsible for our actions, and we do what we intend.
Comment:-
By "deliberate" I presume you mean consciously intentional.
But as I have pointed out consciousness is an attribute of the
Spirit of God in us. The word itself implies unified awareness.
No contradictions can exist in it.
Sin, as I have pointed out is self-contradiction.
It is error.
You must admit that we have a fundamental difference here.
Dave:-
> Maybe you have redefined sin to mean something else and now you speak
> of the category of actions that are deliberate as "errors" rather than
"sin". In that case, then Allah seems very serious about the price of
errors, since men are put into hell for committing them. The original
poster (Saqib Virk) of that comment said that there was no price/debt
for sin. I disagree on the grounds that Allah is punishing people for
having it.
Comment:-
I have indicated that errors lead to damage to the soul and, therefore,
to suffering and spiritual death or disintegration.
But errors can be rectified given appropriate knowledge and techniques.
That is what the Messengers bring.
If these are not appropriate causal forces then they are futile.
If people do not accept and apply them then they cannot be rescued.
But I do not really see how you can believe in "free will" and still
insist that only way to salvation is through the crucifixion of Jesus
implying that man cannot do it.
Dave:-
> > > The problem in Islam is that Allah is forgiving sin without any amend=
> > > being made (rather I should say that the amends made do not cover the
price of sin). If he can do that, then the price of sin was never
separation in the first place. But then we must question why Allah is
sending people to hell for their sin.
Altway:-
> > You have lost me here.
Are you telling me how Allah judges and what He cannot do?
Islam requires a person to make amends and Allah has promised
forgiveness to the repentant.
Dave:-
> I'm telling you that he cannot be perfect and do what Islam says he
> does. Islam says God is perfect, but then attributes acts to him that
> are imperfect.
Comment:-
I beg to differ.
We believe that Allah is Perfect
and He tells us in the Quran can man can be perfected with His guidance and
power.
We obtain our idea of God from revelation.
But it seems to us that your definition of God as three persons is man made
and implies that each is limited, and so is the whole.
Altway
Yes we know man has fallen.
But to fall he must have been originally at a higher state.
If man was not in that higher state he could not climb back to it.
To say that man was made perfect is to say that he has the potentiality
of development. > So we do not concentrate our attention on his fall but on
his
perfectability.
Dave
> And from the time the law was given to the time of Jesus, so did the
Jews. But it didn't get them any closer to God. What it did was expose
> them for who they were. And in case you are inclined to take that as
> some kind of anti-Semitic statement, don't. They are representative of
> all of us.
Comment:-
So you think Moses was sent on a futile mission by God.
And yet you admit that the teachings of Jesus (in Matthew chapter 5 to 7)
has done Christians no good either.
What are all the monks and nuns trying to achieve?
Dave:-
> > In the Bible this is the goal of redemption. If I am not
mistaken, in Islam, Allah is utterly transcendent and does not have
communion with believers. Is that a correct understanding?
Altway:-
> > That is utter nonsense.
Why do you speak about Islam when you nothing about it
and have made no attrempts to study it or read the replies here.
Dave:-
> Hold on a sec, I was not trying to insult you or Islam here. I even
asked if I was correct-
> You are correct in that I spend no real time trying to understand
> Islam other than what I see are its attacks on the very heart of Gods
> redemptive history, but it was my understanding that in paradise
> Muslims will not expect to be in the presence of Allah.
Comment:-
Paradise is nearness to Allah - there are different degrees of it.
(As Jesus also said:- In my Father's House there are many mansions.)
The Redemptive History of mankind is that Allah sent many Prophets and
Messengers to all people through the ages. It is this that has allowed
humanity to evolve, though they also degenerate from time to time.
But the kind of redemption which Christians like you teach is not
to be found in the teachings of Jesus. He insisted that man must obey
the Commandments or Word of God..
As you spend no time in trying to understand Islam
(nor it seems to me your own scriptures)
this conversation is futile. So I will terminate it
Altway
Altway
> > > That acts that bring bad consequences are "errors" rather than "sins"
Dave:-
This is to oversimplify on such a grand scale, that it is ridiculous.
Altway:-
Really. Perhaps you have a restricted idea of what "error" means.
Dave:-
Perhaps you are right. Even the most egregious Rebellion against God
would definately be "an error" in a certain sense. But if you want to
look at it like that then you have no reason for saying that your
"errors" are not "sins in the Christian sense".
Error:
(1) "An act, assertion, or belief that unintentionally deviates from
what is correct, right, or true" (American Heritage=AE Dictionary of the
English Language)
or
(2) "A wandering or deviation from the right course or standard;
> irregularity; mistake; inaccuracy; something made wrong or left wrong"
........etc etc.
Sin:=20
(5) "Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God."
Altway:-
No need to quote the American Dictionary.
We do not take our definitions from it.
It was not my intention to say that the idea of "error" differs from
the idea of "sin" as taught by Moses and Jesus.
But I use the term "Christian" in order to refer to the beliefs of
Christians.
The way the word "sin" is used by them seems to imply
"impotent self-disgust."
The term "error" refers to something that can be rectified given
Dave:-
--
Altway
Altway
> > > That acts that bring bad consequences are "errors" rather than "sins"
Dave:-
This is to oversimplify on such a grand scale, that it is ridiculous.
Altway:-
Really. Perhaps you have a restricted idea of what "error" means.
Dave:-
Perhaps you are right. Even the most egregious Rebellion against God
would definately be "an error" in a certain sense. But if you want to
look at it like that then you have no reason for saying that your
"errors" are not "sins in the Christian sense".
Error:
(1) "An act, assertion, or belief that unintentionally deviates from
what is correct, right, or true" (American Heritage=AE Dictionary of the
English Language)
or
(2) "A wandering or deviation from the right course or standard;
> irregularity; mistake; inaccuracy; something made wrong or left wrong"
........etc etc.
Sin:=20
(5) "Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God."
Altway:-
No need to quote the American Dictionary.
We do not take our definitions from it.
It was not my intention to say that the idea of "error" differs from
the idea of "sin" as taught by Moses and Jesus.
But I use the term "Christian" in order to refer to the beliefs of
Christians.
The way the word "sin" is used by them seems to imply
"impotent self-disgust." hence the need for someone else to cleanse them
The term "error" refers to something that can be rectified given
appropriate knowledge and techniques.
Dave:-
> Now you claimed that these actions (those that bring bad consequences)
are "errors" rather than "sins" in the Christian sense". The Christian
sense is especially (5), but also (4) and would include (2) and (3) as
long as the intention is involved. And unless you are willing to claim
that we have no control over ourselves, then we are left to conclude
that we are responsible for our actions, and we do what we intend.
Maybe you have redefined sin to mean something else and now you speak
of the category of actions that are deliberate as "errors" rather than
"sin". In that case, then Allah seems very serious about the price of
errors, since men are put into hell for committing them. The original
poster (Saqib Virk) of that comment said that there was no price/debt
for sin. I disagree on the grounds that Allah is punishing people for
having it.
Altway:-
I have indicated that sin causes damage to the soul.
Rectification, Healing, is required using appropriate methods.
As Allah made the Laws and also provided us with an inbuilt desire
to benefit ourselves and sent Messengers to guide us then
the harm we do ourselves is according to His Laws and Justice.
Dave:-
> > > The problem in Islam is that Allah is forgiving sin without any amend=
being made (rather I should say that the amends made do not cover the
price of sin). If he can do that, then the price of sin was never
separation in the first place. But then we must question why Allah is
sending people to hell for their sin.
Altway:-
> > You have lost me here.
Are you telling me how Allah judges and what He cannot do?
Islam requires a person to make amends and Allah has promised
forgiveness to the repentant.
Dave:-
> I'm telling you that he cannot be perfect and do what Islam says he
> does. Islam says God is perfect, but then attributes acts to him that
> are imperfect.
Altway:-
We believe that Allah is Perfect and that He has told us
that we can be perfected with His guidance and power.
Do you expect us to believe you instead?
Dave:-
I assert that God MUST be limited in certain capacities; he CANNOT
make creatures that are morally free and then cause their actions.
They will either be free (moral) or not (amoral). He CANNOT be
imperfect; he cannot lie, he cannot be unjust, he cannot deny his own
nature. Those are limitations. If God does not have some limitations
than he is incoherent as a concept.
Altway:-
I assert this is nonsense, because you are imposing human intellectual
limitations on God.
> > Yes we know man has fallen.
> > But to fall he must have been originally at a higher state.
> > If man was not in that higher state he could not climb back to it.
> > To say that man was made perfect is to say that he has the potentiality
> > of development.
> > So we do not concentrate our attention on his fall but on his
> > perfectability.
Dave:-
> And from the time the law was given to the time of Jesus, so did the
> Jews. But it didn't get them any closer to God. What it did was expose
> them for who they were. And in case you are inclined to take that as
> some kind of anti-Semitic statement, don't. They are representative of
> all of us.
Altway:-
So you are saying that God sent Moses and all the other Prophets on
futile missions?
Yet you also include Christians in this futility.
And still you claim that this impotence is "Free Will"!
Dave:-
> > In the Bible this is the goal of redemption. If I am not
mistaken, in Islam, Allah is utterly transcendent and does not have
communion with believers. Is that a correct understanding?
Altway:-
> > That is utter nonsense.
Why do you speak about Islam when you nothing about it
and have made no attrempts to study it or read the replies here.
Dave:-
You are correct in that I spend no real time trying to understand
Islam other than what I see are its attacks on the very heart of Gods
redemptive history, but it was my understanding that in paradise
Muslims will not expect to be in the presence of Allah. If I am wrong
on that count, I accept that.
Altway:-
The "redemptive history" of mankind we believe in consists of the fact
that God has sent Teachers, Messengers and Prophets to all people
through the ages. This is that has caused the gradual evolution of mankind.
But man does also degenerate from time to time.
But the kind of redemption Christians like you teach is not
what Jesus taught. He insisted on obedience to the
Commands or Word of God.
However, as you spend no time in understanding Islam
(and it seems to me none in understanding your own scriptures)
then this conversation is futile. And I terminate it.
To you your beliefs to us ours.
Ambrose Garbocha
> "He is the First and the Last and the Evident (or Outer) and the Imminent
> (or Hidden or Inner), and He is Aware of all things." 57:3
Following your argument, the essence of God has changed before and after the
act of Creation. God was one thing, or he still is when the world is not
concerned, and He became something else after (or more or different) after
He has created the world. I would not understand from this verse that God
has two natures, or that in someway He is part of this world. Perhaps you
could explain to me.
Of course, we are all assuming that Islam has a consistent argumentative
nature, built on a well-defined ontology.
asimm...@yahoo.com
ul.net>...
> Atonement issues:
>=20
> You ask=3D20
> > So what is the point of atonement? What is offered through the act of=
a=3D
> tonement?
>=20
> Your concern is that a "man still requires his heart to be renewed",
> and "even after the atonement, men will continue to put themselves
> over God".
> Good questions. What is the point of atonement? Imperfection causes a
> necessary break between God who is perfect, and man who has rejected
> the right to follow the wrong. Our rejection is an offense against
> God. The price of that offense is death. the atonement is the process
> whereby the price of sin is paid by one in place of another. The OT
> sacrificial system was built to model this.
1. Perfection of man was NEVER meant. Men were given free-will to
make mistakes, and men are overcome by a whole variety of factors.=20
Not all men reject the truth knowing it is the truth.
2. Only God Almighty is perfect, and the one who created in man the
ability to choose between right and wrong is not subjected to the
limitations to forgive. It becomes, in toto, an absurdity to assume
the All Knowledgeable and All Wise Lord would place men with all the
various factors that affect man's choices, assuming that He would not
make mistakes.
3. A man who has free-will, but is limited in his knowledge, has NO
WAY of developing his 'freedom' to use his capabilities if he were not
allowded to make mistakes. Thus, the Quran recounts the difference
between the mistake of Adam and Satan as being one of intent and
reaction to the sin.
4. The sacrifice was NOT instituted for this person. The sacrifice
was instituted through the act of Abraham (AS) and symbolized
Abraham's willingness to give up his own son for God Almighty. Thus,
even the 'first-born' of God Almighty, the Levites, were dedicated at
the altar of sacrifice to commemorate the rituals. It represented
man's willingness to sacrifice even his own life to serve God
Almighty.
> When sin was committed in Israel, a perfect animal was offered, the
> one offering it would place his hands on it and confess his sins over
> it so that symbolically that sin was laid on the head of the animal
> (who had done no wrong) then that animal was killed in place of the
> sinner. It atoned for the sin of the offerer.
>=20
No it did not. The sacrifice was a SYMBOL of man's commitment to live
according to the ways of God. Thus, Jeremiah often rebuked the
practices of the Israelites, who despite commemorating the rituals of
sacrifice failed to implement the ways of justice.
> The atonement pays the price of sin -which is death- to God, because
> it is against God that sin has been committed. This has always been
> the biblical view. The quran says that sin is against man, but that is
> a break from what was taught by the prophets. God is supreme and it is
> to him that we must answer, not to ourselves.
>=20
This has NEVER been the Biblical view. All men die and it is a
natural reality of this life. The Old Testament recounts the pslams
of David and his lamenting over the grave and its impending darkness.=20
But, he further recounts how there is hope in the resurrection. The
biblical view as REVEALED to the Prophets was man would be held
account one day. Jesus (AS) through the miracle of raising Lazarus
>from death propounded this very principle. Muhammad (S) confirmed
this very fact when he brought forth the Quran which said "You prefer
the life of this world, but the Hereafter is better and more lasting.=20
Indeed, this is from the past scriptures, the scriptures of Moses and
Abraham."
Death is a necessary phenomenon of this world, and only through death
is there resurrection. The Quran draws attentioned to this in
numerous plaes when it refers to the reviving of the dead earth. Men
have been given an appointed term to use their God-given abilities and
they have to be judged, otherwise the whole design so manifest in this
world around us is absurd. Men have not been punished in this world
through being expelled from the garden. Men have been placed in this
world purposefully, i.e. to be tested with the bounties God Almighty
has given him.
> Man does still require his heart to be renewed. The atonement restored
> the repentant sinner to right standing before God.=20
No it did not. Man still has to acknowledge his fault before God,
whether with the atonement or not. God does not play foolish games by
killing himself, nor does God do wrong if He forgives his slaves. It
is an inherent contradiction to say that God is unjust when he created
the very laws that operate in this world. Even some animals
cannibalize their own young, but we do not view this as an injustice.
The whole atonement is a ficticious attempt to reconcile justice with
mercy, when the former is the natural corollary of the latter. "Do
you think that we will not distinguish those that believed and did
good with those that disbelieved and did evil."
> The atonement restores the man to right standing before God, but it
> cannot possibly override the free will and make him only choose the
> right. He will need to decide for himself.
>=20
As stated before, it is absurd. Man was given free-will by God
himself, and to claim that Adam sinned resulting in God having to come
down and rescue him through some miraculous atonement befoggles all
inklings of common sense. Many Christinas argue that the evil
manifested in the world around us is because of this very act of
original sin, but when Jesus came and atoned for the sin, men still
commit evil and evil is still present.
Men have always been given the right to stand before God, and this is
what is called repentance in all the Semitic faiths. The Prophets of
yore spoke vehemently about coming before the Lord, acknowledging
one's fault, and reforming one's self. It is dependent upon the
individual. "The doors of repentance are open until the sun rises
>from the west."
> > Atonement is the belief that man
> > somehow affected God's ability to forgive sins
>=20
> You consistently call this a limit on God and declare that he is free
> >from these limits. But the limit I have placed on him is his
> perfection. That is what causes him to 1) create a perfect man, 2)
> insist on a perfect standard, and 3) judge perfectly if that standard
> is broken.
>=20
I am asking you what does one mean by perfect man? Men have been
granted free-will and they are limited in their knowledge. They have
natural desires and are passionate. This passion may lead to good and
it may lead to evil. It is bound that men make mistakes. The perfect
standard for men is continual GROWTH. Thus, as I have continually
stated, you simply assume sin is an act of defiance of God Almighty.
> You have stripped him of his perfection so that he can forgive man.
> You claim that "sin is NOT contrary to His will" so that it is Gods
> will that we are imperfect. You have then caused God to make an
> imperfect standard. Yet If he makes something that is imperfect, then
> he himself cannot be perfect. You say, "God is PERFECT" but then
> attribute imperfection to him. I reject any imperfection in God. I
> accept the =3D91limitation' on God that he must be perfect.
>=20
How strange is your logic. God granting free-will is not imperfect.=20
First, as stated before, he is the Creator of everything and sets all
the standards. Second, if a being is to be free, he has to be allowed
to make mistakes.
It is God's will that we come to the truth through our own accord,
otherwise we would be like simple beasts. It is a simple reality of
life that men make mistakes.
> I choose perfection as Gods essence, you choose to exalt sovereignty.
> But if perfection is lost in order to overcome any "limitations", then
> you destroy who he is in the process.
>=20
You are twsting words. There is no contradiction between the two.=20
God Almighty is the standard of perfection and all his decisions are
marked by his being Holy. Granting men free-will to choose his own
path has no bearing on the perfectedness of God. In fact, it
deomstrates it.
> Oddly enough, while God has lost his perfection so that he is not
> hampered by any kind of limitation, it is stated that "The growth of
> human personality is infinite". There is the essence of Islam: bring
> God down and lift man up. Once we strip away all the rhetoric about
> God being exalted and man is mere slave, we arrive at the true
> philosophy behind it all: God is imperfect while mans "potential is
> infinite".
You are manipulating what is said. Only and imperfect God, who
created men with the ability to choose, has placed in them lust,
passion, and limited knowledge would assume that man could not fail
and make mistakes. It further brings to question the wisdom of an
All-Knowing God who would have man continually strive to become the
vicegerent of God and overcome his failings and grow. How strange
this God who assumed a standrad of perfection of man that was
impossible for him to achieve in the first place.
>=20
> > Atonement has no relevance to man, but is relevant
> > to God.
>=20
> It is made primarily to God, but of course has relevance to man since
> it is what restores him to God. But it is not necessary that
> everything be about man; God is the supreme one, and it is to him we
> must answer. Do not make man the supreme object in all this.
>=20
But I thought we exalt Man's sovereignity over God's? Man is the
object in this without doubt. God's will prevails no matter what.
> To assert that the arguments have no biblical basis is foolish. If you
> dare: challenge it on the Christian NG, soc.religion.christian, and I
> will meet you there.
>=20
>=20
I don't need to waste my time there and I do my own studies of the
Testaments. I am concerned with what the Quran, reason, and reality
tell me. Not theologies built upon mere conjecture and have no proof
at all from the world around him.
dave
ul.net>...
> > Atonement issue
> > When sin was committed in Israel, a perfect animal was offered, the
> > one offering it would place his hands on it and confess his sins over
> it so that symbolically that sin was laid on the head of the animal
> (who had done no wrong) then that animal was killed in place of the
> sinner. It atoned for the sin of the offerer.
>=20
> Comment:-
> I am sure the writer knows that the sacrifice of the goat was done in
> commemoration of the sacrifice Abraham was willing to make of his
> son in obedience to God, and the goat was a substitute.
>=20
> This sacrifice is also commemorated by Muslims.
>=20
> It symbolizes the sacrifice of the fleshly or worldly concerns in favou=
r of
> spiritual ones. It is done as an act of repentence. Clearly, the slaugh=
ter
> of the animal itself has no spiritual significance. It is done daily in
> millions for food without the ceremony.
>=20
> That event should have brought to an end all human sacrifice.
That the sacrifice was done to commemorate Abraham's sacrifice is your
thought alone. Possibly Islam in general believes it, I do not know,
but nevertheless it is wrong. It is not based in the Bible.
Leviticus 1:4, "He is to lay his hand on the head of the burnt
offering, and it will be accepted on his behalf to make atonement for
him."
Leviticus 5:10, "The priest shall then offer the other as a burnt
offering in the prescribed way and make atonement for him for the sin
he has committed, and he will be forgiven"
Leviticus 9:7, "Moses said to Aaron, "Come to the altar and sacrifice
your sin offering and your burnt offering and make atonement for
yourself and the people; sacrifice the offering that is for the people
and make atonement for them, as the LORD has commanded"
Leviticus 16=20
6 "Aaron is to offer the bull for his own sin offering to make
atonement for himself and his household.
10 But the goat chosen by lot as the scapegoat shall be presented
alive before the LORD to be used for making atonement by sending it
into the desert as a scapegoat.
20 "When Aaron has finished making atonement for the Most Holy Place,
the Tent of Meeting and the altar, he shall bring forward the live
goat.
21 He is to lay both hands on the head of the live goat and confess
over it all the wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites--all their
sins--and put them on the goat's head. He shall send the goat away
into the desert in the care of a man appointed for the task.
22 The goat will carry on itself all their sins to a solitary place;
and the man shall release it in the desert.
Leviticus 17:11, "For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I
have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it
is the blood that makes atonement for one's life"
Leviticus 16:30, "because on this day atonement will be made for you,
to cleanse you. Then, before the LORD, you will be clean from all your
sins.
So we can see that sacrifice is not done in commemoration at all,
rather it is explicitly said to be done "to make atonement for the sin
committed.
If I'm not mistaken Abraham's sacrifice is commemorated during
Eid-ul-Adha.
"The celebration commemorates the willingness of the biblical Prophet
Abraham to sacrifice his oldest son Ishmael for Allah. Allah once put
Prophet Abraham (peace be upon him) to a test; he was asked to
sacrifice his son Ishmael (pbuh). Abraham received visions in his
dreams commanding him to sacrifice the life of his son for Gods sake
over a period of three nights. He did not want to lose his son, but
his devotion and faith in God were strong and he knew that he must
follow the commandments of his Lord. He told Ishmael of what his
dreams were and Ishmael agreed that Abraham had to follow Gods
commandment. So they went to a cave and Abraham closed his eyes and
proceeded to cut what he thought was his sons throat.
When he looked at the result of his sacrifice, he found a dead goat in
the place of his son who was standing by his side unhurt. Abrahams
(pbuh) readiness to make the ultimate sacrifice, the sacrifice of his
son at Allahs command, has become an example for all the followers of
Islam. Because of this, Eid ul-Adha has come to signify the spirit of
sacrifice that every devotee of Allah should carry in their heart"
And I think that it is a good idea to remember this sacrifice. As a
matter of fact, as far as spiritual lessons go, that is the "object"
in the object lesson of Abraham's sacrifice. But in Leviticus, the
sacrificial system is never spoken of as a commemoration, it is done
for the specific reasoning of removing the guilt of sin from the camp
of Israel so that God could dwell with them in their midst.
Exodus 29:44-45 "So I will consecrate the Tent of Meeting and the
altar and will consecrate Aaron and his sons to serve me as priests.
Then I will dwell among the Israelites and be their God"
> > The atonement pays the price of sin -which is death- to God, because
> >it is against God that sin has been committed. This has always been
> the biblical view. The Quran says that sin is against man, but that is
> a break from what was taught by the prophets. God is supreme and it is
> to him that we must answer, not to ourselves.
>=20
> Comment:-
> This is either deliberate mirepresentation or a naive understanding.
Or having been mislead by other muslims:
>From Asim;
"The Quran says that when man sins, he sins against HIS OWN SELF. Sin
does not hurt God Almighty, and man faces the consequences of his OWN
ACTIONS. "We have tied man's fate to his own neck." "He will see his
deeds in an open book."
> If "sin" means "error" or doing damage, then certainly we cannot sin ag=
ainst
> God because we cannot do any damage to God or flout Him.
We may not harm God, but nonetheless our offenses are offenses against
him. If he is the creator, then it is his will that must be answered
to. If I sin, then that has a causal chain of events that effects
others around me. Those things will ultimately lead other men from the
truth of God. So immediately, the effects are felt by us. But it is
gods intention that we be obedient to him. IF I deny his will, then it
is against him that I sin. It is true that it harms me more than him,
but it is his rule that I have denied, and it is to God that the price
of this sin must be paid.
=20
> But it is not really difficult to grasp that the Quran contains instruc=
tions
> >from God and that sin is to flout those instructions.
> Or that Islam means "Surrender to God" and that sin is rebellion.
OK, then no problem on these counts. We are agreed.
=20
> "Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister=
, and
> to give his life a ransom for many." Matthew 20:28
>=20
> "Jesus said unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man com=
es
> unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6
>=20
> Comment:-
>=20
> The surrounding verses to Matthew 20:28 and the other teachings of Jesu=
s
> indicate that Jesus meant that he was willing to suffer persecution in =
order
> to bring the Word of God by which salvation was to be achieved. If this=
were
> not so he would not have insisted on obedience to the Commandments of G=
od in
> Matthew 7:21-23.
Now you believe that the key to entrance into the kingdom of Heaven is
"obedience to the commandments", and that that is taught clearly in
Matt. 7:21-23. lets take a look.
21: "Not every one who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' shall enter the
kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in
heaven. 22: On that day many will say to me, `Lord, Lord, did we not
prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many
mighty works in your name?' 23: And then will I declare to them, `I
never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers."
The picture is of Jesus on judgment day, and there are those that cry
out to him "Lord, Lord" so that at least they thought that they knew
him and were following him. Jesus replies that not everyone who thinks
that they know me will enter in, but only those that do the will of
"my Father".
And what are the works that God requires? Jesus answered " the work of
God is this: to believe in the one he has sent." John 6:28-29
Look at the passage again: does it say they believed in Jesus? You
attempt to imply that they do, and it seems quite reasonable that they
would have, but it doesn't say that they believed in him. However, it
DOES say they claimed to have done "many mighty works"=85..
See they trusted in their works, and God says "I never knew you"
How you arrived at the conclusion that this passage teaches obedience
to the commandments is beyond me. It says nothing of mere faith or
belief, it speaks only of those who claimed to have done works in
Jesus' name.
Now, I must clarify; because the next move by muslims is to then
declare that Christians do not believe in doing any works at all, that
I DO believe in doing works. But the bible teaches that works alone
will not save you. Our works will be produced by our faith. But as we
can see, there were many who did great works, and Jesus will say
"depart from me, I never knew you".
> Certainly, in order to accept the Word of God one must accept the Messe=
nger
> as being genuine. Muslims accept Jesus, but we wish to know what he was
> really teaching and what the Word of God is for the Age that was to com=
e
> after him.
If you accept what he is "really teaching" then you would immediately
repent of Islam and become a Christian. But while Islam claims to
revere him, it has stripped him of all the most important parts of his
mission. Some reverence, huh.
Akin to me claiming that Muhammed was truly a prophet of God who
taught that the trinity was true, and that Jesus was God and that all
who would be saved MUST believe in Jesus and accept the atonement. But
muslims corrupted the Quran to read differently. Pretty absurd, isn't
it? Imagine what we must feel like..
=20
> As for John 14:6, this was true also of Moses before him and Muhammad a=
fter
> him and by the other Prophets sent by God. He was speaking on behalf of=
the
> Word of God. Jesus is dead, but the Word of God is still being taught b=
y
> many other people. Are they the "way and the truth"? The Word of God wa=
s
> also taught by Muhammad. And the Quran says:-
>=20
> "Say (O Muhammad): If ye love Allah then follow me, and Allah will love=
you
> and forgive you your sins, for Allah is Forgiving and Merciful." 3:31
>=20
> So the question is this: Is one going to understand and accept the Word=
of
> God or is one going to adhere to a particular book literally?
Don't be so simple. If the particular book: the Quran, teaches
radically different ideas about God than the previous revelation, and
we had been warned about false teaching, then we will reject the book.
According to the NT, humanity has a radical problem: sin. The only way
to cover that sin is through Jesus sacrifice.
Along comes Islam. The entire religion seems based on denying the very
solution offered by God.
First its insistence that God is strictly monadic is meant
specifically to deny any possibility of Jesus being more than a man.
That rules out the atonement.
Second it denies the seriousness of sin: its pervasive nature and the
inability of man to overcome it. The effect then is that in Islam, men
are taught that they do not have any insuperable difficulties in being
good, and that in turn they can earn their way to heaven. That is the
very thing that Jesus came to deny.
The Bible teaches that sin is an overwhelming problem, and that our
only hope is in Jesus.
Islam teaches that sin isn't that bad, and that we don't need
Atonement, we can do it ourselves.
If the bible is true, then Islam denies our one hope of salvation.
"Say: O mankind! There has come to you the Truth from your Lord, "
10:109
Sure, but it didn't come from the Quran.
dave
Altway
> In general terms, you're mistaken. *Usually* Catholic dogma states
> that the trinity are different aspects of God.
Comment:-
The Trinity according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica
is
"the Unity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as three persons in one God
head.
Neither the word Trnity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New
Testament."
The Catholic Dictionary says:-
"The mystery of the Trinity consists in this, that God being numerically
and individually one, exists in three persons, or in other words, that the
divine essence which is one and the same in the strictest and most absolute
sense, exists in three persons really distnct from each other...."
There is no question of Muhammad (saw) being wrong.
In any case, It is the Quran that denies that there are three gods and
that God has a Son who is also God.
The Quran, as you well know is regarded by Muslims as an inspiration from
God.
The Nicean Creed says:-
"We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God,
begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father."
The Apostles Creed does not say anything like that.
There is no Trinity in it.
--
Altway
asimm...@yahoo.com
> That the sacrifice was done to commemorate Abraham's sacrifice is your
> thought alone. Possibly Islam in general believes it, I do not know,
> but nevertheless it is wrong. It is not based in the Bible.
Sacrifice was offered by the two sons of Adam, and this is well-known
in the Quran. Thus, it finds its roots even before Abraham (AS).
"Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat. And
the Lord respected Abel and his offering." (Genesis 4:4)
The Quran illustrates how Abel's offering was accepted by God
Almighty, and Cain, out of jealousy, committed the first murder. The
Quran refers to the decision of acceptance of sacrifice as rooted in
piety. "It is not the flesh that reaches God, but the taqwa." One
finds numerous verses in the Quran to offer food if one has committed
a particular sin. Often times, Arabs would sacrifice animals and
dedicate the meat to the poor if they were blessed with children. The
main point is that sacrifice was meant as an offering of dedication,
gratefulness, and atonement.
It is also known from the verse that the first-born of the beast was
given by Cain. Thus, we find that the "first bron of Israel" were
offered as a dedication to the Lord.
The Old Testament says:
"Because all the firstborn among the children of Israel are Mine, both
man and beast: on the day that I struck all the firstborn in the land
of Egypt, I sanctified them to Myself. I have taken the Levites
instead of all the firstborn of the children of Israel." (Numbers
8:17-18)
"Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Consecrate to Me all the
firstborn, whatever opens the womb among the children of Israel, both
of man and beast; it is Mine." (Exodus 13:1-2)
The "First-born of the Israelites", i.e. the Levites, were offered at
the very Temple of God. Those who dedicated their lives at the altar
were considered as standing "before the Lord".
"At that time, the Lord separated the tribe of Levi to bear the ark of
the covenant of the Lord to stand before the Lord to minister to Him
and to bless in his name to this day." (Deuteronomy 10:8)
"And it (the robe) shall be upon Aaron when he ministers, and its
sound will be heard when he goes into the holy place before the Lord."
(Exodus 28:35)
Not only that, the sacrificial food was considered being "before the
Lord."
"Then you shall take the breast of the ram of Aaron's consecration and
wave it as a wave offering before the Lord." (Exodus 29:26)
Thus, it becomes abundantly clear that the sacrifice has its roots in
total and complete obedience to God Almighty, of which repentance is
part and parcel of this act. There are numerous verse in the Old
Testament that deals with the relationship of total sanctification of
the Levites and the issues of sacrifice and anybody that wants to read
it can open the Book up. Further, it is not the act of sacrifice that
brings about atonement but the attitude. "It is not the flesh that
reaches God, but it is the piety." Sacrifice is not the condition for
forgiveness.
Jeremiah Chapter 14 brings this point out very clear, that atonement
is not the condition of forgiveness by the Lord. "The LORD said to me:
"Do not pray for the welfare of this people. Though they fast, I will
not hear their cry, and though they offer burnt offering and cereal
offering, I will not accept them; but I will consume them by the
sword, by famine, and by pestilence."
The sanctification is further made known because the Levites were not
allowed to inherit anything. The verses you quoted have to do with
the issue of sacrifice that is offered as atonement, and it is part
and parcel of the Semitic faith.
Further, repentance is not the only condition of sacrifice and this is
well-known even in the Old Testament, Leviticus, chapter 3, verse 1,
where it says:
And if his oblation be a sacrifice of PEACE OFFERING, if he offer it
of the herd; whether it be a male or female, he shall offer it without
blemish before the LORD.
Thus, the use of sacrifice was common with aspects not dealing with
repentance, and as the Quran says "It is not the meat that reaches the
Lord, it is the piety."
> So we can see that sacrifice is not done in commemoration at all,
> rather it is explicitly said to be done "to make atonement for the sin
> committed.
>=20
It is also done as a peace offering and Leviticus is clear. The
ultimate act of sacrifice was Abraham's act and God accepted it and
blessed him with progeny that would carry the religion. Sacrifice
symbolizes the very act of dedication one's own self to Almighty God.
"We chose Abraham in this world, and in the world to come, he shall
dwell among the righteous. When his lord asked him to submit, he
answered: I have submitted to the Lord of the Universe." (2:130)
=20
But in Leviticus, the
> sacrificial system is never spoken of as a commemoration, it is done
> for the specific reasoning of removing the guilt of sin from the camp
> of Israel so that God could dwell with them in their midst.
Levticus clarified certain rules related to the sacrifice. Leviticus
also says sacrifice is a peace-offering.
Thus, it becomes abudnantly clear that when an animal is brought
before God Almighty to be sacrificed, there are elements of repentance
and the new commitment to surrender in total obedience to God
Almighty. It becomes very evident that Abraham (S) earned special
mention and the blessings of faith would arise from his seed because
of this very act of bringing his child at the altar of God:
In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because
you have obeyed my voice." (Genesis 22:15-18)
>=20
> Now you believe that the key to entrance into the kingdom of Heaven is
> "obedience to the commandments", and that that is taught clearly in
> Matt. 7:21-23. lets take a look.
>=20
> 21: "Not every one who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' shall enter the
> kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in
> heaven. 22: On that day many will say to me, `Lord, Lord, did we not
> prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many
> mighty works in your name?' 23: And then will I declare to them, `I
> never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers."
>=20
> The picture is of Jesus on judgment day, and there are those that cry
> out to him "Lord, Lord" so that at least they thought that they knew
> him and were following him. Jesus replies that not everyone who thinks
> that they know me will enter in, but only those that do the will of
> "my Father".
>=20
> And what are the works that God requires? Jesus answered " the work of
> God is this: to believe in the one he has sent." John 6:28-29
>=20
We are talking about the speech in Matthew and not of John. The whole
context of the statement is made regarding the manipulation of the law
by the Pharisees. The works Jesus has stipulated are numerous:
Chapter 6 speaks about giving alms and not broadcasting it to the
world. He speaks about fasting so others do not know it. He further
speaks about not amassing treasures. "But seek first his kingdom and
his righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as well.
Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be
anxious for itself. Let the day's own trouble be sufficient for the
day."
In chapter 7, Jesus comments on hypocrisy:
Or how can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your
eye,' when there is the log in your own eye?
He then talks about what is necessary to receive the kingdom of God:
So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this
is the law and the prophets.
Thus, his message is the universal message of all Prophets. It
becomes abundandtly clear the way Jesus is talking about. He then
gives the condition of the people who are 'false prophets', and how to
identify them: "You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes
gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles?" He then refers to the
end of those who do not bear good fruits:
"Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into
the fire."
=20
He ends with the warning of falling for these false Prophets, who came
with miracles but could not live upto the standards as related by
Jesus. Even Moses proclaimed similar words when he warned the
Israelites not to be deceived by the false Prophets of the future, who
despite their tricks did not work righteuousness.
All of this sounds exactly like the teachings of Islam. "Your
Companions is not misled nor does he follow His own desires." "Those
who Believe and do good deeds." "Those who believe in the Unlettered
Prophet"
jackkincaid
ul.net>...>=20
> > In general terms, you're mistaken. *Usually* Catholic dogma states
> > that the trinity are different aspects of God.
> Comment:-
> The Trinity according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica
> is
od
> head.
> Neither the word Trnity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New
> Testament."
> The Catholic Dictionary says:-
y
> and individually one, exists in three persons, or in other words, that =
the
> divine essence which is one and the same in the strictest and most abso=
lute
> sense, exists in three persons really distnct from each other...."
I don't see any contradiction in that with what I said. It isn't
possible for the Vatican to state that God is more than one entity
without uttering heresy - even if in its adaptation to existing
middle-Eastern or European religions Christianity took on the
characteristics of pagan pantheism, and even if veneration of Mary is
deeply ingrained in some Catholic communities (like Ireland).
I know it won't bother you, but as a good and practicing atheist I
feel I have to say this ... :-) I'm not trying to construct a
Christianity v Islam debate here; it doesn't strike me necessarily as
important that Christianity, in any of its forms, insists on the unity
of God (if you can accept the existence of one god, why not three? Or,
like the Hindus, three million?) but I think it is important, strictly
in terms of making the comparison of religious belief, that
Christianity requires the existence of a single God.
I would certainly agree that Catholic dogma doesn't always make this
clear (which IMO is one of the things that makes the Catholic
aesthetic the most attractive of all Christian denominations, while
protestantism - which utterly insists on the unity of God, and
condemns Catholicism as heresy or worse - as a total pain in the arse.
But that's another matter).
>=20
> There is no question of Muhammad (saw) being wrong.
Obviously Hamid, there *is* a question of Mohammed being wrong. What
you mean is, it is a question you are unwilling to entertain.
> In any case, It is the Quran that denies that there are three gods and
> that God has a Son who is also God.
> The Quran, as you well know is regarded by Muslims as an inspiration fr=
om
> God.
Yes I do know that. I think most non-Muslim believers are willing to
accept that formulation too. What they don't accept, as I guess you
know, is that the Qurun is literally the dictated word of God. As an
atheist I'd go further, as you know: I can't accept that God exists.
But I *would* accept that Mohammed was inspired by his own faith in
God, and was more than likely a clever and deeply thought man. If you
accept that the Qurun was inspired by God, not a commandment of God
(as Jews may believe Moses' ten commandments were), then you surely
must accept the possibility of Mohammed making a mistake - not in his
interpretation of God's will (I know you won't allow that) but in his
interpretation of man's actions.
This actually touches on something about Islam of which I've never
been certain. I think I'm right in saying that Mohammed's humanity is
crucial to Islam, I think because it is necessary to the faithful for
the intermediary between man and God to be understood as a normal
human being, not an aspect of the deity (like Christ, or orginally,
the Buddha).
But if that is the case, why should Mohammed be treated as something
more than 'just a normal human being'? That Christ should be treated
as infallible - at least within the terms of God's perceived plan for
him - is understandable - he was, after all (in Christian terms), part
of God. But why should Mohammed be judged in the same way? Surely, if
he's a regular guy like everyone else he will make mistakes like
everyone else?
In which case, the job of Muslims should be to extract from the Qurun
that which hasn't been distorted by those things which pertain to
regular human beings - the ordinary human mistakes, contradictions,
misunderstandings, insertion of ego, and so on - which Mohammed, as a
regular human being, would unavoidably have included.
It should be like looking through a window into a house with the sun
behind you - you have to discern what is inside the house, and what is
merely a reflection of yourself.
Looked at that way, those who try to politicise Islam - turn it into
something that is primarily concerned with petty earthly matters, like
political or economic power, the perceived 'humiliation' of one
arbitary group of people at the hands of another, and so on - have
failed to seperate the meaning from the white noise around it. Here
I'm talking about al-Qaeda and their ilk - although even the
exaggerated deference and respect shown to Mohammed by yer
common-or-garden Muslim seems out of place somehow (and as for
worrying about whether it is 'Islamic' to accidentally swallow
toothpaste while cleaning your teeth at the 'wrong' time of year ...
now we're getting crazy).
Just a thought. Even such an interpretation wouldn't get to the root
of the problem, IMO, which for me is first, belief in God and second,
unwillingness to let go of a religious group identity.
Anyway...
> The Nicean Creed says:-
> "We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
> the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father,
> God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God,
> begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father."
>=20
> The Apostles Creed does not say anything like that.
> There is no Trinity in it.
Y-y-y-yes... If your point is, the Catholic church has distorted the
meaning of Christian faith, you're certainly right. But...
In the Christian tradition it isn't *necessary* to retain the original
interpretation of the faith (some protestants would disagree, of
course). That's partly because the various Popes, Bishops and
Patriarchs, sects and denominations, have had a degree of latitude in
their interpretation, but the main reason is that Christianity is not
a literal faith. It is metaphorical, interpretive. As I said before,
it arguably isn't even necessary to believe in the virgin birth and
the resurrection to be a Christian (read what the erstwhile Bishop of
Durham had to say on the subject).
What matters in Christianity is the creed, the *meaning* of the faith,
not the actual events outlined in the NT - all of which can be
understood in purely mataphorical terms. Perhaps Christianity should
be understood as a philosophy for life embedded in a religion, rather
than a religion in its own right.
This is the chief difference between the practice of Christianity and
Islam, IMO. God is barely heard in Christianity; instead we get
stories about the activities of a Jewish mystic wandering around
Gallilee, playing with fish. There is no defined, single, first-hand
collection of Christ-ist wisdom to return to (however much the
born-agains in America wish there were - which is why they look so
ridiculous). And this is why, IMO, it became so much easier for
Christians (and Buddhists, because all this applies to their faith
too) to seperate religion from politics, and why they came to
understand their faith as a form of private worship, not a public
obligation.
Whether and how Islam can be understood in a similar way I'm not sure.
That few Muslims have a literal belief in all the suras is a possible
sign that it can. It certainly should, IMO.
asimm...@yahoo.com
qebu$9hi$1...@blue.rahul.net>...>=20
> > "He is the First and the Last and the Evident (or Outer) and the Immi=
nent
> > (or Hidden or Inner), and He is Aware of all things." 57:3
> Following your argument, the essence of God has changed before and afte=
r the
> act of Creation. God was one thing, or he still is when the world is no=
t
> concerned, and He became something else after (or more or different) af=
ter
> He has created the world.=20
There is no "before and after" for God Almighty. You are observing
the act of creation from your perspective, and not the perspective of
God Almighty. From His view, where he encompasses all of reality, he
has always been creating and creation is one continous act. Even the
Ashaarite theologians came to a somewhat similar view by saying atoms
have been coming in and out of existence for eternity.
Altway
> > "He is the First and the Last and the Evident (or Outer) and the
Imminent
(or Hidden or Inner), and He is Aware of all things." 57:3
> Following your argument, the essence of God has changed before and after
the
> act of Creation. God was one thing, or he still is when the world is not
concerned, and He became something else after (or more or different) after
He has created the world. I would not understand from this verse that God
has two natures, or that in someway He is part of this world. Perhaps you
could explain to me.
Comment:-
I do not know how you come such conclusions.
The way to understand this is probably to think of
Creation, the Universe as a thought in the Mind of God
(speaking symbolically of course).
Then God surrrounds all things and also permeates through all things.
> Of course, we are all assuming that Islam has a consistent argumentative
> nature, built on a well-defined ontology.
Comment:-
Islam is based on the Quran which is a revelation
and on the Sunna which is an application of the Quran.
The "consistent argumentative nature" comes from
theologians who think about the Quran and Hadith.
Ambrose Garbocha
subject to change. I think we agree that the natural world (Creation if you
want) is in time, and thus subject to change. Perhaps the continuous
creation argument would solve this. But I think the Qur'an is clear about a
big bang form of creation. There was one beginning, and there will be one
end. Personally, I would love to see the Qur'an agreeing with my belief that
the natural world is made of substances that do not go in or out of
existence.
But to regress, I agree with you "there is no 'before or after' for God."
Now, if part of God is a part of creation, and all creation is in
change--from creation's existence in itself, of which a part of God is
part--then doesn't it follow that this part of God is in change, disagreeing
with the definition of what God is?
Ambrose Garbocha
<asimm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<aqt4gf$7g9$1...@blue.rahul.net>...
Altway
> That the sacrifice was done to commemorate Abraham's sacrifice is your
> thought alone. Possibly Islam in general believes it, I do not know,
but nevertheless it is wrong. It is not based in the Bible.
Leviticus 1:4, "He is to lay his hand on the head of the burnt
offering, and it will be accepted on his behalf to make atonement for
him."
Leviticus 5:10, "The priest shall then offer the other as a burnt
offering in the prescribed way and make atonement for him for the sin
he has committed, and he will be forgiven"
Leviticus 9:7, "Moses said to Aaron, "Come to the altar and sacrifice
your sin offering and your burnt offering and make atonement for
yourself and the people; sacrifice the offering that is for the people
and make atonement for them, as the LORD has commanded"
> So we can see that sacrifice is not done in commemoration at all,
> rather it is explicitly said to be done "to make atonement for the sin
> committed.
Comment:-
O.K. I stand corrected. You do not think so, because it is not explicitly
stated in the OT that the sacrifice is done in commoration
of Abraham's sacrifice.
But the two are certainly connected, because Issac thought
there was going to be a sacrifice of the lamb (Genesis 22:7)
and Abraham's sacrifice is mentioned first i.e. in Genesis before Leviticus.
But how do you think the sacrifice of the scapegoat
causes sins to be forgiven - or how does it heal
the spiritual damage done?
Is it not a symbolic act?
What does "sin offering" mean?
What does "make an atonement for yourself." mean?
In Israel the Priest did the rituals for the people.
In Islam every person is responsible for his own salvation
He is himself his own priest.
Religion ceased to be exclusive to a Priest class. That is the difference.
As I see it, Christianity was to be a transitional state between the
one and the other - The priesthood was abolished
(the veil between the outer and inner chamber of the Temple was rent.)
"For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to
Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of
faith." Romans 4:13
Remember that it is after the sacrifice made by Abraham that he was promised
that his seed will bring blessings to the whole world. Genesis 22:1-18
James says:-
" Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac
his son upon the altar? Seest thou how how faith wrought with his works, and
by works was faith made perfect. And the scripture was fulfilled which
saith, Abraham believed God, and it
was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of
God." 2:21-22
The point is that everyone must make his own sacrifices.
As Jesus said :-
"And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy
of me." 10:38
"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let
him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." 16:24
( Note: The cross was an ancient symbol referring to the burden placed on
man by the crossing of the earthly and the heavenly, the flesh and spirit
(represented by the vertical and horizontal lines)
asimm...@yahoo.com
> end.
There was a beginning from OUR perspective. From the perspective of
God, time is one single act. As Biyazaid Bistami said "God is now
what He was then".
> But to regress, I agree with you "there is no 'before or after' for God=
."
> Now, if part of God is a part of creation, and all creation is in
> change--from creation's existence in itself, of which a part of God is
> part--then doesn't it follow that this part of God is in change, disagr=
eeing
> with the definition of what God is?
>
First, space is something relative. You are viewing God in the view
of 'absolute space' and creation as an 'opposing other'.
Second, you are viewing change from the perspective of a human being.=20
Change for him is a state of success to failure, from failure to
success, from imperfection to greater hegihts of perfection. Life by
its very nature refers to activity. God Almighty's is the ultimate
free being and the perfect life, and His life is totally determined
>from WITHIN. He is al-Hayy ul Qayyum. Change for him is not a state
similar to man's, but an unfailing realization of His creative
possibilities. God has always been creating from His perspective
because there is no before and after for him with respect to creation.
Altway
> I know it won't bother you, but as a good and practicing atheist I
> feel I have to say this ... :-)
Comment:-
As a good atheist what are you doing on this Islamic site?
As the difference is fundamental, i.e. about the nature of existence,
there can be no agreement between Islam and Atheism.
However, it could be said that those who think of God in anthropomorphic
or material terms, Islam is Atheist. But from the Islamic point of view
atheism is idolatry - this is because the atheist does regard something as
supreme to which he subordinates himself - his ego, an idea of himself,
an ideology, logic, science, a country, a hero, material objects, pleasure
or perhaps he is a polytheist, or merely deceiving himself.
> > There is no question of Muhammad (saw) being wrong.
> Obviously Hamid, there *is* a question of Mohammed being wrong. What
> you mean is, it is a question you are unwilling to entertain.
Comment:-
Don't confuse yourself,
we were speaking about the three persons in the Godhead,
It is the Quran that denies there are three, not Muhammad (saw).
As for other things, Islam distinguishes between what the Prophet
received by revelation and what he said from himself.
This can be understood as a distinction between two different
states of conscious - the objective and the ordinary human.
(Man has the Spirit of God in him -32:9- but it is usually dormant)
>From this you can, yourself, answer the questions you put.
But as an atheist it will be meaningless to you.
asimm...@yahoo.com
> causes sins to be forgiven - or how does it heal
> the spiritual damage done?
Sacrifice was no only related to atonement, but had other uses to.=20
Refer to Numbers 14 that details gift offerings and burnt offerings,
along with atonement offerings. Islam also has methods of atonement,
including fasting for 60 consecutive days if one broke his fast
intentionally. The fact that faiths have prescribed acts of atonement
does not imply that prove anything related to the issue of original
sin. Sacrifice in its original meaning is dedicating one's life to
God. Thus, often times similar words are used referring to people in
the service of the Lord, as being dedicated to Him. A ritual
simulating the sacrifice was performed on the Levites, including
Aaaron when they were dedicated in the service of the Lord at the
Temple. The symbol of sacrifice meant one was dedicating his life
totally for God.
The act itself does not cause sins to be forgiven, nor had any of the
Semitic Prophets ever claimed it does. Christianity is based upon the
dualistic notion of law being separate from the spirit, and is rooted
in Greek Hellinism. Thus, we find a great many pages dedicated to the
tension within the early Chruch regarding the law, including aspects
such as circumsicion. The Semitic Prophets were sent during the times
the sacrifices were being commemorated and they lambasted the
Israelites despite their shows of 'piety' at the Temple.
> Is it not a symbolic act?
It is a symbolic act and this is known even from Leviticus. Leviticus
also refers to a 'peace offering' in chapter 3, having nothing to do
with atonement. Other types of sacrifice included the Burnt offering
and the Gift offering and are mentioned in Numers 14.
Leviticus also has very detailed rules regarding the rituals of
sacrifice and these were being practiced even in the times of Jesus.=20
Thus, they often failed to realize the implications of the rituals and
became bogged down with the law. The difficulties were imposed on
them because of their own arrogance and fault, and in the end, few
could only hold on to the demands of faith. Thus, the minor Prophets
came, and the last two Prophets in the line sent to Bani Israel were
John the Baptist, whose fiery speeches called for self-reformation and
repentance, and the Man born from a Virgin. Anybody with any serious
reading of the scripture will realize that the Last Prophet of Bani
Israel was primarily dealing with the Pharisees.
> In Israel the Priest did the rituals for the people.
Even then, the individual is told to come to the Temple with the meat.
He is the one that has to make the offering and come repentant befor
God. As a side note, the same meat was used to serve the priests
because they could not inherit anything according to Mosaic law.
> In Islam every person is responsible for his own salvation
Same with Judaism. There are numerous verses speaking about how the
son cannot bear the sin of the father and John the Baptist's reform
movement dealt with individual repentance. All of Jesus' speeches
deal with the same thing.
The Hajj is a commemoration of these very rituals. Thus, we find all
elements of religion composed in it, including repentance and
gratitude. We also do not cut our hair until the rites at the altar of
God are finished and this is a well-documented rite in the Old
Testament.
dave
ul.net>...
Hello Hamid,
> > sacrifice is not done in commemoration at all,
> > it is explicitly said to be done "to make atonement for the sin
> > committed.
>=20
> Comment:-
> O.K. I stand corrected. You do not think so, because it is not explicit=
ly
> stated in the OT. But the two are certainly connected.
>=20
> But how do you think the sacrifice of the scapegoat
> causes sins to be forgiven - or how does it heal
> the spiritual damage done?
> Is it not a symbolic act?
How does it cause sins to be forgiven:
"He is to lay both hands on the head of the live goat and confess over
it all the wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites-all their
sins-and put them on the goat's head. He shall send the goat away into
the desert in the care of a man appointed for the task. 22 The goat
will carry on itself all their sins to a solitary place; and the man
shall release it in the desert" Lev: 16:21-22
Sins are forgiven through this means by which a life is offered up in
place of those who should have paid, AND through confession.
I know that the Quran does not teach that. it instead teaches that
Allah can forgive without the sacrifice:
"Whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is Allah's;
and whether you manifest what is in your minds or hide it, Allah will
call you to account according to it; then He will forgive whom He
pleases and chastise whom He pleases, and Allah has power over all
things." 2.284
I know that all too often, we are accused of shortcutting repentance
and confession when the atonement is considered, but that is really
not the case. Here, the symbolic act is representative of the act that
will come when the Messiah presents himself.
The sin would be placed on the head of this sinless animal through
confession. The goat would pay the price of sin, by being removed from
the camp.
So confession/repentance is necessary to the act, but God does not
simply instruct them to confess in their rooms and the would be
forgiven, he has them go through a ritual whereby they can see the
effect illustrated: sin causes death. IF one repents, then God will
make a way whereby his justice is not compromised, but he can show
mercy at the same time. The charge that atonement limits God is not
really true. God is able to forgive, he just cant deny his own justice
in the process. But as Muslims so often assert, repentance is
absolutely necessary. The ritual itself will not save you.
I might add that the same is true of Jesus' sacrifice as understood by
Christians: the death on the cross does not bring universal salvation.
If it did, that would overwrite the will of many who do not want to
follow God. So we must appropriate the sacrifice, by "laying our hands
on it" and confessing and repenting, and only at that point will God
allow us to partake in the sacrifice.
Yes I do believe it is a symbolic act. One that points the way to the
sacrifice that would come.
> What does "sin offering" mean?
This is spoken of in Lev. 4, and was a mandatory offering for sins
that were unintentionally committed. God gave directions for any
member of the community that sins: priests, the "whole community",
leaders, and regular members; they are to take a specified animal,
free from defect, and bring it before the altar, lay hands on it to
identify with it, confess his/her sin over it and then slaughter it
before the altar. The priest would then arrange the offering and in
this way "atonement will be made, and he will be forgiven" (v. 20, 26,
31, 35)
> What does "make an atonement for yourself." mean?
Atonement was the Hebrew word kafar- to cover over; pacify.
The word is also used in Genesis 6:14 when God tells Noah to cover
(kafar) the ark with pitch to waterproof it.
Also in Gen. 32:21 when Jacob tries to appease (kafar) Esau with a
gifts.
So it means to cover over sin by appeasing or satisfying God. As you
are well aware of, ritual alone will never do this. God is able to see
clearly if our repentance is sincere.
2.110 "=85.surely Allah sees what you do"
2.233 "=85.be careful of (your duty to) Allah and know that Allah sees
what you do"
However, that does not mean the sacrifice is purely superfluous or
unnecessary.
The two work in conjunction: the sacrifice pays the price (forgive the
very cheap analogy, but almost like a get out of jail free card) and
the confession allows individuals to appropriate it. (God allows you
to have such a card only through repentance and confession) This is
how forgiveness is given from God.
dave
asimm...@yahoo.com
ul.net>...
> "Altway" <alt...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:<aqv19k$sc6$1@blue.r=
ah=3D
> ul.net>...
>=20
> Hello Hamid,
>=20
> > > sacrifice is not done in commemoration at all,
> > > it is explicitly said to be done "to make atonement for the sin
> > > committed.
> > Comment:-
> > O.K. I stand corrected. You do not think so, because it is not explic=
it=3D
> ly
> > stated in the OT. But the two are certainly connected.
> > But how do you think the sacrifice of the scapegoat
> > causes sins to be forgiven - or how does it heal
> > the spiritual damage done?
> > Is it not a symbolic act?
> How does it cause sins to be forgiven:
> "He is to lay both hands on the head of the live goat and confess over
> it all the wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites-all their
> sins-and put them on the goat's head. He shall send the goat away into
> the desert in the care of a man appointed for the task. 22 The goat
> will carry on itself all their sins to a solitary place; and the man
> shall release it in the desert" Lev: 16:21-22
> Sins are forgiven through this means by which a life is offered up in
> place of those who should have paid, AND through confession.
The act of sacrifice is one of the expressions of forgiveness. It is
an expression of one's sincere desire to repent. Sacrifice was one of
the methods in which atonement was achieved, just as sacrifice was
used for other symbolic expressions including gift offerings and burnt
offerings.
The burnt offering is mentioned in the very chapter you quoted, verse
3.
"But thus shall Aaron come into the holy place: with a young bull for
a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering."
Sacrifice was a method of expressing one's firm commitment to change
one's life. Thus God Almighty instituted different methods of
sacrifice for different sins, depending on the very act. Mosaic law
also stipulated punishments to those that committed crimes in this
world, and those laws were binding irrespective of whether the
individual repented or not.
The Quran is NO different in this respect, when it has prescribed
certain acts of atonement for various sins. If a person brakes his
fast intentionally, he is commaned to fast for six days consecutively,
and if he cannot do that, feed 60 poor persons. Thus, the act of
atonement is not only meant as an expression of repentance, but the
act is meant to inculcate the value of the law of God that was
violated.
> I know that the Quran does not teach that. it instead teaches that
> Allah can forgive without the sacrifice:
>=20
> "Whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is Allah's;
> and whether you manifest what is in your minds or hide it, Allah will
> call you to account according to it; then He will forgive whom He
> pleases and chastise whom He pleases, and Allah has power over all
> things." 2.284
>=20
After all these lectures, why is you consistently manipulate the
Quran? How many times have I made the distinction between will as in
God's law and will as in God's pleasure. When God says He forgives
whom he wills and chastises whom He wills, it means that His laws are
not dictated by any man and that it is according to His Law alone by
which He judges human beings. His law, as repeated to you numerous
times, is to forgive the one who turns to Him and reform himself.
> I know that all too often, we are accused of shortcutting repentance
> and confession when the atonement is considered, but that is really
> not the case. Here, the symbolic act is representative of the act that
> will come when the Messiah presents himself.
>=20
No it is not. The sacrifioce is a symbol of one's commitment to live
in total obedience to God Almighty. Thus, even the priests dedication
to the Temple was symbolized through the act of 'sacrifice'.=20
Repentance, after realization, is the first step in the process of
reaffirming one's commitment to live according to God.
"My Lord, FORGIVE ME, HAve Mercy on Me, GUIDE ME ... " This is part
of a very well-known dua of the Prophet of God and expresses
forgiveness before guidance.
The sacrifice expresses this very notion.
> The sin would be placed on the head of this sinless animal through
> confession. The goat would pay the price of sin, by being removed from
> the camp.
>=20
> So confession/repentance is necessary to the act, but God does not
> simply instruct them to confess in their rooms and the would be
> forgiven, he has them go through a ritual whereby they can see the
> effect illustrated: sin causes death.=20
This is a total MISINTERPRETATION of what the act of sacrifice is for.
Have you not read all the various lectures by the various Prophet's
of God to Bani Israel where they are rebuking the Israelites, despite
the rituals still existing in the Temple? Nowhere in them do the
Prophets rebuke the Israelites for not following the rituals, in fact,
they always affirmed a staunch practice of the rituals. But these
very rituals that were instituted by God had lost the spirit.
Why was Jesus severely rebuking the Pharisees? Why was he telling
them to wash their faces when they fast?
IF one repents, then God will
> make a way whereby his justice is not compromised, but he can show
> mercy at the same time. The charge that atonement limits God is not
> really true. God is able to forgive, he just cant deny his own justice
> in the process.=20
First, it is not denying his justice. The law is that man has been
given free-will, and man has been placed in this earth with all sorts
of passions, emotions, and desires. To assume that God cannot forgive
the sins when he created man in the first place with the above is an
absurdity and no justice at all, with respect to God or man. It makes
God a weak being who has to seek a loophole in his own law, and it
makes man an object of shame and disgrace who has to await some moment
in history to be 'redeemed.'
Second, Sovereignity is not a blind haphazard will, but includes
wisdom. Thus, God Almighty, whenever referring to His sovereignity,
combines the attributes of Azeez and Hakeem, the All-Powerful, the
All-wise. A person who has might but no wisdom can enforce His will,
but His will is not dictated by any sound measure. A wise person
without power cannot implement what is good.
> I might add that the same is true of Jesus' sacrifice as understood by
> Christians: the death on the cross does not bring universal salvation.
> If it did, that would overwrite the will of many who do not want to
> follow God. So we must appropriate the sacrifice, by "laying our hands
> on it" and confessing and repenting, and only at that point will God
> allow us to partake in the sacrifice.
>=20
So we are back to square one. God still has to forgive in the end,
and Christians still have to come before God and repent.
> Yes I do believe it is a symbolic act. One that points the way to the
> sacrifice that would come.
>=20
> > What does "sin offering" mean?
>=20
> This is spoken of in Lev. 4, and was a mandatory offering for sins
> that were unintentionally committed. God gave directions for any
> member of the community that sins: priests, the "whole community",
> leaders, and regular members; they are to take a specified animal,
> free from defect, and bring it before the altar, lay hands on it to
> identify with it, confess his/her sin over it and then slaughter it
> before the altar. The priest would then arrange the offering and in
> this way "atonement will be made, and he will be forgiven" (v. 20, 26,
> 31, 35)
>=20
We know that. But the priests were also to offer gift offerings and
burnt offerings. We know that part of the atonement process of
certain sins were dictated by the TYPES of sins committed. Nobody
denies that.
But once again, we are back to square one. Why does God need to
sacrifice himself when men still need to repent and change their
lives?
asimm...@yahoo.com
ul.net>...
> "Altway" <alt...@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:<aqv19k$sc6$1@blue.r=
ah=3D
> ul.net>...
>=20
> Hello Hamid,
>=20
> > > it is explicitly said to be done "to make atonement for the sin
> > > committed.
> > Comment:-
> > O.K. I stand corrected. You do not think so, because it is not explic=
it=3D
> ly
> > stated in the OT. But the two are certainly connected.
> > But how do you think the sacrifice of the scapegoat
> > causes sins to be forgiven - or how does it heal
> > the spiritual damage done?
> > Is it not a symbolic act?
> How does it cause sins to be forgiven:
> "He is to lay both hands on the head of the live goat and confess over
> it all the wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites-all their
> sins-and put them on the goat's head. He shall send the goat away into
> the desert in the care of a man appointed for the task. 22 The goat
> will carry on itself all their sins to a solitary place; and the man
> shall release it in the desert" Lev: 16:21-22
> Sins are forgiven through this means by which a life is offered up in
> place of those who should have paid, AND through confession.
The act of sacrifice is one of the expressions of forgiveness. It is
an expression of one's sincere desire to repent. Sacrifice was one of
the methods in which atonement was achieved, just as sacrifice was
used for other symbolic expressions including gift offerings and burnt
offerings.
The burnt offering is mentioned in the very chapter you quoted, verse
3.
"But thus shall Aaron come into the holy place: with a young bull for
a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering."
Sacrifice was a method of expressing one's firm commitment to change
one's life. Thus God Almighty instituted different methods of
sacrifice for different sins, depending on the very act. Mosaic law
also stipulated punishments to those that committed crimes in this
world, and those laws were binding irrespective of whether the
individual repented or not.
The Quran is NO different in this respect, when it has prescribed
certain acts of atonement for various sins. If a person brakes his
fast intentionally, he is commaned to fast for six days consecutively,
and if he cannot do that, feed 60 poor persons. Thus, the act of
atonement is not only meant as an expression of repentance, but the
act is meant to inculcate the value of the law of God that was
violated.
> I know that the Quran does not teach that. it instead teaches that
> Allah can forgive without the sacrifice:
>=20
> "Whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is Allah's;
> and whether you manifest what is in your minds or hide it, Allah will
> call you to account according to it; then He will forgive whom He
> pleases and chastise whom He pleases, and Allah has power over all
> things." 2.284
>=20
After all these lectures, why is you consistently manipulate the
Quran? How many times have I made the distinction between will as in
God's law and will as in God's pleasure. When God says He forgives
whom he wills and chastises whom He wills, it means that His laws are
not dictated by any man and that it is according to His Law alone by
which He judges human beings. His law, as repeated to you numerous
times, is to forgive the one who turns to Him and reform himself.
> I know that all too often, we are accused of shortcutting repentance
> and confession when the atonement is considered, but that is really
> not the case. Here, the symbolic act is representative of the act that
> will come when the Messiah presents himself.
>=20
No it is not. The sacrifioce is a symbol of one's commitment to live
in total obedience to God Almighty. Thus, even the priests dedication
to the Temple was symbolized through the act of 'sacrifice'.=20
Repentance, after realization, is the first step in the process of
reaffirming one's commitment to live according to God.
"My Lord, FORGIVE ME, HAve Mercy on Me, GUIDE ME ... " This is part
of a very well-known dua of the Prophet of God and expresses
forgiveness before guidance.
The sacrifice expresses this very notion.
> The sin would be placed on the head of this sinless animal through
> confession. The goat would pay the price of sin, by being removed from
> the camp.
>=20
> So confession/repentance is necessary to the act, but God does not
> simply instruct them to confess in their rooms and the would be
> forgiven, he has them go through a ritual whereby they can see the
> effect illustrated: sin causes death.=20
This is a total MISINTERPRETATION of what the act of sacrifice is for.
Have you not read all the various lectures by the various Prophet's
of God to Bani Israel where they are rebuking the Israelites, despite
the rituals still existing in the Temple? Nowhere in them do the
Prophets rebuke the Israelites for not following the rituals, in fact,
they always affirmed a staunch practice of the rituals. But these
very rituals that were instituted by God had lost the spirit.
Why was Jesus severely rebuking the Pharisees? Why was he telling
them to wash their faces when they fast?
IF one repents, then God will
> make a way whereby his justice is not compromised, but he can show
> mercy at the same time. The charge that atonement limits God is not
> really true. God is able to forgive, he just cant deny his own justice
> in the process.=20
First, it is not denying his justice. The law is that man has been
given free-will, and man has been placed in this earth with all sorts
of passions, emotions, and desires. To assume that God cannot forgive
the sins when he created man in the first place with the above is an
absurdity and no justice at all, with respect to God or man. It makes
God a weak being who has to seek a loophole in his own law, and it
makes man an object of shame and disgrace who has to await some moment
in history to be 'redeemed.'
Second, Sovereignity is not a blind haphazard will, but includes
wisdom. Thus, God Almighty, whenever referring to His sovereignity,
combines the attributes of Azeez and Hakeem, the All-Powerful, the
All-wise. A person who has might but no wisdom can enforce His will,
but His will is not dictated by any sound measure. A wise person
without power cannot implement what is good.
> I might add that the same is true of Jesus' sacrifice as understood by
> Christians: the death on the cross does not bring universal salvation.
> If it did, that would overwrite the will of many who do not want to
> follow God. So we must appropriate the sacrifice, by "laying our hands
> on it" and confessing and repenting, and only at that point will God
> allow us to partake in the sacrifice.
>=20
So we are back to square one. God still has to forgive in the end,
and Christians still have to come before God and repent.
> Yes I do believe it is a symbolic act. One that points the way to the
> sacrifice that would come.
>=20
> > What does "sin offering" mean?
>=20
> This is spoken of in Lev. 4, and was a mandatory offering for sins
> that were unintentionally committed. God gave directions for any
> member of the community that sins: priests, the "whole community",
> leaders, and regular members; they are to take a specified animal,
> free from defect, and bring it before the altar, lay hands on it to
> identify with it, confess his/her sin over it and then slaughter it
> before the altar. The priest would then arrange the offering and in
> this way "atonement will be made, and he will be forgiven" (v. 20, 26,
> 31, 35)
Altway
> >But how do you think the sacrifice of the scapegoat
causes sins to be forgiven - or how does it heal
the spiritual damage done?
Comment:-
It is inner repentence of sins which separate us spiritually from God
that counts and the ritual act is an outer sign of it
It facilitates, or ought to facilitate, repentence and therefore,
"at-one-ment" with God. That is of course a "righteous" act,
an act of piety and "Surrender"..
The Quran tells us regarding sacrifice:-
"To every nation have We appointed rites, that they may mention the name of
Allah over the sustenance He has provided them from animals fit for food;
and your God is one God; to Him then surrender, and give glad tidings to the
humble, to those whose hearts, when Allah is mentioned, are filled with awe,
and to those who endure patiently all that befalls them, and to those who
are steadfast in prayer and who spend of what We have given them. The
camels! We have appointed them for you as one of the symbols of Allah.
Therein have ye much good; so mention the name of Allah over them as they
stand in a row, and when they are down (dead after slaughter) eat of them,
and feed the easily contented (the poor that beg not) and him who begs with
humility. Thus have We subjected them to you; haply, ye may give thanks.
It is not their meat that reaches Allah, nor yet their blood, but it is your
piety that will reach Him. Thus hath He subjected them to you that ye may
magnify Allah for guiding you: and give thou glad tidings to those who do
right." 22:34-37
But the idea that the sins of one person can be placed on an inocent person,
to make them into a scapegoat, is recognized and abhored by most people
as an act of injustice. It does not absolve the perpetrator of his sin but
adds another sin. The sinner is required to compensate for that sin also.
In the case of Abraham and Ismael, it was they themselves who were willing
to sacrifice themselves. We read:-
"And We called out to him saying: O Abraham! Thou hast indeed fulfilled the
vision; surely thus do We reward the doers of good: Most surely this is a
manifest trial. And We ransomed him with a great sacrifice." 37:104-107
Psalms 51 in the OT, begins by admitting sins and asking God for forgiveness
and then we read:-
"For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest
not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken
and a contrite heart,
O God, thou wilt not despise. Then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifices
of righteousness, with
burnt offering and whole burnt offering: then shall they offer bullocks upon
thine altar." Psalms 51:16-19
Isaiah says:-
"To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the
LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts;
and I
delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.......
"Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before
mine eyes; cease to do evil; Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the
oppressed, judge the
fatherless, plead for the widow. Come now, and let us reason together,
saith the LORD: though your sins be
as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson,
they shall be as wool. If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good
of the land: But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the
sword: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it." Isaiah 1:11 and 1:16-20
See also Jeremiah 7:22-24
Hermione_1
ul.net>...>=20
> > I know it won't bother you, but as a good and practicing atheist I
> > feel I have to say this ... :-)
> Comment:-
> As a good atheist what are you doing on this Islamic site?
Bold words from someone who's not above flooding non-"Islamic"
newsgroups with lengthy multi-part posts on Islam. Discussion is not a
one-way street.
<snip>
>=20
> However, it could be said that those who think of God in anthropomorphi=
c
> or material terms, Islam is Atheist.=20
Sure, anything could be said. But it wouldn't be true, unless you have
some odd esoteric definition of "atheist."
But from the Islamic point of view
> atheism is idolatry - this is because the atheist does regard something=
as
> supreme to which he subordinates himself - his ego, an idea of himself=
,
> an ideology, logic, science, a country, a hero, material objects, pleas=
ure
> or perhaps he is a polytheist, or merely deceiving himself.
>=20
I think you mean to say that atheism leaves an opening for idolatry.
That's a bit different.
An atheist might deliberately choose a profession in which he serves
others, and not necessarily a glamorous one--social work, say, or
teaching school. He might do volunteer work or spend his free time
working for social justice, or environmental causes--thus
subordinating himself to something greater than himself. He might
strive to be just and moral in his dealings with others because he
knows his actions have consequences, and he doesn't believe he'll get
another chance in some afterlife.
He might, from a theist's point of view, be serving God without
realizing it.
On the other hand, another person might be religiously observant and
yet be guilty of some sort of idolatry--say, subverting his religious
faith for some political cause, as I believe OBL & crew are doing.
How do you make these distinctions? Does Islam allow you to pass
judgment on people?
<snip rest>
jackkincaid
ul.net>...>=20
> > I know it won't bother you, but as a good and practicing atheist I
> > feel I have to say this ... :-)
> Comment:-
> As a good atheist what are you doing on this Islamic site?
As a user of Usenet why are you asking that question?
You may as well ask, as a Muslim why are you living in a
(post-)Christian country? Do you believe in the value of communication
between different people of different faiths? If not, how do you
propose to reduce the ever-growing tension between Muslims and ...
others? It seems to me, no issue today is more important.
>=20
> As the difference is fundamental, i.e. about the nature of existence,
> there can be no agreement between Islam and Atheism.
Like most religions, Islam is predicated on a theory that atheists
cannot accept (ie that the existence of a deity is factual), but the
moral teachings etc. of any specific religion might be acceptable to
an atheist, or anyone else.
>=20
> However, it could be said that those who think of God in anthropomorphi=
c
> or material terms, Islam is Atheist. But from the Islamic point of view
> atheism is idolatry - this is because the atheist does regard something=
as
> supreme to which he subordinates himself - his ego, an idea of himself=
,
> an ideology, logic, science, a country, a hero, material objects, pleas=
ure
> or perhaps he is a polytheist, or merely deceiving himself.
Atheism need not be defined as denial of the existence of a deity, but
as a refusal to accept its existence without proof. I do not deny the
existence of God, nor accept it: I simply don't know. I live *as if*
God does not exist, and therefore, and for want of a better word, I am
an atheist. This is IMO not only the rational way to live, it is the
only possible way to live. All else is self-delusion.
I do not consciously 'subordinate' myself to anything - to imagine I
do is a peculiarly Islamic assumption, which derives from the
specifically Muslim doctrine of subordination to Allah (a Christian
need not understand his relationship with God as one of supplication
to a being of unlimited power).
Of course I am subject to the blind, disinterested physical powers and
destiny of the universe, like everyone else. To believe otherwise
would be to both disbelieve in those physical powers (and therefore to
mistrust reality) and to believe in something unconstrained by those
physical powers, which is to say, to believe in God (therefore, to
believe in God, without proof, is to disbelieve in reality).
The assumption of 'supremacy' over oneself of some 'higher' being is a
form of solipsism. The concept of a 'supreme' being is a form of
wish-fulfilment; what is really being imagined is the self magnified
an infinite number of times.
Believers in God cannot escape this because the human imagination is
limited by real experience. It follows that Muslims, like all
believers, do believe in an anthropomorphical God - a concept of God
based on a concept of man - they just don't express it as clearly as
Christians, Jews, Buddhists etc (of course, they may not imagine a God
with the physical appearance of a man, but that is beside the point).
>=20
> > > There is no question of Muhammad (saw) being wrong.
> =20
> > Obviously Hamid, there *is* a question of Mohammed being wrong. What
> > you mean is, it is a question you are unwilling to entertain.
>=20
> Comment:-
> Don't confuse yourself,
I never do when I'm with you, my friend. ;-)
> we were speaking about the three persons in the Godhead,
> It is the Quran that denies there are three, not Muhammad (saw).
Mohammed wrote the Quran; I do not accept it was dictated to him by
the angel Gabriel (I cannot believe in angels until one is presented
to me), and I do not accept it was granted to him as a revelation in
any other form unless I am provided proof (to do so would be to deny
reality, as above); therefore, logic tells me Mohammed must have
written it alone, from his own thoughts. It follows that if the Quran
says a thing, Mohammed must have believed that thing when he wrote it.
He was a normal human being (as far as we know); therefore he could be
wrong. Therefore the Quran could be wrong.
This is inescapable. Even if you believe the Quran was revealed to
Mohammed, you must surely believe that he believed that revelation was
truthful?
>=20
> As for other things, Islam distinguishes between what the Prophet
> received by revelation and what he said from himself.
>=20
> This can be understood as a distinction between two different
> states of conscious - the objective and the ordinary human.
> (Man has the Spirit of God in him -32:9- but it is usually dormant)
>=20
> >From this you can, yourself, answer the questions you put.
I agree, and you've told me something I didn't know. My next question
is, how do I know which parts of the Quran were wriiten by Mohammed,
and which parts were allegedly dictated to him by God, or God's angel?
> But as an atheist it will be meaningless to you.
Not at all. If there is a clear distinction between those parts of the
Quran written by a normal, fallible human being and those parts which
were, so to speak, 'written by God', it means that only the latter
need be taken as revelation by Muslims - the rest need not concern us
(that is, those of us who are interested in what Muslims believe, in
the interest of preventing future conflict).
It had never occurred to me that some parts of the Quran may be
discarded from the Islamic faith. Perhaps you could tell me which bits
to look for?
Altway
news:ar9pt5$ung$1...@blue.rahul.net...
> > As a good atheist what are you doing on this Islamic site?
> Bold words from someone who's not above flooding non-"Islamic"
> newsgroups with lengthy multi-part posts on Islam. Discussion is not a
> one-way street.
Comment:-
I have never posted on a non-Islamic site or to
newsgroups in countries which do not have a predominantly Muslim population.
Sometimes, I reply to post which may be addressed to many newsgroups, I do
not alter this.
Please tell me on which non-islamic site do my articles appear
Perhaps someone else is reposting them.
Hermione_1
ul.net>...
> "Hermione_1" <chatn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ar9pt5$ung$1...@blue.rahul.net...
> > > As a good atheist what are you doing on this Islamic site?
> > Bold words from someone who's not above flooding non-"Islamic"
a
> > one-way street.
>=20
> Comment:-
> I have never posted on a non-Islamic site or to
tion.
<snip>
Sorry, I didn't mean to make you sound like a spammer, and I've never
seen you post anything off-topic. I occasionally monitor
soc.religion.christian and I did see a series of rather lengthy
articles you posted there on the Islamic view of Jesus and Christian
doctrine. There's nothing wrong with that, people *should* be free to
proselytize on Usent (for that matter, some Christian proselytizers
corner the market on obnoxiousness), but I think it leaves you with
less room to turn around and protest when somebody shows up here and
starts looking skeptically at the central tenets of *your* faith.
Islam is not a self-contained religion but an expansionist one, and
that makes it everyone's business. And sadly enough, while I'm sure
many Muslims would like to discuss their beliefs and problems among
like-minded people without being assailed by outsiders, Muslim
extremists have made life harder for everybody, especially their
fellow Muslims. May we see better days.