View Full Version : A concise reply to Christianity
LAST EDITED ON 14-10-01 AT 02:45 PM (GMT)[p]A Concise Reply to Christianity - A Muslim View
By Dr. Gary Miller
If this booklet were written to announce my conversion to Christianity, no Christian would complain that it is too blunt. So if I must reject an aspect of Christianity in a succinct form, let me not be accused of bluntness either. A Muslim believes in the religion of Jesus but sees mainline Christianity as a religion constructed about Jesus. Our protest is against two excesses: The apotheosis of Jesus and the most frequent missionary tactic directed toward Muslims.
Part One
Christians and Muslims who learn something of one another's religion find that a crucial issue is the nature of Jesus. The majority of Christians deify Jesus while Muslims say that he was no more than a prophet of God, a faultless human being. The doctrine of the Trinity avows that three distinct co-equals are God. In particular, Jesus is said to be God the Son, or the Son of God. As the Muslim questions details of this theology, the Christian characteristically forms a common explanation for our differences: He complains that Muslims do not understand the Trinity; that we are actually accusing Christians of Tritheism and other heresies.
So the Muslim seeks clarification of the teaching and asks at every step: "How could that be so?" For example, we insist that the term "Son of God" cannot have a literal interpretation. Sonship and divine nature would be necessary attributes of such an actuality, but these are incompatible. The first describes a recipient of life while the second describes One who received life from no one. These are mutually exclusive requirements then. To be a son is to be less than divine, and to be divine is to be no one's son.
As a discussion proceeds, it is the Christian who will eventually take refuge in the response: "These are things that we cannot understand." His assessment of the Muslim's problem becomes his own confession. The Christian explanation becomes self-defeating so there is a change of tactic.
He complains that the Muslim refuses to accept what cannot be understood. But the modified approach is a diversion. Now the
concepts of verification and understanding are confused. To illustrate: Chemical reactions may be verified but the atom is not thereby understood. Facts are catalogued but not always explained. This distinction is the key to our concise reply. It is the Muslim who must redirect the discussion. Our primary issue is more basic than resolving the incongruities of Trinitarian doctrine. Rather than ask how the Trinity can be so, we should ask why it must be so. We ask, "Why must Jesus be divine? Can we verify the necessity of this belief?"
The Muslim Position
A few centuries ago, European Philosophers commonly felt that a conjecture was proven if it could be shown to be equivalent to an assertion made by Aristotle. Unfortunately, such an approach stopped short of challenging Aristotle and discovering truth. Similarly, testing the Trinitarian case on what people have said about Jesus stops short of establishing the integrity of the authorities and the truth of the matter.
Our purpose here is no more than the illustration that belief in the Trinity can only be based on Church authority. Many Christians admit that this is the case while others insist that the teaching was elaborated by Jesus himself. "Let them produce their proof," is the repeated admonition of the Quran, that is, "provide the documentation that Jesus himself claimed unqualified deity," (Quran 21:24). Unless this evidence can be produced, authorities are subject to challenge. Then the Christian may not evade the Muslim's questions concerning understanding. The Christian will have no justification for maintaining an illogical position, unless he is content to rely on the opinions of men. If he will probe no deeper than this, the Christian-Muslim dialogue is finished.
For Christians, the only documents accepted as reporting the words of Jesus are the accounts given in the Bible. We leave the Muslim attitude toward the Bible for part II of this essay and find our motivation now in the Quranic verse, "Say: 'O People of the Book! You have no ground to stand upon unless you stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord." (Quran 5:71). Christians are advised to support their claims by citing their books. Thus Muslims believe that no saying of Jesus can be produced which shows him grasping at equality with God. The primary issue is not whether Jesus is God. The first question is whether he said that he was equal to God.
Methodology
The Bible record of sayings credited to Jesus is quite meager. After allowance for duplication in the four gospel accounts, these sayings could be printed in two columns of a newspaper. None of this handful of texts is an explicit claim of deity. All quotations are implicit, that is, they require interpretation. We are told what Jesus said and then told what he meant. So our methodology takes an obvious form.
It is not our intention or obligation to reinterpret the Bible. We are satisfied to merely verify that Christian interpretations are insufficient, ambiguous, or impossible. We mean to argue:
1) that where the meaning of a quotation is clear, it is still insufficient to prove that Jesus claimed equality with God;
2) that other quotations cited are open to various interpretation, ambiguous;
3) and that still other quotations have been given interpretations that are impossible.
This means the evidence is either inadequate, inconclusive, or unacceptable, respectively.
Insufficient Evidence
The virgin birth of Jesus and the miracles he demonstrated are cited by some as proof of his divinity. The insufficiency of the premise is obvious. We need only read the Biblical account of Adam's creation, without father or mother, and the accounts of miracles associated with the prophet Elisha (Genesis and 2 Kings chapters 4,5,6). In the case of these two men, no Christian asserts their divinity, yet each has a qualification in common with Jesus.
Some maintain that Jesus was God because the Hebrew Scriptures predicted his coming. The inadequacy here is only slightly less apparent. The ancient Hebrew Scriptures are also cited as predicting the role of John the Baptist (Malachi chapter 4). These three arguments are mentioned to show that the ready claims of Christian betray a selective or forgetful recall of scripture. They know the fact of virgin birth as well as they know the account of Adam's origins, yet they interpret the first and overlook the second.
Now to pursue our case indirectly. Does the Bible quote Jesus as claiming equality with God? Bible texts are produced to show that Jesus used the terms "son of man", "son of God", "Messiah", and "savior". But each of these terms is applied to other individuals in the Bible. Ezekiel was addressed as "son of man" (Ezekiel chapter 3). Jesus himself speaks of the peacemakers as "sons of God" (Matthew 5:9). Cyrus the Persian is called "messiah" at Isaiah 45:1. The duplicity of translators is manifested here, for they inevitably render only the meaning of the word "Messiah" which is "anointed". Where other Bible verses seem to refer to Jesus, they prefer to transliterate "Messiah" or the Greek equivalent "Christ". In this way they hope to give the impression that there is only one Messiah. As for "savior", the word is applied to other than Jesus (2 Kings 13:5). Christians choose to cite the forty-third chapter of Isaiah as proof that there is only one savior. Again, translators have tried to obscure the fact that God is the only savior in the same ultimate sense that He is our only nourisher and protector, though men also have these assigned tasks. By over specifying this pronouncement in Isaiah they hope to have us believe that God equals savior and Jesus equals savior therefore Jesus equals God. The conspiracy of modern translation is easily demonstrated. The King James Bible of 1611 is everywhere available. Compare it to a more recent translation, say the New American Bible of this century. In the earlier version we find 2 Kings 13:5 contains the word "savior", but in the newer version the synonymous word "deliverer" has been substituted. In fact, "saviours", the plural, will be found at Obadiah 21 and Nehemiah 9:27. Here again, by substituting a different word, the connotation of divinity tied to the word "savior" has been guarded in modern versions by less than honest translation.
Once more we have exhibited the insufficient warrant of arguments offered: Those terms said to connote divinity are used of individuals other than Jesus. There is a quotation that should be mentioned here also. At John 8:58 it is reported that Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I am". Even if Jesus meant to claim by these words that he was alive before Abraham was, is this sufficient ground to say that he was divine? If Jesus lived in heaven then came to earth it might mean something remarkable, but it would not be enough to establish him as God incarnate. Additionally, it should be noted that these words are open to other interpretation. Christians do not imagine that the prophet Jeremiah had a pre-human existence and so they find a suitable way of interpreting the words of Jeremiah 1:5 which portray such a situation, if taken literally, Why not apply a similar understanding in the case of John 8:58?
Ambiguous Evidence
Some scholars have insisted that in this statement of Jesus just discussed, he appropriated for himself a divine title. In Exodus chapter 3, it is reported that God told Moses "I am what I am," as most English Bibles translate the Hebrew text. At John 8:58 Jesus says, "before Abraham was, I am," as most English Bibles translate the Greek text. But here is the key to another deception. The original of the first text is in Hebrew while the original of the second is in Greek. All but a few of Jesus' words were recorded in Greek. For two hundred years before the time of Jesus the Jews used a Greek translation of their Hebrew scriptures, the Septuagint. This work translated the key phrase "I am" of Exodus as HO ON. However, the words of Jesus, "I am", have been given to us in Greek as EGO EIMI. If the gospel writer of John 8:58 wanted to tell his Greek-speaking audience that Jesus had imitated God he would have used the familiar words of the Septuagint, otherwise the point would be lost. The evidence of John 8:58 is far from conclusive.
There is another Greek word to consider which betrays suppression or neglect of evidence. At John 10:30 Jesus is quoted as saying "I and the Father are one." The Greek word translated "one" is HEN. Certain scholars have insisted that the only possible understanding of this word is "one in essence or nature". One need not be a Greek scholar to refute this unjustified claim. A counter example is sufficient. The same word is used by Jesus in John 17:11,21,22,23, as he includes his disciples in this oneness, whatever its meaning.
The most widely translated sentence on earth is said to be Jesus' statement of John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son..." While Christians wish to say that the word "only-begotten" gives Jesus special status among all the "sons of God", again there is a problem if ambiguity. The same word translated as "only-begotten" is found at Hebrews 11:17. In this verse the word refers to Isaac. The Bible itself shows that Isaac's older brother Ishmael outlived his father (Genesis 25:9). Therefore, at no time was Isaac, strictly speaking, the only-begotten son of Abraham. Recognizing this, Christian scholars qualify the meaning of the word in this case and give it a less than literal interpretation. But if the meaning is subject to interpretation here, why not also in the passage of John 3:16? Once more the possibility of ambiguity means that John 3:16 is inconclusive evidence.
Whether or not Jesus really used the term "Father" when speaking of God is another controversy. But here our point is again, that suck use is inconclusive evidence that God was literally Father to Jesus. All Christians use the term when addressing God. The
Jews themselves used the term (John 8:41). Jesus told them that the devil was their father (John 8:44). Of course, he was not speaking literally.
Certain scholars stress the verse of Mark 14:36 where Jesus speaks the Aramaic word for Father, "Abba". They insist that this implies a very unique relationship between Jesus and God. This displays a- schizophrenic forgetfulness. For favorite scripture passages are Romans 8:14 and Galatians 4:6 where every Christian is said to use this term of address for God.
Impossible Evidence
An episode is recounted in the twentieth chapter of John and a certain Thomas is quoted as saving, "My Lord and my God." In interpreting this, Christians maintain that Thomas was addressing Jesus by both of these titles. The Muslim would have no objection to the term "Lord". As the Bible explains, the word means "master" and Sarah is said to have called her husband Abraham by this title (Peter 3:6). The suggestion that Thomas addressed Jesus as literally being God is a different matter. Jesus has already pointed out that the Hebrew scriptures themselves address men as "gods" (John 10:34; Psalms 82:6). This would allow for Thomas' use of the term. However, Paul gave new rules in 1 Corinthians chapter 8, saying that there are many lords and gods "...yet for us there is but one God, the Father.... and one Lord, Jesus Christ..." Christians apply this verse to sort out the ambiguities of Thomas' expression. But now we are left with an unorthodox doctrine, namely that Jesus is the Father. This ancient heresy has been branded by the Church as Patripassianism, Monarchianism, or Sabellianism. The impossibility of an orthodox interpretation of Thomas is now apparent.
The distinction between Father and Son is essential to the doctrine of the Trinity. This distinction is blurred again when John 14:9 is pressed into service. Here Jesus' reply to a man named Philip is recorded as, "He who has seen me has seen the Father." A strictly literal explication would mean the unacceptable doctrine that Jesus is the Father. So interpreters say that "Father" is here equivalent to "God". However, we cannot possibly be obliged to understand that Jesus meant to say that seeing him was exactly the same as seeing God because he was God. Our reason is found in the contrariety of John 5:37. Here he told a crowd about the Father saying, "You have neither heard His voice at any time not seen his form."
The Total Evidence Did the Jews Understand?
Surprisingly enough, it is often conceded that individual verses are insufficient, inconclusive, or even unusable in the case made for the divinity of Jesus. However, there are those who insist that while any given verse may be deficient, it is the total collection of all such verses that proves the case. This betrays a misunderstanding of the reasoning process. Each verse must prove something, or it is dispensable. Given a verse, we must demand to know exactly what it does prove, and why. Christian exegesis, the traditional explanation of scripture, has been exposed as incredible within the church itself. It has been shown to be enthymemic in the extreme. That is, premises and conclusions are not clearly stated. (Exactly what is meant by the "redemption of man" is still not clear to this date. [This article was written in 1983]) Whether we probe the roots or the outgrowth of the system, the structure becomes vague. (See for example, THE MYTH OF GOD INCARNATE, a Christian publication.)
A final argument has been offered based on the understanding of the Jews. Christians have said that our rebuttal given here is
unimportant because the Jews understood Jesus to grasp at equality with God. They cite John 5:18, ' ...because ... (he) was calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." They pass over the verses that follow immediately, where Jesus subjected himself to God, naming those things which God gave him.
They cite the tenth chapter of John where the Jews tried to stone Jesus for blasphemy. The point of the reply Jesus made is neglected. He demonstrated to those Jews, by quoting their own scripture, that they had no grounds for their accusation.
Curiously enough, in their haste to put claims on the lips of Jesus, part of the Christian church constructs a very confused story. The Hebrew scriptures made reference to a Messiah and the Church says this can only mean an incarnate God and so when Jesus spoke of himself as Messiah he was blaspheming because no man can be God, according to Hebrew scriptures ... or so the reasoning seems to flow together in confusion.
There is a legal point to be made here. If the a understood that the Messiah was to be a man who was equal to God then a man who claimed to be the Messiah could only be condemned as a false messiah. He could not be condemned on the grounds that he uttered a statement which must always be blasphemous in itself. At some future time, the true Messiah would have to speak the very same words without being condemned. When certain Jews declared Jesus' words as blasphemy they could only have meant to condemn him as a false messiah. Any supposed connection between the word "Messiah" and the attribute of divinity has no bearing on this matter. (The fact is, the Jews have never believed that the promised Messiah
would be a man who is equal to God.)
In the second chapter of Mark, Jesus tells a man, "Your sins are forgiven." The customary interpretation takes the side of the Jews then present, who asked, "Who can forgive sins but God Alone?" But the verse at John 12:49, among others, explains very well how a man could make such a statement. In this verse Jesus denies any personal initiative. (See also John 8:40; 14:10.) The argument based on Jewish understanding makes the assumption that the Jews understood Jesus. A more viable hypothesis is simply that the enemies of Jesus misunderstood him. In fact Jesus repeatedly alludes to this (e.g. Mark 4:11, 12). It is interesting to note that today Jewish scholars find virtually no objections to anything Jesus said. (See the reference under Jesus in the UNIVERSAL JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA.)
Conclusion
We have not merely used the Bible to suit ourselves. Verses have been cited without any commitment as to their veracity. It has been our intention only to show the defects in the Christian stand which says: "Jesus claimed to be equal to God." If we decoct the mixture said to establish that stand, we find inferior ingredients, weak evidence and specious reasoning. Our position has been narrowed enough to make almost any Christian response a step toward the Muslim’s position. We have cited the most quoted and clear scriptures, so if any others are brought forward, the Christian admits the deficiency of previous arguments, and thus makes a short list even shorter ... the list of quotations said to prove his case. Or, if the Christian builds a case on something other than the words attributed to Jesus, he repeats exactly what we first protested: mainline Christianity is based on what people have said about Jesus.
Afterword
We asked, "Why must Jesus be divine?" By this we meant to ask why a Christian believes so. If the question is asked without reference to the foregoing discussion, a Christian will answer that Jesus must be divine if his death is to be sufficient atonement for the sins of mankind. In the Christian scheme of redemption, it is held that sacrificial death was necessary that men might be saved. Ask why the death of any man would be insufficient and the Christian replies that all men are imperfect. Ask why they are imperfect and we are told that this is an inheritance from our fathers. Jesus had no father. By their own scheme he would have been an unblemished sacrificial victim. Nevertheless, they still require that he be divine to suit the role of redeemer. So we ask, "Did God die?" He quickly replies, "No, only the man Jesus died." Jesus is said to be a God-man and it was the human component that died. But now he has said that the death of a man has atoned for sin. The Infinite is required for this ritual of sacrifice but the Infinite is not actually sacrificed.
LAST EDITED ON 25-10-01 AT 01:16 AM (GMT)[p]Logically, all the author has done above is take each Christian verses where the New Testament claims divinity for Christ and say it doesn't mean what the plain sense of the text demands.
In other words, while he is quite articulate, and perhaps even correct to state that any one of the verses used does not concliusively claim divinity for Christ, there are no alternative interpretations offered.
He has picked the cream of the crop verses -- I give him credit for that. And, as I say, any one by itself could mean something else without contextualizing the vereses. However, the Muslim must go through the entire New Testament and not only state this verse doesn't say that. You must offer an alternate for each and every one of over 700 verses. AND the final result of those alternative interpretations must lead to an internally consistent whole.
For example, the author of the above article is correct that the Septuagint translates Exodus 3:14 ("I AM Who AM") in Greek as "HO ON" , while John 8:58, where Jesus says "Before Abraham was, I AM" is translated in Greek as "EGOI EMEI". However, this misses the point, because the author of John also states in his prologue "EN ARCHE EN HO LOGOS...." which is "In the beginning was the Word,..." (John 1:1). To stick with English for a moment, it states "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.", but then goes on to say "And the Word became flesh." (John 1:14).
Now, the author of this article will discard the Gospel of John's prologue by stating that these are John's words, and not Jesus' words. And he is correct here. However, it is one and the same author who is writing the "EGOI EMEI" saying. This author was not likely quoting Jesus, per se, because the first century Jew had no word for "I am", since this was God's name in Hebrew and Aramaic. The author of John's Gospel is making a statement of his personal faith in who Jesus is for us. Why did he not use the Septuagint Greek, "Ho ON"? Because that could have been too easily translated as "Before Abraham was, God IS." In other words, the author uses "EGOI EMEI" in order to clarify his own personal faith that it is Jesus who is claiming to be divine!
If we try to get "behind the text" to the actual words of Jesus, we are faced with an impossible task. About all we can be sure of regarding the "historical Jesus" is that he used "Amen,Amen" at the beginning of discourses, popularized the use of "Abba", spoke in parables and had a reputation as a healer. It is also agreed by most scholars that he was crucified. However, the gospels and epistles of the New Testament are not written as historical narrative. They are sermons or catechesis of faith. In this sense, to understand each piece of writing, we need to take the passages in the sense the author intended.
In other words, if we could invent a time machine, and found that the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth was dragged to the cross kicking and screaming, and the tomb still had his body on the Monday following Easter, the New Testament authors are still clearly ascribing divinity to him. So the question is this: how did the New Testament "Christ of faith" arise from the events of of the life of "the historical Jesus"?
The Christian position is not there is a gospel of Jesus lying hidden behind or under the faith statements of Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and so forth. Rather, we are asserting that there was something unique about the "historical Jesus" that gives rise to the "Christ of faith" that is so clearly presented by the New Testament authors. We believe that what is said "about" Jesus is inspired by God. Our answer to the question of how "the historical Jesus" gives rise to the "Christ of faith" is that Jesus was who the New Testament authors claim him to be. Even if the tomb was not empty, the apostles believed him to be risen -- so strongly that they gave their lives to defend the doctrine. We claim that we each have an experience of the risen Christ that correlates in some way to the experience of the apostles. Thus, our faith rests on the faith of the apostles.
Therefore, it is the authors who are inspired by the Holy Spirit. We do not proclaim that the apostles corrupted the faith of some of other gospel that was never written down. Rather, we profess that Christ is the Word of God in his very person, and these earliest accounts of the meaning of the Christ event were written as inspired Scripture that faithfully transmits what God intended to reveal. Even if there are historical inaccuracies (which is a question open to debate), the plain reading of texts is meant to lead one to a personal encounter with Christ as the risen Son of God! There is no serious argument that this is what the authors intended!
Faced with this, it is clear that all the references to Jesus as "Lord", "The first born of all creation", the one "through whom all things were made", the "glory of the Father", etc...are intended to lead one to faith that God has revealed himself in a unique and personal way in Jesus Christ. There are over 700 passages, some strong, and some weak, that affirm this tradition. Most of the New Testament becomes nonsense when you start trying to explain away not only the words of Jesus, but the words about Jesus!
OR, you just deny the New Testament is inspired. But even the Qur'an doesn't do that. Which leads to the question for Muslims: how can our revelation be true and yours at one and the same time?
"Be courteous when you argue with the People of the Book, except with those who do evil. Say: 'We believe in that which is revealed to us and which is revealed to you. Our God and your God is one. To him we surrender ourselves.' Thus we have revealed the Book to you." Sura 29:46-47.
The Trinity, as a concept or theory, offers a consistent means of interpreting the verses quoted in the article above, and the rest of the New Testament. On the other hand, no other concept or theory makes sense of the New Testamanet. No other explanaition of what the New Testament means has stood the test of time: not docetism, gnosticism, manicheaism, arianism, monophystism, etc....
The author of the above article claims Jews have another interpretation. Again, maybe they do for a verse here or there -- but for the whole New Testament? That's a bold assertion with no evidence. If it were true, why don't Jews who reject Trinitarian doctrine, but who like Rabbi Jesus, include the New Testament in their Bible (or at least part of it)?
But perhaps the Jews do help affirm Christian doctrine. It is my understanding that Jews affirm that IF a first century Jew were trying to say he was God, the ways recorded in the New Testament would be the way he would do it: For the simple reason that Jews did not have words and categories such as "being", "essence", or "nature" or even "is" like the Greeks.
Jesus could not have said "I am God" the way Islam wants him to in first century Jewish Palestine because those very words put together in Aramaic would have literally been said, "Yahweh,Yawheh".
First century Aramaic had no "be" verbs! It had none because terms of being were restricted to God alone. You described what something is by describing its function, and what it does. To the Jews who did become Christian (such as Paul, Peter, and James) the more remarkable proof was not what Jesus said, but what Jesus did: forgive sins, heal (even on the Sabbath), raise the dead to life, rise form the dead, etc....
Furthermore, if Aramaic had language that could have expressed "I am God", it would not be fitting of God to use such language immediately, since it would invite the charge of insanity or demon possession. A more slow approach, using deeds, then figurative speech, and questions to gradually reveal who he is would be more convincing to those he immediately encountered. So, from a purely human perspective, if God were to become a man, it would seem the conduct of Jesus portrayed in the gospels would be a convincing way to reveal himself.
As to the whole "false messiah" issue raised in the article above, Paul addresses just this issue in his letter to the Galatians 3:13, where he admits to his own struggle to understand how the Messiah or Son of God could have hung on a tree. Paul persecuted the first Christians because he thought it impossible that a Messiah would be crucified. Paul claims that an experience of the risen Christ lead him to see that the righteous one laid down his life for the unrighteous.
As to the question of God's Son being metaphoric language....There is a sense this is true. All language referring to God falls short of the reality of God. However, we Christinas wish to avoid disintegrating the term to a "mere" metaphor in order to make a clear distinction between the Father and the Son as the New Testament does. It is very hard to describe what we mean, and I fear I could get it wrong. Fellow Christians, if I slip into heresy forgive me.....
I'll use another term than "Son". Let's say "Logos" in the tradition of the gospel according to John.
The "Logos" and the Spirit are eternally generated by the Father. The Spirit is also eternally generated by the Logos.
In eternity, there is both no time, and all time. Time is created by God, and God is not conditioned by it in any way.
God is one being: the only self sufficient primal cause and prime mover -- I AM Who AM -- holy mystery, beyond comprehension, the infinite, pure act; pure love; absolute being, the ground of all being, the first and the last; the allmighty, ever-present, all-knowing creator and sustainer of the universe; the goad and goal of all that exists, absolute goodness, absolute justice, beyond all comprehension. God is not an object along-side other objects that can be grasped at with pure reason.
Catholics believe that reason can lead one with certainty to the conclusion that God exists. However, reason can go no further. Indeed, one of the issues I have with Islam is that there is NOTHING revelaed in the Qur'an that can not be derived by human reason in the historical context of the 7th century on the Western calandar.
Muslims are often upset with Christians when we stop arguing and reply, "This is a mystery." Your own Qur'an confirms this: "If all the trees of the earth were pens, and the sea, with seven more seas to replenish it, were ink, the writing of Allah's words could never be finished." Sura 31:28. There is much about God that goes beyond comprehension, but that does not mean it is irrational.
The doctrine of the Trinity is a revealed doctrine. We do not assert that a person reasons toward the doctrine. Rather, we assert that a person that is presented the doctrine can reflect upon it and come to see that there is no logical fallacy in it.
We believe that the doctrine of the Trinity is revealed in the person of Jesus Christ: not only his words -- but his words, deeds, and action in the Church and in our lives today. The Trinity arises out of our answer to the question, who is Jesus?
What the doctrine of the Trinity says about God is that at some primal, mystical moment before time began, God is one and many at one and the same time: God is community in his nature. Thus, we believe that it is in relationship that the human person comes to image God most closely. This is also why it is as "male AND female" that we image God in Genesis 1:27.
There is only one answer to the question "What?". That answer is God. This answers the question of nature and essence and being and substance, as well as the Jewish concept of function and purpose. In Christ, and the Father, and the Holy Spirit, it is one and the same being who is operating.
There are three answers to the question "Who?". The term "person" refers to an identity that can exist only in relationship to another. I believe that part of Islams confusion is that you want to make person more or less than what Christians mean by it.
"Person" does not mean an individual complete self-contained center of consciousness and will, or a different being. When we look at a human person, we often confuse their personhood with their being. However, a person is more than a collection of carbon molecules bound together in a particular fashion by DNA instructions. "Person" refers to a relationship: That human being is my mother,....that one is my brother,....that one is my friend, etc....These answers are what I am refering to by "Who?" questions.
At the same time, in the God-head, we are saying that the term person is not so weak as to be a mere mode of God, or "what-God-is-to-us". What "God-is-to-us" is what "God-is-in-himself". The revelation of the persons of the Trinity is a personal self-revelation of God to each believer. It is not only that God is sometimes a Father to me, and other times a Spirit dwelling within me. God is Father and Spirit at one and the same time, and the Father and the Spirit relate to one another as persons just as they relate to us as persons. Jesus is God as my brother: the divine as human, and the human as divine (true God and true man). He is the human face of this one being.
Thus, Jesus has a divine nature, which is the Logos. As Logos, he is one in being with the Father, and has a divine will.
At the same time, Jesus was a flesh and blood historical human being who reveals himself personally to us -- having a human nature like us in all things but sin. He was born of a woman, ate, drank, grew tired, felt just anger, cried, felt pain, and died. He had a human will that related to the Father and the Spirit as we do, except that his human will was perfectly in union with his divine will as Logos.
But why then, you ask, are there only three persons?
We answer: That is all that has been revealed -- and for the work of salvation of humanity, that is all that is necessary.
As to the question "Did God die for three days?" It seems to me that the answer is an emphatic and certain and resounding and unambiguous "Yes and NO". God can do anything. Can God be dead and alive at one and the same time? Yes. If Jesus were not fully human, than his death and resurrection is irrelevant to humanity -- it is simply a display and act put on by a more powerful being. Yet, if Jesus is not fully God, his death and resurrection would mean something to that one person (Jesus), but not to me! Only God can perform an act with universal significance. Thus, if the cross and resurrection are to mean anything to us today, it is logically imperative that Jesus is both human and divine!
Another way of looking at it is that his death was a death INTO his resurrection. Death is the end of a historical life lived in finite time. Resurrection is an eternal event transcending time and space.
The Trinity is above all the codification of the personal and loving relationship that Christians feel they have with God. As a Roman Catholic, I do not believe that it is ONLY revealed in Scripture. Catholics believe that Scripture was written by human beings over the course of hundreds of years. Scripture is the earliest writings of a people who form a tradition. We believe that the Holy Spirit guides that tradition. The Trinity has been constantly proclaimed by this Sacred Tradition.
Personally, I believe that Mohammed WAS touched by the Holy Spirit and moved to monotheism and preaching by God's grace. I believe that ALL people are touched by God's grace at some point in their lives. However, that does not mean that I think the Qur'an is correct in its statements about Jesus, son of Mary. While there is much that is true and beautiful in the Qur'an, and I believe many Muslims will be forgiven by God for not accepting Christ (since many were never exposed to the Truth), I cannot accept Islam's interpretation of Jesus life and mission. I believe my views are consistent with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in its decrees regarding Islam in the Second Vatican Council.
Furthermore,as I read all that is posted on this site, I see that Muslims take two approaches to Christianity. One view, represented by Om Mohammed and Lulua, is that the New Testament is contradictory, not the original gospel, and leads to irrational doctrines. If this view is correct, you must reconcile this with Mohammed's own view in Sura 29:46-47 quoted above. The other view, represented by Hakima Ahmed and others is that Mohammed affirms the New Testament, and Christians do not understand Islam. If the view that Mohammed affirms the New Testament is correct, you must show how to intepret the 700 or so passages that support Trinitarian theology in another fashion.
Either way, I agree with the author of the article above that the central issue between Islam and Christianity is "Who do you say that I am?" referring to Christ.
Well -- I know I am probably bordering on some heresy somewhere, and I have not quoted all my sources. I believe that Karl Rahner's "Foundations of the Christian Faith" and the writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas address issues of Trinitarian theology better than I can. I believe that my response to Lulua's "Who Invented the Trinity?" is clearer than what I present above, but this article addresses a little different topic.
There are many missionary tactics directed by Christians toward Muslims. The bulk of these stands immediately condemned by the Bible which speaks about their Master's path being straight (Luke chapter 3, Matthew chapter 7). Missionary strategies have included enticement with money, women, alcohol and social status. These methods may lead people, but do they lead by a straight path? A complete exposure of such activities would be a worthwhile document, but this in not our concern here. Christian authors who deal with the Quran and the Bible in order to win converts are the subject now.
Disputing the Quran
Attacks on the Quran have abounded since the Book's first appearance. In fact, in a remarkable verse the Quran invites examination; "Have they not considered the Quran? If it was from other than God, surely they would find in it many inconsistencies," (4:82). While many theories have been offered to explain the Quran's origin, "today no sensible person believes these theories. This leaves the Christian in some difficulty," in the words of the NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA. We want to also mention that no theory has yet been suggested that is not already commented on within the Quran itself ... the book replies to its critics.
When a verse of the Quran is said to be in error, the Muslim's natural urge is to correct the inaccurate interpretation. But we perform more efficiently if we are realistic. There is a difference in attitude between those who study the Quran and those who assault the Quran. A sincere questioner has open-mindedly accepted the challenge of the verse 4:82. But most often the missionary both attacks and distorts the Quran, while pretending to be reasonable. This opponent is not interested in the proper understanding of any given verse. So, we may best proceed as outlined in Part I: We demonstrate only that the so-called difficulty of any Quranic verse originates in an interpretation which has not considered sufficiency, ambiguity, or acceptability.
We need only to show:
(1) that a given interpretation is inadequate to build a case;
(2) or that the meaning of words has been overly restricted and is not the only meaning possible;
(3) or that a meaning has been given which is actually impossible.
My experience has often been that Christians who question will find their answers in the same place they found their questions. Frequently they have studied the Muslim commentaries of the Quran (TAFSEER), and when they find an obscure point, they bring it to Muslims hoping that we are unaware of research and explanation already done on the matter centuries ago.
What does the Quran say About the Bible?
Certain missionary writers intend to tell not only Christians about the Quran, but Muslims also by their eristic methods they build a flimsy case in order to provoke controversy where none exists. They tell us that the Quran says the Bible is accurate. They tell us that the Quran accuses Christians of changing the texts of their scriptures. The Quran does not make either of these assertions. By pointing to disagreements between the Quran and the Bible they hope to make difficulty. By arguing for preservation of ancient Biblical texts they intend to cause still more confusion for Muslims. However, these tactics can only work if we admit the premises on which they stand ... and we do not.
First, the Quran states that Christians have access to the truth in their scriptures. But it does not catalogue the sixty-six small books called the Bible and label them as accurate. In fact it condemns those who would claim divine inspiration for something composed by a man. Part of the Bible, as will be seen, falls into this category.
Second, the Quran does not accuse Christians of deliberately tampering with the original texts of their scriptures. Rather, it accuses them of manipulating the understanding of their scriptures. The deceptive translations mentioned in part I illustrate this practice.
In short, the Muslim believes that the Bible contains the words of God, and more words besides these.
Is Total Acceptance of The Bible Deserved?
The last sentence of the preceding section states the Muslim's attitude toward the Bible. It is actually the attitude of many Christians. It is only a certain collection of Christians (the Fundamentalists) who maintain that ALL of the Bible originated with God. Adherence to this belief is unwarranted for at least four reasons;
(1) It is not claimed within the Bible itself;
(2) It is an unworthy attitude;
(3) It is not self-consistent;
(4) It is logically impossible.
(1) ... The Bible nowhere names itself. The word "Bible" is not in the Bible. Sixty-six books have been bound as one without any divine command to do so. Compare, for example, the opening of the book of Jonah: "The word of the LORD came to Jonah the son of Amittai saying …" and the opening remarks of the writer of the third gospel account: "... it seemed fitting for me ... to write it out... ," (NEW AMERICAN BIBLE). The first book claims divine inspiration, while the second author makes no such claim.
By trading on the vagueness of the words "scripture" and "book" the Fundamentalists try to make a case for the Bible's total inspiration. For example, they quote 2 Timothy 3:16 where Paul wrote to Timothy, "... all scripture is inspired of God ..." In the first place, it still remains to establish the authority of Paul ... did he speak for God here? But the real trickery is in the isolation of this verse. In the sentence before this. Paul indicated what he considered as scripture, namely, that which Timothy studied as a child. When Timothy was a child the last twenty seven books of the Bible had not been written.
The antepenultimate verse of today's Bible seems to conclude the whole of the Bible, as it warns against adding or subtracting contents in "this book". However. "this book" can only refer to this last book of the Bible and not to the Bible itself. The reason is clear: Any Christian reference will acknowledge that other books of the Bible were written after this one, that is, the last book in today's Bible was not the last one written. In fact, exactly which books should form the contents of the Bible was still being debated three hundred years after Jesus.
(2) ... The official position of Fundamentalist churches is really a modification of the blunt statement: "The Bible is the perfect word of God." While they consider the modification only slight, it is actually ruinous. They say that the Bible is "inerrant in the original manuscripts". If all contradictions in the Bible could be explained away as misunderstandings, why would they rely on this excuse? By taking this position they admit to errors in the Bible. These are said to be only small copying errors made over the centuries as the scriptures were recopied. They have disregarded the advice of Jesus who said that carelessness in the little things means carelessness in large matters (Luke 16:10). Yet the unworthy statement about today's Bible is really: "The Bible contains small mistakes but no big ones."
(3) ... There are abundant copying errors in the Bible, the conflicting statistics of Ezra 2:5 and Nehemiah 7:10, for example. On the one hand the Fundamentalist admits this to be the case and excuses it as a minor copying error. On the other hand, he puts his trust in the statement of Isaiah 40:8 which says, "The word of our God stands forever." This verse does not go on to accept minor details due to flaws in the transcription of His word. According to this verse, if God says it, it does not get lost. But mistakes of transcription means something of the original has been lost. It is inconsistent to excuse error and simultaneously disallow error. The only solution is to drop the notion of total divine inspiration of the Bible.
(4) ... Total inspiration is illogical because it is both disavowed and disproved within the Bible. At 1 Corinthians 7:25 the Bible writer specifically says that he is about to make a statement which did not originate with God ... inspiration is disavowed. In the first chapter of Titus we have a counter example which disproves total divine inspiration. Paul quoted the famous Epimenides paradox, specifying that the speaker himself was a Cretan: "Cretans are always liars ...". He then says that the man spoke the truth. But when the statement is spoken by a Cretan it is definitely not true. If it was true then at least once, a Cretan was not a liar, in which case the statement is false. The conclusion is the denial of the assumption, so the statement is not true. The writer Paul at least on this occasion, was without divine guidance for he did not discern this subtlety.
Conclusion
The Christian who would preach to Muslims must first be prepared to allow us to clearly establish our own position. Otherwise he confronts a man of straw but misses the target of genuine Islam. His comparisons of the Bible and the Quran are most often seen to be shallow and misleading. As with the matter discussed in part I, our most fruitful debates will be those that consider Why not How. If the Christian wishes to prove his stand, he must justify it after explaining it. Conversely, if he would attack out stand he must understand it correctly before we can be asked to justify it.
Finally, this is not an attack on the Bible. It is an attack on an unjustified attitude held by some concerning the Bible. Again, the Muslim believes the Bible to contain God's words, but he does not accept the entire contents as such. Deciding which portions deserve our acceptance is not a matter of convenience. It is a matter of consistency. Those portions, and only those portions, which are self-consistent, compatible with reason, and self-proclaimed as divinely revealed deserve our consideration.
Part Three - A Suggestion
Christian belief reduces to this: The Jews have cherished an incorrect notion of the Messiah. That is, while Jews expect someone who is only son of God in a figurative sense, Jesus told the Jews that the Messiah was literally the son of God. In this frame of mind, the Christian can point to every Biblical account of Jews being angry with Jesus and claim that this new truth was the cause of their upset.
But there are important facts to consider. The concept of the Messiah was gradually formed by the Jews and opinions differed. While several men had already been called Messiah, son of God, son of man, in scripture, the Jews came to expect a preeminent Messiah, a victorious leader through whom their nation would be a blessing to all the world.
Our suggestion is this: Suppose instead that Jesus meant to tell the Jews that while he also deserved to be called Messiah, he was not to fulfill their unrealistic and misunderstood expectations. Now several mysteries are clarified. Jesus could not have meant to claim status for he charged his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the true Messiah (Luke 9:21). Notice how he dissuaded a man who may have had mistaken ideas (Matthew 8:20). While many Jews believed that the Messiah would inherit his kingly rights from David, Jesus pointed out the difficulty of this interpretation (Matthew 22:43). Note also that today's Jewish scholars have indicated that "son of God" is given its Christian meaning not by Jesus, but by Paul. (See "son of God" in reference 3.)
Meanwhile, some Jewish aspects have been adopted. Paul incited Christians to find symbolic meaning in scripture (1 Corinthians chapter 10). So we have impossible parallels like that of Matthew 2:15 which quotes a fragment of Hosea 11:1,2 and thus likens Jesus to an idolatrous nation! We have the unprecedented case of a prophet who supposedly would die then to return to fulfill all things expected of him. While acts 3:20-23 promises the return of Jesus, Christians understand that the prophecy yet to be fulfilled before he can return is actually only a reference to Jesus... as though Jesus was the one predicted by Moses in Deuteronomy chapter 18. The scripture quoted here by the disciple Peter reports that God told Moses about the future prophet "like you from among their brothers". While Jesus was unlike Moses in being leader of a nation, Christians believe that he will be victorious on his second visit. However, they do not usually expect him to acquire a human father, a wife and children and then die of old age like Moses. Moreover. "from among their brothers seems to indicate not an Israelite, but a relative of that nation.
There is another historical figure who fits the role as the prophet promised by Moses better than Jesus. He was not an Israelite, but Jesus said that God's special favours would be taken from Israel and given to a nation which would become fruitful (Matthew 21:43). It was Jacob or Israel the man himself, who prophesied that the kingdom would be the possession of the family of his son Judah until the coming of "the one whose it is" (Genesis 49:10). While Christians see this one as Jesus, look again at these words. When I give a man something and tell him to keep it until the owner comes, do I mean to say that the item belongs to one of his descendents? This would hardly be a natural understanding.
The many Quranic and Biblical references to the last prophet are a new subject, a satisfying discussion that inexorably leads to the Messenger who brought Islam to a nation and through them to all nations (Quran 6:89,90).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE, 1977, The Lockman Foundation La Habra, California.
2. THE MYTH OF GOD INCARNATE; 1978, Edited by John Hick; Westminster.
3. UNIVERSAL JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA; 1948, Universal Jewish Encyclopedia Co. Inc.; New York, N.Y.
4. NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA; 1967, The Catholic University of America; Washington D.C.
5. THE KORAN INTERPRETED; 1964, Arthur J. Arberry; Oxford University Press; Oxford.
Gary Miller (Abdul-Ahad Omar) shows how we can establish true faith by setting standards of truth. He illustrates a simple but effective method of finding out the right direction in our search for truth.
G.R. Miller is a mathematician and a theologian. He was active in Christian missionary work at a particular point of his life but he soon began to discover many inconsistencies in the Bible. In 1978, he happened to read the Qur'an expecting that it, too, would contain a mixture of truth and falsehood.
He discovered to his amazement that the message of the Qur'an was precisely the same as the essence of truth that he had distilled from the Bible. He became a Muslim and since then has been active in giving public presentations on Islam including radio and television appearances. He is also the author of several articles and publications about Islam.
>Missionary strategies
>have included enticement with money,
>women, alcohol and social status.
Where in the world do you get that? If it's true, those missionaries were not acting as Christians -- but I have never even heard this charge before. It strikes me as either absurd, or a gross misunderstanding. What is your source, and what is your personal experience?
LAST EDITED ON 15-10-01 AT 05:49 PM (GMT)[p]>
>Finally, this is not an attack
>on the Bible. It is
>an attack on an unjustified
>attitude held by some concerning
>the Bible. Again, the Muslim
>believes the Bible to contain
>God's words, but he does
>not accept the entire contents
>as such. Deciding which portions
>deserve our acceptance is not
>a matter of convenience. It
>is a matter of consistency.
>Those portions, and only those
>portions, which are self-consistent, compatible
>with reason, and self-proclaimed as
>divinely revealed deserve our consideration.
>
We Christians do not accept the test of internal consistency within a text as the ULTIMATE test of divine authority within a text. Hitler was very internally consistent in Mein Kampf, but nobody thinks his writing divinely inspired. Many things in life that are true are not subject to rational tests or subject to the test of consistency: beauty, faith, love, infinity, hope, and even God!
Indeed, I am emphasizing that the doctrine set forth in the New Testament and Sacred Tradition goes beyond reason. We do not comprehend the Trinity. We apprehend it. It is not irrational, but it IS non-rational. There is no logical fallacy in the belief, but you cannot reason toward it! Rather, the doctrine is REVEALED to you, you ponder it, find no logical fallacies, and freely CHOOSE to accept or reject it. Those who accept it experience it as a life changing personal encounter with God. And once you have that experience, it is impossible to fully reconcile that experience with Mohammed's statements about Jesus.
I believe that I have already demonstrated the internal consistency of my thought and explained our view of the role of reason in the life of faith, and I fail to see how you have refuted that. In other words, I fail to see how you have proven that the Trinitarian doctrine is not found in the New Testament? Nor has it been shown to me how the belief in the Trinity is not monotheistic? Fionally, I fail to understand how you have demonstrated that the Trinitarian doctrine is internally inconsistent with itself using the language we use to describe it?
I am willing to read more extended works by this author -- though I think I get a good sample of his thought above. It seems to me that he is left denying the obvious meaning of most of the New Testament.
You say that is an acceptable position within Islam, and I accept your statement. Left with that choice, my interpretaion of the New Testament is more beautiful and meaningful to me.
Furthermore, I believe I have demonstrated that my interpretation is internally consistent, though it requires rejecting parts of the Qur'an as inerrant, just as Dr. Miller has chosen to reject parts of the Bible as inerrant. I am curious whether Dr. Miller offers any alternative interpretations, rather than simply writing off 3/4's of the New Testament. He doesn't indicate that above, and I doubt very much that he does have alternatives. Can you point me towards a more extended work of his?
[li]The Difference between the Bible and the Qur'an by Dr. Gary Miller:
http://www.thetruereligion.org/biblequran.htm
[li]The Basis of Islamic Belief by Dr. Gary Miller, a former Christian missionary. Written with the Christian reader in mind:
http://www.themodernreligion.com/essays_Gary_Miller.htm
[li]The Amazing Qur'an by Dr. Gary Miller, a former Christian missionary. A fascinating look at some of the miraculous aspects of the Qur'an which prove that it is an authentic revelation from God:
http://www.thetruereligion.org/amazing.htm
Thank you for the quick reply. Actually, I guess I could have just gone to amazon.com -- but it's nice to have a recommendation. Thanks again.
Well...there have been a lot of christian missionaries in africa who did this (a couple of years ago...if Im not wrong). They promised the people to give food in return for converting to christianity.
First, if the promised food only IF the people converted, that is morally wrong, and not what Jesus' taught us to do. But it is believable that some missionaries did that.
Second, keeping food as a condition for conversion, while morally wrong, is not anywhere near as wrong as using alcohol and loose women to entice people to come to church! I find this allegation just impossible to believe without proof. I think you exagerated yourself in your original overstatement. But I'm open to hearing the proof.
LAST EDITED ON 07-11-01 AT 04:35 PM (GMT)[p]Peace!
I went and checked out some of the recommended works by Gary Miller via the web. For someone bearing the title "Doctor", his research is very sloppy and his thinking not very deep. Maybe he is trying to write in such a way as to simplify his ideas. If that's the case, I will need more meat.
I am especially disappointed regarding what he says the Bible says. He seems unaware of the meaning of Greek and Hebrew words, and blind to literary criticism as a technique for determining the meaning of a text. It seems that his arguments are meant to be addressing "Fundametalists" Christians -- and against them, his arguments may have some merit. Even if that's the case, someone like Gleason Archer can answer his questions. His arguments make little to no sense to a Christian open to historical-critical scholarship.
The places where Miller states that Biblical texts are ambiguous are often more clear in the Greek than in English, demolishing his argument that we use ambiguous text to prove our point. This is especially true with the Gospel of John and its use of "monogenesis theos" (only begotten son) and the "ego eimi" saying (I AM), and the same is true with other texts. He also seems unable to break out of his logician-mathematical mind-set to regognize the literary and rhetorical power of Paul's sarcastic remark about the Cretan heretic in Titus chapter 1. Many of the apparent contradictions he points out in the Bible are easily resolved by reading the text in context or finding a commentary that references the original languages if necessary.
I also find a logical fallacy in Miller's arguments regarding the Qur'an's statements that confirm the Bible while rejecting the sonship of Jesus. Miller argues that he is trying to move away from Christians and Muslims simply appealing to their own respective texts for verification. He states bluntly that the Qur'an does affirm the Bible as containing truths revealed directly by God, with human additions. Yet, in the end, there is no means of discerning which parts of the Bible are God's words and which parts human words other than the Qur'an, which puts us back where the argument began -- appealing to our own respective texts. His argument is circular. It surprises me that someone with a PhD or doctorate and a background in mathematics and logic would make such a blundering error in logic.
His arguments about scientific findings in the Qur'an also make little to no sense to me. My background is primarily literature and theology, rather than mathematics. As a literature scholar, my impression is that he is imposing anachronistic interpretations into vague Qur'anic texts. "Anachronism" refers to the habit of a reader to impose modern ideas into ancient texts. We call this "isogesis" as opposed to "exegesis". In laymen's terms, this means he reads "into the text", rather than "out of the text".
He also makes some grave mistakes in his assumptions about psychology and he makes historical assumptions about what Mohammed could have known that are probably not accurate.
For example, Miller seems to think it is impossible for insane people to remember stories that they have read or heard and later claim to be receiving the story from God. I personally know schizophrenics who claim to hear voices telling them things that I saw them read in a book several days before.
In a footnote in my Qur'an, it states that Mohammed knew a monk (Addis) and it seems clear that Mohammed had contact with other Christians and Jews. Thus, it is not far fetched to claim that Mohammed was insane AND got some of his facts right about Biblical stories or common arabic legends at one and the same time.
I am not saying this is what happened, as I haven't researched it enough. I am saying that Miller dismisses this theory solely on the fact that he thinks that insane people can't do this. This is a false assumption.
He also assumes that Mohammed's personality does not appear anywhere in the Qur'an and the Qur'an has no biographical details about Mohammed. This shows little critical reading ability. I have never read any detailed biography of Mohammed in my life and I can tell you from the Qur'an alone that he had at least 9 wives, that two of these wives had a falling out, that he tried desperately to win the approval of Christian leaders in his early career and failed, that he felt deeply betrayed by a follower, that he was angry with Muslims who stayed home from a war, that he fought in a battle against unarmed men that left many followers feeling conflicted, etc....I'd have to look up all the passages where I glean these things, but my point is that the personality of Mohammed shines through the pages and there's plenty of biography for a critical reader. I leave it up to the Muslim with more familiarity with the life of Mohammed to tell me whether my observations from the Qur'an are accurate details of the prophets life.
Science was more advanced in Europe in the seventh century than Miller seems to think, and Europe was behind the Arabs at this time. For example, he makes a big deal out of the Qur'an mentioning something like "atoms", since atoms were "discovered" in the last century. However, European Christians mystics used the word "atom" in the same literary context, and the theory of atoms goes back to the Greeks, if not earlier. I believe that his interpretations of the significance of embryology, geology and so forth are equally based on anachronistic interpretations of literature, or ignorance of the science available in Mohammed's life-time.
Miller ignores passages of the Qur'an that don't support his theory, such as mention of "the seven heavens" that was part and parcel of the world view in Mohammed's day. This is not simply a figure of speach, nor a metaphysical statement about other dimensions. The entire European, North African, and Middle Eastern world in Mohammed's day believed that there were seven circles of the sky around the earth. As far as modern science is concerned, there are not seven heavens!
Another scientific error that Miller makes is to state that science currently universally agrees with the big bang theory. This is not true. There are some scientists that argue for an oscillating universe that expands and collapses through infinite time based on the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Saint Thomas Aquinas explained in his Summa Theologica in the twelfth century (question 44) that there is no logical reason to assume that matter did not always exist. To Saint Thomas, the doctrine of creation "ex nihilo" (from nothing) is a revealed doctrine that cannot be derived from reason. It is accepted on faith. Many people don't understand this, and mis-read Thomas' proofs of God based on causality as an argument from science, which it is not!
The one argument he makes that IS thought provoking is his countings of certain pairs of words (Adam and Jesus, good and evil) in the Qur'an. It doesn't really prove anything, but it does make one wonder how likely that is to occur in other literature......
Another argument that Miller makes that was helpful to my understanding of Islam is the way he experiences the questioning style of the Qur'an. To me, the way the Qur'an asks a question in the style of "They say....say to them..." was insulting. It struch me as sarcastic and simple minded. However, Miller points out that he sees this style as a gentle instructor helping a person reason through an issue. I would not argue against Miller on this point. I will point out that Muslims can help non-Mulsims feel more comfortable with the Qur'an by pointing this out.
However, this issue also lends credibility to a point I make about why I follow the Bible. The Bible is written by a community of people using various styles and literary forms. If one style does not touch me as an individual, another style might.
Which all goes to the reason I remain Christian. Miller argues strongly for the case of consistency as the ultimate test of authenticity. On the surface, there are two problems with this. First, Christians will argue that the Bible is consistent if you tae the time to seek answers with a open mind. Second, non-muslims do find apparent contradictions in the Qur'anic texts, just as Muslims find apparent contradictions in the Bible.
I would argue that consistency is not the ultimate test of authenticity. I would argue that beauty is the ultimate test of authenticity. I believe that reason is simply a function of the imagination. It is a useful function, and we can test a reasonable hypothesis in science through the process of falsification. However, in the world of theology, these tests become meaningless or impossible to perform. If there is a God, and if that God wants to reveal himself to us, there must be a means for us to receive his revelation. I would argue that the means God has given every individual to receive him is our imagination. The truth or falsity of religious claims lies in the beauty of what is imagined!
The "reason" I hold so strongly to Christianity is the beauty of the notion that the infinite and transcendant God loves us enough to become one of us! And from a purely human perspective, what greater hope is there than that a man should rise from the dead! I cannot "imagine" a more perfect image of the divine! The doctrine of the Trinity is simply a verbal articulation of the beauty revealed in the Christ event that resolves any logical contradictions in the theory that God is simultaneously transcendant and intimately close to us at one and the same time.
Thus, if the Muslim wants to know what would convince a Chriatian to embrace Islam, I think the answer lies in articulating how the Qur'an portrays a more beautiful image of God than the Bible. What I am seeking in my effort to "understand" Islam is not a logical argument, but a descritpion of the Allah that you experience that you each experience in the practice of your faith.
I know this is a rather unusual response for Christians. It's much easier to ignore facts and assert that it's completely true blindly. However this view does seem illogical, but if any Christian has a way to support it I'm open. And if I've made any mistakes on the Biblical view, please correct me.
(1) It is not claimed within the Bible itself;
The Bible doesn't say this and for good reason. In the purest form of the phrase, the Bible isn't the Word of God. The Bible is technically a record of the Word of God. The Word of God, as God's message, came both in Jesus, the speech of God, and inspiration. The Bible records these things very accurately and so its roughly called the word of God by Christians.
There is a mistaken comparison by saying the Bible is like the Qur'an, for it is not. The Qur'an was sent directly by God - as was Jesus and the literal words of God in the Bible. The hadith is a record of the word of God - this is what the Bible is.
With that in mind, the Bible does say it is to be accepted fully. Exodus explains how Moses was appointed by God, 1st Samuel says the Spirit of the Lord fell upon David, and the gospels and Acts records the disciples's commission by Jesus. People like David and Paul may not have realized that what they wrote was inspired, so they don't say it. These are all confirmation of authors. Further, Jesus never says that anything in the Old Testament was inaccurate or uninspired. If it was, he certainly would have included it in his teaching.
As for the New Testament, the Old Testament confirms parts of it like the messiah's death and ressurection. The letters have authority because they were written by those sent by Jesus and to whom he promised the Holy Spirit. This is all said in the Bible.
Of course that's assuming the Bible is true, which is another discussion altogether. And I was thinking: if the Bible has been changed, why didn't anyone add a blunt statement that everything in it is from God? It would seem an obvious stradegy. I think the fact that the Bible is so round-about is evidence that the Christians early on were unwilling to alter the texts.
(2) It is an unworthy attitude;
Miller says the Church is wrong in saying "The Bible is the perfect word of God" which I think is open to opinion. In my opinion no one and nothing is perfect but God alone. Jesus is the perfect Word of God. The other opinion is that it's perfect in that God accomplishes what he wants through it.
I'm not sure what he means further on. The original mss are inerrant, there are some errors in present day mss, but only proper names of people and places and numbers. Numbers and names are the easiest to confuse because changing one digit or letter makes it a mistake that cannot be corrected, unlike mispelling a word which the next scribe could realize and correct. Looking at lists of differences between numbers, it's often (but not always) seen that the difference is by one digit. Everything else are only apparent contradictions due to misunderstandings.
(3) It is not self-consistent;
Miller brings up the contradictions in numbers, which I explained above.
His quote that the Word of God stands forever is misinterpreted. The "Word of God" refered to isn't specified in the context as the Bible. There are verses in the Qur'an that say the Word of God cannot be changed, yet no Muslims see this as proof the Bible wasn't changed.
(4) It is logically impossible.
Miller brings up a reference where Paul states an opinion that Paul says is not from God. The meaning is the opposite of what Miller suggests. In saying one part of his message is not from God, he implies that everything else he writes IS from God. In this case what Paul says is advice, not a hard-fast rule.
In Titus, Paul is using this quote to show the sinfulness of Cretans. Paul is not writing to in order to discuss paradox, he's only describing the people of Crete. He says it's true that all Cretans are liars, not that this prophet is correct. (Note that he says, "This testimony is true." Not "This prophet is true.")
There are an endless amount of apparent contradictions in the Bible, and in studying them, I've never found a single one that could not be explained. Of course any reader is welcome to challenge this, but this is my experience.
Total Acceptance
In summary, not every letter of the modern Bible should be believed, because yes it does contradict itself in numbers. However, it should be taken as a valid historical document and accurate in that respect. That is, as accurate as any other 3000 year old history. Note that the Bible does not mention the authors of these portions to have been used by the Holy Spirit.
However, the parts that are not intended for historical purposes, that is everything Christians and Jews use it for, should be believed for several reasons: there is no reason not to; there are no VALID contradictions; no change in the meaning of the text has ever been found; it is historical, and if the events described happened, David, Moses, the disciples, etc., are speaking nspired by God.
JBJ
LAST EDITED ON 29-11-01 AT 03:28 PM (GMT)[p]JBJ -- Your view of revelation is correct from a Roman Catholic perspective, as well as from other Christian perspectives. You're not as "unusual" as you might think.
Roman Catholics also say that Christ IS the infallible Word of God, and that the Bible is a written record inspired by the Word of God. The Bible is inerrant in faith and morals. As you write above, we do not believe that all the authors of Scripture were consciously aware that their words were written under inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Inspiration is something that the community faith discovers and affirms.
Roman Catholics do not believe that the Bible is infallible in regards to the use of numbers, science, etc...We do NOT assert that there ARE scientific or historical errors in the original manuscripts either. We simply say that IF there are scientific or historical errors, it does not undermine Roman Catholic faith. Thus, most Catholics accept the possibility of a process like evolution in creation, without denying the infallible moral meaning of the Genesis account. It is important to note that Saint Augustine realized this point about the Genesis accounts more than a millenium before Darwin. He made these observations based on internal Biblical evidence.
As far as determining the meaning of the text, Catholics believe that the intent of the original human author is the primary meaning, though other meanings (i.e. -- the intent of the reader) CAN be valid as well. God is infinite, and words inspired by her can be layered with multiple meanings. Though the original texts contain the primary message intended by God, Catholics hold that the Latin Vulgate was proven by Church usage to be an authentic translation to be held in high regard for use in determining doctrine.
Catholics also accept the Greek Septuagint as an authentic translation because it was quoted in the New Testament and used widely by the early Church in liturgy. Thus, we have seven additional books not found in the Protestant Bible, which was based on the Palestinian Canon established by Jews at Jamnia in the early second century.
The Church, through the the Councils and Pope reserves the authority to confirm or reject an interpretation as contrary to apostolic faith. No other Christian group fully accepts this Catholic assertion.
Catholics base this assertion on the historic fact that Peter exercised a leadership role among the twelve, he was martyred in Rome, and the early Church accepted the bishop of Rome as his successor and first among equals. Furthermore, Christ promised to be with the Church throughout all time. Thus, Catholics believe that the Pope and Councils are protected from error in interpreting Scripture (this is what Papal and Counciliar "infallibility refers to).
As the Pope and Councils have clarified old Biblical questions in sharper terms, there has been a consistent development of doctrine called Sacred Tradition. This Sacred Tradition refers both to oral traditions found among the early Church fathers, and to the development of doctrine as points were clarified in sharper detail through the historical dialogue of the Church with Scripture. Catholics accept Sacred Tradition as a source of divine revelation.
Catholics also agree with you that from a purely secular point of view, the Bible is an important historical document. In the New Testament, we have the absolute earliest verifiable written records of Christian belief and practice. Catholics are open to using contemporary sciences in studying the Bible for all it's worth.
What about other Christian perspectives?
Protestants universally hold to a position of "sola scriptura" (the Bible alone) as the rule of faith. Thus, they reject Papal or Counciliar authority to interpret Scripture. For Protestants, the Bible is the final court of arbitration in determining the truth of a doctrine. The Bible is used to interpret itself, with clear passages used to interpret the more ambiguous passages.
Evangelical Protestants also believe that Christ is the Word of God, and the words of the Bible reveal Christ. They maintain that the original manuscripts (the autographa) are infallible when understood and read as intended by the author. Evangelicals place more emphasis on God as the author of Scripture, though they admit that the human authors used common idioms and cultural expressions of their day, and there is admission that not every author was aware of divine inspiration at every moment.
Where there are variant readings, Evangelical Protestants maintain that only the original is infallible. Translations (i.e. -- even the best English translation) are not infallible. Thus, while Evangelicals accept the Latin Vulgate as an important historical manuscript, it is not considered infallible, since it is a translation.
The Evangelical Protestant holds that there are no more variants in the Bible than there are in the Qur'an (which is probably true from a textual critical perspective).
Furthermore, Evangelical Protestants also point out that where there are variants (punctuation, numbers, etc...) there has never been an issue of doctrine that can be challenged by the variant reading. Thus, while we do not have the autographa for many Biblical texts, we have wide enough manuscript evidence to prove that the autographa has not been altered on any major point of doctrine. Evangelicals tend to be more conservative in their use of contemporary sciences to study Scripture.
Using their conservative techniques for interpreting Scripture, Evangelicals maintain that the Bible can be proven to be inspired by manuscript evidence, archeology, fullfilment of prophecy, signs of statistical probability, internal consistency, etc...Evangelicals also maintain that the canon was determined, not by the authority of the Church, but through prophecy, perspecuity, and other such principles.
Mainline Protestants tend to take a position slightly more skeptical than Evangelicals, but there are common lines of thought. Basically, mainline Protestants are more open to contemporary sciences, including the historical-critical method, to determine the original meaning of Biblical texts. There is more room for ambiguity and "liberalism" in mainline Protestantism.
Eastern Orthodox have a view more akin to Catholicism. However, the Orthodox hold that the Pope had overstepped his authority when he added the words "filio que" to the Nicean creed without calling a Council. Furthermore, the Orthodox hold that Ecumenical Councils always involved the emporer. Thus, while the Orthodox accept much of the Catholic tradition prior to 1064 AD, they believe that further develpment of doctrine was placed on hold after the great schism. The term "schism" acknowledges that neither branch of Christianity considers the other "heretical". However, the fullness of unity intended by Christ is not realized in day to day life and Church structure.
In recent years, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox leaders have made numerous statements together that indicating that the schism may be coming to an end in the next century or so. There is more resistence to unity among conservative Orthodox than among Catholic leaders. There are also important cultural differences that continue to hinder full unity.
There have also been movements over the last 40 years between Protestants and Roman Catholics that acknowledge points of unity. Both agree on the Trinity and the tenants outlined in the first five Councils. Both reject "works righteousness".
However, on the issue of the salvation process, Catholics maintain that we are saved by grace alone, which produces faith infused with works, and those works are meritorious for righteousness. To a Catholic, justification is "intrinsic" -- a real change that happens within the believer. This doctrine also leads to such notions as seeking the prayers of saints, the necessity of works with faith, sacraments, and the idea of purgatory. These notions are implied, but not explicit in Scripture. Some of the passages Catholics use to show this implication are ambiguous enough that Protestants cannot universally accept the Catholic position as the original intent of the authors.
Protestants maintain that we are saved by faith alone -- by trusting the one who declared you just to bring the work of salvation to completion without any effort of your own. While faith produces works, those works have no merit of their own and are not necessary to be saved. Justification is not "intrinsic", but "imputed". A foreign righteousness is credited to your account (you are covered in Christ's blood). Salvation happens when you place your total trust in Christ to save you.
However, Catholics also believe that you trust Christ alone to save you, though they emphasise that works arise from this and are necessary, which is the part Protestants don't like -- this can get complicated and heated, and there is no point in belaboring the point on a Muslim web site.
From a non-Christian point of view, the debate between Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants is really an in-house debate. Many leaders in all three branches of Christianity are realizing this, and focusing on points of commonality rather than division. For example, many Protestants acknowledge that Catholics do have a strong case in history for the early and wide-spread development of some of their doctrines. Catholics refer to the other branches as our "separated brethren", meaning that we acknowledge the work of Christ and saving grace in other churches, while simultaneously acknowledging that there is a painful division between us.
Soooooo, bottom line JBJ, is that your view of revelation is pretty much in line with most Christian views. Christ, or God alone is perfect, and the Bible as we have it today is a window to view the true infallible Word that inspired the text. But the texts we have today can possibly have minor copy errors, and non-doctrinal inaccuracies, etc....
Wow, thanks so much for all the info. I haven't studied the branches much at all, so most of what you said was new to me. I was very impressed that the Catholic Church has taken such an intelligent stand on the issue of Biblical accuracy.
I had meant to say something a long time ago. Thanks for all your work on this forum, you do very well in explaining the trinity, Biblical difficulties, and the like. I'm glad you're here to do it because I wouldn't have the time to respond to everything as you have.
I'm still a bit confused on the difference between the Catholic and Protestant veiws on salvation and works. What does it mean that Catholics hold works as "meritorious for righteousness"? What is the difference between this and salvation by works. However, I agree that this discussion isn't best on an Islamic site. Would you be so kind as to email me? HamasheachYeshua@hotmail.com Thanks.
JBJ
seekeroftruth
20-12-2001, 02:01
If i may add some comments on that...
Brother Asif, mashallah a good response to a very 'ill' tempered post (not to insult anyone).
Some links i wanted to share!!!
Comparative Religions
>> http://www.islaminfo.com/article.asp?level=1
>> http://members.home.net/islam/comparative.htm
Answering the Missionaries
>> http://www.muslim-answers.org/am-toc.htm
Who's Afraid Of Textual Criticism?
>about the Variant Readings In The Qur'an & In The Bible
>> http://www.muslim-answers.org/textcriticism.htm
There are internal contradictions in the Qur'an!
>> http://www.islamic.org.uk/internalc.html
There are grammar mistakes in the Qur'an!
>> http://www.islamic.org.uk/grammar.html
read the articles, muslims and non muslims!.
i hope i have helped everyone, if i have made a mistake, please do correct me.
SadiQ!
LAST EDITED ON 21-12-01 AT 04:00 PM (GMT)[p]Greetings Asif!
>
>" The places where Miller states
>that Biblical texts are ambiguous
>are often more clear in
>the Greek than in English,
>demolishing his argument that we
>use ambiguous text to prove
>our point. This is especially
>true with the Gospel of
>John and its use of
>"monogenesis theos" (only begotten son)
>and the "ego eimi" saying
>(I AM), and the same
>is true with other texts.
>He also seems unable to
>break out of his logician-mathematical
>mind-set to regognize the literary
>and rhetorical power of Paul's
>sarcastic remark about the Cretan
>heretic in Titus chapter 1.
>Many of the apparent contradictions
>he points out in the
>Bible are easily resolved by
>reading the text in context
>or finding a commentary that
>references the original languages if
>necessary. "
>
>I do think i posted a
>reply to this "Ego Eimi"
>point which you have raised.
>
You reply by repeating Dr. Miller's argument based on the Septuagint reading of Exodus 3:14 as "ho on". On a new thread, you also state that Deedat holds this view. I already addressed this issue above, and you have not responded to my reponse. But in case you did not feel the above response is clear enough, I re-worded the argument here:
http://www.aliasoft.com/htdocs/DCForumID4/98.html#3
>
>" I also find a logical
>fallacy in Miller's arguments regarding
>the Qur'an's statements that confirm
>the Bible while rejecting the
>sonship of Jesus. Miller argues
>that he is trying to
>move away from Christians and
>Muslims simply appealing to their
>own respective texts for verification.
>He states bluntly that the
>Qur'an does affirm the Bible
>as containing truths revealed directly
>by God, with human additions.
>Yet, in the end, there
>is no means of discerning
>which parts of the Bible
>are God's words and which
>parts human words other than
>the Qur'an, which puts us
>back where the argument began
>-- appealing to our own
>respective texts. His argument is
>circular. It surprises me that
>someone with a PhD or
>doctorate and a background in
>mathematics and logic would make
>such a blundering error in
>logic. "
>
>I have not read Dr. Miller's
>article(s). But i do know
>it is possible to point
>out fallacies and mistakes in
>Christian theories, opinions and ideas
>about Jesus. Example, we can
>use the Bible itself to
>do this, which is what
>Muslim scholars do, and which
>is what Muslims in general
>do.
>
In my critique of Doctor Miller, I am pointing out that he contradicted himself! To respond that you think Christians contradict themselves evades the point.
What Miller started out saying is this: "So the difference in Christianity and Islam comes down to a difference of authority and appeal to authority. The Christian wants to appeal to the Bible and the Muslim wants to appeal to the Qur'an. You can not stop by saying: This is true because me book say it is, and somebody else would say something else is true because my book says differently, you can not stop at that point, and the Qur'an does not."
It seems obvious to me in this passage that Miller is trying to say that the Qur'an allows for logical argumentation without simply "proof-texting" from each others sacred texts.
>" I have never read any
>detailed biography of Mohammed in
>my life and I can
>tell you from the Qur'an
>alone that he had at
>least 9 wives, that two
>of these wives had a
>falling out, that he tried
>desperately to win the approval
>of Christian leaders in his
>early career and failed, that
>he felt deeply betrayed by
>a follower, that he was
>angry with Muslims who stayed
>home from a war, that
>he fought in a battle
>against unarmed men that left
>many followers feeling conflicted, etc....I'd
>have to look up all
>the passages where I glean
>these things, but my point
>is that the personality of
>Mohammed shines through the pages
>and there's plenty of biography
>for a critical reader."
>
>I would appreciate it if you
>point out those verses to
>me.
>
If you want the verses, can we carry this particular discussion on another thread? I asserted five points about Mohammed's life that I claim are in the Qur'an. In doing this, I am disagreeing with Miller's assertion on the following link under the heading "Prophet Mohammed (s) and the Qur'an". In those statements, Miller seems to be clearly stating that biographical detail about the prophet is not available in the Qur'an. Here is the link:
http://www.thetruereligion.org/amazing.htm#testimo
Now, if you really want me to, I can site the verses that I think reveal biographical detail verbatim. I asserted 5 details above without knowing whether they are true or not. If you agree they are true, then Miller is wrong about the Qur'an having no biographical detail. Siting the verses would be time consuming, and I would prefer not to do it. So I will briefly sketch it out below. If you want more detail, we can this to another thread.
On one of the biographical items I see, the one about an attack on unarmed men, I will need to break apart almost all of Sura 8, but I believe that verse 6 makes the point. Again, we carry this on further on another thread if necessary.
Sura 66 seems to indicate the conflict between two wives, especially in verses 3 and 4, but agian, I would carry this on another thread if you do not see my point.
Information about Mohammed having a large number of wives comes from Sura 33. As I went back and re-read, I realize that the exact number of 9 wives may have been gleaned from a short footnote by Dawood. However, I believe that several passages in the Sura make it clear that Mohammed had more wives than he advised his followers. Thus, there is a revelation of biographical detail, where Dr. Miller asserted that no biographical information is in the text.
On another point, that Mohammed sought Christian approval, I will need to quote several verses that are scattered throughout the text. In other words, this will take time, and really should go on a spearate thread if necessary. But you seem to agree with this in what you wrote in response below, so I hope this is not necessary.
Also, I openly admit that I have never read a biography of Mohammed, and have seen only a handfull of hadith passages, so you may very easily be able to prove me wrong on any biographical detail by siting extra-Qur'anic sources.
However, if you already think the five points I make are true, then I have made my point that these facts can be gained from the Qur'an by someone ignorant of Mohammed's life. I am hoping that we really do not need to carry this discussion on further on separate threads -- but if you insist, I will oblige.
In other words, I do not want to argue about whether these things ARE true. Rather, I am stating that IF Muslims believe these things are true, then realize that I gained this knowledge of these things from the Qur'an where Miller had said there was no biographical information about Mohammed in the Qur'an.
>" that he tried desperately to
>win the approval of Christian
>leaders in his early career
>and failed "
>
>I'd just like to point out
>one fact to you.
>
>In the year 9 of Hijrah
>he received a delegation of
>sixty Christians from Najran in
>his Masjid. The Prophet -peace
>be upon him- invited them
>to Islam. They argued with
>the Prophet defending some of
>their Christian beliefs. The Prophet
>patiently listened to them, recited
>to them verses from the
>Qur'an and gave them his
>answers. When they refused to
>participate in the mubhalah, then
>he returned them with kindness
>to their land. They were
>not compelled to accept Islam
>and until the time of
>the Khalifah 'Umar (R) most
>of them remained in Najran
>as members of their Christian
>community. Thereafter they and their
>children accepted Islam by their
>own free will. (See Ibn
>Kathir, Tafsir, vol. 1, p.
>368).
>
>I just wanted everyone to know
>that, in the end, the
>Christians of Najran accepted Islam.
>So, i would not term
>this as a failure, as
>you have put it.
>
Perhaps -- but you seem to be making my point rather than disputing it. According to your own account, Mohammed sought the approval of Christians. They denied it at first, and later accepted it. Well, what I said is that I could sense that he was seeking Christian approval and felt rejected by Christians, which is exactly what you describe as true at a point in Mohammed's life. Miller asserted there are no biographical details in the Qur'an. You have proved that this biographical detail is true in some history or hadith you have read. I gained this knowledge not from a history book, biography, or hadith. I gained this knowledge directly from reading the Qur'an!
>" I leave it up to
>the Muslim with more familiarity
>with the life of Mohammed
>to tell me whether my
>observations from the Qur'an are
>accurate details of the prophets
>life. "
>
>Which is why i am asking
>you to point out those
>verses in the Qur'an.
>
Like I say, I will be happy to post the verses on a separate thread if you really feel this is worth pursuing.
>" Science was more advanced in
>Europe in the seventh century
>than Miller seems to think,
>and Europe was behind the
>Arabs at this time. For
>example, he makes a big
>deal out of the Qur'an
>mentioning something like "atoms", since
>atoms were "discovered" in the
>last century. However, European Christians
>mystics used the word "atom"
>in the same literary context,
>and the theory of atoms
>goes back to the Greeks,
>if not earlier. I believe
>that his interpretations of the
>significance of embryology, geology and
>so forth are equally based
>on anachronistic interpretations of literature,
>or ignorance of the science
>available in Mohammed's life-time. "
>
>
>I did feel like laughing when
>i read these statements of
>yours. I was wondering if
>you even read the article(s)
>by Dr. gary Miller before
>attempting to refute what he
>said. Here is what he
>says:
>
>The Smallest Thing
>
>Many centuries before the onset of
>Muhammad's prophethood, there was a
>well-known theory of atomism advanced
>by the Greek philosopher, Democritus.
>He and the people who
>came after him assumed that
>matter consists of tiny, indestructible,
>indivisible particles called atoms. The
>Arabs too, used to deal
>in the same concept; in
>fact, the Arabic word dharrah
>commonly referred to the smallest
>particle known to man. Now,
>modern science has discovered that
>this smallest unit of matter
>(i.e., the atom, which has
>all of the same properties
>as its element) can be
>split into its component parts.
>This is a new idea,
>a development of the last
>century; yet; interestingly enough, this
>information had already been documented
>in the Qur'an (Surah Saba',
>34:3) which states:
>
You are referring exactly to the passage of Miller's that I was refering to. You are focusing on the first part of the paragraph, where Miller states that Demicritus proposed a theory of atoms, and that this concept passed on to Arabs. I agree that this opening would seem to indicate I misinterpreted Dr. Miller. However, before I posted my argument, I read that paragraph three times. If I misinterpreted him, he is not a very clear writer.
You see, I am focusing on the last part of the paragraph where he states that the notion of atoms was a development within the last century. He then goes on to assert that the fact that the Qur'an used this idea seems to prove the Qur'an is true. I am paraphrasing since you already quoted him verbatim -- but don't you agree his last couple of sentences mean that? You statements below seem to indicate that you interpret Miller this way too.
In other words, it seems clear to me that while Miller is acknowledging that Democritus preceeded Mohammed, he seems to think it miraculaous that this idea would find itself into the Qur'an where later science could vindicate the idea. Though he does not explicitly state it, he seems to imply that Democritus theory was lost, and the Qur'an is unique in spiritual literature for using the notion of atoms.
What I am saying in response is we find the concept of atoms in literally dozens of pieces of literature from the same time period in question. Thus, the entire paragraph Miller wrote is not nearly as significant as he makes out!
>"He [i.e., Allah] is aware of
>an atom's weight in the
>heavens and on the earth
>and even anything smaller than
>that..."
>
>Undoubtedly, fourteen centuries ago that statement
>would have looked unusual, even
>to an Arab. For him,
>the dharrah was the smallest
>thing there was. Indeed, this
>is proof, that the Qur'an
>is not outdated. "
>
I absolutely disagree with the opening of your paragraph. Many philosophers, theologians, and religious writers used the word from which "atom" is derived before atomic theory in the last century. For example, I was shocked when I first saw the term in "The Book of Privy Counsel" written in the fifteenth century. This work borrowed extensively from Psuedo-Dionysius, written in the fifth century. In other words, the notion of atoms was quite common, and probably would not have looked the least bit unusual to seventh century readers. If it was considered odd or unusual, I'd be interested in how the early commentaters tried to explain it.
>He is talking about things/particles smaller
>than atoms, not atoms themselves.
>He has also clearly mentioned
>that yes people were well
>aware that atoms existed. However,
>he is not talking about
>that, he is talking about
>things/particles smaller than atoms. Eg:
>Protons, electrons, etc.
>
I do not agree that the text was meant to speak about protons per say. It IS meant to speak about the smallest particle imaginable. This is the sense it used in other literature of the time period. In that sense, WE call these quarks and so forth. However, in the seventh century, they simply meant the smallest thing imaginable, even smaller than can be seen with the naked eye. I do not think that seventh century people thought of atoms as being made up of even smaller particles with electric charges.
>
>"I believe that his interpretations of
>the significance of embryology, geology
>and so forth are equally
>based on anachronistic interpretations of
>literature, or ignorance of the
>science available in Mohammed's life-time.
>"
>
>Looks like you're wrong. :)
>
I do not see how I am wrong at all. Indeed, I think you are guilty of the same thing Hassanalmuslim was guilty of in his post on creation in six days. By the way, though Dr. Qaisir never said that he agrees with my interpretation of those verses, he admitted that Hassanalmuslim may have read into the text. At any rate, it seems to me that you are not familiar enough with seventh century texts to realize that the Qur'an's statements about embryology are no more advanced than Galen, who wrote in the second century. On the passages Miller sites about geology, my response to Hassanalmuslim will suffice. Here is that response:
http://www.aliasoft.com/htdocs/DCForumID4/96.html#1
And I responded further here:
http://www.aliasoft.com/htdocs/DCForumID4/93.html#12
>" Another scientific error that Miller
>makes is to state that
>science currently universally agrees with
>the big bang theory."
>
>First of all, what made you
>assume this?
This is what Miller said that made me think this:
"Coincidentally, the universally accepted theory of 'the origin of the universe' is now the BIG BANG THEORY. It maintains that at one time ALL OF HEAVENS AND THE EARTH were one piece, the 'monoblock' as it is called. At a particular point in time, this 'monoblock' burst and it continues to expand. This is the origin of the universe we have today."
And this statement was made on the following link provided by you:
http://www.themodernreligion.com/essays_Gary_Miller.htm#bigbang
>
>Mr Miller clearly states in his
>article : " The
>Qur'an reveals the origin of
>the universe - how it
>began from one piece -
>and mankind continues to verify
>this revelation, even up to
>now. "
>
>He accepts the fact that mankind
>continues to verify this. So
>what made you assume he
>said it is universally accepted?
>
His very first sentence states "Coincidentally, the universally accepted theory of 'the origin of the universe' is now the BIG BANG THEORY." How can I not believe that is what he said?????
>
>But one interesting point i'd like
>to state. Nowadays, when students
>in O levels and A
>levels study Cosmology, they are
>only made to study the
>Big Bang Theory, and not
>other theories. When you watch
>programmes on television related to
>cosmology, they talk about the
>Big Bang and other theories,
>but in the end, they
>always state that the Big
>Bang theory is correct and
>to be accepted. Also, to
>my understanding, the Church accepted
>the Big Bang Theory in
>1951 as correct, and the
>Pope even gave Stephen Hawking
>some reward for his thesis
>(pardon me for any spelling
>mistakes) on the Big Bang.
>
The Church (if you mean Catholic Church) does not accept or reject the big bang theory. Rather, the Church clarified in the 1940's, 50's and 60's that the Bible does not need to be taken as a scientific texbook, and that the infallibility of Scripture does not mean that there cannot theoretically be scientific errors in the human expression of theological concepts.
Infallibility only applies to faith, morals and theology. Perhaps the Bible is also accurate about science, but if it is, this is not what is meant by infallibility! In other words, the Church is saying that if you want to learn science, go to university and study cosmology. If you want to learn morality, theology, spirituality and the menaing of life, don't go to cosmology class. Go to the Bible! If the two are consistent on every point, great. However, if they disagree, don't worry about it. The job of science is to tell us HOW the world works. The job of religion is to tell us the WHY of life.
>As for the other theories, the
>majority of the scientific community
>does not accept these theories
>because there is not much
>evidence (if any) to support
>those theories. Whereas, there is
>plenty of evidence to support
>the Big Bang Theory. That
>is why, the majority of
>the scientific community do accept
>the Big Bang Theory.
>
I am not a scientist, and I really don't want to argue about big bang. However, I do know that many scientist are rejecting the big bang theory. The latest theories postulate an oscillating universe, that expands and collapses eternally -- not one big bang! Other theories exists as well. The reason people are researching new theories is precisely that there are some inconsistencies between big bang and observable phenomenom.
>" To me, the way the
>Qur'an asks a question in
>the style of "They say....say
>to them..." was insulting. It
>struch me as sarcastic and
>simple minded. "
>
>I shall not stoop to your
>level of lowness. I shall
>not even respond to such
>outrageous comments. I would only
>hope these comments are brought
>to the notice of the
>Administration.
>
Wait a minute. You really quoted me out of context there. I was not trying to be low. In fact, on that particular passage of mine, I was complimenting Dr. Miller for clarifying something I did not understand about the literary style of the Qur'an. In no way was my original message meant to insult anyone.
Rather, I was describing how the language can strike an American ear from a stylistic perspective, and then stating that Dr. Miller pointed out how these sections of the Qur'an can be read in a beautiful way. In other words, I am trying to tell Muslims to please point this out to every American reading the Qur'an in English, because this type phraseology will strike many Americans (not all -- but many) as sarcastic. Here in America, we often speak to people in that questioning style when we think they are being foolish.
>" Which all goes to the
>reason I remain Christian. "
>
>
>Allah guides whom He wills.
>
>" I would argue that
>beauty is the ultimate test
>of authenticity. "
>
>" The Quran is one of
>the world's classics which cannot
>be translated without grave loss.
>It has a rhythm of
>peculiar beauty and a cadence
>that charms the ear. Many
>Christian Arabs speak of its
>style with warm admiration, and
>most Arabists acknowledge its excellence.
>When it is read aloud
>or recited it has an
>almost hypnotic effect that makes
>the listener indifferent to its
>sometimes strange syntax and its
>sometimes, to us, repellent content.
>It is this quality it
>possesses of silencing criticism by
>the sweet music of its
>language that has given birth
>to the dogma of its
>inimitability; indeed it may be
>affirmed that within the literature
>of the Arabs, wide and
>fecund as it is both
>in poetry and in elevated
>prose, there is nothing to
>compare with it." (Alfred Guillaume,
>Islam, 1990 (Reprinted), Penguin Books,
>pp. 73-74.)
>
You may be right. I cannot read Arabic. So, what I am saying is that instead of trying to argue about consistency all the time with Christians, your time and effort would be better spent talking about why a passage is beautiful -- breaking it down from a literary perspective -- explaining to other cultures where they may misread a text because it's hard to translate the Arabic poetry. This would all be 1000 times more convincing to me than this constant argument about internal consistency, textual purity, and consistency with science.
>" That the best of Arab
>writers has never succeeded in
>producing anything equal in merit
>to the Qur'ân itself is
>not surprising. In the first
>place, they have agreed before-hand
>that it is unapproachable, and
>they have adopted its style
>as the perfect standard; any
>deviation from it therefore must
>of necessity be a defect.
>Again, with them this style
>is not spontaneous as with
>Muhammad and his contemporaries, but
>is as artificial as though
>Englishmen should still continue to
>follow Chaucer as their model,
>in spite of the changes
>which their language has undergone.
>With the Prophet, the style
>was natural, and the words
>were those in every-day ordinary
>life, while with the later
>Arabic authors the style is
>imitative and the ancient words
>are introduced as a literary
>embellishment. The natural consequence is
>that their attempts look laboured
>and unreal by the side
>of his impromptu and forcible
>eloquence. " ( E H
>Palmer (Tr.), The Qur'ân, 1900,
>Part I, Oxford at Clarendon
>Press, p. lv.)
>
I am not sure what your point is in this quote.
>" ...the Meccans still demanded of
>him a miracle, and with
>remarkable boldness and self confidence
>Mohammad appealed as a supreme
>confirmation of his mission to
>the Koran itself. Like all
>Arabs they were the connoisseurs
>of language and rhetoric. Well,
>then if the Koran were
>his own composition other men
>could rival it. Let them
>produce ten verses like it.
>If they could not (and
>it is obvious that they
>could not), then let them
>accept the Koran as an
>outstanding evident miracle. " (H
>A R Gibb, Islam -
>A Historical Survey, 1980, Oxford
>University Press, p. 28.)
>
>"In contrast to the stylistic perfection
>of the Kur'an with the
>stylistic imperfections of the older
>Scriptures the Muslim theologian found
>himself unknowingly and on purely
>postulative grounds in agreement with
>long line of Christian thinkers
>whose outlook on the Biblical
>text is best summed up
>in Nietzsche's brash dictum that
>the Holy Ghost wrote bad
>Greek." (B Lewis, V L
>Menage, Ch. Pellat & J
>Schacht (Editors), Encyclopedia Of Islam
>(New Edition), 1971, Volume III,
>E J Brill (Leiden) &
>Luzac & Co. (London), p.
>1020 )
>
Actually -- it is quite true that the gospel of Mark is written in poor Greek, and Matthew's, while good, is not excellent. Paul makes some very good play on words and finely nuanced arguments in Greek, but he is difficult to understand sometimes. John is eloquent, and Luke is definitely an educated native Greek speaker. So, yes, there are differences in style in the New Testament, and some of the Greek in the New Testament can be classified as "bad". To me, that's what is fascinating about the Bible. It attracts people not solely by it's literary power, but by the beauty of its message.
>As for the topic of "Qur'an
>and Science", perhaps this article
>may prove useful to you.
>
>
>http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Science/scientists.html
>
>Also see, http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Science/
>
>" Thus, if the Muslim wants
>to know what would convince
>a Chriatian to embrace Islam,
>I think the answer lies
>in articulating how the Qur'an
>portrays a more beautiful image
>of God than the Bible.
>"
>
>Allah guides whom He wills. Islam
>is the fastest growing religion
>on earth, Alhamdulilah. And, many,
>many, Christians accepted Islam in
>the past, and continue to
>do so even now, Alhamdulilah.
>Even on Aliasoft, we have
>many such people, who used
>to be Christians, but accepted
>Islam. Examples include sisters Lulua
>and Nzingha. From the brothers
>we have brother Hassanalmuslim, Alhamdulilah.
>
I am only suggesting that you could expand the tools in your tool-kit for propogating your faith. Instead of always arguing about consistency, textual purity, and science, you should spend equal time discussing what is beautiful in Islam, and what it means to you personally to be a Muslim.
>
>May Allah forgive me for the
>mistakes and sins i have
>committied, both major and minor,
>whether done knowingly or unknowingly,
>Ameen.
>
>Bye,
>Asif.
Peace and Blessings!
jcecil3
LAST EDITED ON 21-12-01 AT 03:04 PM (GMT)[p]Regarding the issue raised about footnotes in my copy of the Qur'an, I was reading N.J. Dawood's translation published by Penguin Classics. Where I gained information that is not clear in the text, but clarified in a footnote, I tried to say so. I have since purchased M.H. Shakir's version published by Tahrike Tarsile Qur'an, Inc. I did this after I realized that some of the places where Dawood translates that Allah is confirming older SCRIPTURE, Shakir, Pickthall, and Yusafali indicate simply that Allah is confirming other TRUTH. The footnotes in Dawood are minimal, but you can check for yourself if you think I was misled by his notes.
>" Miller ignores passages of the
>Qur'an that don't support his
>theory, such as mention of
>"the seven heavens" that was
>part and parcel of the
>world view in Mohammed's day.
>This is not simply a
>figure of speach, nor a
>metaphysical statement about other dimensions.
>The entire European, North African,
>and Middle Eastern world in
>Mohammed's day believed that there
>were seven circles of the
>sky around the earth. As
>far as modern science is
>concerned, there are not seven
>heavens! "
>
>Brother Jalaal did post a reply
>to this point of yours:
>
>http://www.aliasoft.com/htdocs/DCForumID4/88.html#5
The Book of Enoch most of which was written 200-50 years before Christ, and 800-650 years before Mohammed, tells the story of Enoch's travels in the seven heavens (especially book 2). The first Book of Enoch (verse 9) is quoted in the New Testament in letter of Jude, though none of the books of Enoch are considered part of the Old Testament. Later manuscripts change it to 10 heavens. Jewish Kabbalists sources also believed in the seven heavens.
Medieval Europe believed variously in 3,7, and 9 heavens. Ancient Jews at the time of the Babylonian captivity believed in 3 heavens. My point is simply that the notion of seven heavens pre-dates the Qur'an, and is not unique to the Qur'an. It is entirely consistent with a world view that saw the earth as flat, but bulged in the middle, set on columns going into a great abyss.
A great resource for ancient world views is "The Other Bible: Ancient Alternative Scriptures" Edited by Willis Barnstone, published by Harper Collins in 1984.
It contains fresh translations of the gnostic gospels, dead sea scrolls, Christian apocryphal literature, Jewish pseudigrapa, Kabbalah, and other ancient visionary wisdom texts. I do not believe any of this stuff is inspired in the same sense as the Bible.
However, I get the feeling that when I make assertions that the "seven heavens" or the use of "atoms" and so forth has an historic context and is not unique to the Qur'an, you don't believe me. A single web site cannot give you all the great and differing views of the world that were available before and during Mohammed's lifetime.
If you want to learn to read texts in their historical context, a good way to start is by reading ancient texts and comparing them as language and images develop and evolve over time. This book (736 pages excluding index) can help you start to do that when read with the Bible and the Qur'an. I also recommend reading Plato and Aristotle to round out the religious with some of the predominate secular philosophy.
Peace and Blessings!
jcecil3
LAST EDITED ON 22-12-01 AT 00:38 AM (GMT)[p]Greetings again Asif!
Does Miller literally say "There are no biographical details in the Qur'an" in the paragraphs you quoted? No.
However, he is stating that one way you determine how a work was composed is to look for the biography of an author between the lines. This is true from a literary perspective.
Then he selects what he thinks are the significant biographical facts we would expect about Mohammed, such as his marriage to Khadijah. Then, since Miller can't find these things, he asserts that the origin of the Qur'an must be divine.
Is this a more accurate account of what Miller is saying in your mind?
Well, if you agree that this is closer to what Miller means, I am stating that you cannot approach a text ahead of time deciding what biographical details should be there. For example, we have almost no biographical accounts of the author of Mark's gospel. Other than some legends that he was Peter's secratary and that he might be the man who ran naked from the garden at Jesus' arrest, we know nothing.
However, when we look at the texts, we can derive a lot of knowledge about this man. For example, his Greek is "bad". He inserts Aramaic words in the text, and he knows Palestinian customs inside and out. Thus, we have a first century Palestinian Jew writing this gospel. It cannot be written by a Spaniard or a Gaul. This is biographical detail gleaned from a text that the author may not have necessarily wished to reveal.
Perhaps I am biased as a literary major in university. I am reading Miller believing that he is trying to make the case that since the Qur'an does NOT reveal anything he expects about the prophet, it is divine in origin. This is the type of argument literary people make. If this was not Miller's point, please clarify what you think his point is.
However, I am saying that if you approach the text not expecting anything, you do find as much biological detail as you find in other ancient texts. Thus, there is no reason to jump to the conclusion that the Qur'an is divinely inspired from this argument!
And if we cannot jump to the conclusion that it is of divine origin, then we also cannot jump to the conclusion that Mohammed is not insane. I am NOT saying Mohammed was insane. At this point, I am only saying that there is enough biographical detail that we do not need to assume divine origin -- but not enough biographical detail to make any other assertions.
Regarding atoms, I must not be making myself clear. I apologize to everyone for going so much -- but this point is so obvious to me, and I'm not sure why you're arguing with me about it.
Demicritus did not have our concept of atoms. Rather, Demectritus simply said that an atom is DEFINED as the absolute smallest particle possible. He did not point to anything and say, "that is an atom." Rather, he said, "You know, if we keep splitting an object further and further, we are going to reach some point where it cannot possibly be split anymore. Whenever we actually reach that point, let's call it an atom."
Now, what has happened in the evolution of science is that at one time around the eighteenth and nineteenth century, a single molecule of any one of the elements on the periodic chart were thought to be the absolute smallest thing possible. Scientist decided to call these things "atoms" using Demecritus term.
This is NOT what Demecritus meant by "atoms". Demecritus made absolutely no statement whatever about WHAT an atom is in the physical world. Rather, he simply said WHATEVER turns out to be the smallest thing possible, we will call atoms.
However, after scientists decided to call single molecules of the elements "atoms", we later discovered that a single molecule of the elements were not the smallest things. These things that we were calling atoms were made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons. And those things were made up of quarks and so on....
Now, if "dharrah" literally meant "atom" as defined by Demecritus, rather than 18th century science, then there cannot possibly be anything smaller, because BY DEMECRITUS' DEFINITION the meaning of the word "ATOM" is the smallest thing possible, WHATEVER that thing is!
Thus, if the Qur'an is saying in Arabic that there are things smaller than dharrah, then dharrah CANNOT be accurately be translated as atoms as defined by Demecritus and other literature of the period.
On the other hand, if Miller's point is that things are made of very, very timy particles that cannot be seen, and the Qur'an miraculaously foretells this, then there is nothing unique about the Qur'an since other literature refers to "atoms", which meet the same definition. Other literature predicts that time and matter and so forth can be broken down to imperceptible smallness.
Either way, Miller is making a fallacious argument.
The accurate reading of this point about dharrah depends on what Miller thinks "atoms" meant to Demecritus and the Arabs, and what the accurate translation of dharrah into Greek should have really been in the seventh century.
Thus, it is Miller's statement about the last century that is particularly troublesome. This indicates that he is either placing an anachronistic meaning into the word "atom", or an anochronistic meaning into the word "dharrah", and he is building an argument for divine revelation based on scientific prophecy that ignores historic literary context.
Whew. This explanaition is much longer that I thought necessary. I honestly thought my point was made clearly the first time. But since you insist on such detail.....
I am not going to be back to this site until after Christmas. Happy holidays to everyone if you are in a culture that honors this time of year.
Peace and Blessings!
jcecil3
21st CENTURY GOD
Demystifying God
In this 21st Century, the Age of Technology, we are still plagued by religious beliefs that may be a contributing cause of terrorism, killings and wars between nations. Belief in a God who causes catastrophes, punishes people and who created the universe out of nothing as if by magic, was brought about by hysteria and superstition. This thought process needs to be reassessed and brought up to date. Open-minded people must use common sense to determine whether this God was incorrectly perceived, misinterpreted and misunderstood by the masses of a bygone era.
The destruction of civilizations, most sufferings and premature deaths are due to our frailties, our stupidity or human imperfections, not God's or the Devil's doings. The greatest fallacy is beliefs that split people, religions and countries. Too many lives have been lost in an illogical attempt to force our beliefs on others.
When people first acquired reasoning abilities, the first fear of an unseen deity came about when lightning and thunder caused them to cringe and seek shelter. Lightning and thunder were thought to be punishment from God for evil deeds. Worshipping God through prayers and asking for forgiveness eventually, as the storm passed, was believed to appease the wrath of God or the Gods.
Prophets of past who claimed to have a personal contact with God, had been inspired by God, thereby interpreting this ecstasy to the best of their ability; and applying this wisdom to a time when it was believed that a holy man had to have direct contact with God; today we know that interactions between dimensions is not a reality. This God will not strike you dead with a lightning bolt or condemn you to eternal hell fire and damnation if you do not follow the teachings of your fathers or spiritual leaders, or pray to him constantly. This was a war-like god. He was as necessary at that time as every king, dictator, war lord, and tribal leader who fought and died by the sword. The God of Abraham, Moses, Noah, Jesus and other Prophets, is the same as the God of today. God will not interfere with anything that is done on earth.
Creation or Evolution ?
Creation and evolution work in unison. The former can not survive without the latter. If a man and woman desire a child, they set into motion processes of creation and evolution. The bible states, "If you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, `Move from here to there, and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you." As long as this is not taken literally, it is indeed a true statement.
If a city Master Plan calls for a mountain to be relocated, it will be done. Were the planners, designers, architects, contractors, or the laborers responsible for the finished product? If God, via inspiration initiates a process, or causes currents or a meteorite to carry a seed to a distant planet to be germinated; to create and have life evolve thereby, is not God creating life and responsible for evolution? If life is created and it does not evolve, it perishes.
Is the Bible The Word Of God ?
The Bible refers to God as representing a masculine anthropomorphic figure; as the king-like ruler who demands that everyone worship him and unquestionably do his biddings through eternity. In this 21st Century many religious beliefs are as antiquated as in millenniums past. Most stories in the Bible were passed down verbally through generations, with new additions by each generation. In past centuries superstitions were the norm. Isn't it about time that a belief in God, if one so chooses, makes sense.
The books of the were written over a period of about 1500 years by about 40 different authors on three continents in three languages. The first 5 books, written by Moses about 1410 BC were accepted as authoritative by the people that initially received them. Transmission refers to the process of getting something written up to 3500 years ago to us. During transmission the documents are copied and errors are introduced. Some, who reject the truth of the bible argue that there errors are so many and so large that the bible is unreliable. Others, who accept the truth of the bible argue that the errors and alterations by copyists only slightly if at all diminish the reliability of the bible.
The God of Abraham, Moses, Noah, Jesus and other Prophets, is the same as the God of today who wants all souls to co-exist in peace and tranquility for eternity. Now our perceptions of God may vary. Today, we can receive inspiration without intermediaries.
Did God ever, and will he ever in the future, interfere with anything that happens on this earth, or is God and the Devil being blamed for our problems and bad decisions ?
God never did and never will interfere with anything that is done on earth. God will not breach the spiritual realm. We no longer need to fear God or Allah, endlessly worship him, dress or look a certain way; all to please a God who is not as we have been told to accept, without having to fear facing his wrath of eternal damnation ?
Our intelligence compared to God is like that of a 2 year old child. God will make allowances for our ignorance.
It doesn't matter to God whether we believe that God is/was:
1. Created by the spirit and soul and evolved to be the supreme intelligence.
2. The beginning, always was, came out of nowhere and created the heavens and earth.
3 The one supreme ruler who dominates the universe.
4. Called God, God Almighty, Jehovah, God of Abraham, Allah or whatever.
It doesn't matter to God whether we:
1. Think that Jesus is God or a prophet.
2. Believe that the Bible or the Koran is the word of God or man.
3. Eat pork, dress or pray a certain way.
Who Really Is God ?
God, also known as Allah, Yahweh, Lord, Supreme Being, Jehovah, etc., is a spirit of peace. When the body dies, the deserving soul is received by God into a peaceful co-existence with other souls for eternity. The souls of Prophets, philosophers, holy men, our deceased relatives and even the simplest souls who by their love of humanity and exemplary living, have helped to shape the lives of others, will be there.
Today, we can receive inspiration without intermediaries. Just as radio frequencies are transmitted through space, requiring a transmitter and a receiver, we can receive the blessings of God to guide our daily lives.
God is a loving, peaceful coexistence of spiritual souls, including ours ? In order to be in harmony with others, one has to have synchronization of thought. This requires complete understanding and tolerance of other beliefs, regardless of our own.
Our spirit can often control the well-being of our body. With inspiration from God's Spirit, our spirit, very much like the wind, can carry us through our life's journey and experience the beauty of God's creative powers or we can choose to reject the interaction and muddle through life with no purpose, feeling empty, worthless and lonely. We can resonate despondency and gloom or bloom like the wildflower, bringing joy to many who have contact with us and live our lives with joy and the knowledge that we have a reason for living.
Where Did God Come From ?
God exists in a spiritual dimension and is a union of souls which was created when the first reasoning entity ceased its existence (physical death) in this dimension and entered the spiritual realm. (invisibility)
God's intelligence is ever expanding and grows with the addition of each soul. Every soul is like a separate cell or atom on earth which combines with other cells or atoms to make up the existence of every living person, plant, animal and even the air which sustains all life; so also do souls perform, either individually or in unison. Any soul or spirit that is not with God can not exist, and dies.
Everything evolves or stagnates and dies.
Souls perform individually or cumulatively in the same way as entities in this dimension. Souls are a part of God as we are a part of this earth.
Collective intelligence (God)
God, existing in a spiritual dimension, is cumulative and progressive rather than constant. Project yourself into a scenario whereupon, after your spirit has established a communication link with the Spirit of God, upon your physical demise, all the data that your spirit has accumulated and stored (your soul) is transmitted and received by a database into a spiritual dimension which contains any and all of the knowledge and experiences of the universe. You are now a part of God.
The first reasoning entity was a derivative of our earth, solar system or universe.
Does life exist somewhere else in the universe? Today, over 70 planets are known outside our solar system. There are billions of stars with numerous solar systems. Our knowledge of the universe is in its infancy.
Within the last 200 years air travel, the automobile, telephone, radio, television, computer, electricity, etc., came into existence. Place yourself into a scenario whereby you are on earth several thousand years from now; our present day thinking would be considered antiquated. Would space travel to the next closest solar system be a reality? With our present mode of travel it would take several thousand years.
Is there evidence that God exists ?
Evidence is proof, something that shows what is true. Truth is established by testifying, bearing witness, attesting, declaring under oath that what is testified to, is actuality. In a court of law, as in civil action, evidence is presented and the validity of this evidence is assessed by a judge or jury who rule on it; their decision is accepted and it is determined that proof has been established by a preponderance of the evidence.
Throughout several millenniums evidence has been presented that the Spirit of God has interacted with our spirit via inspiration, to write what are considered Holy Scriptures and to be the cause of miraculous healings, many physicians will attest to the latter. This is evidence, proof of the existence of God.
Evidence of God's existence can also be seen in the compilation and complexities of everything in existence, from the complex DNA makeup of a single cell, to the makeup of the entire universe. To refute this evidence by saying that all is possible without supreme guidance is to ignore proof.
The power of the wind is a small comparison to the power of God's Spirit. The wind can gently caress as it wafts across the land, stirring wildflowers, thereby causing their seeds or pollen to be carried along currents to pollinate another, creating a new life. The wind can also be a force that is unequaled by any other. We can not see the wind. We can not see or physically talk with God, but our spirit can unite and be guided by God's Spirit to accomplish the seemingly impossible.
What Will The Soul Do In Eternity ?
Our life on earth is to prepare us and to give us examples of the hereafter. Everything is progressive and accumulative. We are here to accumulate experiences of feelings, the beauty of every organism that surrounds us, the landscape that adds to our perception; then we can begin our next journey.
We should live our life to its fullest. One hundred years from now, almost every single person alive today will have died. Several billion people, wiped off the face of this earth. Our life is but a blip on the radar screen of time. We are the most important person responsible for whether our soul will live or die. Here we have to learn how to intertwine with a community; there we can experience anything that the imagination can perceive.
Envision yourself as a spirit that is uninhibited by any resistance or external influences; you can travel to any star or planet instantly, explore the beauty of the universe, and still be in sync with God. As an example: Imagine the most advanced form of Virtual Reality that can access a super-computer and place you in whichever setting you desire; you can play with the animals, be with your loved ones, listen to the greatest opera, stage or musical performances, or simply relax next to a bubbling brook and enjoy the scenery. You feel no pain, despair, heartache, or negative emotions unless you so desire.
How does one's soul gets the right to enter eternity. How would you ever know for sure?
A oneness with the Spirit of God, by your deeds (contrary to some biblical teachings) during your lifetime, will determine your soul's destiny. Also, if you deed (pledge, give, transfer) your soul to God, you will know, as you know that God exists, that your soul will be a part of God.
One of our main purposes in life is to prepare our soul to be received by God. If one's spirit is not communicating with the Spirit of God, to them God does not exist because they can not receive evidence to the contrary; they are in incapable of comprehending spiritual reality. Spiritual beings know that they are part of God's Master Plan, as is the universe. Anything that does not evolve, dies.
What Is God Going To Do With All The Sinners ?
Any soul that is not with God can not exist and dies.
Our sins will be overlooked and forgiven, like parents dismiss and forgive their child's transgressions. Any punishment is immediate, without a grudge being retained. God will not interfere with your life on earth or physically harm or punish anyone. The same way a parent makes a child aware when the child has committed a wrong act, the conscience will weigh on the spirit and one with a conscience will be repentant; that is the extent of the punishment. When evil deeds are constant, the conscience gets anesthetized and no longer communicates with the spirit; upon physical death, the spirit dies also.
Sins were invented by people in order to frighten the masses to conform to standards set by people. If our laws are not obeyed, punishment will be by the appropriate government agency. God will not punish sinners here or hereafter.
God Does Not Need Our Prayers
Prayers are for our benefit. We need to pray for guidance to comprehend the purpose of our existence. Through prayers and meditation, inspiration peace and tranquility can be received by our spirit. Harmony with God requires the spirit to be at peace. Our prayers should ask for inspiration and guidance from God to enlighten us and transform our daily lives by being honest, humble, grateful, full of love and good works. Churches, mosques, temples and gathering places help our spirit to rejoice and come closer to the unity and peace of God.
A person afflicted by bodily sufferings can at times be closer to God than one who is in daily turmoil and obsessed with acquiring and hoarding wealth for himself, rather than sharing and making life bearable for the needy. Our only purpose in life is to expand our knowledge and to strive for a peaceful co-existence with an inspirational guidance from God; so as to co-exist with our spiritual partners in harmony through eternity.
Our earth is just a miniscule place in the vast expanse of the universe. God is the supreme intelligence that will guide us by inspiration; the building of other life forms of this universe. Ecstasy cannot aptly describe a soul’s participation in this great undertaking. All our questions will be answered because God is like the storage of all knowledge that can be tapped by every soul and still operate in unison.
Drugs, alcohol or any substance which interferes with, or suppresses the spirit and retards our clear thinking should be avoided. The spirit will rejoice and grow stronger through our appreciation of the beauty of nature, music, song and art. A stronger spirit is closer to God and inspirations from God will guide and heal the mind and soul.
Preachers and Holy Men have been given the responsibility to educate a new generation of minds of the complete truth and to teach tolerance of other religions and other interpretations of God, not just as you perceive the truth or God to be.
Was the spiritual realm where God exists in another dimension ever breached by a man named Jesus ? Was Jesus the son of God, or a prophet and the son of a man ?
Will they who believe that Jesus was a prophet rather than the only son of God be condemned ? Are we not, as according to the bible, children of God, therefore as children, we are also a son or a daughter of God. If Jesus were born now would people believe that he was God ?
Jesus has been appropriately called the "Son of God" and "Prince of Peace". We are often reminded of the teachings of Jesus whose words have survived two millenniums. His disciples kept him alive in the memories of all who heard and believed his words. They, as well as other "Men of God" who contributed to the compilation of the scriptures of the Bible, were inspired by God to give us guidelines to live by.
Christianity states that there is only one straight and narrow road that leads to God. This is incorrect. All roads which lead to God can bring the soul to its destination. The roads may be curved and circular at times, but if one chooses one's objective and abides thereby, the goal will be achieved.
There is a song which should be our daily inspiration. It says, "Open up your heart and let the sun shine in". Judge not lest ye be judged.
Jesus - Died about 30 A.D.. Mark's Gospel presents Jesus as a perfectly normal man with brothers and sisters. Luke's Gospel suggests that Jesus and John The Babtist were actually related. Jesus' teachings stressed love, charity and peace. After his death Jesus' disciples believed that Jesus presented an image of God and began to pray to him. St. Paul believed that God's powers should be made accessible to the goyim (gentiles, non-Jews) and preached the Gospel of Jesus to them. Paul never called Jesus "God". He called him "the Son of God" in its Jewish sense; he did not preach that Jesus had been the incarnation of God himself but that he possessed God's "powers" and "Spirit" which manifested God's activity on earth and were not to be identified with the inaccessible divine essence. Paul created Christianity by referring to Jesus as Christ which was a translation of the Hebrew "Messiach". This doctrine was scandalized by Jews and later the Muslims who found it blasphemous.
The doctrine that Jesus was divine and that Jesus had been God in human form was not finalized until the fourth century.
The Dead Sea Scrolls offer unprecedented information about Jewish religious and political life in Palestine during the turbulent late Second Temple Period (200 B.C. to A.D. 70), a time of great corruption and conflict under Roman rule in Palestine. Scholars estimate that the Dead Sea Scrolls were hidden in A.D. 68, when Roman legions reached the Dead Sea during the emperor Vespasian's campaign to Jericho.
The scrolls also shed light on the time when Jesus and John the Baptist lived and early Christians began to organize. Specifically, they offer evidence that early Christian beliefs and practices had precedents in the Jewish sects of the time. Sectarian scrolls tell of people who, like the early Christians, did not believe in the Temple worship of the Pharisees, people who had their own literature, their own rituals-including baptism-and their own beliefs, most significantly beliefs in a messiah, a divine judgment, and an apocalypse. Three different scrolls depict a sacred meal of bread and wine. These similarities as well as parallels between the literary style of certain scrolls and that of the New Testament have led some scholars to claim that Jesus and John the Baptist were either part of or strongly influenced by a sect at the Dead Sea.
Debate has furthered speculation about the historical Jesus, such as the claim that he was a Zealot rather than a pacifist, a theory that does not fit with New Testament tradition but does fit with the history of this period. And one of the most important discoveries in the scrolls has been the use of the name Son of God to refer to someone other than Jesus, implying a cultural use of the term that was not itself synonymous with God.
How do we know that the spirit exists ?
Many of our experiences here are as an example of spiritual life. A child until about the age of 2 is receptive to and believes all that he hears, observes, and is told. This is the most influential period and will greatly shape the remainder of his life; all information is stored with the subconscious. After age 2 independence is exercised and rebellion is the next step. Many teenagers begin to doubt their parents judgment and usually a young adult in his twenties moves away from home. Some will no longer keep in touch with or communicate with the parent. The spirit will also at interval periods sever the line of communication and at times communication with the Spirit of God will cease entirely.
Being with spirit; unless one is completely emotionless, a spirit is present. One may say that emotions are psychological, (of the psyche) structuralism, psychobiological, but they are nevertheless spiritual; which also subscribes to a form of natural selection. Every person is born with a spirit. The spirit is a part of the mother's spirit which is passed down to the fetus. Your conscience relays information to your spirit. Some people may not believe in a spirit because they can not see it but, whether one believes it or not, every person has a spirit. If one's spirit is not communicating with the Spirit of God, to them God does not exist.
The soul and spirit are often considered identical, though the soul has also been referred to as the vessel for the spirit. When the bible refers to talking animals, the originator of that story in all probability was telling it to children, or meant it to be an analogy. Animals do not possess reasoning abilities or souls.
.
Is there evidence that God exists ?
Evidence is proof, something that shows what is true. Truth is established by testifying, bearing witness, attesting, declaring under oath that what is testified to, is actuality. In a court of law, as in civil action, evidence is presented and the validity of this evidence is assessed by a judge or jury who rule on it; their decision is accepted and it is determined that proof has been established by a preponderance of the evidence.
Throughout several millenniums evidence has been presented that the Spirit of God has interacted with our spirit via inspiration, to write what are considered Holy Scriptures and to be the cause of miraculous healings, many physicians will attest to the latter. This is evidence, proof of the existence of God.
Evidence of God's existence can also be seen in the compilation and complexities of everything in existence, from the complex DNA makeup of a single cell, to the makeup of the entire universe. To refute this evidence by saying that all is possible without supreme guidance is to ignore proof.
The power of the wind is a small comparison to the power of God's Spirit. The wind can gently caress as it wafts across the land, stirring wildflowers, thereby causing their seeds or pollen to be carried along currents to pollinate another, creating a new life. The wind can also be a force that is unequaled by any other. We can not see the wind. We can not see or physically talk with God, but our spirit can unite and be guided by God's Spirit to accomplish the seemingly impossible.
Artificial Intelligence
Computers in some cases are considered Thinking Machines and are also considered Artificial Intelligence, but they are unable to transfer their intelligence to the spirit or soul. Only the spirit or soul can transgress our dimension in order to transmit its contents.
Artificial Intelligence development, even though it is astounding, is still in its infancy, just as is our understanding of God. Currently no Artificial Intelligence has as yet been able to simulate total human behavior.
Buddhism and Hinduism
Buddhism and Hinduism is a devotion to exalted beings. After the Buddha died at about 5oo B.C. people attempted to reach nirvana, by achieving enlightenment, on their own. During the first century B.C. claims were made that the Buddha had reappeared in human form and statues appeared in India. As in Christianity and Hinduism, there was a yearning for humanized religion and it was thereby integrated into religion.
Religious Diversity when it breeds fanaticism is a dangerous combination.
In U.S.A. there are more than 1500 religious denomination and faith groups,including 900 Christian, 100 Hindu and 75 Buddhist denominations.
The Crusades (1095 -1398) were a series of Christian military expeditions to reclaim the Holy Land from the Muslims. Muslims were considered infidels and a threat to Christianity in the East and the "peace of God" at home. Preachers of the crusade pleaded for all to participate in this holy cause, whether rich or poor, experienced in the military or not. With the cry "Deus Vult!" ("God wills it!") Christians slaughtered Muslims everywhere they went. The fighting was fierce, but the unsuspecting Muslims were no match for the bloodthirsty Crusaders, who killed not only fighting men, but also women and children.
God's way of creating life is beyond the intellectual capacity of man.
Many past theories are presently being reevaluated. The first US patent for a psychokinesis effect was granted to Princeton University researchers on November 3, 1998. Patent "US 5830064" is entitled: Apparatus and method for distinguishing events which collectively exceed chance expectations and thereby controlling an output. This patent specifically covers distant mental control of electronic random number generator outputs.
Starting in the 1980s, well-known scientific journals like Foundations of Physics, American Psychologist, and Statistical Science published articles favorably reviewing the scientific evidence for psychic phenomena. The Proceedings of the IEEE, the flagship journal of the Institute for Electronic and Electrical Engineers, has published major debates on psi research. Invited articles have appeared in the prestigious journal, Brain and Behavioral Sciences. A favorable article on telepathy research appeared in 1994 in Psychological Bulletin, one of the top-ranked journals in academic psychology. An article presenting a theoretical model for precognition appeared in 1994 in Physical Review, a prominent physics journal.
On 1-8-2002 NASA announced a new interpretation of the dawn of cosmic light; this conflicts with the Big-Bang Theory time period. The Hubble images of deep space, close to the beginning of time indicate that at beginning of time, galaxy formation started early and rapidly; not at once, but in only a few million years.
Pascal's Theory or wager was that God is not known through reason but through the heart and that faith is a better guide than reason. I submit that there is sufficient evidence and that by applying intelligent reasoning, one has to come to the conclusion of the probability of God's existence.
Sufficient evidence shown by telepathy, psychokinesis, psychic phenomena, miraculous healings and inspirations also indicates that collective intelligence, (God) existing in a spiritual dimension, is cumulative and progressive rather than constant.
When evidence has been presented , not everyone is convinced as to its validity. The majority decision prevails on evaluating evidence in a civil court trial. If one understands or incorrectly evaluates the evidence that was presented, that is indeed a problem.
I believe that a majority of people believe in God, they do not have to be religious; someone living in the jungle may not have heard of God, yet have their own enlightenment.
One's spirit has to open lines of communication with the Spirit of God in order to receive inspiration from God. This is the only way whereby one will "SEE THE LIGHT".
Cosmological constant was a term introduced by Einstein into his field equations of general relativity to permit a stationary, nonexpanding universe: it has since been abandoned in most models of the universe
In recent years, we have learned that 95% of the Universe is made of a type of matter or energy that we cannot see nor understand. Gravity may ripple across the Universe in waves, and certain cosmic rays, atomic particles moving at near light speed, possess an energy far greater than that which can be explained by modern physics.
Duplicating the harsh conditions of cold interstellar space in their laboratory, NASA scientists have created primitive cells that mimic the membranous structures found in all living things. These chemical compounds may have played a part in the origin of life.
This breakthrough by scientists at NASA Ames Research Center in California's Silicon Valley is important because some scientists believe that the delivery - by comets, meteorites and interplanetary dust - of similar organic compounds born in interstellar space might have "kick-started" life on Earth.
"Scientists believe the molecules needed to make a cell's membrane, and thus for the origin of life, are all over space. This discovery implies that life could be everywhere in the universe," said Dr. Louis Allamandola, the team's leader.
In contrast to current thinking, this new work shows that the early chemical steps believed to be important for the origin of life do not require an already-formed planet. Instead, they seem to take place in deep space long before planet formation occurs. This implies that the vastness of space is filled with chemical compounds which, if they land in a hospitable environment like our Earth, can readily jump-start life.
Some people quote the Bible as the gospel truth of God's words. Does that mean that they who use the Koran or other holy scriptures that were inspired by God are misguided ?
One of our apparent reasons for being here is, in order to justify our beliefs even to ourselves, that we apply logic to our beliefs rather than blindly accept everything that we have read and been told.
Muhammad who lived during a turbulent time of history, was the cause for the writings in the Koran. The goal of all of these "Men of God", who devoted most of their lives to preaching of God, was to help us to fashion our lives to be at peace with the Holy Spirit of God.
ALL religions have the same goals and is up to us to love and to unify, rather than disagree with or judge, other beliefs.
The orthodox Muslim view of the Koran as self-evidently the Word of God, perfect and inimitable in message, language, style, and form, is strikingly similar to the fundamentalist Christian notion of the Bible's "inerrancy" and "verbal inspiration" that is still common in many places today.
Not all the Christians think this way about the Bible, however, and in fact, as the Encyclopaedia of Islam (1981) points out, "the closest analogue in Christian belief to the role of the Kur'an in Muslim belief is not the Bible, but Christ." If Christ is the Word of God made flesh, the Koran is the Word of God made text, and questioning its sanctity or authority is thus considered an outright attack on Islam -- as Salman Rushdie knows all too well.
In 1972, during the restoration of the Great Mosque of Sana'a, in Yemen, laborers working in a loft between the structure's inner and outer roofs stumbled across an unappealing mash of old parchment and paper documents -- damaged books and individual pages of Arabic text, fused together by centuries of rain and dampness, gnawed into over the years by rats and insects. Intent on completing the task at hand, the laborers gathered up the manuscripts, pressed them into some twenty potato sacks.
Some of the parchment pages in the Yemeni hoard seemed to date back to the seventh and eighth centuries A.D., or Islam's first two centuries -- they were fragments, in other words, of perhaps the oldest Korans in existence. What's more, some of these fragments revealed small but intriguing aberrations from the standard Koranic text. Such aberrations, though not surprising to textual historians, are troublingly at odds with the orthodox Muslim belief that the Koran as it has reached us today is quite simply the perfect, timeless, and unchanging Word of God.
The mainly secular effort to reinterpret the Koran -- in part based on textual evidence such as that provided by the Yemeni fragments -- is disturbing and offensive to many Muslims, just as attempts to reinterpret the Bible and the life of Jesus are disturbing and offensive to many conservative Christians. Nevertheless, there are scholars, Muslims among them, who feel that such an effort, which amounts essentially to placing the Koran in history, will provide fuel for an Islamic revival of sorts -- a reappropriation of tradition, a going forward by looking back. Thus far confined to scholarly argument, this sort of thinking can be nonetheless very powerful and -- as the histories of the Renaissance and the Reformation demonstrate -- can lead to major social change. The Koran, after all, is currently the world's most ideologically influential text.
Martyrs, who by their actions, cause the death of others and cause another soul to die before that soul has had the opportunity to be at peace with the Spirit of God, will not achieve their goals of ultimately being with God.
About The Author
My belief originated in 1956 when I was 15 years old. I had double pneumonia and I thought that I would surely die. I was born in Lithuania in 1941 and my family had to flee to Germany in 1945 when Russia occupied our homeland. In 1950 we immigrated to America. When I became ill in 1956 my father took me to a doctor who gave me a penicillin injection and recommended immediate hospitalization. We had no medical insurance or money, so my father took me home to recuperate. I remember the drive home vividly. Every breath was extremely painful and my chest felt as though a great weight was upon it. I watched cars and trucks drive by and I wondered how people could make long term plans when life was so unpredictable. At home I read the bible every waking moment and prayed to God to save my soul.
Several nights later, whether in a dream, by inspiration, fever induced fantasy, or some unexplainable reason, I was in a place with a gathering of spirits. I felt the greatest peace, tranquility and ecstasy. I felt a rapture that was beyond a person's imagination. I felt as if I was a part of God. I was mentally communicating and in sync with everyone; all the prophets of the bible, many historical people whom I had read about, many deceased acquaintances and relatives. There was no dominant force, no forceful leader. I somehow knew who everyone was. Every thought was interacted with the whole community. I had no questions; it seemed as if everything was revealed and crystal clear. I saw the universe stretched out before us like a vast expanse with spirits engaged in mental interaction like master craftsmen contemplating the creation of a new frontier.
My father was a Lutheran Preacher who believed that anyone who disagreed with his belief was wrong and would not go to heaven. At age 16, I remember questioned this and told him, "Dad, if you believe that everyone who differs with you will not go to heaven, you will be mighty lonely up there all by yourself".
21st CENTURY GOD
By Kurt G Kawohl
Demystifying God
In this 21st Century, the Age of Technology, we are still plagued by religious beliefs that may be a contributing cause of terrorism, killings and wars between nations. Belief in a God who causes catastrophes, punishes people and who created the universe out of nothing as if by magic, was brought about by hysteria and superstition. This thought process needs to be reassessed and brought up to date. Open-minded people must use common sense to determine whether this God was incorrectly perceived, misinterpreted and misunderstood by the masses of a bygone era.
The destruction of civilizations, most sufferings and premature deaths are due to our frailties, our stupidity or human imperfections, not God's or the Devil's doings. The greatest fallacy is beliefs that split people, religions and countries. Too many lives have been lost in an illogical attempt to force our beliefs on others.
When people first acquired reasoning abilities, the first fear of an unseen deity came about when lightning and thunder caused them to cringe and seek shelter. Lightning and thunder were thought to be punishment from God for evil deeds. Worshipping God through prayers and asking for forgiveness eventually, as the storm passed, was believed to appease the wrath of God or the Gods.
Prophets of past who claimed to have a personal contact with God, had been inspired by God, thereby interpreting this ecstasy to the best of their ability; and applying this wisdom to a time when it was believed that a holy man had to have direct contact with God; today we know that interactions between dimensions is not a reality. This God will not strike you dead with a lightning bolt or condemn you to eternal hell fire and damnation if you do not follow the teachings of your fathers or spiritual leaders, or pray to him constantly. This was a war-like god. He was as necessary at that time as every king, dictator, war lord, and tribal leader who fought and died by the sword. The God of Abraham, Moses, Noah, Jesus and other Prophets, is the same as the God of today. God will not interfere with anything that is done on earth.
Creation or Evolution ?
Creation and evolution work in unison. The former can not survive without the latter. If a man and woman desire a child, they set into motion processes of creation and evolution. The bible states, "If you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, `Move from here to there, and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you." As long as this is not taken literally, it is indeed a true statement.
If a city Master Plan calls for a mountain to be relocated, it will be done. Were the planners, designers, architects, contractors, or the laborers responsible for the finished product? If God, via inspiration initiates a process, or causes currents or a meteorite to carry a seed to a distant planet to be germinated; to create and have life evolve thereby, is not God creating life and responsible for evolution? If life is created and it does not evolve, it perishes.
Is the Bible The Word Of God ?
The Bible refers to God as representing a masculine anthropomorphic figure; as the king-like ruler who demands that everyone worship him and unquestionably do his biddings through eternity. In this 21st Century many religious beliefs are as antiquated as in millenniums past. Most stories in the Bible were passed down verbally through generations, with new additions by each generation. In past centuries superstitions were the norm. Isn't it about time that a belief in God, if one so chooses, makes sense.
The books of the were written over a period of about 1500 years by about 40 different authors on three continents in three languages. The first 5 books, written by Moses about 1410 BC were accepted as authoritative by the people that initially received them. Transmission refers to the process of getting something written up to 3500 years ago to us. During transmission the documents are copied and errors are introduced. Some, who reject the truth of the bible argue that there errors are so many and so large that the bible is unreliable. Others, who accept the truth of the bible argue that the errors and alterations by copyists only slightly if at all diminish the reliability of the bible.
The God of Abraham, Moses, Noah, Jesus and other Prophets, is the same as the God of today who wants all souls to co-exist in peace and tranquility for eternity. Now our perceptions of God may vary. Today, we can receive inspiration without intermediaries.
Did God ever, and will he ever in the future, interfere with anything that happens on this earth, or is God and the Devil being blamed for our problems and bad decisions ?
God never did and never will interfere with anything that is done on earth. God will not breach the spiritual realm. We no longer need to fear God or Allah, endlessly worship him, dress or look a certain way; all to please a God who is not as we have been told to accept, without having to fear facing his wrath of eternal damnation ?
Our intelligence compared to God is like that of a 2 year old child. God will make allowances for our ignorance.
It doesn't matter to God whether we believe that God is/was:
1. Created by the spirit and soul and evolved to be the supreme intelligence.
2. The beginning, always was, came out of nowhere and created the heavens and earth.
3 The one supreme ruler who dominates the universe.
4. Called God, God Almighty, Jehovah, God of Abraham, Allah or whatever.
It doesn't matter to God whether we:
1. Think that Jesus is God or a prophet.
2. Believe that the Bible or the Koran is the word of God or man.
3. Eat pork, dress or pray a certain way.
Who Really Is God ?
God, also known as Allah, Yahweh, Lord, Supreme Being, Jehovah, etc., is a spirit of peace. When the body dies, the deserving soul is received by God into a peaceful co-existence with other souls for eternity. The souls of Prophets, philosophers, holy men, our deceased relatives and even the simplest souls who by their love of humanity and exemplary living, have helped to shape the lives of others, will be there.
Today, we can receive inspiration without intermediaries. Just as radio frequencies are transmitted through space, requiring a transmitter and a receiver, we can receive the blessings of God to guide our daily lives.
God is a loving, peaceful coexistence of spiritual souls, including ours ? In order to be in harmony with others, one has to have synchronization of thought. This requires complete understanding and tolerance of other beliefs, regardless of our own.
Our spirit can often control the well-being of our body. With inspiration from God's Spirit, our spirit, very much like the wind, can carry us through our life's journey and experience the beauty of God's creative powers or we can choose to reject the interaction and muddle through life with no purpose, feeling empty, worthless and lonely. We can resonate despondency and gloom or bloom like the wildflower, bringing joy to many who have contact with us and live our lives with joy and the knowledge that we have a reason for living.
Where Did God Come From ?
God exists in a spiritual dimension and is a union of souls which was created when the first reasoning entity ceased its existence (physical death) in this dimension and entered the spiritual realm. (invisibility)
God's intelligence is ever expanding and grows with the addition of each soul. Every soul is like a separate cell or atom on earth which combines with other cells or atoms to make up the existence of every living person, plant, animal and even the air which sustains all life; so also do souls perform, either individually or in unison. Any soul or spirit that is not with God can not exist, and dies.
Everything evolves or stagnates and dies.
Souls perform individually or cumulatively in the same way as entities in this dimension. Souls are a part of God as we are a part of this earth.
Collective intelligence (God)
God, existing in a spiritual dimension, is cumulative and progressive rather than constant. Project yourself into a scenario whereupon, after your spirit has established a communication link with the Spirit of God, upon your physical demise, all the data that your spirit has accumulated and stored (your soul) is transmitted and received by a database into a spiritual dimension which contains any and all of the knowledge and experiences of the universe. You are now a part of God.
The first reasoning entity was a derivative of our earth, solar system or universe.
Does life exist somewhere else in the universe? Today, over 70 planets are known outside our solar system. There are billions of stars with numerous solar systems. Our knowledge of the universe is in its infancy.
Within the last 200 years air travel, the automobile, telephone, radio, television, computer, electricity, etc., came into existence. Place yourself into a scenario whereby you are on earth several thousand years from now; our present day thinking would be considered antiquated. Would space travel to the next closest solar system be a reality? With our present mode of travel it would take several thousand years.
Is there evidence that God exists ?
Evidence is proof, something that shows what is true. Truth is established by testifying, bearing witness, attesting, declaring under oath that what is testified to, is actuality. In a court of law, as in civil action, evidence is presented and the validity of this evidence is assessed by a judge or jury who rule on it; their decision is accepted and it is determined that proof has been established by a preponderance of the evidence.
Throughout several millenniums evidence has been presented that the Spirit of God has interacted with our spirit via inspiration, to write what are considered Holy Scriptures and to be the cause of miraculous healings, many physicians will attest to the latter. This is evidence, proof of the existence of God.
Evidence of God's existence can also be seen in the compilation and complexities of everything in existence, from the complex DNA makeup of a single cell, to the makeup of the entire universe. To refute this evidence by saying that all is possible without supreme guidance is to ignore proof.
The power of the wind is a small comparison to the power of God's Spirit. The wind can gently caress as it wafts across the land, stirring wildflowers, thereby causing their seeds or pollen to be carried along currents to pollinate another, creating a new life. The wind can also be a force that is unequaled by any other. We can not see the wind. We can not see or physically talk with God, but our spirit can unite and be guided by God's Spirit to accomplish the seemingly impossible.
What Will The Soul Do In Eternity ?
Our life on earth is to prepare us and to give us examples of the hereafter. Everything is progressive and accumulative. We are here to accumulate experiences of feelings, the beauty of every organism that surrounds us, the landscape that adds to our perception; then we can begin our next journey.
We should live our life to its fullest. One hundred years from now, almost every single person alive today will have died. Several billion people, wiped off the face of this earth. Our life is but a blip on the radar screen of time. We are the most important person responsible for whether our soul will live or die. Here we have to learn how to intertwine with a community; there we can experience anything that the imagination can perceive.
Envision yourself as a spirit that is uninhibited by any resistance or external influences; you can travel to any star or planet instantly, explore the beauty of the universe, and still be in sync with God. As an example: Imagine the most advanced form of Virtual Reality that can access a super-computer and place you in whichever setting you desire; you can play with the animals, be with your loved ones, listen to the greatest opera, stage or musical performances, or simply relax next to a bubbling brook and enjoy the scenery. You feel no pain, despair, heartache, or negative emotions unless you so desire.
How does one's soul gets the right to enter eternity. How would you ever know for sure?
A oneness with the Spirit of God, by your deeds (contrary to some biblical teachings) during your lifetime, will determine your soul's destiny. Also, if you deed (pledge, give, transfer) your soul to God, you will know, as you know that God exists, that your soul will be a part of God.
One of our main purposes in life is to prepare our soul to be received by God. If one's spirit is not communicating with the Spirit of God, to them God does not exist because they can not receive evidence to the contrary; they are in incapable of comprehending spiritual reality. Spiritual beings know that they are part of God's Master Plan, as is the universe. Anything that does not evolve, dies.
What Is God Going To Do With All The Sinners ?
Any soul that is not with God can not exist and dies.
Our sins will be overlooked and forgiven, like parents dismiss and forgive their child's transgressions. Any punishment is immediate, without a grudge being retained. God will not interfere with your life on earth or physically harm or punish anyone. The same way a parent makes a child aware when the child has committed a wrong act, the conscience will weigh on the spirit and one with a conscience will be repentant; that is the extent of the punishment. When evil deeds are constant, the conscience gets anesthetized and no longer communicates with the spirit; upon physical death, the spirit dies also.
Sins were invented by people in order to frighten the masses to conform to standards set by people. If our laws are not obeyed, punishment will be by the appropriate government agency. God will not punish sinners here or hereafter.
God Does Not Need Our Prayers
Prayers are for our benefit. We need to pray for guidance to comprehend the purpose of our existence. Through prayers and meditation, inspiration peace and tranquility can be received by our spirit. Harmony with God requires the spirit to be at peace. Our prayers should ask for inspiration and guidance from God to enlighten us and transform our daily lives by being honest, humble, grateful, full of love and good works. Churches, mosques, temples and gathering places help our spirit to rejoice and come closer to the unity and peace of God.
A person afflicted by bodily sufferings can at times be closer to God than one who is in daily turmoil and obsessed with acquiring and hoarding wealth for himself, rather than sharing and making life bearable for the needy. Our only purpose in life is to expand our knowledge and to strive for a peaceful co-existence with an inspirational guidance from God; so as to co-exist with our spiritual partners in harmony through eternity.
Our earth is just a miniscule place in the vast expanse of the universe. God is the supreme intelligence that will guide us by inspiration; the building of other life forms of this universe. Ecstasy cannot aptly describe a soul’s participation in this great undertaking. All our questions will be answered because God is like the storage of all knowledge that can be tapped by every soul and still operate in unison.
Drugs, alcohol or any substance which interferes with, or suppresses the spirit and retards our clear thinking should be avoided. The spirit will rejoice and grow stronger through our appreciation of the beauty of nature, music, song and art. A stronger spirit is closer to God and inspirations from God will guide and heal the mind and soul.
Preachers and Holy Men have been given the responsibility to educate a new generation of minds of the complete truth and to teach tolerance of other religions and other interpretations of God, not just as you perceive the truth or God to be.
Was the spiritual realm where God exists in another dimension ever breached by a man named Jesus ? Was Jesus the son of God, or a prophet and the son of a man ?
Will they who believe that Jesus was a prophet rather than the only son of God be condemned ? Are we not, as according to the bible, children of God, therefore as children, we are also a son or a daughter of God. If Jesus were born now would people believe that he was God ?
Jesus has been appropriately called the "Son of God" and "Prince of Peace". We are often reminded of the teachings of Jesus whose words have survived two millenniums. His disciples kept him alive in the memories of all who heard and believed his words. They, as well as other "Men of God" who contributed to the compilation of the scriptures of the Bible, were inspired by God to give us guidelines to live by.
Christianity states that there is only one straight and narrow road that leads to God. This is incorrect. All roads which lead to God can bring the soul to its destination. The roads may be curved and circular at times, but if one chooses one's objective and abides thereby, the goal will be achieved.
There is a song which should be our daily inspiration. It says, "Open up your heart and let the sun shine in". Judge not lest ye be judged.
Jesus - Died about 30 A.D.. Mark's Gospel presents Jesus as a perfectly normal man with brothers and sisters. Luke's Gospel suggests that Jesus and John The Babtist were actually related. Jesus' teachings stressed love, charity and peace. After his death Jesus' disciples believed that Jesus presented an image of God and began to pray to him. St. Paul believed that God's powers should be made accessible to the goyim (gentiles, non-Jews) and preached the Gospel of Jesus to them. Paul never called Jesus "God". He called him "the Son of God" in its Jewish sense; he did not preach that Jesus had been the incarnation of God himself but that he possessed God's "powers" and "Spirit" which manifested God's activity on earth and were not to be identified with the inaccessible divine essence. Paul created Christianity by referring to Jesus as Christ which was a translation of the Hebrew "Messiach". This doctrine was scandalized by Jews and later the Muslims who found it blasphemous.
The doctrine that Jesus was divine and that Jesus had been God in human form was not finalized until the fourth century.
The Dead Sea Scrolls offer unprecedented information about Jewish religious and political life in Palestine during the turbulent late Second Temple Period (200 B.C. to A.D. 70), a time of great corruption and conflict under Roman rule in Palestine. Scholars estimate that the Dead Sea Scrolls were hidden in A.D. 68, when Roman legions reached the Dead Sea during the emperor Vespasian's campaign to Jericho.
The scrolls also shed light on the time when Jesus and John the Baptist lived and early Christians began to organize. Specifically, they offer evidence that early Christian beliefs and practices had precedents in the Jewish sects of the time. Sectarian scrolls tell of people who, like the early Christians, did not believe in the Temple worship of the Pharisees, people who had their own literature, their own rituals-including baptism-and their own beliefs, most significantly beliefs in a messiah, a divine judgment, and an apocalypse. Three different scrolls depict a sacred meal of bread and wine. These similarities as well as parallels between the literary style of certain scrolls and that of the New Testament have led some scholars to claim that Jesus and John the Baptist were either part of or strongly influenced by a sect at the Dead Sea.
Debate has furthered speculation about the historical Jesus, such as the claim that he was a Zealot rather than a pacifist, a theory that does not fit with New Testament tradition but does fit with the history of this period. And one of the most important discoveries in the scrolls has been the use of the name Son of God to refer to someone other than Jesus, implying a cultural use of the term that was not itself synonymous with God.
How do we know that the spirit exists ?
Many of our experiences here are as an example of spiritual life. A child until about the age of 2 is receptive to and believes all that he hears, observes, and is told. This is the most influential period and will greatly shape the remainder of his life; all information is stored with the subconscious. After age 2 independence is exercised and rebellion is the next step. Many teenagers begin to doubt their parents judgment and usually a young adult in his twenties moves away from home. Some will no longer keep in touch with or communicate with the parent. The spirit will also at interval periods sever the line of communication and at times communication with the Spirit of God will cease entirely.
Being with spirit; unless one is completely emotionless, a spirit is present. One may say that emotions are psychological, (of the psyche) structuralism, psychobiological, but they are nevertheless spiritual; which also subscribes to a form of natural selection. Every person is born with a spirit. The spirit is a part of the mother's spirit which is passed down to the fetus. Your conscience relays information to your spirit. Some people may not believe in a spirit because they can not see it but, whether one believes it or not, every person has a spirit. If one's spirit is not communicating with the Spirit of God, to them God does not exist.
The soul and spirit are often considered identical, though the soul has also been referred to as the vessel for the spirit. When the bible refers to talking animals, the originator of that story in all probability was telling it to children, or meant it to be an analogy. Animals do not possess reasoning abilities or souls.
.
Is there evidence that God exists ?
Evidence is proof, something that shows what is true. Truth is established by testifying, bearing witness, attesting, declaring under oath that what is testified to, is actuality. In a court of law, as in civil action, evidence is presented and the validity of this evidence is assessed by a judge or jury who rule on it; their decision is accepted and it is determined that proof has been established by a preponderance of the evidence.
Throughout several millenniums evidence has been presented that the Spirit of God has interacted with our spirit via inspiration, to write what are considered Holy Scriptures and to be the cause of miraculous healings, many physicians will attest to the latter. This is evidence, proof of the existence of God.
Evidence of God's existence can also be seen in the compilation and complexities of everything in existence, from the complex DNA makeup of a single cell, to the makeup of the entire universe. To refute this evidence by saying that all is possible without supreme guidance is to ignore proof.
The power of the wind is a small comparison to the power of God's Spirit. The wind can gently caress as it wafts across the land, stirring wildflowers, thereby causing their seeds or pollen to be carried along currents to pollinate another, creating a new life. The wind can also be a force that is unequaled by any other. We can not see the wind. We can not see or physically talk with God, but our spirit can unite and be guided by God's Spirit to accomplish the seemingly impossible.
Artificial Intelligence
Computers in some cases are considered Thinking Machines and are also considered Artificial Intelligence, but they are unable to transfer their intelligence to the spirit or soul. Only the spirit or soul can transgress our dimension in order to transmit its contents.
Artificial Intelligence development, even though it is astounding, is still in its infancy, just as is our understanding of God. Currently no Artificial Intelligence has as yet been able to simulate total human behavior.
Buddhism and Hinduism
Buddhism and Hinduism is a devotion to exalted beings. After the Buddha died at about 5oo B.C. people attempted to reach nirvana, by achieving enlightenment, on their own. During the first century B.C. claims were made that the Buddha had reappeared in human form and statues appeared in India. As in Christianity and Hinduism, there was a yearning for humanized religion and it was thereby integrated into religion.
Religious Diversity when it breeds fanaticism is a dangerous combination.
In U.S.A. there are more than 1500 religious denomination and faith groups,including 900 Christian, 100 Hindu and 75 Buddhist denominations.
The Crusades (1095 -1398) were a series of Christian military expeditions to reclaim the Holy Land from the Muslims. Muslims were considered infidels and a threat to Christianity in the East and the "peace of God" at home. Preachers of the crusade pleaded for all to participate in this holy cause, whether rich or poor, experienced in the military or not. With the cry "Deus Vult!" ("God wills it!") Christians slaughtered Muslims everywhere they went. The fighting was fierce, but the unsuspecting Muslims were no match for the bloodthirsty Crusaders, who killed not only fighting men, but also women and children.
God's way of creating life is beyond the intellectual capacity of man.
Many past theories are presently being reevaluated. The first US patent for a psychokinesis effect was granted to Princeton University researchers on November 3, 1998. Patent "US 5830064" is entitled: Apparatus and method for distinguishing events which collectively exceed chance expectations and thereby controlling an output. This patent specifically covers distant mental control of electronic random number generator outputs.
Starting in the 1980s, well-known scientific journals like Foundations of Physics, American Psychologist, and Statistical Science published articles favorably reviewing the scientific evidence for psychic phenomena. The Proceedings of the IEEE, the flagship journal of the Institute for Electronic and Electrical Engineers, has published major debates on psi research. Invited articles have appeared in the prestigious journal, Brain and Behavioral Sciences. A favorable article on telepathy research appeared in 1994 in Psychological Bulletin, one of the top-ranked journals in academic psychology. An article presenting a theoretical model for precognition appeared in 1994 in Physical Review, a prominent physics journal.
On 1-8-2002 NASA announced a new interpretation of the dawn of cosmic light; this conflicts with the Big-Bang Theory time period. The Hubble images of deep space, close to the beginning of time indicate that at beginning of time, galaxy formation started early and rapidly; not at once, but in only a few million years.
Pascal's Theory or wager was that God is not known through reason but through the heart and that faith is a better guide than reason. I submit that there is sufficient evidence and that by applying intelligent reasoning, one has to come to the conclusion of the probability of God's existence.
Sufficient evidence shown by telepathy, psychokinesis, psychic phenomena, miraculous healings and inspirations also indicates that collective intelligence, (God) existing in a spiritual dimension, is cumulative and progressive rather than constant.
When evidence has been presented , not everyone is convinced as to its validity. The majority decision prevails on evaluating evidence in a civil court trial. If one understands or incorrectly evaluates the evidence that was presented, that is indeed a problem.
I believe that a majority of people believe in God, they do not have to be religious; someone living in the jungle may not have heard of God, yet have their own enlightenment.
One's spirit has to open lines of communication with the Spirit of God in order to receive inspiration from God. This is the only way whereby one will "SEE THE LIGHT".
Cosmological constant was a term introduced by Einstein into his field equations of general relativity to permit a stationary, nonexpanding universe: it has since been abandoned in most models of the universe
In recent years, we have learned that 95% of the Universe is made of a type of matter or energy that we cannot see nor understand. Gravity may ripple across the Universe in waves, and certain cosmic rays, atomic particles moving at near light speed, possess an energy far greater than that which can be explained by modern physics.
Duplicating the harsh conditions of cold interstellar space in their laboratory, NASA scientists have created primitive cells that mimic the membranous structures found in all living things. These chemical compounds may have played a part in the origin of life.
This breakthrough by scientists at NASA Ames Research Center in California's Silicon Valley is important because some scientists believe that the delivery - by comets, meteorites and interplanetary dust - of similar organic compounds born in interstellar space might have "kick-started" life on Earth.
"Scientists believe the molecules needed to make a cell's membrane, and thus for the origin of life, are all over space. This discovery implies that life could be everywhere in the universe," said Dr. Louis Allamandola, the team's leader.
In contrast to current thinking, this new work shows that the early chemical steps believed to be important for the origin of life do not require an already-formed planet. Instead, they seem to take place in deep space long before planet formation occurs. This implies that the vastness of space is filled with chemical compounds which, if they land in a hospitable environment like our Earth, can readily jump-start life.
Some people quote the Bible as the gospel truth of God's words. Does that mean that they who use the Koran or other holy scriptures that were inspired by God are misguided ?
One of our apparent reasons for being here is, in order to justify our beliefs even to ourselves, that we apply logic to our beliefs rather than blindly accept everything that we have read and been told.
Muhammad who lived during a turbulent time of history, was the cause for the writings in the Koran. The goal of all of these "Men of God", who devoted most of their lives to preaching of God, was to help us to fashion our lives to be at peace with the Holy Spirit of God.
ALL religions have the same goals and is up to us to love and to unify, rather than disagree with or judge, other beliefs.
The orthodox Muslim view of the Koran as self-evidently the Word of God, perfect and inimitable in message, language, style, and form, is strikingly similar to the fundamentalist Christian notion of the Bible's "inerrancy" and "verbal inspiration" that is still common in many places today.
Not all the Christians think this way about the Bible, however, and in fact, as the Encyclopaedia of Islam (1981) points out, "the closest analogue in Christian belief to the role of the Kur'an in Muslim belief is not the Bible, but Christ." If Christ is the Word of God made flesh, the Koran is the Word of God made text, and questioning its sanctity or authority is thus considered an outright attack on Islam -- as Salman Rushdie knows all too well.
In 1972, during the restoration of the Great Mosque of Sana'a, in Yemen, laborers working in a loft between the structure's inner and outer roofs stumbled across an unappealing mash of old parchment and paper documents -- damaged books and individual pages of Arabic text, fused together by centuries of rain and dampness, gnawed into over the years by rats and insects. Intent on completing the task at hand, the laborers gathered up the manuscripts, pressed them into some twenty potato sacks.
Some of the parchment pages in the Yemeni hoard seemed to date back to the seventh and eighth centuries A.D., or Islam's first two centuries -- they were fragments, in other words, of perhaps the oldest Korans in existence. What's more, some of these fragments revealed small but intriguing aberrations from the standard Koranic text. Such aberrations, though not surprising to textual historians, are troublingly at odds with the orthodox Muslim belief that the Koran as it has reached us today is quite simply the perfect, timeless, and unchanging Word of God.
The mainly secular effort to reinterpret the Koran -- in part based on textual evidence such as that provided by the Yemeni fragments -- is disturbing and offensive to many Muslims, just as attempts to reinterpret the Bible and the life of Jesus are disturbing and offensive to many conservative Christians. Nevertheless, there are scholars, Muslims among them, who feel that such an effort, which amounts essentially to placing the Koran in history, will provide fuel for an Islamic revival of sorts -- a reappropriation of tradition, a going forward by looking back. Thus far confined to scholarly argument, this sort of thinking can be nonetheless very powerful and -- as the histories of the Renaissance and the Reformation demonstrate -- can lead to major social change. The Koran, after all, is currently the world's most ideologically influential text.
Martyrs, who by their actions, cause the death of others and cause another soul to die before that soul has had the opportunity to be at peace with the Spirit of God, will not achieve their goals of ultimately being with God.
About The Author
My belief originated in 1956 when I was 15 years old. I had double pneumonia and I thought that I would surely die. I was born in Lithuania in 1941 and my family had to flee to Germany in 1945 when Russia occupied our homeland. In 1950 we immigrated to America. When I became ill in 1956 my father took me to a doctor who gave me a penicillin injection and recommended immediate hospitalization. We had no medical insurance or money, so my father took me home to recuperate. I remember the drive home vividly. Every breath was extremely painful and my chest felt as though a great weight was upon it. I watched cars and trucks drive by and I wondered how people could make long term plans when life was so unpredictable. At home I read the bible every waking moment and prayed to God to save my soul.
Several nights later, whether in a dream, by inspiration, fever induced fantasy, or some unexplainable reason, I was in a place with a gathering of spirits. I felt the greatest peace, tranquility and ecstasy. I felt a rapture that was beyond a person's imagination. I felt as if I was a part of God. I was mentally communicating and in sync with everyone; all the prophets of the bible, many historical people whom I had read about, many deceased acquaintances and relatives. There was no dominant force, no forceful leader. I somehow knew who everyone was. Every thought was interacted with the whole community. I had no questions; it seemed as if everything was revealed and crystal clear. I saw the universe stretched out before us like a vast expanse with spirits engaged in mental interaction like master craftsmen contemplating the creation of a new frontier.
My father was a Lutheran Preacher who believed that anyone who disagreed with his belief was wrong and would not go to heaven. At age 16, I remember questioned this and told him, "Dad, if you believe that everyone who differs with you will not go to heaven, you will be mighty lonely up there all by yourself".
Greetings Kkawhol!
I confess that I did not thouroughly read everything in both posts -- it seems they are identical, so I really sped through the second, and maybe missed something.
There are a few points I agree with absolutely. For example, I do believe that in the mind of God, the arguments between Muslims and Christians are the equivalent of two year olds squabbling. I also agree with the general idea that we should be able to peacefully co-exists.
There are a few points I disagree with. The assertion that the first people who thought of Allah-God (or a divine being) because of lightening or some other physical phenemon is completely unprovable, and I think it is false. Both the Muslim and the Christian are asserting more about what or who God is than that s/he is the cause of unexplainable phenomenon. God is more than a theory to fill in the gaps in science.
The condition for the possibility of a person conceiving of infinity is that infinity exists, even if in the mind. (Ponder that a bit before you brush it off). The condition for the possibility for making any truth claim (even God does not exist) is that truth exists.
God IS Truth and Allah is the infinite one!
When I say a word, like "cat", it conveys a meaning. You imagine a four legged being with fur, and unless you are ignorant of the English language, you know what I mean.
Behind the word "God", "Allah", "Yahweh", "Brahman", "Tetzle" and all the names people give to divine holy mystery, there is a meaning conveyed in the word. Even the atheist knows what he or she means when she or he says "I do not believe in God."
The word "God" conveys an experience of the transcendent, which as far as I know, every society has a word to describe. In other words, "God" or "Allah" is not a myth invented to explain what science has not yet figured out. If that's all the meaning you get out of the word, you are missing the experience the word is meant to convey -- and it seems to be an extremely common experience.
The condition for the possibility of a person transcending him or herself is the existence of transcendent reality. Human persons are the finite capable fo the infinite. Allah, or God is the infinite into which we actualize our transcendence.
However, this does not mean that we make up God like cells make up the body. Indeed, it means quite the opposite.
If transcendence is real and obtainable, that which we transcend into must be eternal and infinite -- meaning that it pre-exist my own limited, finite, historical existence.
In other words, I am not part of God. Rather, Allah is the ground of my own existence. My own contingent existence is constantly sustained by Her conscious willing me into existence -- Yahweh alone is self subsistent being (I AM Who AM). I am a creature of the one self subsistent being.
I am a Christian. If the Muslims have a different view on this, chime in.....
I hope this makes sense. If not, feel free to ask for clarification.
Peace and Blessings!
jcecil3
The Age of Technology demands answers rather than blind faith.
Where did God come from ? How can God magically create things in this dimension when (he) exists in a spiritual one ? Please re-read my entire post. Thanks
Greetings kkawohl,
It's not that I have not read your post, and as I stated above, there are parts I agree wholeheartedly with.
Some examples of the parts I agree with....I am a Christian, but I believe that others (non-Christians) can be saved, as you assert. I agree with your analogy about our religious differences being the same as children squabbling in the eyes of God. I believe we should do better to learn to peacefully co-exist. I accept that reason has a role in the life of faith, and that faith and reason do not contradict one another. I accept that the sacred texts of all religions used human metaphors to describe an experience of God.
I just do not agree that "the age of technology" has changed what is meant by the experience of transcendent being. Nor does this so-called age of technology increase the demand to explain where God came from. I do not accept that the only explanation for primitive belief in God is that the ancients invented God to account for physical phenomenon that they could not explain. A "God of the gaps" is not what a believer really means by the word "God", or "Allah", or whatever name we give divine holy mystery.
Thomas Aquinas, a Christian theologian of the 12th century, is often credited with proposing 5 "proofs of God", one of which is called the proof of "efficient causality". Many people misinterpret this proof as meaning that God is whatever was before the physical universe. However, in question 44 of the Summa Theologia, he proves that we cannot know from reason that the physical world is not eternal. So what did he mean when he said God is the efficient cause of all things as a proof of God?
To Thomas, who used Aristolian categories, efficient causality refers to a relationship like heat to a flame. It is not causality in time: one event causing another event to occur after it. Rather, efficient causality is a cause that undergirds and supports another co-existing reality. The heat does not exist after the flame in time. Rather it exist with the flame, and is caused by the flame.
So it is with my own contingent existence. The act of existence is dependent on "being". God is "I AM Who AM". God is pure act -- Absolute Being -- the goad and the goal of all that exist -- the ground of existence. If "be-ing" does not exist, then nothing exist!
Asking what existed before God is a question about as meaningful as asking what the color blue taste like.
Nothing can exist before BEING, and nothing exists apart from BEING. Pure actualized BEING is the common denominator behind, within, around, throughout, and around all "things". I exist because I share in absolute being! Be-ing is infinite, eternal, and self-subsistent. It does not depend on me in order for it to exist. I depend on it!
In your post, you say the following:
Where Did God Come From ?
God exists in a spiritual dimension and is a union of souls which was created when the first reasoning entity ceased its existence (physical death) in this dimension and entered the spiritual realm. (invisibility)
How can this first reasoning entity exist unless BE-ING itself exists? The condition for the possibility of existence is that self-subsistent being exists.
Furthermore, reason is simply a function of the imagination. It is a useful function, but my imagination needs to be tested against reality. The condition for the possibility of truth is absolute truth. God is truth! The condition for the possibility for reason is that the world is not chaotic. The order and beauty of the world reveals that absolute BE-ING and Truth is a force that operates according to principles that reasoning entities find menaingful -- it is a personal force! But since our very existence in the present moment (not 1,000,000,000 years ago -- but right now, at this very second) -- since our very present existence depends on this force, we are held in existence by a personal power greater than ourselves!
God's intelligence is ever expanding and grows with the addition of each soul. Every soul is like a separate cell or atom on earth which combines with other cells or atoms to make up the existence of every living person, plant, animal and even the air which sustains all life; so also do souls perform, either individually or in unison. Any soul or spirit that is not with God can not exist, and dies.
Everything evolves or stagnates and dies.
Given what I said above, if you have followed me so far, I cannot agree with this statement. We did not make God. God made us, and makes us every nano-second we live. This is not to say that we cannot commune with this power. Rather, it is to acknowledge that we are Her creatures, not the other way around!
Souls perform individually or cumulatively in the same way as entities in this dimension. Souls are a part of God as we are a part of this earth.
We are united to God, but we are not part of God. God infuses our finite, historical, contingent being -- constantly sustaining our existence. However, God is not less a single iota if any one of us ceased to exist. This reveals something else about God-Allah-Brahman-Yahweh. That something else is that He desires our existence and fellowship!
Christians believe that this truth was most perfectly expressed by God's chosing to become fully one with creation by incarnating Herself as a human person. Muslims and I debate this vigorously. Nevertheless, BOTH Muslims and Christians know that human beings did not invent God, and we do not combine to become God upon death. Your notion appears to be pantheism. If I am correct in understanding pantheism, it appears to me to be an irrational belief with no empirical evidence.
Pantheistic belief is irrational because it not only does not explain our origins in the past, but it also does not explain our existence in the present. It is irrational because it denies the almost universal human experience of transcendence that gives rise to the notion that crystalizes in the word, "God", or whatever we name the experience of transcendent being.
Likewise, there simply is no empirical evidence that our souls, spirits, minds, or whatever fuse into some being beyond death. If they did, such a being would by nature become eteranl (outside of time), and therefore pre-exist what made it. This is a logical contradiction. The traditional notions of God creating ex nihilo are a much better explanation.
Maybe you did not mean to convey pantheistic philosophy. If so, I misunderstood, and I apologize if I sound harsh in my critique.
Peace and Blessing!
jcecil3
Greetings jcecil3,
If Jesus or Muhammad lived NOW, would most people now believe that Jesus is God or that Muhammad is a prophet?
Everything has to have a beginning. How did God become God or come to BE God?
BEING is existence(living, reality, life) or an entity. God exists as spirit in a spiritual realm and does not interfere with anything that is done on earth.
If our existence depends on God then one would have to say that our demise is due to God's doing including useless killings.
Pantheism is a philosophical doctrine that views the universe as a reflection of God. My conviction is that our life here on earth is a training ground to gather experiences and to appreciate the beauty of nature, thereby giving us a minute example of the beauty of the hereafter.
Everyone has their own belief and I believe that regardless of whichever is correct, it really doesn't make any difference to God. Our goal is more important than how we achieve it.
Best Wishes,
Kurt
Netcurtains
16-02-2002, 11:31
Hi,
That is self evident. But the flaw in your argument is this.
You are a young family trying to bring up the kids as best you can. Without "discipline" people on the whole sink to the lowest common denominator. An "organised" religion gives that discipline to help young families bring up their children to respect others, to help old ladies accross the road, to help charities, to help stop fights in the playground etc. Baptists, Methodist, Catholic church going children I think statistics show are more likely to be caring members of the UK society then non-church going children.
A concise reply to the original thread:
The Nicean creed is 33 lines - how come the Concise reply is about 10 times longer?
LAST EDITED ON 16-02-02 AT 07:20 PM (GMT)[p]Greetings once again Kurt,
I agree with your last point: life is a training ground, and we need to stay focused on the goal. I also agree that other religions than my own lead to God (eventually).
Ultimately, however, here on earth, in the twenty-first century, many people are faced with the questions in your first point: who do we believe that Jesus and Mohammed are?
I DO believe that Jesus is God in the flesh, and that Mohammed was great poet and theologian. While you do not seem to accept my belief about Jesus, I am not arguing with you about that. Believe what you want about Jesus. I have more problems with your notions about God.
In other words, when I say Jesus is God, I certainly do NOT mean that a collective fushion of ancesteral souls became flesh. Likewise, when the Muslim says the Qur'an contains the words of Allah, I do not understand her or him to be saying that Mohammed channeled a collective fushion of ancesteral souls. Both Christians and Muslims (as well Jews) mean something entirely different than that when we say the word "Allah", "Yahweh", or "God".
In your second point, you state that BEING is a living entity, but you separate God from this and state that God must have a beginning. This is exactly where I am saying you are missing the point. God IS absolute BEING. God IS pure unbounded existence. God IS is-ness. Nothing can exist apart from existence, and God is pure existence. In other words, wherever God is not, there is absolute nothingness (which is actually inconceivable).
God is the answer to the question of "Why is there is something, rather than nothing?" In saying this, we monotheist are not stating merely that God is the origin in pre-historic time of all things that currently exists. Rather, we are saying that we emmanate from God in this very nano-second. If God suddenly died this moment, the entire cosmos would cease to exist. We exist because God wills us into existence each and every moment.
Even time exist because Absolute BEING (God) wills it that way. In the self-consciousness of God, it would appear that there is a sense of an eternal now, with no past or future. Yet, God is throughout all time. God is at once infinite and eternal (outside of time). God transcends all things, yet is with, in, and through all things.
God is not something other than being and existence. Rather he is the act of being that pervades all reality. This is all very difficult to express, and impossible to fully comprehend -- but we get glimpses of it in transcedndent experience. The mystics speak of this conception of God, and I have felt it in prayer, meditation, and contemplation.
I am a panentheist, rather than a pantheist. There is a difference. What I am objecting to is the conception that God has a beginning, is made up of parts, can be fully comprehended, and exists apart from the entity of existence (which would say he exists apart from himself).
God is One we apprehend through reason, without ever fully comprehending her.
If you think that you have comprehended God, you are conceiving an idol. I do not say this out of stubborn blind faith. I say this because I think I understand what you are saying, and I sense that you do not understand what I am saying. I say this because I have an experience of apprehension of that which cannot be comprehended.
Keep pondering and stay on the journey......
Peace and Blessings!
jcecil3
Dear jcecil3,
If God is a part of existence and we emanate from God and God wills us into existence, is God powerless to control misery, devastation and destruction or can we blame God by saying God willed it? Does this also mean that God creates suffering and exerts dominance over all that exists and demands servitude? Man created the powerful God who would punish if he was not obeyed, so when an unexplained tragedy struck, it was considered God's doing.
God is Pure Intelligence that had a beginning even possibly before the existence of our earth. People have mystified God when the concept of God is really quite simple even though God's intellect will always be beyond our comprehension. The universe evolved through time by intelligent guidance rather than interference.
Jesus, Muhammad and other religious leaders were influenced by social requirements of their time which caused inspirations from God's Spirit to be interpreted to adapt to seeking peace between warring factions. Any person who steers other spirits to seek open lines of communication with God's Spirit are assured of achieving unity with God.
Transcendent experiences are through our spirit receiving inspiration from The Spirit of God; this can also greatly enhance and heal our physical lives and bodies.
Best Wishes,
Kurt
Netcurtains
17-02-2002, 10:18
LAST EDITED ON 17-02-02 AT 10:03 AM (GMT)[p]"equality". The author says Jesus claimed "equality" with god. The author clearly has made a mistake! What sort of Doctor is it that misses the obvious? I hope he's not at my local hospital - there are enough medical scare stories as it is.
In the Middle East (and I guess even the UK) the Father has more authority then a Son. The Son is NOT EQUAL to the Father. The Son is (if you like) the small (but very important) electron that circulates the large proton. Christianity claims the way to the Father is via the Son (if you like - To get to the Proton you have to pass through the electron cloud - there is no other simple way).
The Our Father prayer is the Greatest, Most widely said prayer by Christians. It has NO AMBIGUITY - The Father has authourity.
The "Our Father" is said in the Catholic Mass each sunday by every catholic. It is not just a catholic pray - it is universally accepted by all the Christain churches.
Read it yourself and you will clearly see the Christian view:
"Our Father, who art in Heaven,
Hallowed be thy name ,
Thy kingdom come,
Thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven
Give us this day, our daily bread.
Forgive us our sins,
as we forgive those who sin against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
For Thine is the kingdom,
and the power, and the glory forever. Amen"
It shows you - If that guy was a doctor then I should be a Professor. lol. Jesus equal to the Father?
Did he read the first few lines of the Nicean Creed???
"
We believe in one God,
the Father, THE ALMIGHTY,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen."
Does Jesus have centre stage in heaven or is he
somewhere on the right or left?
READ the nicean creed again:
"
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the RIGHT HAND of the Father.
"
He is not centre stage - he is on the right. THE
GUY HAS NOT EVEN BOTHERED TO READ 33 LINES OF THE
NICEAN CREED. AND THEN HE GOES AND HAS THE CHEEK
TO WRITE THIS RUBBISH - TELLING ME WHAT I BELIEVE???
I'M SICK AND TIRED OF HEARING WHAT I AM MEANT TO BELIEVE
FROM PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE A DIFFERENT RELIGION. Its not an
insult to call them thick - seriously - its a fact!
The Nicean creed has just 33 LINES - this "Dr" writes
some sort of thesis against Christianity without even
reading the Creed???
I must find his email address and put him straignt - anyone
got it?
Its OK - I've found it - he is in for a bit of a dressing down!
LAST EDITED ON 18-02-02 AT 05:24 PM (GMT)[p]Greetings Kurt,
The question about God's power over suffering is a good one -- and one that I believe no human being can adequately answer. Suffering is a great mystery. Pantheism does not answer the question of human suffering any more than any other system.
You state that I said God is a part of existence. I did not say that. I said that God IS pure existence. God does not exist apart from existence -- She is existence!
God is not an object along-side of other objects in the cosmos. Rather, God is the quality of being that undergirds all objects sharing in Existence (God) in the cosmos.
Returning to the question of suffering, it is true that if God is what I say He is, He has power over suffering. It is also Christian belief that God can prevent suffering (I am pretty sure that Muslims believe this as well). We believe that God is good, therefore God does not CAUSE suffering. However, God allows suffering.
Much suffering finds its cause in human action. The bombing of the WTC was a human action. If I get cancer from smoking too much, how is that God's fault? In monotheistic religious systems, there is an acknowledgement that the mystery of suffering is intrinsically interwoven with the mystery of sin. In some sense, we suffer because we have turned away from our own nature, from the ground of existence, and we choose to abuse our freedom.
Yet, some suffering defies easy explanation. Why do innocent children die of starvation or disease? As I say, there appears to be no easy explanation, and I fail to see how pantheism provides a viable solution either.
Why does God allow suffering in the monotheistic world-view? As I say, this is a great mystery that we cannot fully comprehend.
Parents know that there are times they allow their children to suffer for a greater good. A simple example is allowing your child to fall while they learn to walk. A parent can foresee that the short range pain is worth the long range good. Perhaps, from the divine point of view, even something as catatrophic as war or AIDs serves some purpose that we cannot fathom in our limited point of view. This is where faith comes in -- trusting God even when it seems difficult.
If suffering is intrincically tied to sin, it is also part of the mystery of freedom. The condition for the possibility of freedom is choice. We have a choice to live according to our nature, or to deny our nature. When we choose to act unnaturally, it has effects in the physical cosmos (what goes around comes around -- the law of justice, karma, etc....) Just as the laws of areodynamics seem to circumvent the laws of gravity, Christians believe that the laws of grace appear to circumvent justice. Actually, this is appearence only, because even in an airplane, gravity still operates, and even under grace, sin has consequences.
From a Christian point of view, we look to Jesus, and see that God joined us in our suffering by going to the cross. We may not know WHY God allows suffering in this life, but we know She is with us through the pain. We also accept in faith that the penalty (consequence) of sin for humanity has been paid by Christ on the cross. Furthermore, in the resurrection, Christians believe that God revealed that day when all death, suffering, and pain will be vanquished for humanity if we only trust that ultimate reality which is God. By the very act of becoming human, Absolute BE-ING has revelaed that humanity is the center of the universe.
The Muslim answer to suffering would be articulated much differently, since they do not accept the divinity of Christ, nor do they accept his death on the cross or the resurrection event. Yet, the principle of suffering for a greater good seems common, and I imagine that Islam has symbols and language that help a believer keep faith in Allah through the hard times.
By the way, this is a separate topic, but I disagree somewhat with some of Netcurtains articulation of Christian faith below. S/he says that Jesus is less than the Father, implying Jesus is not truly divine. Jesus is less than the Father in his humanity, yet equal to the Father in his divinity. The whole Father-Son relationship is a metaphor, and the Bible uses other metaphors to describe Jesus' relationship to the Father, such as eternal Wisdom (Sophia-Logos) made incarnate. I have written about this mystery elsewhere above and in other places -- so I will avoid going into depth about it right now. This is not an important point in my discussion regarding pantheism.
At this point, I really do not want to debate about Jesus and Mohammed until we can clear up the conception of the word "God". Pantheism seems to me to be a dead end.
It is true that Jesus, Mohammed, Moses, and even you an I are conditioned by culture and personal history in selecting language, metaphors, and analogies to speak of God. Yet, monotheists believe that the metaphors used by Abraham and the prophets point to the same reality that we are trying to convey today. You seem to assume that Abraham, Noah, and the prophets held to more "primitive" notions that correlate in no way to modern conceptions of God (the God of the gaps theory).
While their metaphors may differ from ours due to their historical conditioning, and even their morality may differ, I do not believe that their conception of God's nature is radically different. I do not reject the religious point of view of my ancestors a priori just because they did not have the technological knowledge I might have. The reality conveyed by the word "God" is not dependent on a particular technoloical point of view, and I see no reason to believe that Moses' experience of the One named "I AM Who AM" is any different from my own experience of transcendant being apprehended through prayer.
I believe that when I worship at the Catholic Mass, I am praying to the God of Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekkah, Jacob and Racheal, Ishmael and Joseph (as well as the God of Mohammed, Bhuddha, Confusious, Plato, and Aristotle). There is only one God.
By the way, my earthly father holds a doctorate in Chemistry and he sees no contradiction between modern science and the conception of God I am addressing. I studied the natural sciences myself for three years as an undergraduate, and abandoned them for the study of literature and theology. However, I did not abandon the natural sciences because they seem to contradict religion. They don't contradict religion. Rather, science answers the questions of how the world operates. Theology answers the questions of why the world operates as it does. Changes in science may provide new metaphors to clarify the reality I am trying to describe, but once the reality is apprehended, it becomes clear that science cannot possibly disprove this reality.
Kurt -- Can you understand the possibility that God has no beggining or end IF God IS pure existence?
In other words, when you keep asking what is the beginning of God, you are asking what is the beginning of existence! Existence just is. God IS what is conveyed in the true meaning of the concept of existence.
Thomas Aquinas would agree with you that God is absolutely simple. Absolute simplicity cannot have parts. God is not made up of parts. God IS pure being.
It is true that God is NOT the mental concept of existence, but the reality that gives rise to this concept. A concept is finite in the finite imagination of a human person. Pure existence is truly infinite, and therefore is as far beyond the imagination as the reality conveyed by the number "infinity".
God IS existence in it's purest and simplist form apart from THINGS that exist.
THINGS exists because they share in EXISTENCE (God).
That is, things exists in, with, through, for, and from God who is Absolute Being and pure self-subsistent existence -- "I AM Who AM".
I know I am getting repetitive, but with each response you make, you are indicating that you seem to think that I believe God is something other than pure existence and absolute being. This is not what monotheists believe. We believe that "God = Being", ..., and beingS exist by the power of Being.
I hope at some point this starts to make sense. Are you apprehending what I am saying yet?
Peace and Blessing!
jcecil3
Netcurtains
18-02-2002, 19:15
Hi,
its a bit difficult to concentrate as the kids are playing loudly on the Playstation 2 but:
I'm not sure if we are allowed to discuss our differences as they do not involve Islam directly.
However (just in case we can get away with it):
1) There is no logical reason why there should be 100s of gods or just one god or none. Einstein and others have tried to prove a "unified" system of nature but so far no success - therefore anything is possible. The Hindu concept is just as valid as any other (IMHO). Why do you say many gods is not valid?
2) You seem to be suggesting that the bible and the nicean creed are playing with semantics and that in fact Jesus is just simply the Father?
I can accept (2) as being a valid view (although I disagree with it). Can you explain your view further?
Greetings Netcurtains,
Perhaps we should carry on this discussion somewhere other than the Islamic Web Conference. I wrote quite a bit about this issue in responses to Muslims some time ago under the heading "Who Invented the Trinity" posted by Lulua.
Recently, I have been reading Raymond Brown's "Introduction to New Testament Christology". His view of what the Bible says about Christ is pretty close to my own. It admits development of historical consciousness, while preserving a continuity and consistency as an underlying reality from the life of Christ to our own day.
Bear in mind, I do not agree with everything Brown has ever written, but I agree with a great deal of his view regarding the way the New Testament becomes the creed of Nicea. Where I disagree, I am generally a little more "liberal" and willing to go out on a limb in a few applications of his principles to our post-modern situation (ie -- women priests). But enough about Brown. What do I really believe?
To sum it up as briefly as possible without simply restating the Nicene creed, God is Absolute Being (I AM Who AM). My disagreement with Kurt is over this fundamental point before we have gone any further. But, to move on.....
People are born with a vague, fuzzy awareness of God at a pre-conscious non-verbal level. Religion is the attempt to respond to this reality. Language shapes consciousness. Religion is shaped by language. Yet, the vague fuzzy awareness shared by all people is the fundamental experience giving rise to all religious language. In other words, all religions point to one fundamental reality.
This one fundamental reality is conceptualized in the highest languages of religions as Absolute Be-ing (though the Bhuddist sometimes refer to absolute nothingness or non-being, lest you confuse the reality with a finite concept). At any rate, once this transcendant reality is apprehended, it becomes very clear that it is one and simple. There are not many gods.
The idea of many gods arose as people encountered each other with different metaphors to describe this one reality. Thus, the Hebrews would say of the Canaanites, "Our God is not your God". In other words, societies did not start polytheistic, and evolve into monotheism. Rather, we were all monotheists until we encountered each other and became polytheists through that encounter.
When Christians refer to Jesus as God in the flesh, even the earliest testimonies to Christ assume you already have an apprehension of the one true God. Furthermore, it is assumed that this conception of God is the God of Moses and the prophets (again -- I AM Who AM).
How can Absolute Being, unbounded self-subsistent existence, pure act, the eternal and infinite One, become a finite historical and concrete human person? Even the Greek philosophers who encountered Christian proclamation asked this. This is a mystery, and the answer lies in Her omnipotence.
Does the Bible say Jesus is God?
I have absolutely no doubt that the human authors of the New Testament are claiming divinity of Christ to varying degrees. We can argue until we are blue in the face whether these authors are correct in their assesment, however, it seems clear to me that this is their assesment.
Yet, if you accept that the authors of the New Testament claim divinity of Christ, not one of them is saying that Jesus IS the Father. Nor are they saying Jesus is the Holy Spirit. Nor are they saying that the Holy Spirit is the Father. Yet, the authors of the the New Testament universally agree that there is only one God. How can this be?
Christians invented a language to make some logical sense out of this, though we can never fully comprehend this. It took a few hundred years for this language to fully develop, but the language is based on what the New Testament authors tried to convey.
Basically, Christians say that there are three persons in one essence or being. "Person" and "being" are not used in Christian theology in the same way they are used in everyday speech. Person is derived from "prosopon" and later called a "hypostasis". A prosopon was a mask worn by actors, and an hypostasis was a philosophical term meaning "that which stands". Both terms attempt to answer the question "Who?" in relation to another. To my wife, I am the person or hypostasis of husband. To my Dad I am the hypostasis of son. Though I am two persons, I am one being.
"ousias", or essence, nature or being refers to the answer to the question "What". If you ask what are you, I would answer, "I am a human being." If you ask "Who are you?", I would answer here that "I am jcecil3." I would give a different answer to the who question to those I meet daily face-to-face.
There is a part of the doctrine of the Trinity that is impossible for us to fully comprehend, though we apprehend it. In the doctrine of the Trinity, the persons of the Trinity are one being, and share one single divine "phystis" (principle of action, or will). Yet, each person of the Trinity relates to the other persons as distinct, and each person of the Trinity reveals himself to humanity as distinct. Thus, the Son prays to the Father, and the Father loves the Son. The Father and the Son love the Spirit, and the Spirit glorifies each, and so forth.
We can understand a being having more than one person/hypostasis, just as I have many hypostasis. However, we cannot fathom how different hypostasis within a single being relate to one another as distinct, without a division of will (multiple personality disorder). Yet, Christians do NOT believe that tehre is a division of will in God, so God does not have MPD.
On this latter point, Christians do not believe that we invented the Trinity, since such a doctrine would go beyond our imagination, and we could not have reasoned to it. Rather, we believe that the doctrine was REVEALED -- apprehended as people reflected on the life of Christ -- on his words and deeds. As people come to know Christ, they begin to realize that he is the divine as human, and the human as divine -- true God and true man!
Now, Jesus was fully human. Thus, just as all human beings have preconscious and unconscious and non-verbal knowledge, I DO believe that Jesus had a human mind and human will that finite and historically conditioned. In this purely human sense, he appears to be less than Father, and to some extent, expereinced himself as less than the Father.
Yet, in the way he lived his human life, in the things he did and said, and in the fact of his resurrection, he revealed that at a deeper level, he is Absolute Being (I AM Who AM) in the flesh.
Perhaps in his human mind, he would not have words to fully articulate who he was in first century Palestinian thought. Yet, by forgiving sins, healing the sick, claiming a unique in-breaking of the reign of God through his actions, and so forth -- he revealed that divine nature was operative in him.
As we look back on his life, we see that God revealed a perfect love for us by sharing in our suffering, bearing the penalty of our sins to silence the accuser, and by conquering death and pain once and for all in the resurrection. Lest we doubt, He is still alive today, and we can experience him.
So, we did not invent the Trinity and work backwards to say what and who Christ is. Rather, we started with an encounter with Jesus, and this encounter lead us to claim that he is God, which lead us to develop Trinitarian theology as an explanation for how that can be.
Yet, in my argument with Kurt, the issue is that before I cn even say Jesus is God, we do not mean same thing by the word "God". When I say to a Muslim, Jesus is Allah, we have a similar understanding of what is being said, even though we disagree on the veracity of the claim. But with Kurt, I don't think he understands what Muslims or Christians mean by the word "God".
I've gone on way too long, and I fear I crossed the line into preaching. Let me know if you want to carry this discussion on somewhere else Netcurtains.
Peace and Blessings!
jcecil3
Netcurtains
19-02-2002, 11:50
Hi,
anyone can reach me at steamship@zoom.co.uk (yes it is a teenage clothes store - share price went from 36p to £3 - a ten bagger!)
I am not a theologian (lol) and don't really want to be. God is Love and of course he created the whole universe. Jesus, is our window on gods love. For all we know there are aliens on other planets (I think not - but it is obviously possible) with very different ways of thinking entirely. Wearing my analytical hat it is clear Jesus is Love BUT (or HOWEVER) for HUMAN BEINGS ONLY - God the Father is BIGGER then that - there are OTHER MANSIONS - perhaps for OTHER SPECIES. Our planet earth, apparently had another species that was intelligent - Neanderthal http://www.neanderthal-modern.com/ .
Some "animals" are obviously semi-intelligent - whales for example. This is just ONE planet. So yes I do think of God as Love and I do see Jesus as Love, but he CLEARLY is (if he is Divine) for humans (modern humans (homo-sapiens)) not alien species.
Your concept of Jesus falls down if we discover another species on another planet in the future (and the hunt is on in ernest - we can all join in via Setti - http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/). My concept of Jesus does not fail if we encounter aliens. Of course Jesus has absolute power - LOVE conquers all....eventually. I don't think we will find aliens - so I suspect I will end up agreeing with you in about 5 years - but not until then.
LAST EDITED ON 19-02-02 AT 07:23 PM (GMT)[p]ceceil3,
I'm comprehending what you are saying but I'm apprehensive that our concepts differ.
Please ponder the concept that instead of God being PURE existence which is associated on a greater scale with the natural compared to God being PURE INTELLIGENCE through soul bonding, thereby forming a collective PURE INTELLECT existing in a spiritual realm.
PURE INTELLIGENCE (GOD), similarly to a spiritual government, does not transcend into or interfere with our natural dimension.
Greetings Netcurtains.
I debated whether to email you directly, or address your question here. I decided that there may be others interested in the response. If I am mistaken, I apologize to anyone offended.
I have considered the issue of aliens in the past. Just as Jesus saves women, though he is male, so too, Jesus saves all creation by becoming flesh. The Eastern Orthodox speak of Jesus sanctifying animals and rocks and water and so forth by becoming incarnate. In other words, the Christ event has cosmic implications, but reveals to US (humanity) that we are are "the apple of God's eye" (to use a Biblical metaphor).
That's why I avoid saying Jesus is a "man" or a "human being", and refer to him as "flesh" or "human person". I don't really believe in aliens, but if we discover some one day, I would seek to tell them about God joining creation as a person in Christ for their salvation.
God the Father is distinct from God the Son. However, they are not separate in being, essence, nature, or substance. In other words, we see the Father's love when we look at Jesus (thus, he says to Phillip that he who has seen the Son has seen the Father). The Father and Son are distinct in relation to each other, and reveal themselves differently to humanity. Yet, Christ is divinity in its fullness by nature, even if his human consciousness could not fully grasp what this means.
If you read my original response to the article by Dr. Miller above, I think I clarify this by trying to avoid the metaphor of "Son of God", and using another Biblical metaphor of "Logos". Nevertheless, if we accept what is said ABOUT Jesus, as well as what the New Testament says He said, it becaomes clear that the authors are claiming full divinity in Christ.
Again, if I am "preaching" too much, I will remove this post -- yet I thought others might find the specific topic interesting in a Comparative Religion Forum.
Peace and Blessings!
jcecil3
LAST EDITED ON 19-02-02 AT 08:14 PM (GMT)[p]Pure existence verses pure intelligence? That's a valid question we could pursue much further.
Pure existence verses collective intelligence? That seems illogical to me, since there is no explanation where the intelligences collected come from or how they relate to pure existence. Likwise, there seems to be no empirical way to verify the existence of a collective consciousness.
A possible resolution that I can accept: Our own intelligences pre-exist, co-exist, and will exist in the mind of God, who is both pure existence and pure intelligence....What do you think?
jcecil3 and others who may wish to participate,
We have some differences in the concept of God but we all apparently believe in the existence of God.
I could really use your help in defending this belief at the following discussion forums. Thanks
http://forums.military.com/1/OpenTopic?q=Y&a=tpc&s=78919038&f=409192893&m=4621911204
http://boards.gamers.com/messages/message_view.asp?name=ukatheist&id=zzzzf
http://www.godandscience.org/discus/index.html (Creation vs Evolution - Who Created God)
jcecil3, (It would be great if I could address you by your proper name. Your writings should be preserved and accredited properly)
In response to your statement, my concept of pure existence is that it mirrors God in this dimension whereby God exists in a spiritual one.
(I have copied a portion of my original post. Please reconsider the following:)
God, also known as Allah, Yahweh, Lord, Supreme Being, Jehovah, etc., is a spirit of peace. When the body dies, the deserving soul is received by God into a peaceful co-existence with other souls for eternity. The souls of Prophets, philosophers, holy men, our deceased relatives and even the simplest souls who by their love of humanity and exemplary living, have helped to shape the lives of others, will be there.
God exists in a spiritual dimension and is a union of souls which was created when the first reasoning entity ceased its existence (physical death) in this dimension and entered the spiritual realm. (invisibility) The first reasoning entity was a derivative of our earth, solar system or universe.
God's intelligence is ever expanding and grows with the addition of each soul. Every soul is like a separate cell or atom on earth which combines with other cells or atoms to make up the existence of every living person, plant, animal and even the air which sustains all life; so also do souls perform, either individually or in unison. Any soul or spirit that is not with God can not exist, and dies.
Everything evolves or stagnates and dies. Souls perform individually or cumulatively in the same way as entities in this dimension. Souls are a part of God as we are a part of this earth.
Collective intelligence, God, existing in a spiritual dimension, is cumulative and progressive rather than constant. Project yourself into a scenario whereupon, after your spirit has established a communication link with the Spirit of God, upon your physical demise, all the data that your spirit has accumulated and stored (your soul) is transmitted and received by a database into a spiritual dimension which contains any and all of the knowledge and experiences of the universe. You are now a part of God.
I apologize for subjecting many who read my posting to lengthy dialogue and hereby summarize it. Those who question it, please reread the entire text and then your critiques are welcome.
Human fallibility and misconceptions have labeled God for past millenniums as one who interferes with the natural forces and free will of people by threatening punishment to those who disobey his bidding.
God is the Pure Collective Intelligence Of Souls existing in a spiritual realm and does not interfere with anything on earth or in the universe.
Greetings Kurt,
Monotheists all agree that the human mind cannot fully comprehend the transcedent God.
However, I personally find the word "misconception" offensive to myself, to a billion Muslims, a billion Roman Catholics, hundreds of millions of Eastern Orthodox and Protestants, millions of Jews, and millions of other monotheists.
What special insight do you have that makes you smarter than half the world's population that you can call our belief "misconcieved"? What makes you believe your intellectual arrogance is substantiated in reality?
Furthermore, God is very active in my own personal life, and I think the billions of aforementioned believers would affirm the same in their own lives -- so what do you mean that God is not active in the world?
Finally, what logical explanation is there for the apparent internal contradicitions for pantheism that I already pointed out, and what empirical evidence do you have for your claim that God is collective consciousness?
Peace and Blessings!
jcecil
Greetings to all!!
Because this thread has gone over its limits; and it was started with a reply to christianity and has changed into something completely different.
If you want to discuss Islam and other religions then this is the place to be, but other then that, you are in the wrong site, and i would advise you to discuss it somewhere else.
LOCKED!!
Sadiq!
-------------------------------
"Oh Allah, enrich me with knowledge, adorn me with gentleness, honour me with piety and beautify me with health", Aameen
vBulletin® v3.6.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.