Salvation and Belief

[Bhaktajan II]

Personally, I find it hard to imagine that G-d would appear as a human-being.
Unless of course, you think that it is possible that G-d wants to confuse us.
..or maybe G-d wants us to fight over which human-being might be G-d and which one isn't

My Dear muhammad_isa,

I pray you must believe I am sincerely reading your texts and I don't comprehend what your illustrating.

 

[Thomas]

Strange, 3 being equivalent to 1.

Not 'equivalent to'.

Your original point was "if Allah wills" is the same as "we are in insert your human being here's hands" are equivalent.

Yes.

Not to me, they are not

I can understand that. To me, they are.

Jesus, peace be with him, professed that G-d is One i.e. the shema
There is no reporting of him saying that he denounced it...

Nor did He, but He amended it, which is pretty significant, and gave His amendment near equal weighting, which is very significant.

Philosophically it might have meaning, but making it a cornerstone of faith is purely deception, imo

Well, each to his own.

For me, the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity resolve the metaphysical conundrums of the One and the many, the relation between the Uncreated and created nature, the Union between the same, all manner of inexplicable things ... not the least ... Love.

 

[Thomas]

Dear Mt T,
I said, "almost all of western Scriptures are not fully comprehensive".

I know, and I still disagree.

A definition of comprehensive: 'including or dealing with all or nearly all elements or aspects of something' — the 'something' in this instance being humanity's origin and end, our fall and our salvation. All that is covered comprehensively, the Scriptures, indeed any sacra doctrina, is entirely complete in the aspect of containing all that's necessary for women and men to achieve the end to which it points.

Mt T said, "anyone who think's God is comprehensible, is suffering"
NOW,
I will ask, Is comprehension your point?

Up to a point. Man needs something to believe in ... to put his faith in ... the will always be the mystery, but there is not nothing. Even if that something is simply 'peace' ... A religion that deals in abstracts might well suffice the philosopher, but not the majority of humanity.

 

[Thomas]

He who think's God is comprehensible has comprehended God via scriptures.
I am I correct Thomas?

I'd like to say yes, but the experience of the world means I must say no.

People read the Scriptures but comprehend nothing, others comprehend God but have never read a line of Scripture ...

 

[Thomas]

Well, we all see things differently, I suppose.

We do ...

Personally, I find it hard to imagine that G-d would appear as a human-being.

Hehe! How nit-picking are we being here I only make this point because the idea of God 'appearing' as something is somewhat Docetic! God did not 'appear' as a human being, God united His nature with a human nature so that God was present in and as a human being, as He could manifest Himself as a pillar or fire, a column of smoke, a burning bush, a voice in the wilderness ... God can manifest Himself to His creature in any way He chooses.

Unless of course, you think that it is possible that G-d wants to confuse us.

I'm not confused. Christians aren't confused. Even atheists I know are not confused, they just don't believe...

..or maybe G-d wants us to fight over which human-being might be G-d and which one isn't

Steady ... glass houses, my friend.

 

[Thomas]

Does not idolatry = to have God as discernible? [see with one's eyes]

No, I don't think so.

The Statuary in the Hindu Temple [aka the Murti in the Mandira] is NOT a idol

Same in the West, really. It's a focal point.

Having said that, one could argue the image of God as an Old Man With A Beard is an idol, but it is entirely sufficient, symbolically significant, and even spiritually efficacious when it enables the petitioner to hold an image or concept in mind, and even the most naive image (and there are some Christian icons I really, really dislike) is in reality not much better nor worse than the most sophisticated and abstract esoteric metaphysical concept (which can be no less idolatrous) when we consider the gulf between what we conceive and what Is.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Jesus, peace be with him, professed that G-d is One i.e. the shema
There is no reporting of him saying that he denounced it..

Nor did He, but He amended it, which is pretty significant, and gave His amendment near equal weighting, which is very significant.

Not that I'm aware of .. where exactly in the Gospels is Jesus reported to have said that he amended the "first commandment" of faith?

 

[muhammad_isa]

..God did not 'appear' as a human being, God united His nature with a human nature so that God was present in and as a human being..

I don't know what this means
Do you mean that the soul of Jesus is G-d?
If so, then that would mean that G-d is a soul which I find very confusing indeed.

Alternatively, one might suggest that Jesus didn't have a soul?
i.e. it was a all a game, and Jesus ate, washed and used the toilet to create an illusion that he was human

..or maybe G-d wants us to fight over which human-being might be G-d and which one isn't..

Steady ... glass houses, my friend.

I thought that I'd made it quite clear that I think that G-d wants us to convey truth to others and establish peace.
If G-d manifested as a human being, then we couldn't say for sure which humans out of billions could be G-d.
Why G-d would want to do that beats me!

Nevertheless, putting the issue of divinity of humans aside, we still have to discern which humans are messengers of G-d and which aren't. Same sort of thing, I suppose.

 

[Thomas]

Not that I'm aware of .. where exactly in the Gospels is Jesus reported to have said that he amended the "first commandment" of faith?

"A new commandment I give unto you: That you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another" (John 13:34-35)

 

[Thomas]

I don't know what this means

You'd have to know Christian history. The Docestists (and some 2nd century Gnostics) believed Christ only 'appeared' to be human, by was in fact some kind of spiritual/angelic being.

Do you mean that the soul of Jesus is G-d? If so, then that would mean that G-d is a soul which I find very confusing indeed...

I'm, not surprised. The theology of the Incarnation is quite precise.

There is a creed of Chalcedon, the council called to discuss and give a definitive teaching on the nature of the Son:
We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with us according to the manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the virgin Mary, the mother of God, according to the manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

I thought that I'd made it quite clear that I think that G-d wants us to convey truth to others and establish peace.

Well that's Christ's message, in a nutshell.

If G-d manifested as a human being, then we couldn't say for sure which humans out of billions could be G-d. Why G-d would want to do that beats me!

Well, that's the problem of faith, isn't it?

I mean, what's to stop anyone saying he or she's been given a revelation by an angel? How many prophets have popped up since Mohammed (pbuh) with the next latest revelation?

Nevertheless, putting the issue of divinity of humans aside, we still have to discern which humans are messengers of G-d and which aren't. Same sort of thing, I suppose.

Yup.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

The idea that divine manifestation is the source for aggression seems silly to me. And that if it is a source of aggression it can't be true (because the divine wouldn't do anything that leads to confusion) I find equally silly. Humans are quite capable of conflict over all manner of things, true or untrue.

 

[muhammad_isa]

"A new commandment I give unto you: That you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another" (John 13:34-35)

Says nothing about Jesus saying he's one part out of 3

 

[muhammad_isa]

..There is a creed of Chalcedon, the council called to discuss and give a definitive teaching on the nature of the Son:
We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhea..

Personally, I would rather follow what Jesus was reliably reported to have said, and not some apparently democratic group of "fathers"
You mention the word "godhead" .. again, no mention of the words trinity and godhead from Jesus' lips

..the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us..

Not wishing to offend, but that is just illogical dogma. It suggests that Jesus was incapable of sin. If this is the case, then his wandering in the wilderness for 40 days would have been pointless.
Secondly, Why would Jesus be reported to have said "my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" when he was on the cross/stake?
If he was inseparably G-d and Jesus, why would he be talking/praying to himself?

Same regards the Lord's prayer. He taught "our Father, whom art in heaven"..
You can't have it both ways.
i.e. they are distinct Father and son, but they are inseparable

..so did Jesus teach that G-d is in heaven .. or did he teach that G-d was inside him on earth?
If you want to say that G-d is everywhere, then that would include you & me .. so what!?

 

[Bhaktajan II]

then that would mean that G-d is a soul which I find very confusing indeed.

What would make for a great read is if YOU would post what you have found that describes God's status.
Don't be bashful.

I imo prefer that 'negative argument' be avoided when asserting a postulation.


MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

Negative Arguments

A negative argument is an argument against your opponent’s position. In the blogosphere, these usually tend to simply contradict another person’s conclusion (“The Beatles aren’t the best band because they suck”), but this is not an effective strategy. You’re not going to convince anyone that you’re right unless they already agree with you. This is because you’re not attacking the premises of the argument.

Making an effective negative argument requires that you advance a position that contradicts one of your opponent’s premises. You can do this by denying that the criterion used by your opponent is rational (“the number of top-ten albums a band has isn’t relevant when considering whether they are the best or not”) or you can state that her facts are incorrect (“the Rolling Stones did not have the most top-ten albums”).

It is important to remember that an effective negative argument will deny the soundness of their argument as opposed to just stating the opposite of their conclusion. Furthermore, when making positive arguments, it is important to have a reasonable explanation as to why you have decided upon your criteria, and even more important to make sure that what you present as fact is indeed true. If you do not, you will leave your position exposed to numerous negative arguments that can devastate your position.

https://www.writeraccess.com/blog/positive-arguments-and-negative-arguments/

 

[muhammad_isa]

What would make for a great read is if YOU would post what you have found that describes God's status..

If G-d is a soul, then who created it?
..or maybe souls are not created, they just come from an infinite pool.
..or maybe G-d is the sum total of all the infinite souls etc.

My point?
My point is that it is difficult to describe an infinite entity, which is a good way to describe G-d, imo.
G-d is aware of every leaf that has ever fallen, is falling and will fall.

Now, does this apply to any human being that has ever lived? .. I would say not!
..just because a man might not commit major sins and perhaps not knowingly even commit minor sins, does not mean that he is G-d.

This idea is perhaps reinforced by the awe expressed by his disciples when they found him still alive after being on the cross. Whatever the truth about these events, I understand that Jesus ascended to heaven to sit on the right hand of the Father.
All very confusing, if you try to explain the trinity as G-d and Jesus being as one .. no?
The best explanation is that G-d is NOT a trinity, whether a Jewish, Greek or Roman one
Jesus was a Jew, and claimed to be the Messiah/Christ .. no problem there.

 

[CobblersApprentice]

G-d wants us to convey truth to others and establish peace

Lots of words there that need sifting, defining...........history would seem to teach that those who think G!d has conveyed truth to them, and who then wish to convey such truth to others, actually establish anything but peace.

What was it that someone once said? When I am a Buddhist I am disliked, when I am a Buddha I am loved.

It seems to me it is much more difficult being a Buddha than being a Buddhist. Much more difficult to know Truth. Easier to "convey" it, known or not.

"In protecting ourselves we protect others
In protecting others we protect ourselves"

(Theravada Text)

Anyway, back to the biography of Ziggy Stardust, the man from Mars....

EDIT:- for those interested, the exhortation found in the Theravada texts to "convey truth" to others....

"Go Forth, O Bhikkhus, for the good of many, for the happiness of many, out of compassion for the world, for the benefit, for the good, for the happiness of Devas and men. Preach the doctrine
that is beneficial in the beginning, beneficial in the middle, and beneficial in the end. ..."

 

[muhammad_isa]

...history would seem to teach that those who think G!d has conveyed truth to them, and who then wish to convey such truth to others, actually establish anything but peace..

You are right, of course.
How does the saying go? "Nobody likes a know-all"

G-d knows who is sincere and who is not. We don't always make the right decisions,
but that shouldn't stop us trying. Somebody has to be a politician.

The other thing to note, is that the closer you get to the truth, the more you will be opposed.
Not surprising really, as those with evil intent feel threatened by police, truth etc.

 

[CobblersApprentice]

You are right, of course.
How does the saying go? "Nobody likes a know-all"

G-d knows who is sincere and who is not. We don't always make the right decisions,
but that shouldn't stop us trying. Somebody has to be a politician.

The other thing to note, is that the closer you get to the truth, the more you will be opposed.
Not surprising really, as those with evil intent feel threatened by police, truth etc.

Ziggy tells me that Love is Truth.

Seriously, I have no idea what you mean by "the closer we get to truth". You have said previously that you do not see Truth as a text. Do you mean the more we express love in our relationship with others? Would that be opposed? Perhaps it would.

Yes, we should try to love others (irrespective of our "sincerity" - we can never be sincere enough)

Maybe we can reflect upon some more words of Thomas Merton:- The beginning of love is to let those we love be perfectly themselves, and not to twist them to fit our own image. Otherwise we love only the reflection of ourselves we find in them.

I get back to pure acceptance. Namu-amida-butsu!

Jesus/Christ was asked "what is truth?"

What answer would those of "evil intent" offer?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Ziggy tells me that Love is Truth.

Love? That word has many meanings.
The love of what exactly?

Seriously, I have no idea what you mean by "the closer we get to truth"

Really? Why is it that many of the prophets of G-d were opposed and sometimes threatened or killed?

Jesus/Christ was asked "what is truth?"

What answer would those of "evil intent" offer?

A whole manner of things .. whatever suits their purpose.
It usually has something to do with wealth or tribal power.
This causes them to turn away from truth, and promote falsehood.

Jesus, peace be with him, is reported to have said:-
"For the rich man to get to heaven is like the camel going through the eye of the needle"
i.e. love of wealth corrupts our souls

 

[CobblersApprentice]

Love? That word has many meanings.
The love of what exactly?



Really? Why is it that many of the prophets of G-d were opposed and sometimes threatened or killed?



A whole manner of things .. whatever suits their purpose.
It usually has something to do with wealth or tribal power.
This causes them to turn away from truth, and promote falsehood.

Jesus, peace be with him, is reported to have said:-
"For the rich man to get to heaven is like the camel going through the eye of the needle"
i.e. love of wealth corrupts our souls

What is Love?

Are you serious? Do you really have to ask "what of"? (It DOES have many expressions)

Good grief, as Charlie Brown would say!

As far as why various people claiming to be prophets were killed, I would suspect diverse reasons. But as I see it, you avoid confronting the implied questions. As usual. Sorry.

The last point. Once again you avoid the implications. The "truth" was in front of the one who asked. A Person; not a creed, proclamation, text. We are all "evil" in our own particular way. Why on earth you constantly divide people into sheep and goats is beyond me.

"Them"? Good grief!

Nevermind, I really am returning to Ziggy Stardust. Bye......