Who created God?

[ScholarlySeeker]

Tomorrow is another day and that old familiar ache will return.

I hear ya! I try to let that ache work for my good and continue to learn more which helps the ache be less. But yes, that is a much better ache than the good ole tooth ache! GRIN!

 

[ScholarlySeeker]

I would have thought that was "elementary my dear Watson"
Who wants to know the truth? Me please !

How can we ascertain it? Seek knowledge, and be single-minded, regardless of the consequences.
Can we be certain that we believe correctly? No .. there is no such thing .. knowledge of God is infinite.
Are there basic things we should understand?
Yes .. Jesus, peace be with him, confirmed the shema. He did NOT say in the NT that it had been replaced.

"In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" does not explicitly teach
a "blessed trinity". If it was important truth, BE SURE, that Jesus would have been reported to have said so !

The Gospel of Truth teaches us that the Knowledge of the Father is the most important thing.
The Father is God.

It is fascinating that you bring in some Gnostic stuff with the biblical stuff... I do that too. I LIKE IT!

 

[stranger]

How can we ascertain it? Seek knowledge, and be single-minded, regardless of the consequences.
Can we be certain that we believe correctly? No .. there is no such thing .. knowledge of God is infinite.
Are there basic things we should understand?
Yes .. Jesus, peace be with him, confirmed the shema. He did NOT say in the NT that it had been replaced.

True, but then that brings us to the place where we question, can anyone by justified through law, though the law be holy and just and good.

 

[muhammad_isa]

True, but then that brings us to the place where we question, can anyone by justified through law, though the law be holy and just and good.

Ah .. who is saved and who is not?
I don't think that it is magic .. I think we can determine that by the concept of justice & logic,
There are many different beliefs and dogma regarding salvation in Christianity, of course.

First of all, we need to realise that Almighty God is the Fairest of All Judges.
Nobody will be wronged. Divine justice is not dependent on a Bible verse, for example.

Logic tells me, that it is not a black & white issue, however.
It is not a question of "either / or".

+ + + + +

Perhaps the first important point is that without the shema [ belief in the One God of Abraham ] there is no faith at all.
This is then NECESSARY for salvation.

Is that all that is necessary?
Logic tells us that if we do not ACT on our belief, it is incomplete.
Therefore our actions, although they cannot by themselves save us, are also necessary for salvation.

This is where the knowledge of the Father comes in..

 

[Thomas]

Hi Thomas,

No, I've never run across that term before. I'm terribly sorry, I just can't read this post...

No problem, just hang in there.

My own in such times and places is that Christ is not some fairy godmother-figure to make all the nasty things go away. He is there with us, a true and dependable friend, He doesn't say anything, he's just ... there.

 

[Thomas]

I'm not suggesting "the soul is God" .. I'm saying that souls BELONG to God.

OK, then that's not relevant to the point. I'm taking about the Divine-in-Itself.

..so you said "If God was all there is, there would be no Love".

What I'm saying is the principle of 'multiplicity' and 'unity' must be in the One, for such to be at all.

I disagree .. I don't see that souls are of a "different substance", to use your terminology

Not different to what, God? That's not very Arian of you, is it?

 

[muhammad_isa]

..Not different to what, God?

Yes .. I think that souls are of the "same substance" as Almighty God.

That's not very Arian of you, is it?

That may well be so .. we can't please everybody

 

[stranger]

Perhaps the first important point is that without the shema [ belief in the One God of Abraham ] there is no faith at all.
This is then NECESSARY for salvation.

Is that all that is necessary?
Logic tells us that if we do not ACT on our belief, it is incomplete.
Therefore our actions, although they cannot by themselves save us, are also necessary for salvation.

Belief first, then actions... I agree that actions are necessary, but do actions (self-efforts) actually save us, or do they simply reveal us? Or reveal the depths of our fall and show just how wide the gap is? Perhaps mankind's first step (actions) must always just reveal to him his own weakness and inability to save himself?

The Holy ideal (the vision of God's holiness) first activates man's effort because he knows no other way. But through his sincere efforts that part of him which must work (produce holiness) falls short and dies by the wayside, thus preparing him for the reception of pure Grace. If he does not try and utterly fail, he will not fall into the Everlasting Arms. Thoughts? Making any sense?

 

[Thomas]

Pardon me? I think it's a bit like the Gospel of Truth.
Eckhart most likely saw a lot of things that "the established church" did NOT see.
..which is why he was accused of heresy.

OK, three things:

I don't think the Gospel of Truth 'saw' or 'said' anything particularly revolutionary. Its cosmology was a bit iffy, but that's by the by.

There is a popular myth that Eckhart was a revolutionary — it suited the anti-Institutional church tenor of the times, everyone liked to claim him as their own. Read the likes of Albertus Magnus, and Eckhart was in line with Dominican speculative theology. He had his own way of saying things, certainly, but he really didn't think 'outside the box' so much as dive deeply into it. He defended himself before a Dominican council and they gave him their full support. He accusers, it seems, were not really theologically up to the task ...

Eckhart wasn't the first speculative theologian to have been questioned by a bishop — in this case an archbishop — and no doubt he won't be the last.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..but do actions (self-efforts) actually save us, or do they simply reveal us?

No, actions don't save us. However, without them, we cannot be saved.
Does that make sense?
What I mean is, that we first have to have faith in God .. love God, and seek knowledge as to what is righteous.
[ yes .. the law! ]

The Holy ideal (the vision of God's holiness) first activates man's effort because he knows no other way. But through his sincere efforts that part of him which must work (produce holiness) falls short and dies by the wayside, thus preparing him for the reception of pure Grace. If he does not try and utterly fail, he will not fall into the Everlasting Arms. Thoughts? Making any sense?

Yes .. we all fall short. Not one human being can enter paradise without God's infinite Mercy.
That does not mean that a person who is indifferent to the law is not in danger of suffering.
Perhaps the concept of purgatory is the best way of explaining it.
@Thomas is surely an expert on that

 

[muhammad_isa]

.. Eckhart was in line with Dominican speculative theology. He had his own way of saying things, certainly, but he really didn't think 'outside the box' so much as dive deeply into it. He defended himself before a Dominican council and they gave him their full support. He accusers, it seems, were not really theologically up to the task ...

Sure .. I agree with that.

 

[stranger]

No, actions don't save us. However, without them, we cannot be saved.
Does that make sense?
What I mean is, that we first have to have faith in God .. love God, and seek knowledge as to what is righteous.
[ yes .. the law! ]

Sure, makes perfect sense. That's the starting place.

Yes .. we all fall short. Not one human being can enter paradise without God's infinite Mercy.
That does not mean that a person who is indifferent to the law is not in danger of suffering.
Perhaps the concept of purgatory is the best way of explaining it.

Well, there is THE law and then there is the law of conscience. With the law of conscience you bring all of human kind into the fight, and here I would include agnostics, atheists... really, no one would be left out of it. Can any human being even live up to their own ideals of what is good, what is right? So yes, all definitely suffer there. Is it purgatorial? (I love the concept myself) I lean towards yes, it is purgatorial.

 

[Thomas]

No, actions don't save us. However, without them, we cannot be saved.
Does that make sense?

Makes sense to me!

Yes ... we all fall short. Not one human being can enter paradise without God's infinite Mercy.

Again, wholeheartedly agree.

We have to balance this against an overweening sense of unworthiness, which is as corrosive and damaging in its own way as an inflated sense of self-worth.

(Our Jewish friends have perfected – so we're told – the idea of 'guilt', although Catholics can give them a run for their money! Does this crop up in Islam? The idea that whatever we do, it's never quite enough? Just wonderin ... )

That does not mean that a person who is indifferent to the law is not in danger of suffering.

St Paul spoke of the law 'written in the heart' (cf Romans 2:13-15). I think relevant here is "For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified" (v13) – as he says, it's a question of conscience (v15).

Perhaps the concept of purgatory is the best way of explaining it.

I rather think the idea is universal – the idea of offering prayers for the benefit of the dead most certainly is. And, of course, while we're in the world the spiritual life is a constant battle, an uphill path, the Way of Purification, Illumination and finally Theosis is always ongoing ... the Divine Horizon is forever further off ...

@muhammad_isa's acceptance of Divine Grace – a condition of the Abrahamic Traditions, I would have thought – is the one thing that keeps us sane and the reason why any form of self-flagellation is, in my book, wrong and bordering on, if not actually, sinful. It's just knowing, and getting on with it.

One of the Fathers asked Abba John the Dwarf, "What is a monk?" He said, "He is toil. The monk toils at all he does. That is what a monk is."
— Sayings of the Desert Fathers

 

[Zigzangle]

I am of the opinion all gods were created by humans, there is no verifiable evidence to suggest otherwise.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..We have to balance this against an overweening sense of unworthiness, which is as corrosive and damaging in its own way as an inflated sense of self-worth.
(.. Does this crop up in Islam? The idea that whatever we do, it's never quite enough? Just wonderin ... )

53 Say: My slaves who have been prodigal to their own hurt! Despair not of the mercy of God, Who forgiveth all sins. Lo! He is the Forgiving, the Merciful.
54 Turn unto Him repentant, and surrender unto Him, before there come unto you the doom, when ye cannot be helped.
55 And follow the better (guidance) of that which is revealed unto you from your Lord, before the doom cometh on you suddenly when ye know not,
- Al Qur'an The Crowds -

Faith is in two parts. Half of faith is in the hope of God's Mercy, and the other half is fear of His wrath.

Divine Grace – a condition of the Abrahamic Traditions, I would have thought – is the one thing that keeps us sane and the reason why any form of self-flagellation is, in my book, wrong and bordering on, if not actually, sinful.

Yes .. it's all about balance. Extreme behaviour is always suspicious.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I am of the opinion all gods were created by humans, there is no verifiable evidence to suggest otherwise.

OK .. you are an atheist.
Can you think back to when you were younger..
Was there ever a time when you thought that God might exist?

 

[muhammad_isa]

..St Paul spoke of the law 'written in the heart' (cf Romans 2:13-15). I think relevant here is "For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified" (v13) – as he says, it's a question of conscience (v15).

Conscience is of course very important..

The Messenger of God (Muhammad, blessings and peace of God be upon him): “Leave that which makes you doubt for that which does not make you doubt, for truth leads to reassurance and lies lead to uncertainty.”


28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
- Romans 2 -

..so a "label" means little. It is our intention and reason for our behaviour that is important.

 

[stranger]

Conscience is of course very important..

The Messenger of God (Muhammad, blessings and peace of God be upon him): “Leave that which makes you doubt for that which does not make you doubt, for truth leads to reassurance and lies lead to uncertainty.”

Ah! You speak here of the realm of pure spirit, where doubt cannot be, nor has ever been, present. (I think?) Perhaps I'm reading too much into it though.

28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

"... of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter..." The real deal, yes I get it.

- Romans 2 -
..so a "label" means little. It is our intention and reason for our behaviour that is important.

Human effort will do little to correct intention and reason because these are buried deep in the heart. Spiritual circumcision only can work there. Best intentions, moderation, all the mind can conceive of as being the right way to do it will be of no avail. One has to hit the wall, have nothing left. Can no longer lift a finger to make himself "better".

 

[muhammad_isa]

I think that many Christians see Paul as having converted from Judaism to Christianity.
My view is not like that. I see Paul as a Jew who realised that Jesus was really who he said he was i.e. the messiah

One problem that we have with Paul, is that he was not a disciple, as such. Nevertheless, he was an educated man, who was able to convey truth to the gentiles.

Perhaps my view of Paul is partly because my ethnic roots are in Christianity, and subsequently accepted Islam.

 

[stranger]

I think that many Christians see Paul as having converted from Judaism to Christianity.
My view is not like that. I see Paul as a Jew who realised that Jesus was really who he said he was i.e. the messiah

One problem that we have with Paul, is that he was not a disciple, as such. Nevertheless, he was an educated man, who was able to convey truth to the gentiles.

Perhaps my view of Paul is partly because my ethnic roots are in Christianity, and subsequently accepted Islam.

Well Paul was a "perfect storm" for that time. He had everything he needed to fulfill his calling. He never really needed to "leave" Judaism, he just became a new creature.