ScholarlySeeker
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 229
- Reaction score
- 126
- Points
- 43
Ordination always was a power move of men... I rather am unimpressed with it myself.
Who created God?
- Thread starter muhammad_isa
- Start date
stranger
the divine ignorance (and friends)
Me too... I feel like I was too hard in that post, don't feel good about it. I was a part of a small southern baptist church after I became a Christian. They didn't even have pews yet, just chairs. Things happened there that are just too painful to speak of. There were good things too though. I don't like being this dark it's just that the poison gets out sometimes before I know it.
I respectfully disagree..
How do you know that what you're experiencing isn't a trick of satan?
I mean, something that "lives in you", and you don't even have to OPEN a Bible?
OK .. so why does the Catholic church take it so seriously then?
I remind you of my former post ..
[ I would suggest reading a liturgy addressed to the Bishop of Oxford in 1914:-
http://anglicanhistory.org/women/jwlegg1915.pdf ]
This takes us back to the early 20th. century society in the UK, and the writer argues AGAINST women's position
in marriage as being "equal". He cites many reasons why, particularly Biblical understanding.
Hmm .. I looked at that link .. it is anti-Muslim .. why are you reading such codswallop?
It gives a dozen quotes [ all from John, I might add ], and then goes on to say
"How do you respond? The Jews who heard Jesus responded by trying to stone Jesus, thinking He was guilty of blasphemy. Muslims, too, would say a man claiming to be God would be guilty of “shirk.” But Jesus is not a mere man claiming to be God.
No .. quite right. Jesus, peace be with him, is NOT a "mere man".
Jesus is the only way to God the Father in heaven. “Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me’” [ John, again ]
The context of that should be understood in the light of WHEN he said it, and WHO he was saying it to.
Addressing Saducees and Pharisees at the time that rejected him, we can see that he was in effect saying that those that didn't believe him to be who he says he was [ No ! NOT God .. the Messiah ] could not "come to the Father" ..
i.e. get close to God
Thinking that it means only Christians can go to heaven is somewhat of an arrogant way of seeing it, imo.
@RJM Corbet .. I can undestand how medieval people could have thought that the Gospel of John was "literal truth",
but somebody of your intelligence [ your grasp of Einsteinian physics, for example ], and the availability of current critical Biblical schlarship, shows us it is not so reliable.
eg. John 21:24-25 references a Beloved Disciple, stating of him: "This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true" .. but "the gospel is written in good Greek and displays sophisticated theology, and is therefore unlikely to have been the work of a simple fisherman".
These verses imply rather that the core of the gospel relies on the testimony (perhaps written) of the "disciple who is testifying", as collected, preserved and reshaped by a community of followers (the "we" of the passage), and that a single follower (the "I") rearranged this material and perhaps added the final chapter and other passages to produce the final gospel
Any Biblical argument that relies solely on John is VERY poor, imo.
but somebody of your intelligence [ your grasp of Einsteinian physics, for example ], and the availability of current critical Biblical schlarship, shows us it is not so reliable.
eg. John 21:24-25 references a Beloved Disciple, stating of him: "This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true" .. but "the gospel is written in good Greek and displays sophisticated theology, and is therefore unlikely to have been the work of a simple fisherman".
These verses imply rather that the core of the gospel relies on the testimony (perhaps written) of the "disciple who is testifying", as collected, preserved and reshaped by a community of followers (the "we" of the passage), and that a single follower (the "I") rearranged this material and perhaps added the final chapter and other passages to produce the final gospel
Any Biblical argument that relies solely on John is VERY poor, imo.
Well then, I apologise for the link. But I just googled it for information on whether or not Muslims in their prayers address God as 'Father'? I didn't bother with the rest of it.
That's the question. Do Muslims ever, anywhere, refer to God as 'Father'? It's not about a long divert into what Christian Gospels say about God as Father. Christians already know all that. It is a simple question addressed to you as a Muslim?
EDIT
With all respect, and admitting my very thin knowledge, it would seem to me that to refer to God as 'Father' would be to cast attributes upon God? It's just a question?
That's the question. Do Muslims ever, anywhere, refer to God as 'Father'? It's not about a long divert into what Christian Gospels say about God as Father. Christians already know all that. It is a simple question addressed to you as a Muslim?
EDIT
With all respect, and admitting my very thin knowledge, it would seem to me that to refer to God as 'Father' would be to cast attributes upon God? It's just a question?
Last edited:
Yep.
Nope.
I believe that which gave rise to evil intent and evil deeds will wither before the Divine Gaze:
"I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come,” says the Lord Almighty. But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He will be like a refiner’s fire, like a launderer’s soap. And He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver" (Malachi 3:1-3)
If that's all there is, there's nothing else left.
I don't see it as either/or, old friend, but and/and ... I'm not rejecting one in favour of another.
My view:
"Therefore I say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven." (Matthew 12:31, Luke 12:10)
"And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come." (Matthew 12:32)
My interpretation is that God's love can overcome everything, except the rejection of that love. God cannot save a creature who refuses to be saved. When God made man, and made man free to choose, there was always that possibility, and to take that away is to make that freedom void.
I don't think God then says, 'OK, you reject my love, so I will send you to a place where you shall suffer all manner of torment forever and every, without hope of release ...' that is not a good God, that is a mean and petty thing to do.
I can see God saying, 'OK, if you so choose, then I shall withdraw myself from you' and in that instant the soul, the entirety of the creature, simply ceases to be.
Trouble is, we humans being who we are, given the cost of a transient moment's gratification being non-existence, most will say, "I can live with that." So that argument's not gonna cut the mustard, as it were ...
I don't think Muslims in general call Allah, the Father, no.
Is it casting "attributes" or committing "shirk" [ partners to God ] ? No, I don't see how.
As I say "Our Father which art in heaven" makes complete sense. He is our Creator .. our Father.
Wriggling ...Well, that's what I have been philosophising about over the last few posts.
You want me to commit myself, like a doctor, to a certain diagnosis
Sigh ... more wriggling ...
Last edited:
That is a very anthropomorphic view of God.
Almighty God is not just "a perfect soul" .. He is NOT a person .. God does not literally "send us" anywhere, imo.
..so you see, you are still ignoring the passages in the NT that refer to eternal torment.
SOME people must end up there, otherwise the NT is not a serious works.
You're joking?
I have affirmed that I believe in an immortal soul, while you say:
"I can see God saying, 'OK, if you so choose, then I shall withdraw myself from you' and in that instant the soul, the entirety of the creature, simply ceases to be."
..which means that you don't think it IS immortal. Oh well !
But attributing sons and daughters to God would be?
The concept of God the Father is anthropomorphic, is it not? God is not really a Father? God is far more than that?
D'you think? Perhaps ... but then again, praying is a very anthropomorphic thing to do...
never said He was, don't be silly.
But God does the supreme honour of addressing us as such ... a sign of His intimacy ...
Hurrah! What I've been trying to show you all along!
Eternal hell exists as a potentiality and a possibility by virtue of our finitude, not by virtue of God's perfection. It's there for our sake, not His.
To be a Father means to have children? And God doesn't have a wife. So how does that make complete sense?
Last edited:
No, I think you're glossing, and not catching my point.
I know. But immortal is not eternal. Immortal from the moment of its creation, but not eternally created, d'you see?
I only raised this point because you said that Arians followed Origen. That's not the case.
Origen believed in the external existence of souls.
Arians believe that souls are created and, therefore, there was a time when they were not'.
Arians and Origen were diametrically opposed on this point.
Arians and Origen were diametrically opposed on the eternity of the Son.
So you were quite wrong there.
No, I think the soul's immortality is a gift of God. Any created thing can be uncreated.
That's what Scripture says to me.
@Thomas .. mmm .. I see where you are coming from.
You are saying that immortal could mean in the sense that a soul is spiritual and does not necessarily mean that it exists forever after death.
I use the term as meaning it never dies .. as is mainstream Catholic belief.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
Jesus often speaks of "Gehenna" of "the unquenchable fire" reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost. Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather. . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire", and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!"
The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire". The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.
You are saying that immortal could mean in the sense that a soul is spiritual and does not necessarily mean that it exists forever after death.
I use the term as meaning it never dies .. as is mainstream Catholic belief.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
Jesus often speaks of "Gehenna" of "the unquenchable fire" reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost. Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather. . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire", and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!"
The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire". The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.
Last edited:
It makes complete sense to me .. there is no such thing as God the Father, and God the Mother,
as far as I'm concerned
..so we are the Father's children .. His creation of a physical body that carries an eternal, spiritual soul.
Well, there's a can of worms ... but basically ...
There wasn't though? That was old news. We were into new disputes now ...
The condemnation of Origen by Justinian was nothing to do with Arianism. neither Justin nor Origen were Arian in their leanings.