|
Easter Bunny
|
Judged:
1
Noeticcenter wrote: [ who="Easter Bunny"]> "Nature gave women breasts" (On Creation, circa 131-133)
And apparently, men got nipples in the same deal. If you think that's intelligent design, you never had one of yours tweaked.
Noetic lamentation:
imagine "Easter Bunn" living for ever! What a great foolishness and sorrow that would be for the Bunny, all belonging to the Bunny and to the whole world!
Defenitely 'death of Easter Bunny' is the most intelligent design thnkable. Remember DEATH is JUDGMENT pronounced by the Supreme Judge. Only the Supreme Judge can lift it. He lifted it by His own Death and Resurrection in exchange for yours. Further He gave you the FREEDOM to continue rejecting it and ridiculingi it. The design also will inteligently continue into the very HELL you ridicule.
Noetic lamentaion And if there was even the slightest reason to believe that hell exists in some sort of after-life, then maybe I'd have some reason to worry. Unfortunately, for believers anyway, there really aren't any reasons to believe in these things. Me, I just try to do good to the best of my ability. I'm willing to let the chips fall where they may.(Oh, and my idea of "good" is not based on old ghost stories and unsubstantiated belief.)
|
|
“dum vita est spes est ”
Joined: Oct 24, 2006
USA
ISP Location:
Saint Marys, KS
|
Easter Bunny wrote: > "Nature gave women breasts" (On Creation, circa 131-133)
And apparently, men got nipples in the same deal. If you think that's intelligent design, you never had one of yours tweaked. ow... lol!
|
|
George
|
BMZ wrote: There is no Allahim in Arabic. There is Elohim in Hebrew. Only the Greeks and the Romans had gods. Plurality of God comes from the pagan Greeks and pagan Romans and the idea was sold to the church and Christianity founded by the Gentile pagans. That's funny.'Cuz I just gave you the references for the plural-une Allah / Allahim and its relation to the plural unity of the Hebrew Elohim. And I gave you multiple, thoroughly Jewish, pre-Christian sources supporting the plural unity of the Judaeo-Christian God, including rabbinical sources in Aramaic (the language of Jesus). In addition, I gave a survey of relevant teachings of the Greek-speaking Jew (as the New Testament authors were) Philo of Alexandria, leader of the million-strong Jewish community in that Egyptian city, whose brother Alexander used his own money to finance improvements to the temple in Jerusalem. "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored" (Aldous Huxley)
|
|
Noeticcenter
|
[ who="Easter Bunny"]<quoted text>
And if there was even the slightest reason to believe that hell exists in some sort of after-life, then maybe I'd have some reason to worry.
Unfortunately, for believers anyway, there really aren't any reasons to believe in these things.
Me, I just try to do good to the best of my ability. I'm willing to let the chips fall where they may.(Oh, and my idea of "good" is not based on old ghost stories and unsubstantiated belief.
Noetic
Of all that Noetic wrote, you remember only HELL!! Does not that tell you something? Your belief or disbelief is not a factor in its existence any more than your belief or disbelief in your own mortality (which could be any moment for anybody universally) is a factor in the inevitability or universality of DEATH. Hell is just as sure as death.
As regards your GOODNESS, how good you should or could be? Even the best of all the best DIE, just as the worst of all the worst and they will all be eaten up by WORMS 6-feet below ground or educed to ashes and gone with the wind!!
Why should a GOOD man as you DIE as any one else? You should live for ever!! Why not?
Noetic will tell you why. The JUDGMENT of the Creator Judge is the CODE OF DEATH imprinted on your genome, as on the genome of all GOOD and BAD alike. Only the Creator Judge can lift it for you. He lifted it by taking that JUDGEMENT upon Himself. He also gave you the FREEDOM to reject and GO TO HELL without HIM or accept and be with HIM wherever HE IS. That is your free choice good Easter Bunny.
[Noetic]
|
|
Noeticcenter
|
[ who="Easter Bunny"]<quoted text>
And if there was even the slightest reason to believe that hell exists in some sort of after-life, then maybe I'd have some reason to worry.
Unfortunately, for believers anyway, there really aren't any reasons to believe in these things.
Me, I just try to do good to the best of my ability. I'm willing to let the chips fall where they may.(Oh, and my idea of "good" is not based on old ghost stories and unsubstantiated belief.
Noetic
Of all that Noetic wrote, you remember only HELL!! Does not that tell you something? Your belief or disbelief is not a factor in its existence any more than your belief or disbelief in your own mortality (which could be any moment for anybody universally) is a factor in the inevitability or universality of DEATH. Hell is just as sure as death.
As regards your GOODNESS, how good you should or could be? Even the best of all the best DIE, just as the worst of all the worst and they will all be eaten up by WORMS 6-feet below ground or reduced to ashes and gone with the wind!!
Why should a GOOD man as you DIE as any one else? You should live for ever!! Why not?
Noetic will tell you why. The JUDGMENT of the Creator Judge is the CODE OF DEATH imprinted on your genome, as on the genome of all GOOD and BAD alike. Only the Creator Judge can lift it for you. He lifted it by taking that JUDGEMENT upon Himself. He also gave you the FREEDOM to reject and GO TO HELL without HIM or accept and be with HIM wherever HE IS. That is your free choice, good Easter Bunny.
[Noetic]
|
|
Easter Bunny
|
Noeticcenter wrote: [ who="Easter Bunny"]<quoted text>
And if there was even the slightest reason to believe that hell exists in some sort of after-life, then maybe I'd have some reason to worry.
Unfortunately, for believers anyway, there really aren't any reasons to believe in these things.
Me, I just try to do good to the best of my ability. I'm willing to let the chips fall where they may.(Oh, and my idea of "good" is not based on old ghost stories and unsubstantiated belief.
Noetic
Of all that Noetic wrote, you remember only HELL!! Does not that tell you something? Your belief or disbelief is not a factor in its existence any more than your belief or disbelief in your own mortality (which could be any moment for anybody universally) is a factor in the inevitability or universality of DEATH. Hell is just as sure as death.
As regards your GOODNESS, how good you should or could be? Even the best of all the best DIE, just as the worst of all the worst and they will all be eaten up by WORMS 6-feet below ground or reduced to ashes and gone with the wind!!
Why should a GOOD man as you DIE as any one else? You should live for ever!! Why not?
Noetic will tell you why. The JUDGMENT of the Creator Judge is the CODE OF DEATH imprinted on your genome, as on the genome of all GOOD and BAD alike. Only the Creator Judge can lift it for you. He lifted it by taking that JUDGEMENT upon Himself. He also gave you the FREEDOM to reject and GO TO HELL without HIM or accept and be with HIM wherever HE IS. That is your free choice, good Easter Bunny.
[Noetic] No, actually, I don't only remember the part about hell, but since your position depends on the existence of an after-life where things such as hell would also exist, it serves as a linchpin upon which your position depends. This means it serves as a fulcrum around which the argument turns. By focusing on such an item for a moment, we might be able to save time by not addressing issues that disappear if we solve the one topic at-hand. So, yes, my focus on the "hell" part does tell us something: That I am logical. And as you point out, what is and what will be is not affected merely by what I think. So while I may find it undesirable that good people perish with the rest, my wish for it to be otherwise does not give rise to an afterlife.
|
|
Easter Bunny
|
Trisha wrote: <quoted text>
ow... lol! Thought you might like that one. Having worked with some crude guys who find many ways to tease and jolt other guys to the level of torment, I can speak from experience. Owwww indeed.
|
|
BMZ
|
George wrote: <quoted text>
That's funny.'Cuz I just gave you the references for the plural-une Allah / Allahim and its relation to the plural unity of the Hebrew Elohim. And I gave you multiple, thoroughly Jewish, pre-Christian sources supporting the plural unity of the Judaeo-Christian God, including rabbinical sources in Aramaic (the language of Jesus). In addition, I gave a survey of relevant teachings of the Greek-speaking Jew (as the New Testament authors were) Philo of Alexandria, leader of the million-strong Jewish community in that Egyptian city, whose brother Alexander used his own money to finance improvements to the temple in Jerusalem.
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored" (Aldous Huxley) I have already told you that in ARABIC, there is no such word as ALLAHIM and there is no plural for ALLAH in Arabic. Allah is Allah. ELOHIM is in Hebrew. When Jews address God as Elohim, they do not take it to mean Gods. The Christians are the ones who try to give a plural mean to Elohim, because they need three co-equal Gods forming a God in the Christian triune Godhead, which only Hindus have. ILAH is god in Arabic. AA-LAY-HA is plural for gods.
|
|
|
|
Corrine
AOL
|
Submitter Is Back wrote: FACTS All Christian Must Know:
* There is no word "Trinity" in the Bible in any version of any language.
* ""Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good–except God alone." (From the NIV Bible, Mark 10:18)"
Jesus in this verse is clearly giving exclusivity to GOD Almighty when he said "alone". If Jesus was truly part of GOD Almighty and/or the trinity lie was true, then Jesus, to say the least, would not have said that. You are adding to what He said, He did not deny being God,,, He asked why do you call me good,, thern He proceeded to say, Only God is Good, where di H deny that He is God in that statement?>
|
|
JESUS IS
|
|
|
Why I Am Not A Muslim
|
BMZ wrote: <quoted text>
I have already told you that in ARABIC, there is no such word as ALLAHIM and there is no plural for ALLAH in Arabic. Allah is Allah.
ELOHIM is in Hebrew. When Jews address God as Elohim, they do not take it to mean Gods. The Christians are the ones who try to give a plural mean to Elohim, because they need three co-equal Gods forming a God in the Christian triune Godhead, which only Hindus have.
ILAH is god in Arabic. AA-LAY-HA is plural for gods. Once again, bmz, you have completely missed my point. Yes, aaliha is the Arabic for "gods". I am not saying that Allahumma means "gods" plural (Allah = "God" or a contracted form of "the God," and "Umma" denotes the collective unity of a community of beings). I am saying that Allahumma denotes divine singularity AS WELL AS divine plurality for God, as the numerous Quranic, traditional and modern commentator examples indicated that I referenced, if anyone wants to read them and take them seriously. I am not trying to force a Christian trinitarian interpretation upon the Elohim of Judaism nor the Allahumma of Islam. Rather, I am pointing out that their God's nature is not singular unity but rather plural unity, and that this is not inconsistent with the Christian God whose divine aspects also include the Logos and the Spirit. I'm not arguing this in a religious way, but purely in a historical and intellectual capacity. a.k.a., George
|
|
Why I Am Not A Muslim
|
"...[F]or many Muslim theologians God has no (knowable) essence or nature from which one can distinguish his three persons (centers of consciousness). This position is known as nominalism. God is absolute Will, and absolute Will must be absolutely One .... prior to plurality. As Plotinus had put it several centuries earlier, all plurality is made up of unities, Thus, unity is the most ultimate of all. Accepting this Neo-Platonic (i.e., Plotinean) way of thinking leads logically to a denial of the possibility for any plurality of persons in God. Hence, by the very nature of its philosophical commitment to a kind of Plotinianism prevalent throughout the Middle Ages, Islamic thought about god was solidified in an irretractably solitary form of monotheism that allowed no form of trinitarianism." "However, this kind of rigid monotheism is not entirely consistent with some of Islam's own distinctions.... Muslim scholars, following through consistently on certain teachings in the Qur'an, have made distinctions that would allow for some kind of distinctions within God's unity. For example, they believe the Qur'an is the eternal speech of God, existing in the Mind of God from all eternity ... In 85:21-22, we read,'Nay, this is A Glorious Qur'an,(Inscribed) in A Tablet Preserved![in heaven].' And in 43:3-4, we read,'We have made it A Qur'an in Arabic, That ye may be able to understand (and learn wisdom). And verily, it is In the Mother of the Book, In Our Presence, high (in dignity), full of wisdom'(cf. 13:39). This eternal original is the template of the earthly book we know as the Qur'an." "Muslim scholars insist the Qur'an is uncreated and perfectly expresses the mind of God. Yet they acknowledge that the Qur'an is not identical to the essence of God. Some Muslim scholars even liken the Qur'an to the Divine Logos view of Christ held by orthodox Christians. As Yusuf K. Ibish stated of the Qur'an,'It is not a book in the ordinary sense, nor is it comparable with the Bible, either the Old or New Testaments. It is an expression of Divine Will. If you want to compare it with anything in Christianity, you must compare it with Christ Himself.' He adds,'Christ was the expression of the Divine among men, the revelation of the Divine Will. That is what the Qur'an is.'[Waddy, Charis, The Muslim Mind, London: Longman, 1976, p. 14] Orthodox Islam describes the relation between God and the Qur'an by noting that 'speech is an eternal attribute of God, which as such is without beginning or intermission, exactly like his knowledge, His might, and other characteristics of his infinite being. But if speech is an eternal attribute of God that is not identical to God but is somehow distinguishable from him, then does not this allow the very kind of plurality within unity that Christians claim for the Trinity? Thus, it would seem that the Islamic view of God's absolute unity is, by their own distinction, not incompatible with Christian trinitarianism. In other words, the basic Muslim logic of either monotheism or polytheism (which includes tritheism) is invalid. They themselves allow that something can be an eternal expression of God without being numerically identical to him. Thus, to their own illustration, why can't Christ be the eternal 'expression of Divine Will' without being the same person as this Divine Will?" (Norman L. Geisler and Abdul Saleeb, Answering Islam, pp. 139-140)
|
|
Why I Am Not A Muslim
|
"At the root of medieval views of God is an entrenched Neo-Platonism, springing from the second-century philosopher Plotinus. He believed that the Ultimate (God) was absolutely and indivisibly one, a position that heavily influenced Muslim monotheism. Further, Plotinus held that the One is so utterly transcendent (above and beyond all) that it cannot be known, except by mystical experience. This, too, heavily influenced not only orthodox Muslim agnosticism but Sufi mysticism. The fundamental reason there can be no similarity between the One (God) and what flows from it (the universe) is because God is beyond being, and there is no similarity between being and what is beyond it." (p. 143) "At the heart of the Muslim inability to understand the Trinity is the Neo-Platonic concept of oneness. The second-century A.D. philosopher Plotinus, who heavily influenced the thinking of the Middle Ages, viewed God (the Ultimate) as the One, an absolute unity in which is no multiplicity at all. This One was so absoluely simple that it could not even know itself, since self-knowledge implies a distinction between knower and known. It was not until it emanated one level down (in the Nous, or Mind) that it could reflect back on itself and therefore know itself. For Plotinus, the One itself was beyond knowing, beyond consciousness, and even beyond being. It was so undividedly simple that in itself it had no mind, thoughts, personality, or consciousness.... Thus, it could not be known, except by its effects that, however, did not resemble itself." "It is not difficult to see strong similarities between the Plotinian and Muslim views of God ... Nor is it hard to see the difficulty with this view. It preserves a rigid unity in God but only at the expense of real personality. It clings to a rigid simplicity but only by sacrificing his relatability. In short, it leaves us with an empty and barren concept of deity. By reducing God to a bare unity we are left with a barren unity. As Joseph Ratzinger insightfully notes,'The unrelated, unrelatable, absolutely one could not be a person. There is no such thing as a person in the categorical singular. This is already apparent in the words in which the concept of person grew up; the Greek word 'prosopon'["person" or "face"] means literally "(a) look towards"; with the prefix 'pros'(toward) it includes the notion of relatedness as an integral part of itself.... To this extent the overstepping of the singular is implicit in the concept of person.' " (p. 270)
|
|
Why I Am Not A Muslim
|
"...[T]here is a serious moral problem with Islamic voluntarism. For if God is Will, without any real essence, then he does not do things because they are right; rather, they are right because he does them. In short, God is arbitrary about what is right and wrong. He does not have to do good. For example, God does not have to be merciful; he cold be mean if he wanted to be. He does not have to be loving to all; he could hate, if he chose to do so.... Allah said in [Qur'an, sura] 25:51,'Had it been Our Will, We could have sent a warner to every centre of Population.' But he did not [as the context of the passage implies], which smacks of arbitrariness. In other words, love and mercy are not of the essence of God. God could choose not to be loving." [(pp. 140-141)(from Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross, by Norman L. Geisler and Abdul Saleeb.) (Qur'an passages denoting Allah's taqdir, or Irresistible Will: 3:139; 8:17; 9:51; 13:30;14:4; 18:101; 32:32; 45:26; 54:49; 57:22; 87:2. This "if-Allah-commands-it-the n-that-makes-it-moral" mentality is faithfully represented in the arbitrary rulings of Muhammad and his double-standard of justice for Muslims versus non-muslims, representatively executed by Muhammad's companions, successors, and subsequent followers. http://iraqsinconvenienttruth.com/2008/04/10/... ) "Further, some have pointed to the fact that Muhammad was simultaneously a prophet, a husband, and a leader. Why then should a Muslim reject the idea of a plurality of functions (persons) in God. Within the Islamic system is the very proof that plurality within unity, as it relates to God, is not unintelligible. By the same token, the, there is no reason Muslims should reject the doctrine of the Trinity as nonsensical." (p. 276) "Muslim scholars make a big point of computing the mathematical possibility of the Trinity. After all, does not 1+1+1=3? It certainly does if you add them, but Christians insist that this is the wrong way to understand the Trinity. The triunity of God is more like 1x1x1=1. In other words,[Christians] multiply, not add, the one God in three persons. That is, God is triune, not triplex. His one essence has multiple personalities. Thus, there is no more mathematical problem in conceiving the Trinity than there is in understanding 1 to the third power." (p. 269, Answering Islam: The Crescent in the Light of the Cross, by Norman L. Geisler and Abdul Saleeb)
|
|
Why I Am Not A Muslim
|
"For Muslims God not only has unity but he has singularity. But these are not the same. It is possible to have unity without singularity. For there could be plurality within the unity. Indeed, this is precisely what the Trinity is, namely, a plurality of persons within the unity of one essence. Human analogies help to illustrate the point. My mind, my thoughts, and my words have a unity, but they are not a singularity, since they are all different. Likewise, Christ can be an expression of the same nature as God without being the same person as the Father. In this connection, Muslim monotheism sacrifices plurality in an attempt to avoid duality. In avoiding the one extreme of admitting any partners to God, Islam goes to the other extreme and denies any personal plurality in God. But,...'the belief in the Trinity, which recognizes the plurality in the unity of God, is the only way to the final elimination of dualism as a means of expanding plurality alongside unity; only through this belief is the positive validation of plurality given a definite base. God stands above singular and plural. He bursts both categories.'" (pp. 270-271, ibid.) The Arabian Allah was originally a Multi-Une deity (Arabic Allahumma, like Hebrew word for "God" Elohim, dynamically denoting both unity and plurality, not static singularity) who in the Qur'an referred to himself as "We" and "Us," and actually prays to Himself (similar to how the Divine Logos Jesus prays to Himself as God the Father in the New Testament), etc. http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/allah_... Jesus as Divine Wisdom/Logos: http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trinityd... http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/jesuscla... http://www.christian-thinktank.com/theoudelph... Jewish God Yahweh-Elohim was not a static monadic deity but a dynamic, complex heno-/monotheistic God with Binitarian and Trinitarian dimensions: http://www.answering-islam.org/Trinity/index.... http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arland... http://www.barr-family.com/godsword/trinity.h... http://www.grantjeffrey.com/article/chphnwr.h... http://www.layevangelism.com/qreference/chapt... http://www.layevangelism.com/qreference/chapt... http://www.layevangelism.com/qreference/chapt... http://www.layevangelism.com/qreference/chapt... http://www.amazon.com/Great-Angel-Study-Israe... http://www.amazon.com/One-God-Lord-Christian-... [Copy and paste the entire following link:] http://209.85.165.104/search?q =cache:IK8ayC6tUPsJ:www.hebrew -roots.com/html/&hl=en &strip=1
|
|
Why I Am Not A Muslim
|
"...[F]or many Muslim theologians God has no (knowable) essence or nature from which one can distinguish his three persons (centers of consciousness). This position is known as nominalism. God is absolute Will, and absolute Will must be absolutely One .... prior to plurality. As Plotinus had put it several centuries earlier, all plurality is made up of unities, Thus, unity is the most ultimate of all. Accepting this Neo-Platonic (i.e., Plotinean) way of thinking leads logically to a denial of the possibility for any plurality of persons in God. Hence, by the very nature of its philosophical commitment to a kind of Plotinianism prevalent throughout the Middle Ages, Islamic thought about god was solidified in an irretractably solitary form of monotheism that allowed no form of trinitarianism."
"However, this kind of rigid monotheism is not entirely consistent with some of Islam's own distinctions.... Muslim scholars, following through consistently on certain teachings in the Qur'an, have made distinctions that would allow for some kind of distinctions within God's unity. For example, they believe the Qur'an is the eternal speech of God, existing in the Mind of God from all eternity ... In 85:21-22, we read,'Nay, this is A Glorious Qur'an,(Inscribed) in A Tablet Preserved![in heaven].' And in 43:3-4, we read,'We have made it A Qur'an in Arabic, That ye may be able to understand (and learn wisdom). And verily, it is In the Mother of the Book, In Our Presence, high (in dignity), full of wisdom'(cf. 13:39). This eternal original is the template of the earthly book we know as the Qur'an."
"Muslim scholars insist the Qur'an is uncreated and perfectly expresses the mind of God. Yet they acknowledge that the Qur'an is not identical to the essence of God. Some Muslim scholars even liken the Qur'an to the Divine Logos view of Christ held by orthodox Christians. As Yusuf K. Ibish stated of the Qur'an,'It is not a book in the ordinary sense, nor is it comparable with the Bible, either the Old or New Testaments. It is an expression of Divine Will. If you want to compare it with anything in Christianity, you must compare it with Christ Himself.' He adds,'Christ was the expression of the Divine among men, the revelation of the Divine Will. That is what the Qur'an is.'[Waddy, Charis, The Muslim Mind, London: Longman, 1976, p. 14] Orthodox Islam describes the relation between God and the Qur'an by noting that 'speech is an eternal attribute of God, which as such is without beginning or intermission, exactly like his knowledge, His might, and other characteristics of his infinite being. But if speech is an eternal attribute of God that is not identical to God but is somehow distinguishable from him, then does not this allow the very kind of plurality within unity that Christians claim for the Trinity? Thus, it would seem that the Islamic view of God's absolute unity is, by their own distinction, not incompatible with Christian trinitarianism. In other words, the basic Muslim logic of either monotheism or polytheism (which includes tritheism) is invalid. They themselves allow that something can be an eternal expression of God without being numerically identical to him. Thus, to their own illustration, why can't Christ be the eternal 'expression of Divine Will' without being the same person as this Divine Will?" (Norman L. Geisler and Abdul Saleeb, Answering Islam, pp. 139-140)
|
|
Why I Am Not A Muslim
|
"At the root of medieval views of God is an entrenched Neo-Platonism, springing from the second-century philosopher Plotinus. He believed that the Ultimate (God) was absolutely and indivisibly one, a position that heavily influenced Muslim monotheism. Further, Plotinus held that the One is so utterly transcendent (above and beyond all) that it cannot be known, except by mystical experience. This, too, heavily influenced not only orthodox Muslim agnosticism but Sufi mysticism. The fundamental reason there can be no similarity between the One (God) and what flows from it (the universe) is because God is beyond being, and there is no similarity between being and what is beyond it." (p. 143)
"At the heart of the Muslim inability to understand the Trinity is the Neo-Platonic concept of oneness. The second-century A.D. philosopher Plotinus, who heavily influenced the thinking of the Middle Ages, viewed God (the Ultimate) as the One, an absolute unity in which is no multiplicity at all. This One was so absoluely simple that it could not even know itself, since self-knowledge implies a distinction between knower and known. It was not until it emanated one level down (in the Nous, or Mind) that it could reflect back on itself and therefore know itself. For Plotinus, the One itself was beyond knowing, beyond consciousness, and even beyond being. It was so undividedly simple that in itself it had no mind, thoughts, personality, or consciousness.... Thus, it could not be known, except by its effects that, however, did not resemble itself."
"It is not difficult to see strong similarities between the Plotinian and Muslim views of God ... Nor is it hard to see the difficulty with this view. It preserves a rigid unity in God but only at the expense of real personality. It clings to a rigid simplicity but only by sacrificing his relatability. In short, it leaves us with an empty and barren concept of deity. By reducing God to a bare unity we are left with a barren unity. As Joseph Ratzinger insightfully notes,'The unrelated, unrelatable, absolutely one could not be a person. There is no such thing as a person in the categorical singular. This is already apparent in the words in which the concept of person grew up; the Greek word 'prosopon'["person" or "face"] means literally "(a) look towards"; with the prefix 'pros'(toward) it includes the notion of relatedness as an integral part of itself.... To this extent the overstepping of the singular is implicit in the concept of person.' " (Norman L. Geisler and Abdul Saleeb, Answering Islam, p. 270)
|
|
Why I Am Not A Muslim
|
"...[T]here is a serious moral problem with Islamic voluntarism. For if God is Will, without any real essence, then he does not do things because they are right; rather, they are right because he does them. In short, God is arbitrary about what is right and wrong. He does not have to do good. For example, God does not have to be merciful; he cold be mean if he wanted to be. He does not have to be loving to all; he could hate, if he chose to do so.... Allah said in [Qur'an, sura] 25:51,'Had it been Our Will, We could have sent a warner to every centre of Population.' But he did not [as the context of the passage implies], which smacks of arbitrariness. In other words, love and mercy are not of the essence of God. God could choose not to be loving." [(pp. 140-141)(from Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross, by Norman L. Geisler and Abdul Saleeb.) (Qur'an passages denoting Allah's taqdir, or Irresistible Will: 3:139; 8:17; 9:51; 13:30;14:4; 18:101; 32:32; 45:26; 54:49; 57:22; 87:2. This "if-Allah-commands-it-the n-that-makes-it-moral" mentality is faithfully represented in the arbitrary rulings of Muhammad and his double-standard of justice for Muslims versus non-muslims, representatively executed by Muhammad's companions, successors, and subsequent followers. http://iraqsinconvenienttruth.com/2008/04/10/... ) "[S]ome have pointed to the fact that Muhammad was simultaneously a prophet, a husband, and a leader. Why then should a Muslim reject the idea of a plurality of functions (persons) in God. Within the Islamic system is the very proof that plurality within unity, as it relates to God, is not unintelligible. By the same token, the, there is no reason Muslims should reject the doctrine of the Trinity as nonsensical." (p. 276) "Muslim scholars make a big point of computing the mathematical possibility of the Trinity. After all, does not 1+1+1=3? It certainly does if you add them, but Christians insist that this is the wrong way to understand the Trinity. The triunity of God is more like 1x1x1=1. In other words,[Christians] multiply, not add, the one God in three persons. That is, God is triune, not triplex. His one essence has multiple personalities. Thus, there is no more mathematical problem in conceiving the Trinity than there is in understanding 1 to the third power." (p. 269, Answering Islam: The Crescent in the Light of the Cross, by Norman L. Geisler and Abdul Saleeb)
|
|
Why I Am Not A Muslim
|
"For Muslims God not only has unity but he has singularity. But these are not the same. It is possible to have unity without singularity. For there could be plurality within the unity. Indeed, this is precisely what the Trinity is, namely, a plurality of persons within the unity of one essence. Human analogies help to illustrate the point. My mind, my thoughts, and my words have a unity, but they are not a singularity, since they are all different. Likewise, Christ can be an expression of the same nature as God without being the same person as the Father. In this connection, Muslim monotheism sacrifices plurality in an attempt to avoid duality. In avoiding the one extreme of admitting any partners to God, Islam goes to the other extreme and denies any personal plurality in God. But,...'the belief in the Trinity, which recognizes the plurality in the unity of God, is the only way to the final elimination of dualism as a means of expanding plurality alongside unity; only through this belief is the positive validation of plurality given a definite base. God stands above singular and plural. He bursts both categories.'" (pp. 270-271, ibid.) The Arabian Allah was originally a Multi-Une deity (Arabic Allahumma, like Hebrew word for "God" Elohim, dynamically denoting both unity and plurality, not static singularity) who in the Qur'an referred to himself as "We" and "Us," and actually prays to Himself (similar to how the Divine Logos Jesus prays to Himself as God the Father in the New Testament), etc. http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/allah_... Jesus as Divine Wisdom/Logos: http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trinityd... http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/jesuscla... http://www.christian-thinktank.com/theoudelph... Jewish God Yahweh-Elohim was not a static monadic deity but a dynamic, complex heno-/monotheistic God with Binitarian and Trinitarian dimensions: http://www.answering-islam.org/Trinity/index.... http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arland... http://www.barr-family.com/godsword/trinity.h... http://www.grantjeffrey.com/article/chphnwr.h... http://www.layevangelism.com/qreference/chapt... http://www.layevangelism.com/qreference/chapt... http://www.layevangelism.com/qreference/chapt... http://www.layevangelism.com/qreference/chapt... http://www.amazon.com/Great-Angel-Study-Israe... http://www.amazon.com/One-God-Lord-Christian-... [Copy and paste the entire following link:] http://209.85.165.104/search?q =cache:IK8ayC6tUPsJ:www.hebrew -roots.com/html/&hl=en &strip=1
|
|
NAEEM
|
Hello Austin, tx i have trully respect for your interess in finding the TRUTH. But so far your only trying to make every thing look dark, your putting and trying to find all kind of un real reasons to dislike a last religoin wich goes by the name ISLAM (PEACE)i have no problem whatso ever if your not getting te message of ISLAM right. because so far you have not spoken or e mailed or asked or told your commemnts to a trully studied person like YOUR self AUSTIN, if you realy want to b at peace with all beings,then you MUST go to www IRF.com
|
Olympics
Judge it!
Aquarius
Most Popular