A Question For Our Muslim and Jewish brothers and sisters

  • Thread starter Thread starter rweidn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rweidn

Guest
The Christian doctrine of the triunne Godhead is undoubtably a difficult concept to fully understand and believe. One of, to my mind, the better arguments for it is understanding God as a God of love. Love being dynamic and reciprocal i have heard Christian apologists saying that for God to be love is only possible if within Himself there is plural unity and fellowship.

Not subscribing to the doctrine of the Trinity i am curious as to whether you agree with the statement of God being love and how you see that possible without the Trinity.

Many thanks for your thoughts,

Richard.
 
I know you mean well. I do not consider Muslims “brothers and sisters;” to presume every Catholic shares your sentiment is extremely offensive. Perhaps you could re-write the title. Speak for yourself and say, “my brothers and sisters.”

You can continue to believe they are your bros and sisters all you want. I don’t see a problem there. Just speak for yourself.
 
Dolores49 said:
I know you mean well. I do not consider Muslims “brothers and sisters;” to presume every Catholic shares your sentiment is extremely offensive. Perhaps you could re-write the title. Speak for yourself and say, “my brothers and sisters.”

You can continue to believe they are your bros and sisters all you want. I don’t see a problem there. Just speak for yourself.
Click to expand...
👍
 
During the Solemn Intercessions on Good Friday, we refer to the Jewish people as our “elder brothers in faith.” I suppose it is your prerogative to call Moslems or not call them our brothers and sisters. We’re all God’s chillun 'round here, the way I see it.
 
I consider muslims, jews, Buddhists etc. all brothers and sisters. This is posted in the non-Catholic religion forum so no need to re-write the title just because you have thin skin. Have a wonderful Christian day.
 
rweidn said:
The Christian doctrine of the triunne Godhead is undoubtably a difficult concept to fully understand and believe. One of, to my mind, the better arguments for it is understanding God as a God of love. Love being dynamic and reciprocal i have heard Christian apologists saying that for God to be love is only possible if within Himself there is plural unity and fellowship.

Not subscribing to the doctrine of the Trinity i am curious as to whether you agree with the statement of God being love and how you see that possible without the Trinity.

Many thanks for your thoughts,

Richard.
Click to expand...
I will respond as to how I understand the Trinity. I like what you wrote about love being dynamic and reciprocal.

The First Person of the Trinity: (Father) infinitely loves the Second Person (Son), and the Son infinitely loves back the Father; and that generates the Third Person: Holy Spirit. And, all Three Persons exist without beginning or end.

Thank you for asking,

Peace,

Dorothy

If I didn’t word that as well as I should have, I hope someone steps in.
 
I don’t know what “God is love” means. If you mean that He’s loving, OK. Whatever it is God is, He’s loving? If you mean that, then I agree; 100 percent. I don’t see love as necessarily being from multiple persons. Otherwise we run the risk of affirming the Hindu doctrine, that Krishna and Radha’s love is the way love ought to be. Heck, why stop there? if God needs three person’s for love to be present why not go further and say that four persons in the God head are necessary for God to be loving?

God’s love is not dependant on His personhood to express love. His love is not analogous to our understanding of love.
 
Also, what about the Jewish prophets? they weren’t Trinitarians, but they relished in His love.
 
rweidn said:
The Christian doctrine of the triunne Godhead is undoubtably a difficult concept to fully understand and believe. One of, to my mind, the better arguments for it is understanding God as a God of love. Love being dynamic and reciprocal i have heard Christian apologists saying that for God to be love is only possible if within Himself there is plural unity and fellowship.

Not subscribing to the doctrine of the Trinity i am curious as to whether you agree with the statement of God being love and how you see that possible without the Trinity.

Many thanks for your thoughts,

Richard.
Click to expand...
Well, you did ask me… 🙂

God is not “love.” Rather, God is perfect in all ways. On a strictly philosophical level He is a perfect and indivisible unity and cannot be described in any positivistic terms, because that would limit Him. So, He does not “love” because that would be limiting Him; instead He does not lack love. Nor does He lack any type of perfection, like wisdom or righteousness or kindness. To put it into words that our human minds can grasp a little better, we say metaphorically that He has “infinite love.”

I’ll admit right now that although I have thought about it somewhat, I really don’t understand what the trinity means to Christians and I’m not even convinced that many of them know what it means. I’ve written posts before asking about it. I asked how can he be “three” when he is One? And the response I got was, of course he is One, but he is three “persons”. I have no idea what that means. Even were I able to reconcile that idea, it still wouldn’t work because of the Christian concept of God assuming physical human form, which goes against the fundamental principles of Judaism, which state that God has no body or form, is not affected by any bodily forces, and has no real similarity to anything else in the universe.

God does not have to have any type of intrinsic pluralism in order to act with love towards his creations, just as he does not have to be physical to create the physical world. He does not need to be able to eat in order to give us our daily bread, to coin a phrase…
 
Baha’is believe God is one… but there is a perspective on the Trinity that was shared by Abdul-Baha…

*The epitome of the discourse is that the Reality of Christ was a clear mirror, and the Sun of Reality – that is to say, the Essence of Oneness, with its infinite perfections and attributes – became visible in the mirror. The meaning is not that the Sun, which is the Essence of the Divinity, became divided and multiplied – for the Sun is one – but it appeared in the mirror. This is why Christ said, “The Father is in the Son,” meaning that the Sun is visible and manifest in this mirror.

The Holy Spirit is the Bounty of God which becomes visible and evident in the Reality of Christ. The Sonship station is the heart of Christ, and the Holy Spirit is the station of the spirit of Christ. Hence it has become certain and proved that the Essence of Divinity is absolutely unique and has no equal, no likeness, no equivalent.
*
~ Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 113

As to love…we believe there are four kinds of love… The love of God for the creation (humnaity)… The love of humanity for God… The love of man for man… and the love of God for the Image of God…

Love is only of the four kinds that I have explained. (a) The love of God towards the identity of God. Christ has said God is Love. (b) The love of God for His children – for His servants. (c) The love of man for God and (d) the love of man for man. These four kinds of love originate from God. These are rays from the Sun of Reality; these are the Breathings of the Holy Spirit; these are the Signs of the Reality
~ Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks, p. 181
 
drac16 said:
Also, what about the Jewish prophets? they weren’t Trinitarians, but they relished in His love.
Click to expand...
As far as I know the best ones didn’t specifically exclude the possibility of Trinity which after all is not contrary to the OT.

The OT is chock full of relationships, much as people try to keep the lid on it like a fire in a dustbin, it just keeps on smouldering!

This is not a philosophical question but existential, I like the way you put it in your last six words there.
 
Genesis 1:26 "Then God said: ‘Let us make man in OUR image, after 0UR likeness’ "

(emphasis mine)
 
That verse though, Dorothy, is very much up for debate (ain’t they all!!). Jews interpret that as God talking to the angels, i believe, and can show this as a characteristic manner of God speaking throughout the Old Testament. There’s a Youtube clip of Rabbi Tovia Singer going in to some detail about their interpretation of that verse.
 
Dorothy said:
Genesis 1:26 "Then God said: ‘Let us make man in OUR image, after 0UR likeness’ "

(emphasis mine)
Click to expand...
But don’t catholics see the creation accounts as symbolic? I believe Pope John Paul II voiced his approval of the theory of evolution, so if he didn’t take Genesis 1-2 literally, why should you take it literally on this one verse? besides, Genesis 1 and 2 present different accounts of creation. If both the accounts mentioned pluralistic pronouns [Us and Our], it would be a much stronger exegesis. Alas, they do not.
 
drac16 said:
But don’t catholics see the creation accounts as symbolic? I believe Pope John Paul II voiced his approval of the theory of evolution, so if he didn’t take Genesis 1-2 literally, why should you take it literally on this one verse? besides, Genesis 1 and 2 present different accounts of creation. If both the accounts mentioned pluralistic pronouns [Us and Our], it would be a much stronger exegesis. Alas, they do not.
Click to expand...
Believers in our Lord Jesus Christ, All rites of Catholics that accept the pope as the as the visible head of the Church, have the New Testament, so those who want to forget about the OT for various reasons can just do so…(with regard to belief in the Holy Trinity).

We believe in the three-legged stool of the Church:
  1. Sacred Scripture
  2. The God-given authority given to the Church (Magisterium)
  3. Tradition with a capital “T” (not small t tradition which can change, for ex: meat on Friday, celibacy for
    Roman Catholic priests, and other things.
    So, Catholics who follow the teachings of the Church believe and accept the doctrine and moral teachings.
I have no power to change people’s minds. The Holy Spirit can do that when they are receptive.

I believe in the Holy Trinity. Three Persons, One God. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Yes, the creation account is symbolic. It tells us about a truth called the “fall of man”, whereby Adam and Eve lost sanctifying grace through disobedience, when tempted by the fallen angel satan. Their human nature was wounded and prone to sin. We all inherited that…but have the Remedy, the Birth, Death, and Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ!

In the Encyclical “Humani Generis” , numbers 36 and 37, with regard to how creation may have taken place, may be of interest to you.

w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

Peace,

Dorothy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top