Is it bad to like Islamic spirituality?

[Servant19]

I follow them because they are TRUE. Pope Benedict XVI was not referring to the whole of Islam (Islamic thought/theology), when he wrote his speech, he was, in fact, referring to those Muslims who do follow the Ash’arite school of thought (Sunnis), and whose vision of God is not one wherein He is “LOGOS”, but rather “pure will”.

And the reason he brings this up is because there are those who use this God of pure will and power as one they can wield to further their BLIND obedience to their RELIGIOUS CAUSE, and thereby commit acts of violence in the name of their RELIGION and their God of PURE WILL.

So, it is highly, highly ironical that you should, therefore, accuse those who agree with the Pope’s address as being blind (without reason/rational thought) followers, when that is the very thing the Pope was addressing in his speech:

So, if you want to change the world and make it a better place then start with those whose belief in God is riddled with errors and mistaken notions about His very nature, that is, those who believe violence is compatible with a GOD OF PURE WILL. Because, I can assure you, Servant, that if they TRULY believed that God was a God of REASON than they would have no need or DESIRE to compel, threaten and harm anyone with violence in order for infidels to accept their faith/God. Because violence and reason are INCOMPATIBLE with a God who is “LOGOS”.

Of course I want to change the world and make it a better place, but I don’t go about it by making generic statements about entire populations based on the ideas of a small segment of that population.

It’s a bit like me saying that Christianity and Jesus hates gays so much that they encourage going to the funerals of gay people and telling their families that “God hates fags”. Would that be a fair thing to say about Christianity as a whole?

If the Pope wanted to expose the hateful evolution of Ashari schools of thought he should have been precise and said: “In the Ashari school of Islam blah blah blah” but instead he said “In Islam blah blah blah”
A vast chunk (probably most) of the Islamic world thought “Hang on a minute, I don’t believe that…”

That’s not how we can change the world for the better from my humble perspective…

.

 

[josie_L]

Of course I want to change the world and make it a better place, but I don’t go about it by making generic statements about entire populations based on the ideas of a small segment of that population.

It’s a bit like me saying that Christianity and Jesus hates gays so much that they encourage going to the funerals of gay people and telling their families that “God hates fags”. Would that be a fair thing to say about Christianity as a whole?

If the Pope wanted to expose the hateful evolution of Ashari schools of thought he should have been precise and said: “In the Ashari school of Islam blah blah blah” but instead he said “In Islam blah blah blah”
A vast chunk (probably most) of the Islamic world thought “Hang on a minute, I don’t believe that…”

That’s not how we can change the world for the better from my humble perspective…

.

Those who follow the Ashari school of Islam are a vast chunk of the Islamic world, i.e, the Sunnis, who I believe make up more than three quarters of Muslims worldwide.

Many people mistakenly think that Muslims are divided into two halves: Sunnis and Shi’it. In reality Shia are between 7.5% to 11%. **All the rest (93.5%) are Sunnis **(ignoring the fact the Shi’ism is a totally different religion than Islam). The word Shia includes all kinds of Shi’it Sects such as (Twelvers Imami Rafidi Shia, Isma’ili Shia, Alawi (Nusairi) Shia, Druze Shia, Zaidi Shia).

islamicweb.com/beliefs/cults/shia_population.htm

And this was conducted at the end of 1999.

You can try to paint Emeritus Pope Benedict’s address as slanted and/or false all you want, but in the end you are proving yourself to be ignorant of the facts and context surrounding his speech. And I have yet to see this study from the U.N…

 

[Servant19]

It seems as though I have upset you, or maybe the realisation that the approach the Pope took was upsetting and you are transferring that to me. I will address your post in reverse order because then it will make it more clear for you how the Pope made a big mistake:

Excuse me, the date is not relevant, yes it is, in fact, if your so called recent study overturned a previous understanding regarding the timing of said statement, then ipso facto, the pope was not in error in so much as it was the error of those before him (Islamic scholars, etc.). Moreover, Jesus made many a volatile statement that upset the rabbis of his time, I, therefore, see absolutely nothing wrong in Pope Benedict’s statement, assuming said study you mentioned is even true or existent as I haven’t been given any actual study to look at or see.

No the date is not relevant because the Pope should know better. He could have used more wisdom and refrained from saying things that he is unsure of, because he most certainly was not sure.

If you need to know the date, there are several studies which conclude that the verse “Let there be no compulsion in religion” is a Medinan verse revealed late in Muhammad’s life. In fact, nearly ALL Muslim scholars agree with this, and have done so for a very long time. One of the studies is from 1999, and there is another one from 1913.

This citations are now, thankfully, available for general viewing on wikipedia:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Baqara_256

Let me also say that had the Pope done his homework properly, he would have read the Tafsir al-Tabari (or at least his informants would have) which is a collection of Islamic works written between the years 838-923 which clearly shows that Quranic verse to be written in the Medinan period of Muhammad’s life.

Hope that helps you to be clear on this matter.

I won’t address the other stuff in your post because it really is a rather defensive in tone, and I don’t think it’s really you speaking

.

 

[Servant19]

Those who follow the Ashari school of Islam are a vast chunk of the Islamic world, i.e, the Sunnis, who I believe make up more than three quarters of Muslims worldwide.

So what you are basically saying is that the majority of the Muslim world follows the Ashari school whose central teaching is to be like an irrational God. Act irrationally and with volatility.

Is that your conclusion by making this statement above?

The majority of Muslim scholars were appalled by the Pope’s statements that Islam believes in an irrational God. The majority of Sunni’s don’t believe in an irrational God today.

I would still say that it is a sign of respect and nobility of character to not paint 25% of the worlds Muslims with a brush they want nothing to do with.

Wouldn’t you agree?

(BTW, that Islamicweb website is a Shiah hate website, it is incorrect)

And this was conducted at the end of 1999.

You can try to paint Emeritus Pope Benedict’s address as slanted and/or false all you want, but in the end you are proving yourself to be ignorant of the facts and context surrounding his speech. And I have yet to see this study from the U.N…

I appreciate the context and general gist of his speech, but what results is a large proportion of Catholics, like yourself, elaborating and spreading a falsehood about Islamic teaching, which is not making the world a better place.

I have provided citations for you in my above post

.

 

[josie_L]

It seems as though I have upset you, or maybe the realisation that the approach the Pope took was upsetting and you are transferring that to me. I will address your post in reverse order because then it will make it more clear for you how the Pope made a big mistake:

No the date is not relevant because the Pope should know better. He could have used more wisdom and refrained from saying things that he is unsure of, because he most certainly was not sure.

If you need to know the date, there are several studies which conclude that the verse “Let there be no compulsion in religion” is a Medinan verse revealed late in Muhammad’s life. In fact, nearly ALL Muslim scholars agree with this, and have done so for a very long time. One of the studies is from 1999, and there is another one from 1913.

This citations are now, thankfully, available for general viewing on wikipedia:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Baqara_256

Yet, Muhammed received this revelation during the Medinan period, i.e., before Islam became a force to be reckoned with, i.e., before the conquests that overtook much of the Middle East, North Africa . . .etc., so when the pope states:

In the seventh conversation (διάλεξις - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: “There is no compulsion in religion”. According to some of the experts, this is probably one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat.

What exactly is he saying that isn’t historically correct??? And moreover, how is he exaggerating the case of "there is no compulsion in religion, when he himself, stated, that “according to some of the experts,” this was a sura of the early period, which would convey that he was aware that no ALL experts agree upon this statement???

Moreover, this does not even affect the main point of his address, and that is, that violence is incompatible with a God who is “logos”.

And since I’ve already explained that the Ash’arite school of thought rose to ascendancy in the Islamic world during the early Medieval period, then the pope, was not in error when he said:

But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality

Because that is exactly what the Ash’arite school of thought teaches, and continues to teach till this day about the nature of God, through the Sunni Islamic world.

Let me also say that had the Pope done his homework properly, he would have read the Tafsir al-Tabari (or at least his informants would have) which is a collection of Islamic works written between the years 838-923 which clearly shows that Quranic verse to be written in the Medinan period of Muhammad’s life.

Hope that helps you to be clear on this matter.

I won’t address the other stuff in your post because it really is a rather defensive in tone, and I don’t think it’s really you speaking

.

 

[josie_L]

So what you are basically saying is that the majority of the Muslim world follows the Ashari school whose central teaching is to be like an irrational God. Act irrationally and with volatility.

Yes, the majority of the Muslim world do follow the Ash’ari school of thought as I have thus explained it, however, I have never stated that their central teaching “is to be like an irrational God.”

I think you’ve basically missed the whole point of my posts, because it’s easier to fight a straw man than the actual points that I am making. But I will reaffirm my points all over again.

The Ash’arite school of thought put an emphasis on God’s will, a God whose nature is not based on “Logos”, but on his omnipotent power to do whatever He wills, because nothing can hinder Him. He, in fact, transcends all attributes.

Because of this emphasis on God’s will, there is a possibility for God to act irrationally if He so wishes, unlike the God of Christianity who is “LOGOS”, and therefore cannot contradict Himself in a manner that would violate his nature as “LOGOS”. There is no such GUARANTEE in Islam that God will not act irrationally because he is not a God of "LOGOS, but a God of “PURE WILL”.

Is that your conclusion by making this statement above?

Yes, it is, after clarification, of course.

The majority of Muslim scholars were appalled by the Pope’s statements that Islam believes in an irrational God.

Well, that’s not what the Pope said.

the majority of Sunni’s don’t believe in an irrational God today.

I don’t think the majority of Sunnis even contemplate this, however, the fact of the matter is that a God of “PURE WILL” can act irrationally because his nature, according to the Ash’arite school of thought accepted by the Sunnis, is not based on “LOGOS.”

I would still say that it is a sign of respect and nobility of character to not paint 25% of the worlds Muslims with a brush they want nothing to do with.

I’m confused as to what the 25% is, are you referring to how many Sunnis are in the world, or how many Muslims are Islamists. . . ?

(BTW, that Islamicweb website is a Shiah hate website, it is incorrect)

Well, I’m sorry that it is, but how are the numbers invalid, when the statistics were from a Western source and/or other independent sources?

Sunni Islam is by far the largest denomination of Islam. As of 2009, Sunni Muslims constituted 87-90% of the world’s Muslim population.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni_Islam

So how does this change anything??

I appreciate the context and general gist of his speech, but what results is a large proportion of Catholics, like yourself, elaborating and spreading a falsehood about Islamic teaching, which is not making the world a better place.

So you’ve determined that a LARGE proportion of Catholics are embracing and spreading a “falsehood” about Islamic teaching, and not making the world a better place, oh the irony, of this statement!!!

It’s good to know you set one standard for your opponents, and another for yourself.

 

[josie_L]

In Islam and the Bahai Faith, the transcendent Essence of God is differentiated as a separate Entity to the Logos. (Although they are intimately linked and connected)
The Logos (in Islam known as the “Universal Intellect”, or “Word”, or “First Command”) is the First Emanation from God’s Essence, through which the entirety of Creation came into existence. This Reality is co-existent, and co-eternal with God’s Essence but was created, whereas Gods Essence is uncreated.

So to answer your question, you won’t see a reference to the Logos being God simply because ontology is the focus in Islam. The Bahai Faith provides an epistemological perspective too and recognises the validity of saying that God is the Logos.

So to make a long story short, God is not “logos” in Islam, and the “transcendent Essence of God” of which you speak puts Him above such categories/attributes, which is what I’ve been saying all along. This is the “PURE WILL” that I was referring to. This is what Pope Benedict XVI wrote (in fewer words):

But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.

 

[Servant19]

So to make a long story short, God is not “logos” in Islam, and the “transcendent Essence of God” of which you speak puts Him above such categories/attributes, which is what I’ve been saying all along. This is the “PURE WILL” that I was referring to. This is what Pope Benedict XVI wrote (in fewer words):

The essence of God is transcendent and beyond all human rationality, reason and comprehension in Catholicism as well josie.

This conversation would be over several pages ago if you were aware of this Catholic teaching. St. Gregory of Nyssa in his Sermons on the Beatitudes states emphatically:

"…The Divine Nature, whatever It may be in Itself, surpasses every mental concept. For It is altogether*** inaccessible to reasoning*** and conjecture, nor has there been found any human faculty capable of perceiving the incomprehensible; for we cannot devise a means of understanding inconceivable things. Therefore, the great Apostle calls His ways unsearchable, meaning by this that the way that leads to knowledge of the Divine Essence is inaccessible to thought."

.

 

[Servant19]

Yet, Muhammed received this revelation during the Medinan period, i.e., before Islam became a force to be reckoned with, i.e., before the conquests that overtook much of the Middle East, North Africa . . .etc., so when the pope states:

What exactly is he saying that isn’t historically correct??? And moreover, how is he exaggerating the case of "there is no compulsion in religion, when he himself, stated, that “according to some of the experts,” this was a sura of the early period, which would convey that he was aware that no ALL experts agree upon this statement???

Moreover, this does not even affect the main point of his address, and that is, that violence is incompatible with a God who is “logos”.

And since I’ve already explained that the Ash’arite school of thought rose to ascendancy in the Islamic world during the early Medieval period, then the pope, was not in error when he said:

Dear josie,

I do not know how much clearer I can make it for you than this:

THE POPE says that the verse was revealed during a time when Muhammad was “still powerless and under threat”

“The overwhelming majority of Muslim scholars consider that verse to be a Medinan one,[4][5][6] when Muslims lived in their period of political ascendance”
(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Baqara_256)

Again, I ask you these two unanswered questions:

1. How is a God of pure Will equated to an irrational God?
2. Can you show me any quotes from two or three scholars that state that Allah is irrational?

Thankyou.

.

 

[Servant19]

Yes, the majority of the Muslim world do follow the Ash’ari school of thought as I have thus explained it…

Can you please give me a source for this please?
Where did you read this?

I think you’ve basically missed the whole point of my posts, because it’s easier to fight a straw man than the actual points that I am making. But I will reaffirm my points all over again.

The Ash’arite school of thought put an emphasis on God’s will, a God whose nature is not based on “Logos”, but on his omnipotent power to do whatever He wills, because nothing can hinder Him. He, in fact, transcends all attributes.

You need to first prove that a God who’s essence is seen as separate from the Logos, and indeed transcends the Logos cannot be rational. You need to prove that a God, who’s FIRST EMANATION is the Logos is completely bereft of the attributes of His First Emanation.

Because of this emphasis on God’s will, there is a possibility for God to act irrationally if He so wishes, unlike the God of Christianity who is “LOGOS”, and therefore cannot contradict Himself in a manner that would violate his nature as “LOGOS”. There is no such GUARANTEE in Islam that God will not act irrationally because he is not a God of "LOGOS, but a God of “PURE WILL”.

You also need to prove that there is fully rational behaviour in the God of the Old Testament.
You also need to prove that the God of the Old Testament when saying pork is unclean, later contradicts Himself by saying it is permissible to eat pork (as per Romans 14:14)

.

 

[Servant19]

No, as this has nothing to do with who God is in essence, i.e., is He a God of rationality, i.e., reason and logos, or a God of pure will, wherein, anything including the laws of science are subject to change simply because of His willing it? And therein lies the difference between our understanding of who God is, i.e., according to Muslims, God can decide to overturn gravity and every other natural law if it is His will. In other words, there is no other underlying principal, i.e., no natural law, all, in fact, is as a cause of God’s willing it and nothing is about rational order or reason/logic.

If you need a better explanation of what I’m saying, then read this:

One of the chief differences concerns the question of whether God is a reasonable being who has created a rational world. Although Christians believe that God acts in accordance with reason, Muslims believe that God is not bound by the rules of reason because that would restrict His freedom. Instead, Muslims believe that God is PURE WILL. And pure will implies ARBITRARINESS. The almost complete reliance on the example of Muhammed partly explains the arbitrary and sometimes cruel nature of Islamic law. But Muhammed was not alone in his capriciousness. In the Koran, Allah Himself is not consistent. As a result, Muslims do not expect His actions and His laws to be reasonable, to make sense. Thus, although Christians and Muslims believe in submitting to God’s will, there is a difference. When a Christian says, “it’s God’s will”, he is expressing a belief that God’s will is reasonable, meaning for our ultimate good. When a Muslims says, “It is the will of Allah”, he means something like, “God is going to do what he wants to do”; it doesn’t matter if it doesn’t make no sense. We have no right to expect God to be reasonable." In the Islamic view, God has absolute freedom. He is a bit like Nietzsche’s “superman”, who is above categories such as good and evil, or rational and irrational and simply exults in exercising His will.

I also studied some of the material in the book you suggested written by Robert Reilly.

Here is a review of the book in the American Journal of Islamic Studies written by the Professor of Islamic Studies at Yale University. Professor Griffel is quoted in the review as follows:

"…the way he constructs “A Muslim Mind” from his quotes is orientalist and borders on racism

"

academia.edu/1792939/Review_The_Closing_of_the_Muslim_Mind._By_Robert_R._Reilly

I think it harms our soul to read books such as this…

.

 

[josie_L]

The essence of God is transcendent and beyond all human rationality, reason and comprehension in Catholicism as well josie.

Of course, human rationality cannot fully grasp the DIVINE, but that is neither here nor there because I was never debating this point.

And even though I have stated over and over again what is meant by “PURE WILL”, and even though you yourself pointed out that God is not “LOGOS” in Islam, you still continue to deny that our conception of God is different. In Catholicism, “LOGOS” is not something that God created or co-exists with, it is what HE IS.

Let me use your own words:

Originally Posted by Servant19

In Islam and the Bahai Faith, the transcendent Essence of God is differentiated as a separate Entity to the Logos. (Although they are intimately linked and connected)
The Logos (in Islam known as the “Universal Intellect”, or “Word”, or “First Command”) is the First Emanation from God’s Essence, through which the entirety of Creation came into existence. This Reality is co-existent, and co-eternal with God’s Essence but was created, whereas Gods Essence is uncreated.

So, you are in fact agreeing with me that God is not “LOGOS” in Islam.

 

[TonyBS]

Of course, human rationality cannot fully grasp the DIVINE, but that is neither here nor there because I was never debating this point.

And even though I have stated over and over again what is meant by “PURE WILL”, and even though you yourself pointed out that God is not “LOGOS” in Islam, you still continue to deny that our conception of God is different. In Catholicism, “LOGOS” is not something that God created or co-exists with, it is what HE IS.

Let me use your own words:

So, you are in fact agreeing with me that God is not “LOGOS” in Islam.

Boy - Glad I am not a scholar Over my Head, maybe you can answer a question for me. I have got this from this link; newadvent.org/cathen/09328a.htm

“The word Logos is the term by which Christian theology in the Greek language designates the Word of God, or Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. Before St. John had consecrated this term by adopting it, the Greeks and the Jews had used it to express religious conceptions which, under various titles, have exercised a certain influence on Christian theology, and of which it is necessary to say something”.

Thus I assume we talking about the Holy Spirit.

Can in simple terms you explain what is being argued above?

Father, Son, Holy Spirit - Are we discussing how this relates to Creation in both Christianity and Islam?

If I say the Father and Son are One, but also Separate and that the Holy Spirit came from this source and is the reason there is Creation, does that fit in with all that is discussed above?

Regards Tony

 

[ialsop]

Boy - Glad I am not a scholar Over my Head, maybe you can answer a question for me. I have got this from this link; newadvent.org/cathen/09328a.htm

“The word Logos is the term by which Christian theology in the Greek language designates the Word of God, or Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. Before St. John had consecrated this term by adopting it, the Greeks and the Jews had used it to express religious conceptions which, under various titles, have exercised a certain influence on Christian theology, and of which it is necessary to say something”.

Thus I assume we talking about the Holy Spirit.

Can in simple terms you explain what is being argued above?

Father, Son, Holy Spirit - Are we discussing how this relates to Creation in both Christianity and Islam?

If I say the Father and Son are One, but also Separate and that the Holy Spirit came from this source and is the reason there is Creation, does that fit in with all that is discussed above?

Regards Tony

FINALLY!!! Somebody who speaks clearly

That seems to b what the argument is about. I of course believe that God is ONE, but also THREE distinct persons. One will, one intelligence, three persons. Three faces.

I find that most people agree with that OR say that God is ONE, no separate persons. You, however, seem to say there are two? The “father/son” and “Spirit”. Did I understand that correctly? Would you phrase it differently? That is fascinating.

How about we non-scholars have our own discussion is laymen terms

 

[TonyBS]

FINALLY!!! Somebody who speaks clearly

That seems to b what the argument is about. I of course believe that God is ONE, but also THREE distinct persons. One will, one intelligence, three persons. Three faces.

I find that most people agree with that OR say that God is ONE, no separate persons. You, however, seem to say there are two? The “father/son” and “Spirit”. Did I understand that correctly? Would you phrase it differently? That is fascinating.

How about we non-scholars have our own discussion is laymen terms

Finally a question I can understand

From the Baha’i understanding God will always be unknowable, but He wanted to be known, thus He created Man to be known. To do this He projects His perfect reflection in Man, a representative Chosen in each age by God. This man is Born of the Holy Spirit of God.

Now we have God, the Holy Spirit from God and the perfect reflection of the Holy Spirit in Man (In Christianity Jesus).

Now it gets Interesting - One Can Say Christ and God are One and the Same, One can Say Christ and God are not the Same. You will get Biblical Passages that support both these views. If you look at Christ the Human you will understand when He says the Father is Greater then I. If you Look at Christ the Perfect Reflection of God, you will see the Father and I are one.

We are told by Baha’ullah that both schools of thought are perfectly sound. That is you can Say Christ is God, or You can say Christ is a Messenger of God and it is only wrong when we turn it into argument and disagreement. We are Told if we disagree as to the Station of and Messenger being God or Only a messenger then we are both wrong and we may as well not have Religion at all. The point has been Lost, the point being the Love of God.

Of course this is a massive subject.

God bless and Regards Tony

 

[ialsop]

Finally a question I can understand
NO KIDDING!
From the Baha’i understanding God will always be unknowable, but He wanted to be known, thus He created Man to be known. To do this He projects His perfect reflection in Man, a representative Chosen in each age by God. This man is Born of the Holy Spirit of God.
**Fascinating. So, would you say that the Holy Spirit is like the life force of humanity, or a real distinct person? And, would you view the Spirit as eternal or created? Catholicism would definitely view the Spirit is a Creator, as part of God, but it is interesting that your statement seems to disagree. **
Now we have God, the Holy Spirit from God and the perfect reflection of the Holy Spirit in Man (In Christianity Jesus).
So is the idea that Jesus is a manifestation of God YOUR opinion or the general opinion of your entire faith? Interesting.
Now it gets Interesting - One Can Say Christ and God are One and the Same, One can Say Christ and God are not the Same. **I would agree with this. Christians see Baptism as a renewal, a restoration, where we can share in Christ, which literally means ‘Anointed’. But on the other hand, I see Jesus the Christ inseparable from God.**You will get Biblical Passages that support both these views. If you look at Christ the Human you will understand when He says the Father is Greater then I. If you Look at Christ the Perfect Reflection of God, you will see the Father and I are one.THAT is the greatest mystery of the Christian religion.

We are told by Baha’ullah that both schools of thought are perfectly sound. That is you can Say Christ is God, or You can say Christ is a Messenger of God and it is only wrong when we turn it into argument and disagreement. We are Told if we disagree as to the Station of and Messenger being God or Only a messenger then we are both wrong and we may as well not have Religion at all. The point has been Lost, the point being the Love of God. But if we are to love God, ought we not to find out whether we should love Jesus as God? I worship Jesus present at Mass as GOD deserves worship. If Jesus is just a Messenger, I have committed idolatry(as the Muslims and Jews claim Christians do). On the other hand, it would be bad to deny worship to Jesus if he is God and deserves it. So I think the question DOES need to be clarified.

Of course this is a massive subject.

God bless and Regards Tony

To make it easier to respond coherently to each idea, I responded in bold in the quote.

Sorry for the awkward format.

 

[TonyBS]

To make it easier to respond coherently to each idea, I responded in bold in the quote. Sorry for the awkward format.

We can work with Awkward, after all Awkward I am

Fascinating. So, would you say that the Holy Spirit is like the life force of humanity, or a real distinct person? And, would you view the Spirit as eternal or created? Catholicism would definitely view the Spirit is a Creator, as part of God, but it is interesting that your statement seems to disagree.

To me from a Baha’i Perspective the Holy Spirit is from God, The same as the rays of Light are from the Sun. They Give Light and Life unto us all from the Sun. Why you have the Sun, you also have the rays. Now the mystery starts, how can we understand God and indeed what comes from God through Jesus the Christ. We but get a Glimpse of it all, we do not and can not look at the Sun without becoming Blind. Thus it is filtered for us by Christ and given to each in a proportion they can understand and cope with.

So is the idea that Jesus is a manifestation of God YOUR opinion or the general opinion of your entire faith? Interesting.

The Baha’i belief is that Jesus the Christ was a Manifestation of God. It is also strong belief that this concept does not take away in any way from the Station and Glory Given unto Christ. This can be so, as it is the Same Holy Spirit that was in all Gods Prophets and given in a measure that mankind was ready for. This of course needs a lot more clarification but this is why we can like all religions spiritually. Muhammad was born of the same Holy Spirit and Gave to mankind what God wanted for them in the age the message was given.

I would agree with this. Christians see Baptism as a renewal, a restoration, where we can share in Christ, which literally means ‘Anointed’. But on the other hand, I see Jesus the Christ inseparable from God.

We also see Christ as inseparable from God. There is no other way to Know and Love God, but through Him. Can you see when I say that in 100% Honesty, that I have not Put a Name on the Mirror but Embraced Jesus the Christ as the perfect Reflection of God.

THAT is the greatest mystery of the Christian religion.

Agreed

But if we are to love God, ought we not to find out whether we should love Jesus as God? I worship Jesus present at Mass as GOD deserves worship. If Jesus is just a Messenger, I have committed idolatry(as the Muslims and Jews claim Christians do). On the other hand, it would be bad to deny worship to Jesus if he is God and deserves it. So I think the question DOES need to be clarified.

What I have noted is that the message of Baha’u’llah has balanced the Two Schools of thought by saying both schools of thought are correct. They are only wrong if we argue about them.

Personally after study I can see no contradiction in Both Statements. I also believe that there are many Christian Explanations that do indeed say the same thing but with only a slightly different “Frame of Reference”

Thus it could be that what we do need urgently in this day is unity. To find this Unity we may all have to consider how the two Schools of thought can indeed be Complimentary. It could be considered as a Negative and Positive Outlook that embrace each other like a magnet There are some quite deep religious concepts on the Powers of Negation and Affirmation. Interestingly it is considered that the Islam Religion was one of Negation and the saying “There is No God, But God” which all Muslims say is the Negative Comment before the Positive Comment.

God works in very mysterious ways and boy could we talk forever on that!

God bless and Regards Tony

 

[Servant19]

Of course, human rationality cannot fully grasp the DIVINE, but that is neither here nor there because I was never debating this point.

And even though I have stated over and over again what is meant by “PURE WILL”, and even though you yourself pointed out that God is not “LOGOS” in Islam, you still continue to deny that our conception of God is different. In Catholicism, “LOGOS” is not something that God created or co-exists with, it is what HE IS.

Let me use your own words:

So, you are in fact agreeing with me that God is not “LOGOS” in Islam.

No Josie, you seem to misunderstand. When I say that Islam does not consider Logos as God, I am not defining Logos, I am simply saying that Islam does not use the word Logos to mean God, the word Logos is synonymous with the Word in Islam.

What we have is a differentiation in TERMINOLOGY, not a differentiation in nature.

If by Logos you mean rationality, the Islamic God is rational
If by Logos you mean that universal principle which animates and rules the world (the Hellenistic definition) then yes Allah animates and rules the World.
In fact give me your definition of Logos and I will find you a quote in Islam that equates it to Allah.

The fact that Christianity uses the word “Logos” to be synonymous with God, and Islam sees the word “Logos” to be synonymous with the Word of God does not change the reality that the attributes of Logos are shared in both the Christian and Islamic God.

.

 

[josie_L]

Again, I ask you these two unanswered questions:

1. How is a God of pure Will equated to an irrational God?

And I answered them (read all my posts directed to you), in fact, what do you suppose this is:

"The Ash’arite view developed a theological basis for the primacy of will by claiming that the revelation of Muhammed emphasized most particularly, and above all, two attributes of God. His uncompromising omnipotence and will. “Allah does what He wills” (Quran 14;27). God’s nature IS His will. He is “the great Doer of what He wills” and “Effecter of what He intends” (Quran 85:15). All monotheistic religions hold that, in order to be one, God must be omnipotent. But the Ash’arite argument reduced God to His omnipotence by concentrating exclusively on His unlimited power, as against His reason. God’s “reasons” are unknowable by man. God rules as He pleases. Allah had only to say “be” in order to bring the world into existence, but He may also say “not be” to bring about its end - without a reason for doing either. His word is sufficient for creation or annihilation, though His word is His will, rather than an expression of His REASON (logos). Therefore, creation is not imprinted with reason. It cannot reflect what is not there. As a result, there is no rational order invested in the universe upon which one can rely, only the second-to-second manifestation of God’s will.

or this:

The Ash’arite school of thought put an emphasis on God’s will, a God whose nature is not based on “Logos”, but on his omnipotent power to do whatever He wills, because nothing can hinder Him. He, in fact, transcends all attributes.

Because of this emphasis on God’s will, there is a possibility for God to act irrationally if He so wishes, unlike the God of Christianity who is “LOGOS”, and therefore cannot contradict Himself in a manner that would violate his nature as “LOGOS”. There is no such GUARANTEE in Islam that God will not act irrationally because he is not a God of "LOGOS, but a God of “PURE WILL”.

Moreover, I am not saying the God of Islam is irrational, I am saying that He can act irrationally if He so wills it, because being that the Ash’ arite school of thought believed that God should be completely free to express His will, He cannot be bound by such attributes as reason.

Let me quote, again from “The Closing Of The Muslim Mind”, the position of the Mu’tazilites, so you can better understand the position of the Ash’arites and how a God of “PURE WILL” can lead to a God that acts irrationally:

"The Mu’tazilites objected that, if God is one, how could He have these numerous attributes somehow coexisting separately with Him. In what way do they coexist? If they are not part of God’s essence, what are they? They were, suspected the Mu’tazilites, personification become other gods existing coeternally with Allah; in other words, a form of polytheism, the worst offense to Islam. Wasil ibn Ata, one of the first Mu’tazilites, declared: “He who affirms an eternal quality beside God, affirms two gods.” So the Mu’tazilites insisted that a greatly reduced number of attributes were, in fact, God’s essence. Duncan Macdonald writes that Abu Hudhayl "taught that the qualities were not in His Essence, and thus seperable from, thinkable apart from it, but that they were HIS essence. Therefore, for instance, God knows through His essence, which is omniscience, and not through an attribute separable from Him. . . .

The orthodox and the Ash’arites, who followed them, had no answer to the dilemma of God’s unity and His attributes. Yet they insisted that God’s attributes were not HIS essence, but still not completely separate from it. In response to the question as to how this could be, they simply said it had to be accepted. . . .

This was a hugely significant dispute, as one would expect when it comes to an understanding of who God is. For the Mu’tazilites, God must be who He is and no other.
As odd as it may sound to express it in this way, He is bound to be who He is . He cannot act against or deny His own nature. For instance, God does not have reason; He IS reasons. Therefore, He cannot do anything unreasonable. This is not a constraint; it is freedom. The ability to negate who and what you are is not freedom; it is nihilism. For the Ash’arites, however, God, as PURE WILL, is not bound by anything, including Himself. His freedom of will is absolute. He has no “nature” to deny. He has reason, but IS NOT REASON. Therefore, by removing God’s attributes products of His will. In other words, God was not mercy, but merciful when He wished to be. Likewise, there was no impediment to His acting unreasonably when He wished to do so.

The stripping down of God’s essence to His will and making His attributes products of His will guaranteed His absolute freedom and power. Thus, He did not by any necessity of His nature need to be merciful (indeed, another of His attributes was “vengeful”). He could choose to be unmerciful, as well, without contradicting itself. The Mu’tazilites found this abhorrent. God must do what is good because it would be against His nature, which is goodness itself, to do otherwise."

Now, if you still don’t understand why a God of PURE WILL can act irrationally, then there is nothing more I can say that hasn’t already be explained ad nauseam that will help you.

1. Can you show me any quotes from two or three scholars that state that Allah is irrational?

Well, I’ve already mentioned two, Al-Ghazali and Al-Ash’ari.

 

[josie_L]

No Josie, you seem to misunderstand. When I say that Islam does not consider Logos as God, I am not defining Logos, I am simply saying that Islam does not use the word Logos to mean God, the word Logos is synonymous with the Word in Islam.

What we have is a differentiation in TERMINOLOGY, not a differentiation in nature.

If by Logos you mean rationality, the Islamic God is rational
If by Logos you mean that universal principle which animates and rules the world (the Hellenistic definition) then yes Allah animates and rules the World.
In fact give me your definition of Logos and I will find you a quote in Islam that equates it to Allah.

The fact that Christianity uses the word “Logos” to be synonymous with God, and Islam sees the word “Logos” to be synonymous with the Word of God does not change the reality that the attributes of Logos are shared in both the Christian and Islamic

No, it is a differentiation in nature, the word “LOGOS” is not synonymous with God in Christianity, IT IS WHO HE IS. Therefore, this is not simply an attribute, moreover, you yourself stated that God created LOGOS and that He co-exists with it, my question to you then, is how can the God of Christianity, who is LOGOS, co-exist with LOGOS, when He, in fact, is LOGOS?

What you’re saying doesn’t even make sense.