Islam an offense to our LORD.

[Hypatia]

No one, however, is attributing contradictions to God.

At times, when I have said that it is inappropriate to predicate or attribute contradictions to God, 9-2 has suggested I am attempting to put limits on God. One can also see a very similar thrust in 9-2’s responses to Tomarin.

In general though, I would agree with you. For the most part, the Christian argument is that the doctrine of the Incarnation (and Trinity) do not involve contradiction.

As I pointed out to you, the Incarnation did not put a limit on God (and most of my explanation you’ve left out in your post explained that). Again, what we are dealing with here is that you have the true definition of the Incarnation and hypostatic union before you, but you are not really addressing it or being consistent with it, and simply falling back on the tired, old and inaccurate Muslim argument of, “How can the infinite become the finite?” That isn’t the Incarnation, however. God maintained His infinite at the Incarnation. He did not cease being God. If that were the case, I would agree with you that it’s a contradiction of God’s nature. As that is not what we are arguing, however, there is no contradiction.

I believe in #88 (I mention them again briefly in #105 and link back to them and clarify them in #119-120) I have dealt with Christian claims and that they do, to my mind, involve contradiction. I even briefly mentioned and dealt with Cyril of Alexandria in #122.

It is worth noting that when I ask whether or not the Incarnation denotes a “change”, in those posts, I am not concerned that the Infinite is mythologically transformed into something finite and wanders the earth. I am trying to understand claims that the “Logos became flesh” or “assumed a human nature”. Does the Incarnation introduce something new to the Logos (in which case there is change) or is it eternal (in which case the Logos is constituted by something finite)? This is developed in more detail above.

Furthermore, I was not saying that because God exceeds human reason we are justifying irrational claims.

No, I don’t think you were. See the first comment above.

What I was saying was that to continually say, “You can’t avoid reason!” or, “This is against logic!” puts human reason above God and asks us to understand God by human reason.

Nothing is above, beyond or outside God. But God is Truth.

It furthermore is self-defeating - can you tell me by what reason or logic we should believe that Mohammad was taken to the rock and then up to Paradise? By rational thinking do we use to show that a man can receive revelations from an angel in the desert? If you are going to apply standards to one religion, you must maintain it with your religion as well.

I can assure you that I am not holding Christianity to a standard that I do not quite willingly apply to Islam as well. That said, the issues you raise there, even if taken as literal claims about something that actually happened, do not involve logical contradictions. This is something I also pointed out about the virgin birth and resurrection of Jesus earlier in this thread. They would instead be claims subject to empirical investigation.

So while mankind may be in the presence of God because of God’s omnipresence, we would be dead in our sins literally if it were not for God’s grace. Without God, we can do nothing, and we cannot partake in God’s glory without God’s help. Therefore to argue that there is no gap needed for God to fill is really in a way semi-pelagianism.

Leaving aside the material about the Fall and Incarnation for a moment, I am not sure how much we are actually disagreeing here. Or, more accurately, we are disagreeing because you are making a distinction between God’s full and intimate presence to creation and God’s ‘grace’. There is nothing that we are, or have, that we do not receive from God as gift. Nothing we can do changes that. Our existence is always grounded in God.

We can (and regularly do) lie to ourselves and assert that there is something that is ours, but this does not make it so. This is one of the principle ways we commit ‘shirk’: asserting our autonomy against God. And it does not in anyway change who God is or the intimacy of God with creation. This is what makes our self-assertion a lie. What we must do is open ourselves to the Truth. Of course this is only possible because we are already in God and nothing other than gift. There is no distance that God needs to bridge, because God is with us always, claiming us as God’s own.

To address you statement about humanism earlier, but now within this context: It is because of this that we can say, “The ones who know themselves, know God” (-ibn Arabi). This does not strike me as a very Pelagian claim at all; quite the contrary it seems very close to the heart of Augustine’s position that apart from God we are nothing. Human freedom is always freedom in and for God.

 

[tomarin]

God wills it because he is it, so I suppose God could make rape a moral act, if we use the example you put forward, however that would contradict the idea that God does not change (note it’s not can’t, it’s doesn’t), so morality does not change, which is what arbitrary implies.

What I mean by arbitrary is subject to randomness, whim and caprice. I can’t imagine a world in which God would choose to make it good to do bad things and vice versa. It doesn’t mesh with my understanding of who God is.

 

[Nine_Two]

What I mean by arbitrary is subject to randomness, whim and caprice. I can’t imagine a world in which God would choose to make it good to do bad things and vice versa. It doesn’t mesh with my understanding of who God is.

No, I would certainly not say God is subject to random outbursts, nor did I suggest as much. I simply stated that Morality is what it is because of God.

Additionally limiting God to what your “understanding” is is exactly what I’m saying Muslims do. Perhaps Hypatia has a point when he argues that Catholics tend to do so as well, I’ve never looked deeply into it. In my opinion the best statement of God comes in the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (The Catholic liturgy may have something similar, I don’t know):

It is proper and right to sing to You, bless You, praise You, thank You and worship You in all places of Your dominion; for You are God ineffable, beyond comprehension, invisible, beyond understanding, existing forever and always the same; You and Your only begotten Son and Your Holy Spirit. You brought us into being out of nothing, and when we fell, You raised us up again. You did not cease doing everything until You led us to heaven and granted us Your kingdom to come.

 

[Seeker]

Nine_Two does not seem to understand. It is not the question whether God can incrnate or not. The question is whether God has said He incarnates. If God has not said in clear words that He incrnates into human bodies then no one has the right to attribute that to God.

So what you are saying here is, Allah has to tell his creation either through revelation or scripture if he can or is capable of performing an act, before he can perform the act?? In other words Allah has to tell his creation that he is capable of creating before he can create, is this what Allah revealed in the koran??
Can you show me a verse(s)/ayah(s) in the Koran where Allah tells mohammed that is impossible for him to enter into his creation?

That highlighted line is good and enough. WE cannot try to attribute things to God which He has not told us similar to my point above, has Allah told you everything he is capable of doing and not doing?. Just because He is omnipotent, we cannot say He incarnatesWhy not?, show me from the koran, where Allah say he is incapable of entering into his creation???, He jumps into the river, He eats swines flesh… This matter should be easy to understand.

God is Omnipotent. We Muslims believe that He is powerful to do (Achieve) what He Likes to do." There are other things too which he may have power to do but he does not wish or like to do. All those things need not be even discussed.
Really, so Allah has has revealed to you what he has the power to do, but does not wish to do??? Can you show me that from the koran??

But Nine_Two is taking up incarnation which God has not confirmed in His Wills.to my points above, tell me all what Allah has confirmed to will and not will

 

[Hypatia]

That’s a double negative, meaning that to be grammatically proper it would be written “God is God” which is quite true, but it ceases to be a “can’t” statement. Additionally it depends on how you interprete “God”, if you believe that limits God, then I’d say your cosmology is quite limited.

The idea that God can’t not be God is all either Tomarin or I have been saying. And, yes, it means that God is God, which is why it is an affirmation of God’s perfection to deny that contradictions can be predicated or attributed to God.

God wills it because he is it, so I suppose God could make rape a moral act, if we use the example you put forward, however that would contradict the idea that God does not change (note it’s not can’t, it’s doesn’t), so morality does not change, which is what arbitrary implies.

This is just frightening and only reinforces my concern voiced earlier in this thread that the only attribute you have in your account of God is Power. In effect there is no morality there is only an exercise of divine power. This is, precisely, caprice: there is no reason for things being one way rather than another.

Rape is only wrong because God said so, but it could have been otherwise? Really? Who are you worshipping? It’s a tyrant, not God. You have redefined the word Good to mean, “whatever it is God decides to do” as if the Good were not what God is, as if it were (and for all practical purposes, remained) an empty term.

Additionally limiting God to what your “understanding” is is exactly what I’m saying Muslims do. Perhaps Hypatia has a point when he argues that Catholics tend to do so as well, I’ve never looked deeply into it. In my opinion the best statement of God comes in the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (The Catholic liturgy may have something similar, I don’t know):

No one here is disagreeing with the quote from Chrysostom’s liturgy. And no one said that God is comprehended (completely grasped; which is what I take you to mean by limited to what we understand). But again, the deep breach you are attempting to create between God and human rationality only reinforces the sense that you think of God as pure arbitrary power.

Apparently, despite the fact that God is creator, neither our experience of creation and life, nor our reason – creations of God that only have reality because they are grounded in God – tell us anything about God. This can only be true if God’s actions don’t tell us anything about God (because there is nothing to tell; there is only raw undifferentiated power) and who and what we are is not in the image of God. What happened to “grace doesn’t destroy nature, it perfects it” (pseudo-Dionysius)?

And if you really want to go down this path, there is nothing really preventing God from changing God’s mind; it would be presumptuous of you to limit God like that. As you said, it is not that God can’t change, God simply hasn’t changed…yet. Of course, how can you possibly know that God hasn’t and you aren’t clinging to some outmoded, discarded idea by a whimsical God?

You are in very real danger here of having your language about God fall into complete equivocation because it bears NO relation to how we normally use the language. God could just as easily have been what we call evil and it doesn’t phase you at all.

I am still curious if God can decide not to be? You didn’t actually answer that question earlier, instead choosing to talk about whether God could decide what not to be. I want to know if God can decide not to be?

I am also going to repeat the question asked in post #215: Do we or do we not agree that it is inappropriate to predicate or attribute contradictions to God (i.e., one cannot both affirm and deny something of God in the same respect; God is not in self-contradiction).

 

[Nine_Two]

1/2

The idea that God can’t not be God is all either Tomarin or I have been saying. And, yes, it means that God is God, which is why it is an affirmation of God’s perfection to deny that contradictions can be predicated or attributed to God.

If that’s all you’ve been saying then you’ve been avoiding my question regarding Islam’s declaration that he “can’t”.

This is just frightening and only reinforces my concern voiced earlier in this thread that the only attribute you have in your account of God is Power. In effect there is no morality there is only an exercise of divine power. This is, precisely, caprice: there is no reason for things being one way rather than another.

That’s not at all what I’ve said. Power has been the subject, so its been the focus.

Rape is only wrong because God said so, but it could have been otherwise? Really? Who are you worshipping? It’s a tyrant, not God. You have redefined the word Good to mean, “whatever it is God decides to do” as if the Good were not what God is, as if it were (and for all practical purposes, remained) an empty term.

You insist on putting everything in human terms. You believe God created the universe, the physical laws, but not the moral laws? An interesting concept.
Additionally, might I point out that if your concept of “Tyrant” is a single ruler who rules with absolute power (which seems to be what you’re indicating), yes, God is a tyrant. Whatever polemical language you might choose to use.

No one here is disagreeing with the quote from Chrysostom’s liturgy. And no one said that God is comprehended (completely grasped; which is what I take you to mean by limited to what we understand). But again, the deep breach you are attempting to create between God and human rationality only reinforces the sense that you think of God as pure arbitrary power.

I love how you’ve grasped on to the word “arbitrary” since it was first used earlier. As though adding this degree of pathos (even though you first argued that pathos was useless, oddly enough using pathos) will somehow make you correct. I would say that you specifically are disagreeing with that quote since you are arguing that we must be able to rationalize what God is. Additionally though that quote was not for you.

Apparently, despite the fact that God is creator, neither our experience of creation and life, nor our reason – creations of God that only have reality because they are grounded in God – tell us anything about God. This can only be true if God’s actions don’t tell us anything about God (because there is nothing to tell; there is only raw undifferentiated power) and who and what we are is not in the image of God. What happened to “grace doesn’t destroy nature, it perfects it” (pseudo-Dionysius)?

I never argued that we can’t know anything about God, but having attributes does not necessarily contradict omnipotence, as you argue.

And if you really want to go down this path, there is nothing really preventing God from changing God’s mind; it would be presumptuous of you to limit God like that. As you said, it is not that God can’t change, God simply hasn’t changed…yet. Of course, how can you possibly know that God hasn’t and you aren’t clinging to some outmoded, discarded idea by a whimsical God?

I never said he can’t, I very clearly even brought that up. God could change if he were to desire it, but God does not change. Notice the difference between “can’t” and “doesn’t” it’s the same reason I’ve stated that I don’t believe Jews limit God for declaring God doesn’t incarnate himself as a human, as opposed to the Muslim belief that he can’t.

 

[Nine_Two]

2/2

You are in very real danger here of having your language about God fall into complete equivocation because it bears NO relation to how we normally use the language. God could just as easily have been what we call evil and it doesn’t phase you at all.

As I’ve been arguing the whole time, you’re putting far too much emphasis on the meanings of words. Yes, words could mean different things. The meaning of words don’t alter what God is. If the word “evil” meant exactly what “good” really does mean, then yes, describing God as evil would actually work, so far as it goes. That argument adds nothing of value and only goes to show that your entire argument has been based not on facts or understanding, but on simple word play.

I am still curious if God can decide not to be? You didn’t actually answer that question earlier, instead choosing to talk about whether God could decide what not to be. I want to know if God can decide not to be?

I didn’t notice the question earlier. Even if I had I probably would not have answered it. Given the number of questions you’ve left unanswered over the course of this discussion I think I can claim that perogative. It’s once again wordplay. Not only that, but it’s not even a theological question, its a philosophical question. Could God decide there was no existence (for without God there is nothing)? I suppose he could, although given his nature that would most likely mean none of this ever was, so I think we’re safe on that account. And of course there is the fact that God doesn’t change.

I am also going to repeat the question asked in post #215: Do we or do we not agree that it is inappropriate to predicate or attribute contradictions to God (i.e., one cannot both affirm and deny something of God in the same respect; God is not in self-contradiction).

It quite depends on what you are calling a contradiction. Contradictions as such, no, we cannot say he contradicts himself, which is why Islam doesn’t hold up to academic standards, as the message of Islam grossly contradicts the previous “revelations”.
Of course you’re refering to the incarnation, as you already have many times over, and as you’ve already been answered on that I’m not going to bother with answering you any further on that.

 

[Hypatia]

It quite depends on what you are calling a contradiction. Contradictions as such, no, we cannot say he contradicts himself, which is why Islam doesn’t hold up to academic standards, as the message of Islam grossly contradicts the previous “revelations”.

Of course you’re refering to the incarnation, as you already have many times over, and as you’ve already been answered on that I’m not going to bother with answering you any further on that.

I’m not referring to the Incarnation at all in this case. There is no ability to even talk about the Incarnation until the question about contradiction is answered. And I stated very clearly what I was calling a contradiction, in the post you are responding to (in fact, you included it in your post), but I will quote it for you yet again:

“(i.e., one cannot both affirm and deny something of God in the same respect; God is not in self-contradiction).”

I didn’t notice the question earlier. Even if I had I probably would not have answered it. Given the number of questions you’ve left unanswered over the course of this discussion I think I can claim that perogative. It’s once again wordplay. Not only that, but it’s not even a theological question, its a philosophical question. Could God decide there was no existence (for without God there is nothing)? I suppose he could, although given his nature that would most likely mean none of this ever was, so I think we’re safe on that account. And of course there is the fact that God doesn’t change.

if you have some questions in mind feel free to point them out. And I’m not sure what difference it makes whether it is a philosophical or theological question. Moreover, since you are Christian and I am Muslim, philosophical discourse is what we actually share in common. Or you are just talking to yourself?

And, then, there is the fact that you think God could change. I don’t even know how you can say that God doesn’t change. Hasn’t changed yet, maybe? But again, how would one even know this? Again you are way outside anything in the classical Christian tradition here.

So God can decide to not be? That’s quite a “god” you have there. How can a god that is capable of being annihilated claim anything like omnipotence? With that you are effectively saying: God can not-be-God.

 

[Nine_Two]

I’m not referring to the Incarnation at all in this case. There is no ability to even talk about the Incarnation until the question about contradiction is answered. And I stated very clearly what I was calling a contradiction, in the post you are responding to (in fact, you included it in your post), but I will quote it for you yet again:

“(i.e., one cannot both affirm and deny something of God in the same respect; God is not in self-contradiction).”

Then in the most general sense I gave you an answer already. I’m curious to see how you twist it.

if you have some questions in mind feel free to point them out. And I’m not sure what difference it makes whether it is a philosophical or theological question. Moreover, since you are Christian and I am Muslim, philosophical discourse is what we actually share in common. Or you are just talking to yourself?

I’ve asked a question and you’ve apparently spent this whole thread avoiding answering it. Somehow I doubt your invitation to ask questions is sincere.

And, then, there is the fact that you think God could change. I don’t even know how you can say that God doesn’t change. Hasn’t changed yet, maybe? But again, how would one even know this? Again you are way outside anything in the classical Christian tradition here.

An ability to do somethind does not necessitate a will to do something. God has revealed to us from the earliest times that he is unchanging. One must distinguish between being able to change, and simply not changing.
Is that why Islam is so insistant on giving a completely different revelation? Somehow if God is schizophrenicly changing his mind all the time it gets around those limitations you’ve placed on your god?

So God can decide to not be? That’s quite a “god” you have there. How can a god that is capable of being annihilated claim anything like omnipotence? With that you are effectively saying: God can not-be-God.

Capable of being annihlated? That’s not what I said at all. Simply that God could will that everything not be, just as it was willed to be in the beginning.
Then are you saying you don’t believe your god exersizes complete control over his own creation?

 

[Rv_Cain_Spencer]

In regards to the title of this thread:
Judging others is an offense to God
Annie

Whose God? yours or mine, they are not the same you know.
We are to discern and defend His Holy name.

Islam does worship the same God! They just call him by a different name.

 

[Hypatia]

Capable of being annihlated? That’s not what I said at all. Simply that God could will that everything not be, just as it was willed to be in the beginning.

If that isn’t what you said then you apparently weren’t answering the question that was asked: Can God not be?

I’ve asked a question and you’ve apparently spent this whole thread avoiding answering it. Somehow I doubt your invitation to ask questions is sincere.

Once more… The question you asked in #83 was…

You claim Christ can not be God because God can not become incarnite in man while at the same time continuing to be God. Is this not placing a limitation on God?

I answered this for the first time in #88…

1. The idea that there things that God cannot do is…made as an affirmation, not a limitation, of God’s ‘omnipotence’. God cannot come into contradiction with Godself.

Having clarified that God cannot be thought as being in self-contradiction, I went on, still in #88 to argue why the Incarnation is a self-contradiction…

1. The Incarnation is just such a contradiction.

The claim by Christians is that Jesus is God (the person of the Logos assumed a full a complete human nature (though somehow a full and complete human nature doesn’t include a human person, but that’s another issue altogether)).

a. Now, either the Logos is eternally Jesus, in which case that which is finite, contingent and temporal (i.e., the human nature) is eternal and absolute (it is impossible to imagine what it would even mean for God to be Jesus eternally)…human nature would be uncreated. It would likewise mean that the Logos is what it is only through something finite and God would be dependent on the finite to be God. Again, the idea of God being dependent upon anything contradicts what we mean when we say God.

[n.b., the whole structure of the Christian account of the Incarnation affirms the reality of two separate and comparable natures: the divine nature and the human nature that are united in the person of the Logos]

or

b. the Logos wasn’t always Jesus, in which case the Logos realized some possibility that was not eternally actual. In this case the eternal and absolute, changed.

---

Beyond this, there is just the silliness of working out what it means to say that the Father did not become Incarnate and the Son did when both the Father and the Son are the full and complete essence of God according to Conciliar Christianity (and that’s not even bringing in the Holy Spirit). This goes to the contradictions inherent in the Christian account of divine persons.

[edited slightly for organization]

For convenience it is probably worth mentioning that one other issue was raised in #107, drawing on language from one of your posts…

#107: “The idea that God, in the Incarnation, “enter into…creation” suggests that God somehow was not as intimately united with creation as possible by simply being God. That there was some reservedness by God, or absence of God, from creation that is overcome by the Incarnation. This suggests that God is limited by the creation and has to enter into it and overcome that limitation. This also contradicts the idea of God as Infinite, not to mention as perfectly Actual, not subject to change, etc.”​

After that…

In #105, I restated the idea: “this [the denial of divine self-contradiction] is done as an affirmation of omnipotence”.

#119-120 again address the same issue and actually include a link back to #88.

In #133 I had to restate the whole thing again because you claimed, like you are now, that I wasn’t answering your question. I reposted your question from #83 and summarized the answer to it.

by #149 it had simply become a question of whether or not it was appropriate to predicate and attribute contradictions to God (b/c you had said the contradictory nature of the Incarnation was, somehow, not the issue): “God cannot contradict God’s own Being. This is not a limitation, but a perfection.” I went on from there to explain why.

I restated again at #162, appealing again to the question you asked in #83. I also told you to clarify if this was not the question. You, indeed, affirmed that that was the question. You said that #162 was a clearer answer (though #162 is almost an exact repeat of #149 and the opening lines of #88), though you said it was flawed because I stuck with Islamic language (though you never say what that is, and it doesn’t seem that I have used uniquely Islamic arguments at any point).

---

Now, assuming you are going to stand by what you said about it being inappropriate to predicate contradictions of God, and that God is not in self-contradiction, the only issue remaining is whether or not the Incarnation is itself a contradiction. If it is a contradiction, then one is not limiting God by denying that God can become Incarnate.

I have made the case that it is a contradiction in #88 and restated that in #105, #107, #119-#120 (pointing back to #88 in all those cases), I even discussed Cyril of Alexandria in #122.

---

So what exactly is the question that I’ve not been answering?

 

[TEPO]

Islam does worship the same God! They just call him by a different name.

Is it the teaching of the Catholic Church that anyone who worships the monotheistic God, worships the same Lord? (Assuming that the only three monotheistic religions are: Chrisitanity, Islam, and Judaism.)

Why then did God make a SPECTACLE of Jesus through humiliation, suffering, and disgrace… Why would God do such a thing when He could have quietly allowed His Son to conquer death for those who simply believe in Him (The monotheistic G-d)?

Rather, God gave His chosen ones an identifying mark based on sacrifice… God made this distinction… God set a division between His own children, knowing that our own free-will to choose would guide His chosen ones to their eternal destiny.

So God keeps Himself hidden, allowing us to choose our destiny whether it be with the Father through self sacrifice and love, or the enemy through pride and tradition.

 

[Nine_Two]

Hilarious Hypatia, your duplicity comes out, in the same sentence I said you cannot ascribe contradictions to God I made clear that the incarnation was not a contradiction as had been explained many times over, you then agreed that the incarnation is not what you had in mind. Yet here you go back to that.

Hypatia, it has been explained to you multiple times why that is not a contradiction, and I am not going to beat that dead horse with you anymore.

As for my question, it is the one that has been repeated time and time again, why does the Koran say God can’t, thus placing limits on God. To answer this you have sought out contradictions when the simple truth is you’re dealing with something which is apparently beyond your understanding. Additionally your idea of God seems fixed on something fixed. God isn’t what God isn’t, it’s not that God can’t be what he isn’t, and he is in fact triune.

Your gross dishonesty tempts me to take a stab at a Muslim Phillipic. Instead I think I will simply end this conversation with you. I continue to welcome debate on these issues with those who wish to argue with all honesty, and not hide behind meaningless rhetorical contructs.

You are an intellegent person Hypatia, it is a shame you can’t use those talents to look inward.

 

[Flame_of_Christ]

#107: “The idea that God, in the Incarnation, “enter into…creation” suggests that God somehow was not as intimately united with creation as possible by simply being God. That there was some reservedness by God, or absence of God, from creation that is overcome by the Incarnation. This suggests that God is limited by the creation and has to enter into it and overcome that limitation. This also contradicts the idea of God as Infinite, not to mention as perfectly Actual, not subject to change, etc.”

The Incarnation does not seem to point to any limitation in God at all, unless you are thinking of Him limiting Himself to become one of us.

No, the Incarnation happened due to the limitations of man and his eternal destiny. Jesus came so that mankind might share in the nature of God. He came to bridge the gap between us and our sins and All-Mighty God.

 

[dzheremi]

It seems to me that the debate between Hypatia and Nine_Two is a perfect example of the limit or ultimate poverty of scholasticism and this sort of philosophizing about God. Didn’t Aquinas himself eventually concede that all is straw? It is not that you can’t come up with some interesting hypotheticals that way, but they should stay that way, and not cross over into immutable statements about what God can or cannot do, as if it is within our power to establish such things.

As for Islam, it is interesting that it has been related in the Qur’an that one ought not to ask questions about things which may cause you to lose your faith (Qur’an 5:101-102), but apparently this does not extend to all matter of speculating on God, so that apparently it is fine to say that He cannot do this, He cannot do that, it is below Him to do this, etc. It seems to me that this type of speculation would be more harmful, but I suppose that is another reason I am not a Muslim. Hmmm.

 

[Hypatia]

Hilarious Hypatia, your duplicity comes out, in the same sentence I said you cannot ascribe contradictions to God I made clear that the incarnation was not a contradiction as had been explained many times over, you then agreed that the incarnation is not what you had in mind. Yet here you go back to that.

I have been trying to get you to answer the general question whether contradiction belongs to God for some time. The question of whether it is appropriate to predicate and attribute contradiction to God at all is a different question than whether or not the Incarnation is something that contradicts God.

Once we agreed that contradiction is not appropriate, we are now in a position to discuss the Incarnation. The whole basis for denying the Incarnation is that it involves contradiction of what God is.

I had already said this to you in #215 and repeated the difference between the two questions in #230.

Hypatia, it has been explained to you multiple times why that is not a contradiction, and I am not going to beat that dead horse with you anymore.

I of course understand that Christians don’t think the Incarnation (or Trinity) are contradictions. It is the reason a very sophisticated vocabulary was developed by Christians during the period of the Councils to talk about these two crucial doctrines. The question is whether or not the claim holds up.

You haven’t ever actually engaged the arguments for why it is a contradiction. You restated the problem early on (#97). And you made an appeal to the idea of paradox, but never showed how the idea of paradox could explain away the contradictions specific to the Incarnation.

As for my question, it is the one that has been repeated time and time again, why does the Koran say God can’t, thus placing limits on God. To answer this you have sought out contradictions when the simple truth is you’re dealing with something which is apparently beyond your understanding.

The question you asked in #83, which started the conversation, was specifically about the Incarnation.

You claim Christ can not be God because God can not become incarnite in man while at the same time continuing to be God. Is this not placing a limitation on God?

In fact, it didn’t mention the Qur’an at all. That said, I’m not sure what adding the Qur’an to the question really changes since the thrust of the answer would be the same: namely, that God can’t do that which contradicts God’s Being.

I don’t know what else to do other than refer back to the list of places where your question has been answered and it has been explained what it means to say that God can’t do something (i.e., it contradicts what God is). This is found in post #251. The SonOfAdam and Tomarin both have posts, in this thread, that argue very similarly. In fact, Tomarin summarized the point and what was at stake very succicently in Tomarin’s first post (#142) in the conversation.

The disagreement, it seems to me, isn’t over what it means to say that God can’t do something. It is over whether or not the Incarnation is an example of this.

Given that you called me duplicitous and “grossly dishonest” in that post and have previously identified me and Muslims generally as being “slippery” (#125), you are probably correct that it is best to draw the conversation, such as it was, to a close.

salaam.

 

[TEPO]

So many words, so little progress…

Islam focuses too heavily on the mechanical parts of worship, and not enough on the substance of God Himself…

that’s why self sacrifice, Virgin Mother, Trinity, incarnation, etc, are impossible for them to understand… Tradition and pride stand in the way.

Islam does not worship God, it worships the idea of God.

 

[TEPO]

Muslims claim to possess the word of God, and that God cannot change his word because it would make Him a liar,

But the fact is that no book not even the bible gives us the true image of God! We dont know where He’s coming or when He’s gone… Because words cant describe the truth… Words are only symbols of thoughts and the essence of God cannot be transcribed into symbols and re transcribed into thoughts into our minds…

Neither the quoran nor the bible are capable of giving a complete understanding of God… No human is capable of understanding God.

But all humans are capable of understanding Jesus… Who is God made flesh! And whoever does not acknowledge God made flesh does not love God, but only his selfish traditions and his own understanding, which is not from God but from himself.

 

[TEPO]

John 8:54-59

"Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is worth nothing; but it is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’ You do not know him, but I know him. And if I should say that I do not know him, I would be like you a liar. But I do know him and I keep his word. Abraham your father rejoiced to see my day; he saw it and was glad. So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old and you have seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM.” So they picked up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid and went out of the temple area.”

 

[TEPO]

Can everyone see how Jesus said that the Jews did not know the father?
Then Jesus says that he keeps the fathers “Word”…
Then Jesus says that He existed before Abraham…
Then Jesus says: “I AM”…