Isn't leaving people in state of doubt bad?

  • Thread starter Thread starter STT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t think it is God it is human nature. If you cannot see something does it indeed exist.

But it is faith and the Divine work of God through the Holy Spirit that helps us see. As Jesus said to Thomas you see and now believe. But blessed are those who believe but do not see.
I don’t understand the logic behind that (bold part) since you could believe on anything that one claims.
 
Maybe we’re just not recognizing the actions God is taking. I’ve read that when we take one step toward God, God takes ten steps toward us. As we act God acts we simply aren’t seeing the actions because we are too distracted.
The same as when someone writes that God isn’t speaking. God is always speaking to us. We are not listening as we should be. We are too distracted. These are simply my views-hope they are helpful.
I agree. Signs are always there if we look for them. Unfortunately they will never be burning bushes or hand writings on the wall, and humans are not built for noticing the little nuances of life. The quiet things, require quiet meditation or the abilitiy to look beyond the NOISE of life. Very difficult for most people.

In addition, if you do hear God’s voice, and I do often, then people will call you crazy or psychotic. I’ve had many people tell me that I need psychiatric help because I have said that God told me to do or say something. And these are not crazy things, like murdering people. God tells me simple things like “apologize” or “go and tell him to believe.” So I know it is God. God speaks in five words or less. Now how many humans will listen to five words or less and believe? We want the diatribe. We want the whole enchilada.

Leaving people in a state of doubt isn’t bad, but of course leads to the ultimate conclusion that people will fall away from God if they never receive at least something of proof of his existence. That’s the nature of humans. So then we are told to have faith. But I don’t believe God is that silent with us and expects us to live on faith alone. Yes, faith during times when he is silent (and those times can be long, I assure you!) But he does act and speak to us many times as well during our lives. We need to recognize them and I wish the church spoke more about how God speaks to us and how we need to listen.
 
So you are doing the things even without expectation for Heaven too?
Yes, not necessarily with expectation. I’m doing those things, sometimes better, sometimes worse, because they’re the right thing to do. And behind or within that orientation and behavior I also sense a faith, that there is meaning and purpose and order in this life that must be aligned with in order for goodness and even happiness to prevail. So it’s a little of both perhaps, but the possibility of doubt shifts some of the ownership of my choosing righteousness to myself, so that I’m challenged, stretched, refined by this fact. *I * know it’s right, so I do it.
 
Yes, not necessarily with expectation. I’m doing those things, sometimes better, sometimes worse, because they’re the right thing to do. And behind or within that orientation and behavior I also sense a faith, that there is meaning and purpose and order in this life that must be aligned with in order for goodness and even happiness to prevail. So it’s a little of both perhaps, but the possibility of doubt shifts some of the ownership of my choosing righteousness to myself, so that I’m challenged, stretched, refined by this fact. I know it’s right, so I do it.
And what is meaning and purpose?
 
It’s His will, it’s His creation. He has absolute dominion and ownership over all things, therefore injustice absolutely cannot be attributed to Him. Is there wisdom behind what He does? Yes. Can we always know what that is? No.
 
It’s His will, it’s His creation. He has absolute dominion and ownership over all things, therefore injustice absolutely cannot be attributed to Him. Is there wisdom behind what He does? Yes. Can we always know what that is? No.
Which kind of right do we have in His creation? Nothing!?
 
And what is meaning and purpose?
In a nutshell, God’s purpose is to restore and even increase the justice/order in His creation-in *us-*and this culminates in our complete fulfillment and happiness-our intended end. With God, as God, and ourselves in a state of loving subjugation, we attain our perfection in communion with Him, which is it’s own reward. His plan, not mine, fortunately.

“It’s love alone that gives worth to all things”, as St Teresa of Avila put it. Without that there’s no basis for justice, and justice wouldn’t be of much value without it anyway. To experience the love of God is to know complete and absolute peace, joy, happiness, well-being. Our orientation towards that and *all *goodness, towards Him, begins in this life-and how we live it.
 
Which kind of right do we have in His creation? Nothing!?
Whatever rights over each other He has given us. Are you equal to or greater than Allah that you should have rights over Him?
 
In a nutshell, God’s purpose is to restore and even increase the justice/order in His creation-in *us-*and this culminates in our complete fulfillment and happiness-our intended end. With God, as God, and ourselves in a state of loving subjugation, we attain our perfection in communion with Him, which is it’s own reward. His plan, not mine, fortunately.
Good. That sounds like a good plan.
“It’s love alone that gives worth to all things”, as St Teresa of Avila put it. Without that there’s no basis for justice, and justice wouldn’t be of much value without it anyway. To experience the love of God is to know complete and absolute peace, joy, happiness, well-being. Our orientation towards that and *all *goodness, towards Him, begins in this life-and how we live it.
I don’t agree with the quoted part. I think that is meaning that gives worth to all things.
 
Aren’t we children of God? If so we are equal to Allah.
No, and no. It is impossible for Allah to have any equal.

If you consider yourself a man of intellect, I kindly suggest reading this post.
 
Did you read the post, or do you always carelessly rush to respond?
I read the post carefully. Is that what you are referring to:
Allah is the God of Prophet Ibrahim (A).
Please all of you, I ask you to patiently and carefully read the following, and contemplate it well.
The intellect must first understand the definition of God before it could recognise the doctrine of God as revealed to mankind through whatever means.
The judgement of the intellect is related to three things; necessary, impossible, and possible.
That which is necessary, the mind cannot conceive its non-existence.
That which is impossible, the mind cannot conceive its existence.
That which is possible, the mind can equally conceive its existence and non-existence.
If something has come into existence after previously not existing, but had the possibility of not coming into existence, this is called contingency. The contingent nature of the universe is proof for the existence of a necessary cause. The contingency of the universe can be proven by the fact that everything in it changes, and any change cannot be necessary, the contingency of the universe can also be proven by the fact that we are currently here at the present moment, for an eternal and beginningless universe would mean it would take an infinite amount of time to reach the present moment, which is impossible and evidently not the case.
The universe could have easily not existed, just as easily as it came into existence. Imagine a balance with two scales in which the existence of the universe is weighed on one side, and the non existence of the universe weighed on the other side; both would weigh the same. However, the fact that the universe came into existence shows that there must have been something which applied pressure on one side for the existence of the universe to outweigh the non-existence of the universe. The source of this cause must also be necessary, for a contingent source leads to an infinite regress of contingent causes, which shares the same problem of a beginningless and eternal universe as mentioned previously. This necessary source must also be without beginning and without end, and must be dissimilar to all contingent things. This same entity must be attributed with life, knowledge, power and will; for without these, the universe would not come into existence, and it is impossible for this entity to be attributed with death, ignorance, incapability and compulsion.
This same entity must also be one, for if one god could bring the universe into existence without the need of the other gods, then the others are not necessary, but if the god is in need of the others, then that god is incapable of bringing the universe into existence and not necessary, something necessary cannot be in need otherwise by definition it cannot be necessary, and something necessary must be needed otherwise by definition it is not necessary; so either one is necessary or none are necessary, which is impossible and thus a multiplicity of necessary beings or polytheism, is impossible.
So we established that the necessary being must have the attributes of existence and oneness, and the necessary being must also have the attributes of self subsistence, pre-eternality, endurance, dissimilarity to contingent things, life, knowledge, power, will, etc.
Now, we move on to doctrine of the Trinity which is believed by the first millennium Church as follows:
The Father, maker of Heaven and Earth, neither made nor begotten.
The Son, not made but begotten of the Father (alone).
The Holy Spirit, neither made nor begotten, but proceeding from the Father (and the Son, according to the Western Tradition).
And so the Son eternally proceeds from the Father by way of generation, and Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father (and the Son according to the Western Tradition) by way of spiration. The three are co-equal and co-eternal. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; yet according to the Christians they are not three gods but one God.
One ousia, and three hypostases. Greek words which mean nature or substance. The Church Fathers explained the difference between the two; ousia means nature in a general sense, such as humanity, and hypostases means nature in a specific sense, such as a specific human being. Does this mean that the three hypostases of the Trinity are individual gods? The Church Fathers did not intend this, for if they did, they would have said that the Trinity is three prosopon, a Greek word which refers to a separate and individual being. A hypostases is also defined by its relationship to other hypostases, in other words, one cannot fully know one hypostases of the Trinity without knowing all three hypostases of the Trinity. And according to the Christians, the three hypostases strengthen each other in unity, rather than weaken unity.
Now, if all of you have read attentively and contemplated the definition of God as a necessary being as I have explained prior to the doctrine of the Trinity, you should realise the obvious flaw in the doctrine of the Trinity. It all boils down to whether the three hypostases are in need of each other, and just as I have proven a multiplicity of necessary beings or polytheism is impossible, in the same way the Trinity is also impossible.
May Allah guide all of us to the truth and the straight path and protect us from misguidance, and may Allah raise the rank of His blessed Prophet and Messenger Muhammad.
 
I am afraid I cannot find where you discuss equality. Could you please mark that part for me?
Equality to Allah, is polytheism… Nothing is equal to Allah, it is impossible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top