E
Emad
Guest
Tantum ergo:
We believe God doesn’t change.
- Status
S
Semper_Fi_1
Guest
Tantum ergo:
He already did once with Islam apparently, at first he preferred the people to face Jerusalem, and now Mecca.
C
Contarini
Guest
To be human is not to be imperfect. We are imperfect because we are fallen humans, not because we are human.
Human beings were created in God’s image. We were created with an opening toward God. To be truly human is to be perfectly united by God. This is what Christ was by nature, and what we can become by grace.
Of course God is in everything, or it would not exist.
I would be careful about setting limits to what God can do. (Don’t you believe God is beyond what our minds can fathom? Isn’t that a basic Islamic belief about God? Why then are you making arguments that rest on a faithless, rationalistic denial of God’s power?) However, it would certainly seem more fitting for God to become incarnate as a human being than as an irrational animal or some other creature. I also think that it is unwise and even dangerous to speculate about what God could do beyond what has been revealed.
We Christians believe that it has been revealed to us that God became human. We don’t think this could have been reasoned out beforehand. I understand why you would find this hard to believe. But if you reject this teaching out of hand because you think it compromises God’s honor and sovereignty, then be careful that you are not judging by a very human, worldly understanding of that honor and sovereignty.
Edwin
S
Semper_Fi_1
Guest
God is not physically present “in” everything, otherwise that would be stretching it a bit too close to polytheism. It was God’s spark that caused everything to come into existence, though.
C
Contarini
Guest
Semper Fi:
God is in creatures not in a spatial sense but in the sense that only God’s presence sustains them in existence and allows them to move and act. I do not mean that God is a part of creatures or that creatures are a part of God, though they participate in God’s being.
My problem with your restatement is that you used the past tense. That implies a Deist rather than an orthodox Christian understanding of creation, as if God just set the universe rolling.
Edwin
I didn’t say God was physically in everything. Though how that has anything to do with polytheism I don’t know. It might be more precise to say that God is “present to” everything. I’ve been told that there’s a passage in the Qur’an saying that God is closer to us than our own jugular vein. That would sum up what I’m saying.
God is in creatures not in a spatial sense but in the sense that only God’s presence sustains them in existence and allows them to move and act. I do not mean that God is a part of creatures or that creatures are a part of God, though they participate in God’s being.
My problem with your restatement is that you used the past tense. That implies a Deist rather than an orthodox Christian understanding of creation, as if God just set the universe rolling.
Edwin
S
Semper_Fi_1
Guest
Deism is what you first presented, without any further explanation. My response does not imply that God’s presence left His creation or became His creation.
Edit: I realize how my last sentence here can be confused as non-Christian, but it’s not because I believe Jesus was eternally begotten of the Father. Sorry for the disclaimer…
R
rlg94086
Guest
Thank you Emad!
The first two passages are compatible with our beliefs. God did not die, but Jesus His only son and part of the Trinity did. Nothing on earth is a physical likeness of God; however, God chose to become a man for our salvation.
The last one, of course, is the denial of Christianity. I’m sure you won’t be surprised to hear that we disagree on that one.
As for the rest of the discussion…I’m bowing out, because it just keeps going around in circles. The very basic assumptions make it circular:
Christian assumption = God is unlimited
Muslim assumption = God can not or would not take another form
God bless,
Robert
Emad:
The first two passages are compatible with our beliefs. God did not die, but Jesus His only son and part of the Trinity did. Nothing on earth is a physical likeness of God; however, God chose to become a man for our salvation.
The last one, of course, is the denial of Christianity. I’m sure you won’t be surprised to hear that we disagree on that one.
As for the rest of the discussion…I’m bowing out, because it just keeps going around in circles. The very basic assumptions make it circular:
Christian assumption = God is unlimited
Muslim assumption = God can not or would not take another form
God bless,
Robert
rlg94086:
, and celebrate His praise; and Sufficient is He as being aware of the faults of His servants,
Humans die, God doesn’t.
042.011
The Originator of the heavens and the earth; He made mates for you from among yourselves, and mates of the cattle too, multiplying you thereby; nothing like a likeness of Him; and He is the Hearing, the Seeing.
Nothing is like Him, thus He can’t be human.
19:88-92
And they say: The Beneficent Allah has taken (to Himself) a son. Indeed ye have put forth a thing most monstrous! The heavens may almost be rent thereat, and the earth cleave asunder, and the mountains fall down in pieces, That they ascribe a son to the Beneficent Allah.And it is not worthy of the Beneficent Allah that He should take (to Himself) a son.
112.004
And there is none like unto Him.
E
Emad
Guest
Semper Fi:
Laws change not because God changes, but because people change. Also this is not the topic of this thread.He already did once with Islam apparently, at first he preferred the people to face Jerusalem, and now Mecca.
E
Emad
Guest
Can you list the part of the revelation that clearly states He became human? Also you are participating in the end of the thread, others made similar comments to yours and I responded to them, go back and read it.
Also as Muslims we don’t believe God can do anything, He does only what befits His majesty and glory and would never do anything that would make Him less than what He is. Humans have shortcomings, physical and non-physical and no shortcomings can be ascribed to God. God is All-Hearing, All-Seeing, if you make Him man that is no longer there and you now limited something that God is known to be. Is there any verse that says Jesus saw and heard everything?
M
MariaG
Guest
John 1:1 In the begining was the Word, and the word was with God and the word was God.
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us…
Jesus is the Word. The Word is God. The Word became flesh.
God Bless,
Maria
C
Contarini
Guest
Semper Fi:
Edwin
No. Deists do not believe that God is “in” everything. Not as I understand Deism. Probably we’re defining the term differently, which is not important. I don’t care what you call it. But there is a modern, 17-18th century understanding of God that sees Him as separate from creation. This is not orthodox Christianity, but it has become so rooted in the minds of Western Christians that any restatement of the classical Christian view (as taught by St. Thomas Aquinas, for instance) is going to sound shocking.
I’m not sure we actually disagree–I think we’re just trying to guard against different errors. And probably this is not the thread to discuss what differences we do have.My response does not imply that God’s presence left His creation or became His creation.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Read the first chapter of the Gospel of John. And for orthodox Christians the decrees of the Council of Nicaea are accepted as true interpretations of the revelation.
I don’t think I said that. I said that I am not in a position to say what God can or cannot do, beyond the obvious (i.e., God cannot lie, God cannot cease to exist, etc.).
But unless you have a complete understanding of what His majesty and glory mean, how can you be sure just what befits His majesty and glory? You are making the presumptuous assumption that you understand God well enough to say that the Incarnation degrades Him.
Christians do not believe that God became less through the Incarnation. We think that when Christ hung on the Cross, He (as God) was still guiding the courses of the stars. The Incarnation did not add anything to God’s essence or subtract anything from it (there are modern theologians who would say that it added something to God in some sense, but more traditional Christians would reject this). The Incarnation expressed who God is in the form of a real human life and death.
You’re confusing limitations with shortcomings. This may be a basic difference between Christian and Islamic conceptions of humanity. We believe that humans are made in God’s image. We have specific limits that make us the particular kind of creature that we are. But those are not “shortcomings.” “Shortcomings” occur when a creature falls short of what its nature calls it to be. Jesus never did that. Jesus showed us what human nature is supposed to look like.
The essence of God remains unlimited. Christians argue over just in what sense Jesus as man limited the power that He had as God. (Did Jesus know everything, for instance? And in what sense? This is something Christians are not entirely agreed on.)
Of course the idea of the Incarnation is paradoxical. I don’t blame you if you can’t quite handle the paradox. I’m simply presenting it as Christians believe it. We believe that God shows His power precisely in taking on our weakness. You just have to take that or leave it. I think that if you leave it you are turning your back on a fuller, richer understanding of who God is. I think you are settling for a God whose power is defined in crude, human terms. I think you are limiting God to a sort of mighty emperor writ large, when God’s true power is infinitely greater than anything we can express in human terms. But I can’t make you see things the way I do. I can only witness to the truth.
There are texts that say that Jesus knew people’s hearts, something clearly identified with God’s power. But as I said, the nature of Jesus’ knowledge is something Christians debate. Traditionally the focus tended to be on His divine power–more modern Christians tend to emphasize His humanity. We don’t claim to understand the Incarnation. Again, why do you want a God that you can understand completely?
I want to make it clear that I don’t know if the arguments you are making are representative of Islam. I’d hope not. I tend to think of Islam as emphasizing God’s power and the fact that God is beyond our understanding. This is not the impression I’m getting from you. But perhaps my understanding of Islam is wrong.
Edwin
W
Wildgraywolf
Guest
There’s nothing wrong or evil about being human even God called the human race “very good”. The only weakness is in the human propensity to choose not to do God’s will. God rested on the seventh day after spending six days making the universe. As you say sleep is a creation of God, so sleeping is something God wanted humans to do; therefore sleeping is good and holy and not a weakness or imperfection. God created all of the plants and animals we use for food therfore eating is not a weakness but something good and holy created by God for humans to do. So strong is this image that the term banquet is used by God to describe heaven.
S
Semper_Fi_1
Guest
No, I don’t disagree with you, I just didn’t think what you wrote is actually what you meant (Some modern deists (or people who are ‘spiritual’ but not ‘religious’) believe God blew Himself up in the big bang and does not actually exist and that we are Him).
E
Emad
Guest
We believe that God shows His power precisely in taking on our weakness. You just have to take that or leave it. I think that if you leave it you are turning your back on a fuller, richer understanding of who God is. I think you are settling for a God whose power is defined in crude, human terms. I think you are limiting God to a sort of mighty emperor writ large, when God’s true power is infinitely greater than anything we can express in human terms. But I can’t make you see things the way I do. I can only witness to the truth.
First you are not answering my main question, my main question is how can God be all-Powerful and then take on weakness as you stated above? How does it work? If He takes on weakness that means He isn’t all powerful anymore.
We don’t claim to understand the Incarnation. Again, why do you want a God that you can understand completely?
Why not? Also it is not an issue of understanding, NO ONE completely understands God, our minds are just too limited. However I think we are smart enough to know that God is not XYZ. A God is a God, not a human. A human is a human and not a human/dog. If God takes on human form He is no longer God because He is now limited to human abilities. My question was trying to understand the incarnation and since it is something that you don’t understand, there is no point in posting on this thread anymore as that is what the purpose of it is, to understand the incarnation. Also I choose to believe in a God that doesn’t relieve Himself, sleep, eat, drink, and limited to being a human, you are free to believe that, but I don’t think a true God looks like me and you and does what we do.
First you are not answering my main question, my main question is how can God be all-Powerful and then take on weakness as you stated above? How does it work? If He takes on weakness that means He isn’t all powerful anymore.
We don’t claim to understand the Incarnation. Again, why do you want a God that you can understand completely?
Why not? Also it is not an issue of understanding, NO ONE completely understands God, our minds are just too limited. However I think we are smart enough to know that God is not XYZ. A God is a God, not a human. A human is a human and not a human/dog. If God takes on human form He is no longer God because He is now limited to human abilities. My question was trying to understand the incarnation and since it is something that you don’t understand, there is no point in posting on this thread anymore as that is what the purpose of it is, to understand the incarnation. Also I choose to believe in a God that doesn’t relieve Himself, sleep, eat, drink, and limited to being a human, you are free to believe that, but I don’t think a true God looks like me and you and does what we do.
E
Emad
Guest
I am not calling humans evil, but human nature and the nature of God are two opposite things, How can God be both? Humans sleep, God doesn’t, humans eat, God doesn’t. God is all-Powerful humans aren’t.
E
Emad
Guest
Due to my limited time I will only respond to things directly related to the topic. So if you ask me a question and I don’t answer don’t think I am ignoring it or something like that.
M
mrs_abbott
Guest
Man WAS perfect, in the beginning, but then he sinned. Now we are imperfect beings striving for perfection, striving to be like God, who is perfect.
Nope. When you asked that question, I pictured a black cat trying to be white. Even if you were referencing your soul, if it’s one way, it can’t be another just like that. It takes time to change, unless it’s a permenant trait, like the cat analogy.
This could be a very philosophical question. Blind people see with their hands and listen more with their ears.
I guess there’s ways around ANY handicap, if you just make an effort and try harder to succeed.
This question warrants a long response that I’m not really sure how to word so I’ll let that one go.
C
Contarini
Guest
Semper Fi:
Of course all the language we use about God is analogical, if not metaphorical. (Whether “in” is analogical or metaphorical depends on whether you think the preposition has a necessarily spatial connotation.)
Edwin
Fine, but that is not what I said. What I said is exactly what I meant. Spatial language about God is always misleading, but we can’t avoid it to some extent. It is as accurate to say God is “in” creation as to use any other spatial language about God. To say God is not “in” creation, without further qualification, is more misleading than to say that He is, because in most people’s minds “not in” means “outside.”No, I don’t disagree with you, I just didn’t think what you wrote is actually what you meant (Some modern deists (or people who are ‘spiritual’ but not ‘religious’) believe God blew Himself up in the big bang and does not actually exist and that we are Him).
Of course all the language we use about God is analogical, if not metaphorical. (Whether “in” is analogical or metaphorical depends on whether you think the preposition has a necessarily spatial connotation.)
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
No, it doesn’t, because the divine essence remains unchanged.
Of course it’s a paradox. Of course I don’t pretend to understand God.
We don’t claim to understand the Incarnation. Again, why do you want a God that you can understand completely?
You proceed to answer your own question.
Exactly. Although I’d put it the other way round–it’s not so much about the limitedness of our minds but the illimitability of God.
But Christians aren’t saying that God in His essence is human.
God is not a God any more than He is a human. That’s where you go wrong. God is not a member of a species called “God.” That’s what both our traditions mean when they say that God is One. Not that God is a member of a species that happens not to have any other members, but that God is that sort of being of which there can’t be more than One. (And that is also why Christians believe God can be three persons but one God–but that’s another issue.) God can become human because “God” does not name some other kind of being in the universe whose properties are alien from those of humans. “God” names the one Being whose free, loving act of creation brought the entire universe with all its creatures into existence. We exist only because we participate in God’s Being.
No. We deny that conclusion. God takes on a human nature without ceasing to be fully God.
No one understands the Incarnation. If you want to understand why we believe in it and what it implies, we can have a meaningful conversation. If you want us to explain how it works, we can’t. Because we don’t think such a sovereign act of God can be fully explained.
Again, you’re assuming that there is a species called “God” whose properties you know. I deny that premise. God is utterly ineffable. Of course we can say that God in His essence is not limited to human nature. But that’s not what the Incarnation means. Jesus is fully God, but that doesn’t mean that God’s essence is circumscribed by the limits of humanity. That is because we believe in a God who is truly great, truly sovereign. We can say with all our hearts, “Allah akhbar.” Our God is so great that He can become incarnate as a human being without limiting Himself in any way.
Yours truly,
Edwin
- Status