Discussion in 'Abrahamic Religions' started by muhammad_isa, Mar 27, 2022.
We should not trivialize?
Essentially, when jesus says to pray to the father he is saying pray "through" me, the incarnation so you can connect with the father. 100% human, 100% father. Unless it's your religion and maybe you're having spiritual trouble with it, I'd say it is what it is. However, there are non-trinitarian thought that jesus is a human with the divine spirit of the father and that the father told people to speak though that human, but most christian churches don't take up that view.
From what I gather it's been the Church (and most branch Churches) teachings for so long that's how it's interpreted. However, I did hear that the Roman Catholic Church does differentiate the Father from Son while many protestant Churches do not. Then there are Churches that don't want to touch the matter leaving god/father a mystery and others dissect the bible to prove their point. You're just arguing one part of christian interpretation.
It's not "parts." Incarnation, in trinitarian, isn't an extra "part."
How I see it tri-nity just means three united-by definition. How people express it also depends on their relationship,experience, and conviction.
But the explanation is irrelevant because Islam says trinity = 3 gods and Islam cannot err -- therefore any other trinity explanation is false evasion,
No ifs or buts ...
No debate or possibility of error, and if the shoe does not fit the foot, the foot must be made to fit the shoe ... Imo
Shrugs. Hope he's or she's is open to understand other views. I hope....
That's the thing. Why keep asking the same question when you already know the answers are not going to align with the beliefs of your faith? That's not going to change no matter how many times you ask.
I just don't get the point of feigning interest just so you can reject the responses. So in that sense, I believe the OP was posted in bad faith. I do hope however, that those reading this thread who are truly interested in understanding Christian beliefs, will find the responses given helpful.
It's a bit more nuanced I think, but in a sense yes.
To borrow my own analogy, I think of Jesus like God extending his hand to earth. We can achieve much through that hand, (as Jesus taught- in my name), but the source is still the father.
Prayer to me is like the accolades a concert pianist receives after a performance. Even though it was his hands on the keyboard that made the music, we applaud the artist not his hands for it is he who controls them.
I find that sad.
It just goes to show how rigid people can be when it comes to religion.
They think that there is no way they can ever learn anything about G-d, because either they don't want to, or because they feel they know it all.
So have you learned anything since starting this thread? That is, has your religious position changed?
I know very little about the Bible or it’s teachings but for some reason I find this whole trinity problem interesting. When I first started to figure things out this is one of the things they tried to explain.
You can take the Holy Ghost out of this equation for it represents everything everywhere, unless you want to say that god is nothing without us inside of him, or he would be nothing without anything here, this would not be the truth though.
here is my conundrum. Nothing descended into this universe as himself only as a child. To further cause problems this child was actually nothing there. As nothing enters into itself it will do this many more times then anything else until it becomes itself only, and it can no longer go inside itself again. So the father came from nothing there to become something here, as a mind that cannot figure things out. The reason the father could not figure things out when he first became something here, is he has to figure everything out not knowing anything at all.
So not to get to confusing here we will call this child the father. The father found a world that had become itself many more times then anything else, this is how he met the son. So here is where it is interesting the father is a child and the son was a man. The two of them were very close and the father respected him very highly.
After they explained this then the dialogue changed to the twelve and the betrayal of the father.
So father, son or son, father and yet nothing about god only that he is none of them.
Separate question. You mentioned christians put Jesus at a higher standard being god. Muhammad is place as a higher standard as prophet.
Shouldn't both be at our standards with no medium between god and man?
Treat Muhammad just as every other person without authority?
Not interested in arguing with a mod..
Interesting questions. I think that the profits and Jesus made God more approachable for all, but in my mind the divine will always hold higher regard.
John 13: 16 and 19 also come to mind.
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him."
"Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he."
Unless I’m misreading you folks - always a possibility- you are each are positing that the other is being rigid because after all the posts on this thread, as well as the posts on other threads, neither of you has moved from your originally stated positions.
I guess the question we all have to ask ourselves is whether we are here to gain knowledge about the beliefs of others and why, perhaps, they hold them or are we primarily here to try to convince others that our own beliefs are the true and correct ones and the beliefs they hold are false?
Too often, it seems to me, what starts out as a sharing of our differing perspectives deteriorates into acrimony. Of course it doesn’t help if one side or the other commences inquiry in a deliberately contentious manner.
Learning may lead one to change one’s mind about something, but it does not necessarily require that.
True enough, at this point in my life, my religious beliefs are pretty well etched in stone as I'm sure is the case for most here. Difference is, I still respect the beliefs of others and would never attempt to discredit them nor harbor the notion that anything that doesn't align with my faith must be wrong.
I'm just attempting to answer questions raised and explain the Christian perspective. I'm not telling anyone to believe as I do or trying to tell them that their religion is something it is not.
Christianity is what it is as is Islam and all the other belief systems. No point trying to change any of them or assume if one's right the others must be wrong. That's not what IO is all about.
Go with your gut and follow the path best suited for you and afford others the same courtesy. Give your opinion, share your perspective, ask questions, but do so without mocking, demeaning or otherwise disrespecting the religious beliefs of others. That kind of thing serves no purpose and only leads to hard feelings. If you disagree, so state, but be civil about it. Don't keep insisting the same thing or asking the same questions over and over. Sometimes you just have to agree to disagree and move on. Just my opinion, not as a mod, but as an ordinary member of the community.
..I think that this is all in the eyes of the beholder..
The closer one gets to the truth, the more it will be opposed .. or the person who speaks it will be opposed.
Personally, I value what I consider to be truth, more than modern secular values.
The purpose of the thread was to stimulate conversation .. and not about the weather.
If any member would rather not talk about the concept of "a begotten son" of G-d, then they don't have to.
If somebody doesn't want to discuss whether a man is G-d or not, then they don't have to.
This assumes that 'your' book alone is 'the truth'
But it's only what you believe to be the truth
But you completely roll over any replies you get, call them gibberish, etc.
There are deep and profound idea involved. You appear to belittle and minimize them.
The problem is the way that you address the replies you do get @muhammad_isa
No it doesn't.
Many people claim that it is not possible for G-d to be omniscient, and for us to have free-will.
They claim that as we must choose what G-d knows, we have no choice.
Do you agree with that? Probably not..
That is what conversations are all about.
They involve people's opinions .. sometimes people aren't particularly interested in "the truth".
..they view their religion as a hobby or tradition. You know that .. I am only reminding you.
No, I quite accept your explanation of that conundrum, and I actually find the deliberate misunderstanding of others in that 'debate' to be mischievous and annoying. I don't know why you keep banging your head there, lol
But other religions believe you do not have the truth.
They believe they have the truth.
Anyway ... I don't wish to get involved in a circular discussion here
Quantum theory is logical. So is Schrodinger's Cat. They describe things in terms of probability, which puts them firmly within the fields of inductive logic and statistical analysis. Quantum physics does not violate any rules of logic, although it is also a relatively young field of study that we still have much to learn about.
I see a lot of abuses of supposed "logic" from people in this thread. I wonder if I accidentally caused that. I'll say that I've formally studied symbolic and modal logic at a university and I've gone beyond just what I learned in class. When I use the word, I mean it in a much stricter sense than just "reasonable."
I will say that, according to epistemic logic, we know that the impossible does not exist. So any claims about a being that can "do the impossible" are, by their very nature, illogical. There's not really any way to have a logical conversation about a conception like that.
There are some forms of nonclassical logic like paraconsistent logic where these discussions could take place but paraconsistent logic is often considered to be outdated in favor of multi-value logic and Bayesian analysis. These forms of nonclassical logic aren't meant to imply the existence of the impossible, either, but to help form an understanding when there are apparent contradictions in our data.
ETA: I should point out that this doesn't mean that conversations about things outside of logic are unproductive or can't be meaningful. That position is called "Logical Positivism" and it's been debunked for nearly a century now. It's just that this is more about theology and scriptural interpretation than logic.
Aesthetics and ethics are also examples of fields outside of logic, or that are "illogical" and I don't think it's reasonable to discount these entirely, either.
Separate names with a comma.