The, differences ,between ,Christianity and Islam
- Thread starter da32010
- Start date
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
I can take Holy Spirit and the Father to be the names of the same God but what about physical Jesus, a physical body has to be created and God isn't created, so as long as Christians adhere to the belief that Jesus the physical man is God they're believing in another God who is created.
Preferably into a fertile female.
Yes, the other component. Still for all practical purposes human life starts with the sperm.
I agree.
How do you know differently?
Why?
So God never resides in any physical entity in Islam?
http://www.al-islam.org/kaaba14/1.htm
While I don't think the physical form of Jesus was 'created' per se, I do think objection to the idea also falls under "imagining something God can't do".
But Christians adhere to the belief that God was in Jesus; that Jesus was part of God.
So long as Muslims call Christianity polytheism, they're perpetuating a falsehood. Sorry: fact. Or else find me where Christians explictly call them separate gods as such.
It's a funny thing, this kind of pointless myopia. I mean, I appreciate why some Muslims actually believe this old 'slander': small-minded hate, ignorance, pettiness. It's not really quantitatively different from a lot of such memes out there. But it's extraordinarily clear that this isn't what the Trinity is about: whether you like it or not, it's not polytheism, and trinitarian Christianity is quite explicit about this idea. It would be a stretch to say that anyone could in honesty miss the boat on this, but I did say "ignorance" above and it's possible. Would it really even matter, however? What would it matter even if it were so? We've seen the unsupported assertion that monotheism is better than polytheism on the thread already: so, why then? What's so good about it? I note that supposedly hard-core monotheists invariably do a runner when confronted about it. If this is so self-evident, why can none of you explain why?
"He" does everything perfectly? "He".
Does "He" have a penis?
When a child is raped and murdered, is that what "He" "wanted"
to have happen. Can thing occur he doesn't "want" to have occur under his creation? Can things that are perfect "want" anything?
I wonder how many people here who believe in Gods still would if not promised heaven? I'm 100% sure that no carrot (an afterlife) and most people would quit believing and find some other superstition that did give them a carrot/afterlife. There's no other explanation for why such asinine religious supremeism bullshit can "make sense" to what should be otherwise coherent individuals (well some, other's are pretty simple minded, which is why their religion "makes sense" to them).
I believe the usual response is 'Dog works in mysterious ways'. Another is 'The ways of Dog are not the ways of man'.
I'm not sure if an animal that has evolved to kill and eat other animals makes a conscious choice in doing so. It's like tossing raw meat at a dog and thinking it is consciously thinking about snapping it up and eating it.
That aside, of course Gods being all powerful can create realities where such heinous events can not occur. As a matter of fact, brutality is so high in some cases, I'd say if there were a God, then there is only one conscious person alive in this universe.
That aside, of course Gods being all powerful can create realities where such heinous events can not occur. As a matter of fact, brutality is so high in some cases, I'd say if there were a God, then there is only one conscious person alive in this universe.
The lion is not bad for eating the cow and the cow is not good for not eating the lion.
"As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my thoughts higher than yours" [Ex].
But this does not mean we can accept this situation of eating each other. Moses challenged God in this - so does everyone. Its an honest challenge. It is also a sign no Messiah has yet come - the main premise still unanswered is the purpose of creation. We are all still in the dark.
Robot A is not bad for being programmed to kill Robot B. Robot B is not bad for being programmed not to kill Robot A.
However, suppose Robot A ripped the face of a young girl. Because it was programmed to do so. Would you say that the Programmer of Robot A was a douche bag?
For sure. Nothing can happen without creator sanctioned. Its like saying a pilot knows how to fly a plane, except 12 things about flying the plane. The universe would crash.
Nor can tragedies occur unless they were factored in - not even a random can happen randomly. In this realm both positive and negative exist and rules, whereby we can do everything right - and a coconut can fall from a tree and kill us. What we fail to understand is this is the greatest realm to be in: spiritual beings would be in awe of us - they would bow to us. Being here means we have achieved placement in the highest, not the lowest, realm.
This was the arguement put forth by Moses when he tarried 40 days and nights on the mount - and he won; thus was the law given to humans, not to angels who argued for it. Angels do not have the encumberances humans have. Moses countered, how are these laws applied to you: do you have a need to steal, lie or commit adultry? Do you have reason to covet? Do you crave food, water or fame? Can you be afraid of death when you have no death in your realm? Do you crave liberty or death? Thus did humans win the grand prize, and they should never replace it for all the gold in China. I wouldn't.
Last edited:
why worship the manifestations and not the same being then?
why give names to the manifestations and not the being then?
what, exactly, makes them manifestations and not the same being other than you saying so? they talk differently, they act differently, they exist like separate beings, but you want them to be one(albeit them showing every sign of not being one), and throw the word "manifestations" in and wait for illogic to become logic.
i'm not two internet handles.
besides, internet handles are HANDLES.
gods are gods, as in not humans,and humans are humans,and in not gods.
if they cross breed, we get a demi or semi god, who is not a god, and he is not a human either.
why did you cut the rest of my sentence?
ridiculous.
how can you say god is two, then say he's one, and explain it by being out of our perception.
you don't state the definition of illogical, and say when it exists in god it's logical.
you don't say god is the weakest being, but because he's god he's also the strongest being, and that contradiction can be resolved by his omnipotence.
because her son is a full god and not a half one.
either she's a god , or she's not his mother.
or the word "son" has a special meaning when applied to your god, as in "he who gives birth to himself", in which case you should refrain from using the word son to not confuse everybody.
while muslims believe god has a face, they refrain from saying he has two eyes and a nose and ears and teeth and lips and so on because he has a face. so why use the word face to begin with? because a car can have a face, a store can have a face, but however you use the word "face", there's always a core meaning repeated in all uses, and that is the one we uphold to god.
while the word "son" can be used in many ways, it being a relation between two distinguished entities is a CORE element in the meaning of the word "son".
saying one is the son of himself is as meaningless as it sounds. not because it's undoable, but because it's meaningless, the word "son"has been disabled as a medium to transfer a thought or idea.
because it's clearly redundant.
iow, it doesn't have a reason to be there.
which takes us back to square one, why add the holy spirit to the two whaen the holy spirit IS the two?
stop going around in circles.
yeah, why not?
now we have the fiveity..any higher bid?
one god, many-infinite- attributes. or is god supposed to have only one attribute to be one?
however, being an invincible god who dies isn't one of them.
uh, because god had to "fix" his mistake? :huh:
you sure you know what christianity is or are you speaking out your ass?
sigh, merciful to the good vengful to the bad. it doesn't take a pre schooler to figure it out, a "one" god who had a one "son" god yet is still "one" god is well, not too obvious to the preschooler i'm afraid.
you're stance in this thread is pathetically idiotic, let it drop geoffp or start speaking sense.
if it's outside our experience of identity how do you describe or believe it?
it's one thing to apply understood concepts to god and the results being out of our experience, like being perfect, or all knowing, etc..[which is what islam and some other religions are doing]
and it's another thing altogether to ascribe unintelligible incomprehensible gibberish to god and say oh you'd never understand it, which is what christianity is doing.
-----------
but what would one expect of a religion that's been altered and messed with, one predated by a monotheistic religion of one book and followed by a monotheistic religion of one book? while it has several different "editions" by the names of the priests who wrote them?
Doing unto scifes as he does unto others
Why not? Hell, we could give them as many as...99 names, maybe. All with different manifestations of personality. Would this make more parsomonious sense?
What, exactly, makes them not the same being other than you saying so?
Oh? All part of the same process for us, lad.
It would only be more illogical if there were 99 of them.
Look, scifes: in respect of my above points about your own religion, it's pretty clear where your argument is coming from. You can't handle 99 separate Allahs, but you think three aspects of God is too much for Christians?
Sure: like aspects. But I said your internet handle and you, not two internet handles. So you're two different persons. Does your country have a health plan for multiple-personality disorder?
Sorry: which modern, widespread Christian denomination considers Jesus as a demi-god? Actually, fuck: who are you exactly to say that Allah couldn't make a demi-god? Isn't He powerful enough to do whatever He wants? You know him so well there, chief?
It was out of mercy. I wanted to cut you off while you were making some sense.
Easily. How do you reconcile 99 completely different aspects of Allah with this supposed "one god" of yours? Just how polytheistic is Islam, anyway?
No idea what you intended by the latter part of this chunk...but you admit He's omnipotent. He just can't put part of Himself into a human. The universe, reality, angels dancing on pins, whispering into an illiterate's ear; that's all easy-peasy. Just don't ask him to form a Trinity. Impossible! He's just not that strong! Right?
Why? Again, you realize we're talking about an omnipotent being, here. You seem fixated on simple linear math. So here's a simple math question for you: what's half of infinity?
Well, excuse me for saying so, but that sounds heretical, scifes. If you're saying Allah has a "face", you're implying He has some way of sensing or looking forward, some way of better perceiving the world in front of Him. But that also means that there are places He doesn't see so well, doesn't it? So His power is limited! How can an omnipotent being be less than omniscient? You should probably refrain from using the word "face" so as not to confuse anyone.
Precisely. Or else locate the part of the Bible which specifies chromosomal exchange between Mary and God. And then, explain why this would be impossible for an omnipotent being. It's funny that so many Muslims take up the amazingly ignorant argument that "God couldn't have a 'son'", and then turn around and claim to believe in an omnipotent being. Isn't the most elemental argument against God that God can't think of a task He can't do? But you're essentially admitting that there is or, possibly worse, claiming that you know His thinking, which is putting yourself on a level with Him. Isn't that shirk?
Well, only to those lacking any imagination or insight, really.
Er, Islam is hardly the religion to talk about being redundant, scifes.
Again: it only appears to be circles to those lacking insight or introspection. As such, I can see why it could seem confusing.
The Ninety-Ninity!
Oh? So the Forgiver and the Vindicator need not apply, I guess.
That's an impressively simplistic conception you have there.
I mean, seriously, is this a common thing down your way?: this sort of bare-bones, simplistic thinking about reality, immortality, the unknowable, and so forth? Do you really have no wider perspective about such issues? Or is it that you really do understand the conception behind the Conception and pretend that it's more complex than it is? Really, it's one of the two.
Ahem.
I'd call that a change. For Christians, it's a simple question of revelation. And, so far as Islam is concerned, it would be as fair to argue that you're simply trying to modify scripture that came before you. Are you saying that God's fixing His errors now?
Actually, you've hit the nail on the head with this one.
And Allah is within your experience of identity, is that right? You know the unknowable being? Laughable.
And 99 names, and a hundred conflicting messages, and several major alterations, and a completely allegedly vague series of attributions.
scifes, I'll give you a chance to back down quietly. I suggest you take it. You can peddle your hatred lots of other places, and there's really not a whole lot you can do to change the belief of others with so many holes in your own faith. Don't like that assessment? Then don't wade into a debate calling other people "unbelievers" because you don't like what they believe. Not what they call modest, scifes.
Why not? Hell, we could give them as many as...99 names, maybe. All with different manifestations of personality. Would this make more parsomonious sense?
What, exactly, makes them not the same being other than you saying so?
Oh? All part of the same process for us, lad.
It would only be more illogical if there were 99 of them.
Look, scifes: in respect of my above points about your own religion, it's pretty clear where your argument is coming from. You can't handle 99 separate Allahs, but you think three aspects of God is too much for Christians?
Sure: like aspects. But I said your internet handle and you, not two internet handles. So you're two different persons. Does your country have a health plan for multiple-personality disorder?
Sorry: which modern, widespread Christian denomination considers Jesus as a demi-god? Actually, fuck: who are you exactly to say that Allah couldn't make a demi-god? Isn't He powerful enough to do whatever He wants? You know him so well there, chief?
It was out of mercy. I wanted to cut you off while you were making some sense.
Easily. How do you reconcile 99 completely different aspects of Allah with this supposed "one god" of yours? Just how polytheistic is Islam, anyway?
No idea what you intended by the latter part of this chunk...but you admit He's omnipotent. He just can't put part of Himself into a human. The universe, reality, angels dancing on pins, whispering into an illiterate's ear; that's all easy-peasy. Just don't ask him to form a Trinity. Impossible! He's just not that strong! Right?
Why? Again, you realize we're talking about an omnipotent being, here. You seem fixated on simple linear math. So here's a simple math question for you: what's half of infinity?
Well, excuse me for saying so, but that sounds heretical, scifes. If you're saying Allah has a "face", you're implying He has some way of sensing or looking forward, some way of better perceiving the world in front of Him. But that also means that there are places He doesn't see so well, doesn't it? So His power is limited! How can an omnipotent being be less than omniscient? You should probably refrain from using the word "face" so as not to confuse anyone.
Precisely. Or else locate the part of the Bible which specifies chromosomal exchange between Mary and God. And then, explain why this would be impossible for an omnipotent being. It's funny that so many Muslims take up the amazingly ignorant argument that "God couldn't have a 'son'", and then turn around and claim to believe in an omnipotent being. Isn't the most elemental argument against God that God can't think of a task He can't do? But you're essentially admitting that there is or, possibly worse, claiming that you know His thinking, which is putting yourself on a level with Him. Isn't that shirk?
Well, only to those lacking any imagination or insight, really.
Er, Islam is hardly the religion to talk about being redundant, scifes.
Again: it only appears to be circles to those lacking insight or introspection. As such, I can see why it could seem confusing.
The Ninety-Ninity!
Oh? So the Forgiver and the Vindicator need not apply, I guess.
That's an impressively simplistic conception you have there.
I mean, seriously, is this a common thing down your way?: this sort of bare-bones, simplistic thinking about reality, immortality, the unknowable, and so forth? Do you really have no wider perspective about such issues? Or is it that you really do understand the conception behind the Conception and pretend that it's more complex than it is? Really, it's one of the two.
Ahem.
I'd call that a change. For Christians, it's a simple question of revelation. And, so far as Islam is concerned, it would be as fair to argue that you're simply trying to modify scripture that came before you. Are you saying that God's fixing His errors now?
Actually, you've hit the nail on the head with this one.
And Allah is within your experience of identity, is that right? You know the unknowable being? Laughable.
And 99 names, and a hundred conflicting messages, and several major alterations, and a completely allegedly vague series of attributions.
scifes, I'll give you a chance to back down quietly. I suggest you take it. You can peddle your hatred lots of other places, and there's really not a whole lot you can do to change the belief of others with so many holes in your own faith. Don't like that assessment? Then don't wade into a debate calling other people "unbelievers" because you don't like what they believe. Not what they call modest, scifes.
Last edited:
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
I'd like to add something important that is when the face of God is mentitoned in the Quran simply God Himself is being addressed in an articulate way.
Indeed God has literally actually infinite attributes, and being true God yet mortal isn't one of them because that's a blatant contradiction.
Last edited:
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
You're the one who should be answering this question God is infinite so how can He literally be "an" omnipotent being.
God doesn't think, thinking is a limitation it only sounds wise for us finite beings to think, He doesn't do tasks as if something can be a task for Him and scifes hasn't claimed to know as God does he has only told what must be true of Him as written in the Quran.
Last edited:
Precisely: I think an infinite, omnipotent, omniscient being should have no problem fitting part of their personality into something so simple as a human corpus.
Then use 'imagine' or 'design' if you like. Both those should be within the realm of what we conventionally describe as 'God', having presumably imagined and planned the universe.
Then substitute 'action', if that's more in keeping with your conception of God; I think a theist could hardly deny that God has 'done stuff'.
Actually, that description comes back to the same thing: a description of what God is and is not, and can and cannot be. Whether scifes takes his argument from the Quran or any other Islamic or non-Islamic source, if he presents that argument he must take responsibility for it. If he denies that God could do something, that's him validating a model he's been exposed to. He doesn't have to believe that model, and neither does any theist have to believe any given model: they choose to do so. As for your assertion that this "must be true of Him as written in the Quran": so what? My book says that God must be triune. Do you have any objective way to say that you are correct and I am not?
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
Then you have failed to answer my question how can God who is infinite be a quantity, be a number and have some of His "personality" put into an object of quantity such as a human corpse.
scifes isn't denying God capabilites and he certainly hasn't described Him, he is simply referring to absolutism and absolutism cannot have any models. And why go as far as saying God is triune when God can simply be said to be immeasurable literally.
Last edited: