Christian/Muslim ThreadsTrinity ~ God is One not 3!H20: Are you serious? Are you telling me that the implication of that utterance is not relevant at all this discussion? lol i cant believe what im dealing with here... Lets put forth an analogy. The word “gay” in western society can connote two things – happiness or homosexuality. Lets assume you are an old-fashioned pensioner who still uses the term to express happiness – and openly you say of Mr X “Mr X is gay”. I then rebuke your utterance of such a thing, and later on i say something along the lines of “How can Mr X be gay when he has no interest in the same-sex?”. It necessarily follows that i am IGNORANT, for i have just rebuked this mans untterance on the BASIS of what i IGNORANTLY thought his purpose was. Are you following here? Or are you lost yet? 9:30 rebukes anyone claiming that God has a Son. 6:101 expresses the basis of this condemnation. Therefore the author of the quran is an ignoramus. Stop trying to evade the obvious. If i am rebuking/ridiculing the idea of having a son by exclaiming "How can i have a son if i dont have a wife" it is implicit that the absurdity of the idea of me having a son in the first place is due to the very fact i have no consort with which i can engage carnally with to produce a son (forget carnally - it is suggestive of the very and EQUALLY FALLACIOUS fact that the existence of the Son has "something to do" with a consort - which really begs the question - if not carnal, then WHAT?). Thus to the prudent mind; when your allah is rebuking the Son of God concept - which you have admitted is a condemnation of Christians (regardless if it includes other sects or religions) by implying that the very absurdity of it lies upon the fact he has no consort - it is implicit that he supposes that all who adopt this concept are suggesting God carnally generated a son. Christs Sonship has NOTHING to do with a consort, NOTHING to do with carnal generation, NOTHING to do with Mary. Stop trying to squirm your way out of this. Read above. I am not supposing anything, i am extracting what it obviously implicit. No it is logic and common sense. Read above. Your quran does not rebuke a Christian utterance of “Mary is the Mother of God” or “Mary is the mother of the Son of God”. IT states explicitly that we have taken Mary as a separate deity. Lets go back to this “Mother of God” title nonetheless - what are their intentions and purposes in uttering this very phrase? To promote the idea that she is the source of the humanity of Christ; who possesses in addition an eternal divine nature of which Mary has nothing to do with. For your quran to suggest that the very utterance of this title makes Mary a separate deity from God means your quran is deceptively misrepresenting the very reason as to why she is SAID to be the Mother of God, OR the author of the quran is IGNORANT for he (or she or they or it) need to be CORRECTED with regards to what Christians "utter" concerning Mary. LOL Mary's being labelled the “Mother of the Son of God” has nothing to do with her being a consort of God (JUST AS MR X'S BEING LABELLED GAY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS INTEREST IN MEN) You call this general logic? LOL If this is the argument your quran is promoting you have just proven a STRAW MANS. The very argument presumes that only through God taking upon himself a consort can Mary be the Mother of Christ The Son. Do you understand the stupidity of this? Christians "utter" the title "Mother of God" simply to promote the fact that she was the source of His very humanity - your allah obviously doesnt understand this. So we agree he is ignorant upon the basis of his condemnation of Christians. lol I cant believe you drew this parallel. Being married to Christ is a metaphorical expression, there is nothing in the context that suggests we should take it literally. Your quran asserts that GOD cannot have a son if he has no consort. Now tell me, what kind of metaphorical relationship could arise between God and a consort that would give rise to God Himself having a Son? And again, we have the same blatant error, Christs SONSHIP in Christianity has nothing to do with Mary, nothing to do with any consort, nothing to do with a carnal generation. Yes you are right. I stand corrected on this fact, yet not on the argument itself. This does not get you off the hook, for Christians do not believe (and hence as common sense would dictate – would never utter) that Jesus is to be worshiped alongside his mother to the exclusion of God. Look at how many lies there are in that very sentence: Lie 1) The implication that Jesus is taken up by Christians to be a separate deity from God to the exclusion of God. Lie 2) The implication that Mary is taken up as any sort of deity let alone a deity to the exclusion of God Himself. Again, what is the logic in a Christian SAYING that God is one out of three, if this is NOT THEIR BELIEF. Do you have any common sense at all? Ok lets look at “taking up” a Son which is STILL nonetheless problematic – and AGAIN the very fact the idea of a “consort” is brought into the picture, is SUGGESTIVE of the fact the consort played an integral role in the existence of this Son. Christs Sonship in Christianity has nothing to do with Mary or a consort - hence the error you have yet to (and cannot possibly) resolve. Surat 112:3 - Lam yalid walam yooladu. It is implicit that this was said in the face of Christians who believe that Jesus Christ is the “begotten God” who is Himself “begotten by God”. Unless you want to argue that your allah arbitrarily wants to make a statement about begetting. AGAIN – Christians do not believe that God “took upon Himself a Son” THEREFORE WHAT IS THE LOGIC IN A CHRISTIAN UTTERING SUCH A PERVERSE THING. Christs Sonship is BY NATURE, it is HOW GOD EXISTS. He didn't arbitrarily and in time “take up” a Son. So again, i ask for you to please appeal to common sense, WHY WOULD A CHRISTIAN UTTER A THING CONTRARY TO HIS OWN BELIEFS? |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame