Christian/Muslim ThreadsWhy wont Muhammed come back at Judgement?Ok obviously you have nothing specifically to say to discredit the fact your square-circle analogy is an amphiboly and thus logically fallacious, you simply just attacked my proposition of a more suitable analogy. And you know what I do agree with you, the circle inside the square analogy is in fact no more suitable or valid then your version of the square-circle, due to the fact it does kind of imply the heretical doctrine - which no I don’t support. Anyways without your "version" of the square-circle analogy you now have nothing to logically disprove the fact God’s divine nature can unit with a human nature (the interaction between the two natures after this essential union takes place, is an incomprehensible aspect of God’s mysteries, not an illogical one). To further invalidate your analogy, I actually asked a friend to give me some further brain-food. He says: – “This guy is making a categorical fallacy, he erroneously assumes that Christ being both God and man is equivalent to a square circle. It is true that two things belonging to the same category cannot overlap, i.e. squares and circles being to the same category of shapes and hence you cannot have an entity that is both a square and circle simultaneously. But you can have two things from two different categories coexisting simultaneously, i.e. a red square, a blue circle, since one is from the category of colors and the other of shapes. Likewise, God belongs to a different category from man, and it is within his ability to take on human nature without ceasing to be God (although it is not possible for man to become God since it isn't within man's capabilities). Even assuming that the analogy with a square and circle validly described the Incarnation, this still doesn't entail a logical contradiction. A more valid example would have been to take a square and attaching it to a circle. In other words, you would have a square and a circle united to each other, coexisting side by side. You would not have a squared circle, nor would you place a square within the circle or the circle within the square. You would have instead a square and a circle coexisting together at the same time. I hope this helps. Lord Jesus bless." In my opinion there is no relation between the last 2 questions and the first one. Your basically re-asking the core question we’ve been discussing for the past few days now, “Is God uniting His divine nature with a human nature logical?” and my stance is – “Well you cant logically disprove it, therefore considering God’s omnipotence it is indeed logical”. Would you like to start this discussion all over again? I don’t think so. THAT’S what I call begging the question. You've assumed what this whole discussion is trying to prove: “Can God unite his complete divine nature with a complete human nature without willing his divine nature away - or compromising it with aspects of his humanity”. Im not going to repeat everything ive just said so far – which I believe is sufficient enough to answer that – so please…don’t stop the progression – its been tiresome enough already. (The following issues are now dealing with an issue of comprehensibility rather than logic. The issue of logic was concerning if the uniting process was possible - once that has been proven, to question the interaction thereafter is to question God's omnipotence and His thoughts) And as i said before (with a few more side comments): Describing God’s nature and defining God’s nature are two completely different things. The essence that is God is not defined by his attributes, His attributes are a consequence of his essence. God’s attributes (being the adjectives that they are) can describe God’s nature, but they do not define what he essentially is. The fact his attributes distinguish him are irrelevant – attributes are a consequence of his nature, therefore since his nature is unique, obviously his attributes are unique. He is omnipotent because he is God, but he is not God because he is omnipotent - The fact there is only one God allows us to conclude from the fact he is omnipotent that He must be God. i.e. Omnipotence in our case is an identifying factor of God – not a defining factor of WHAT he is – you fail to understand the philosophy behind this whole issue of distinguishing WHAT something is in terms of its substance and WHAT something is in terms of attributes – It is the former that defines the substance, and the latter which identifies it. You then asked the same question later, except using the term “define” instead of “describe”. Its logically fallacious to define God by secondary characteristics - His attributes, however no man knows what primary characteristics define God's essence. That’s just a Mystery of God! No human being with their finite mind can technically define Him. His attributes allow us to distinguish Him as the creator from the creation and to identify Him as God (i.e. WHO this being is) – but they do not and cannot define “What” this being is in terms of His essence/substance/nature. Here just for emphasis sake: "He is omnipotent because he is God, but he is not God because he is omnipotent - The fact there is only one God allows us to conclude from the fact he is omnipotent that He must be God. i.e. Omnipotence in our case is an identifying factor of God – not a defining factor of WHAT He is – you fail to understand the philosophy behind this whole issue of distinguishing WHAT something is in terms of its substance and WHAT something is in terms of its attributes – It is the former that defines the substance and the latter that identifies the substance. " Oh, by the way, did you miss this little introduction to my analogy (comment in parenthesis inserted): "Well lets assume for arguments sake that the property of being able to be self-propelled is unique to a car alone - the only "thing" in the world capable of being self-propelled (all boats, planes etc have jus completely disappeared off the face of the earth). We now have a distinguishing attribute - which in you're logically fallacious line of reasoning would be used to define a car. (Now read my car analogy again)" Regarding the attributes of God. Your comment in response to my comment regarding the “voluntary exercise” of certain attributes has some fallacious presuppositions that I just need to correct. Lets identifiy the attributes of God that are (as I again emphasise for the hundredth time) a result of who He is (unique only because His nature is unique) and that we are CONCERNED WITH. God = infinite, eternal. (presents no conflict to the concept of the incarnation): http://www.muhammadanism.com/Jesus/JesusInfinite.htm If the above website isn’t sufficient, tell me and I can provide you with more information. And then we have the omni’s – omnipotent, omnipresence, omniscience. The omnipresence and omnipotence issue obviously pose no problem. So lets deal with the omniscience that you’re obviously not pleased with: First, if we are dealing with a person who is truly God and man (which so far is possible for a logical being) simultaneously then we would expect somewhat of an apparent paradox (to the finite human mind which is not capable of comprehending the thoughts of an infinite being). The scriptures teach that the Lord Jesus even in his incarnate state knew all things. Cf. Matthew 9:4, 11:27-30, 17:27; John 2:23-25, 16:30-31, 21:17; 1 Corinthians 4:5, compare with 1:7-8; Colossians 2:2-3, 9; Revelation 2:18, 23, compare this to 1 Kings 8:39 and 1 Chronicles 28:9, as well as to Jeremiah 11:20, 17:10, 29:23. So it isn't an either/or situation but a both/and. As God he knew all things, but as man, in his waking consciousness, there were things he did not know. Now how do I explain this? I can't. I only affirm what Scripture affirms. So again note that the Scriptures do not say he ceased to be omniscient, but affirms that he was both at the same time. Secondly, if being omniscient is a prerequisite for being God, then Allah fails the test: The following verses prove that the Allah of the Quran is an ignoramus: "If a wound hath touched you, be sure a similar wound hath touched the others. Such days (of varying fortunes) We give to men and men by turns: that Allah MAY KNOW THOSE that believe, and that He may take to Himself from your ranks martyr-witnesses (to truth). And Allah loveth not those that do wrong. Allah's object also is to purge those that are true in Faith and to deprive of blessing those that resist Faith. Did ye think that ye would enter Heaven without Allah testing those of you who fought hard (In His Cause) and remained steadfast? S. 3:140-142 Then, it may be that you will give up part of what is revealed to you and your breast will become straitened by it because they say: Why has not a treasure been sent down upon him or an angel come with him? You are only a warner; and Allah is custodian over all things. S. 11:14 Shakir Yet it may be, if they believe not in this statement, that thou (Muhammad) wilt torment thy soul with grief over their footsteps. S. 18:6 Pickthall Allâh said: "You are granted your request, O Mûsa (Moses)! And indeed We conferred a favour on you another time (before). When We inspired your mother with that which We inspired. Saying: ‘Put him (the child) into the Tabût (a box or a case or a chest) and put it into the river (Nile), then the river shall cast it up on the bank, and there, an enemy of Mine and an enemy of his shall take him.’ And I endued you with love from Me, in order that you may be brought up under My Eye, When your sister went and said: ‘Shall I show you one who will nurse him?’ So We restored you to your mother, that she might cool her eyes and she should not grieve. Then you did kill a man, but We saved you from great distress and tried you with a heavy trial. Then you stayed a number of years with the people of Madyan (Midian). Then you came here according to the fixed term which I ordained (for you), O Mûsa (Moses)! And I have Istana'tuka, for Myself. Go you and your brother with My Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.), and do not, you both, slacken and become weak in My Remembrance. Go, both of you, to Fir'aun (Pharaoh), verily, he has transgressed (all bounds in disbelief and disobedience and behaved as an arrogant and as a tyrant). And speak to him mildly, PERHAPS he may accept admonition or fear Allâh." They said: "Our Lord! Verily! We fear lest he should hasten to punish us or lest he should transgress (all bounds against us)." He (Allâh) said: "Fear not, verily! I am with you both, hearing and seeing." S. 20:36-46 Hilali-Khan It may be thou will kill thy self with grief, that they do not become Believers. S. 26:3 Do men think that they will be left alone on saying, "We believe", and that they will not be tested? We did test those before them, and Allah WILL CERTAINLY KNOW those who are true from those who are false. S. 29:2-3 He Who created Death and Life, that He may try which of you is best in deed: and He is the Exalted in Might, Oft-Forgiving;- S. 67:2 Say: "I know not whether the (Punishment) which ye are promised is near, or whether my Lord will appoint for it a distant term. He (alone) knows the Unseen, nor does He make any one acquainted with His Secrets.- Except an messenger whom He has chosen: and then He makes a band of watchers march before him and behind him, That He MAY KNOW that they have (truly) brought and delivered the Messages of their Lord: and He encompasses all that is with them, and takes account of every single thing." S. 72:25-28 He frowned and turned away. Because the blind man came unto him. What could inform thee but that he MIGHT grow (in grace) Or take heed and so the reminder might avail him? S. 80:1-4 Pickthall In the light of everything ive said so far, i could withdraw any extra support i may have used - especially considering this one is actually delving into Trinitarian theology (which is irrelevant to this topic), but i want to pursue it nonetheless. Define "subjugated" in the context of your usage of it - Reword that statement without the word "subjugated". In regards to the iron-fire: Before i respond, i withdraw this analogy from the discussion, merely because these discussions are getting lengthy and tiresome and i simply dont have the time (im really going out of my way) and would rather concentrate on those aspects of our discussion which are potentially fruitful. (However i still wish to give my reply to this - let this be the last word on this particular issue - unless you really feel the urge to delve into it again). Response: I never asked you to assume that, and i never tried to conclude that. I never asked you to assume any sort of conclusion, rather factors that can help us arrive at that conclusion. e.g. assuming that a cars self-propellancy is unique to a car - in order to prove that the attribute being unique does not effect (and is irrelevant) to the final conclusions drawn from the analogy. I dont see how the assumption regarding the fire would be assuming the conclusion as ridiculous as the assumption is. In my dictionary - the "nature" of something is defined as: The essential qualities or characteristics by which something is recognized. So i guess there is a fire nature - recognised by the essential quality that is a chemical reaction between a fuel and O2 - varying in colour according to the oxygen supply. Therefore i can conclude If God can will, that fire and iron be united (without any kind of microcopic/macroscopic reaction occuring between the two) - whilst both retaining those defining attributes - i.e. iron: its melting point, boiling point, density etc. fire: presence of oxygen and fuel, heat, light. Then this analogy also goes to serve the purpose that God's divine nature and human nature can unite according to His will, without mingling, confusion, or alteration of those essential attributes. Leave it open, its something different from all the typical Muslim a priori theologically motivated attacks, and me and humble_guest are enjoying it, arent we bro? Peace man, God bless. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame