Christian/Muslim ThreadsWhy wont Muhammed come back at Judgement?You broke ground rule number 1, and therefore at this stage, we will both refrain from pursuing the other issues at hand before we clear this one up - simply because it would be logically fallacious for you to continue your arguments when they could be in contradiction with your own doctrine. I think since you are the one raising the objections, it is of VITAL importance that we first clarify whether your objections are in fact in contradiction to, and attacking your own theology, before you continue to use your a priori assumptions to attack mine. Kapish? lol yeah bro you ALMOST had me, i was like , except for the fact you totally missed the whole point of those articles, and the conclusion drawn from those articles. Did I ever try and prove that the Mutzaulite doctrine is logical?? (as you assert in your little “paraphrased” pre-condition) ABSOLUTELY NOT. IN FACT, it is beneficial to my argument that you do indeed acknowledge that they are heretical and it is indeed even MORE beneficial to my case that there’s a whole book out there “humbly refuting” the creationism of the Quran. Here let me help you understand WHY: The central theme and message of all those quotes I pasted: 1) The Quran is compared to Christ, in terms of the eternal/infinite becoming temporal/finite. Professor Yusuf K. Ibish, in his article makes this observation, based on the fact they both represent manifestations of the divine through something "non-divine". It [the quran] is an expression of Divine Will. If you want to compare it with anything in Christianity, you must compare it with Christ Himself. Christ was an expression of the Divine among men, the revelation of the Divine Will. The rest of the quoes assert that those who oppose are heretics, therefore their view is not valid in this argument. (i.e. the minority Muslim view - Mutzallite view - that the Quran is created can be dismissed) In his Ideals and Realities of Islam, Seyyed Hossain Nasr, explicitly then goes to state how these eternal divine wills are both expressed through some temporal "form" - and acknowledges that the union between the eternal and the temporal form is inseparable! "the Quran, being the Word of God therefore corresponds to Christ in Christianity and the form of this book, which like the contents is determined by the dictum in heaven, corresponds in a sense to the body of Christ. The form of the Quran is the Arabic language which religiously speaking is as inseparable from the Quran as the body of Christ is from Christ Himself." Therefore the question I was raising from those passages was: If Orthodox Islamic theology asserts that within the Quran, the infinite and finite did indeed meet, since the Quran is eternal by nature while at the same time it is temporal - contained within the pages of a finite book - then logically speaking, why can't God's Word become a man? Orthodox Islam asserts that the nature of Christ is analagous to your own Quran, do you still wish to assert that the square-circle is analogous to Christ - therefore making it analogous to your own Quran?? (despite the fact the analogy is the first place is seriously flawed) So what I am trying to point out to you bro...just in case its still all very vague to you, is that you (yes its personal now) cant assert that the divine-non-divine union is incompatible just as a square-circle, in the light of those passages which represent orthodox Islamic views – i.e. YOUR views -that assert the Quran is eternalword - the divine will was expressed through a temporal book (a creation), just as Christ is eternal word and divine will expressed through a temporal human (a creation). Because then my friend you would be contradicting your own doctrine. The only reason I provided the latter articles concerning the Mutzallites was to show the readers that although there was a view asserting that the Quran was created – that this is heretical according to mainstream Islam, and that the view the Quran is eternal has not been challenged ever since that ordeal with the Mutzallites. This was only validate my argument which had its basis on the belief that the Quran is indeed eternal by nature. Its kind of insulting for yourself, that you seriously thought I was trying to delve into the issue of whether the Quran is eternal or created - when in fact i was deliberetely trying to show strong evidence for why i can base my argument on the fact that orthodox Islam dictates the Qurans eternal nature. Its therefore even more insulting, that you thought I was trying to use the Mutazalite view as support for my argument, when it was in fact the contrary. If orthodox Islam dictated that the Quran was created as the Mutzallites, then my argument would be useless and only directed at the minority whom would be considered heretics. Unless you want to continue arguing against the nature of Christ, which parallels the nature of your own Quran (as noted by the above orthodox Islamic scholars)??? Or else become a Mutzallite and in that case, I cant tell you that you believe in the eternal and tempral uniting, because as a Mutzallite you heretically believe that the Quran is created. Providing me with a weblink, or sending me a file – that I can understand -you would have made the relevant information easily accessible for me. Telling me to go out and buy a book or search for one in my own library? Sorry not acceptable - considering this is supposed to be an intelligible DISCUSSION (I admit that even providing a weblink is beyond the limits for a proper discussion – however it was only a few pages long and if you had problems with that, and asked me to paste the relevant themes/ideas and integrate them into the discussion – that I would’ve done). I could’ve referred you to plenty of books on the issue of the logic of God: "On the Incarnation: The Treatise De Incarnatione Verbi Dei" by Athanasius, St. Anhanasius, St. Athanasius, Saint Anthanasius, C. S. Lewis http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... 3?v=glance S. Davis, Logic and the Nature of God (London: Macmillan, 1983); http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... ce&s=books D. Brown, The Logic of God Incarnate (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1986); T. Morris, The Logic of God Incarnate http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... s&n=507846 R. Sturch, The Word and the Christ (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... ce&s=books The Incarnation: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Incarnation of the Son of God by Stephen T. Davis (Editor), Daniel Kendall (Editor), Gerald O'Collins (Editor), Incarnation Summit2000 Dunwoodie, Yonkers, N.Y. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... 3?v=glance R. Swinburne, The Christian God (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994). ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The fact I DIDN’T simply jump and say “hey read these - thats all i have to say to you”, is that: 1) Firstly I myself haven’t read them yet. So far on the issue of the incarnation which is discussed by Christian scholars using miles and miles of ink, I’ve simply used my own head (which I believe has served my purpose well) – no resources, except that little insight from my friend who I was speaking on the phone at the time, due to the fact ive never needed to discuss such an issue at such length. 2)Secondly, that would be besides the whole point of a discussion. If I did happen to have read those books, I would simply discuss the main and relevant themes integrating them into the discussion - or copied and pasted chunks of paragraphs etc. if i thought they were 100% direct and relevant. So bro 1) If you haven’t read this book yourself – you cant use it as the basis of your argument 2) If you have – then unless you suffer from amnesia or some other kind of terrible memory loss condition, then I would like you to answer the following question plainly using the main concepts and insight that the book gives you – “If Allah is all-knowing, why does he speak with un-certainty, and even absolute ignorance as those verses portray?” (if you’re that inept that you cannot integrate the concepts/ideas/refutations into a discussion as I have requested, then unless this book you have supposedly read hasnt mysteriously dissappeared from your bookshelf, you can even type out or scan, whole pages of the book which you feel directly respond to this issue.) Peace, I look forward to clearing up the issue of whether your arguments contradict your own beliefs (which they apparantly do), so I can continue responding to the comments you’ve left me with in your previous post. GOOD LUCK |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame