 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Jesus in Islam (Video) | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/12/2011 11:45 AM (GMT -6) |   | | Here's something...
THE UNCREATEDNESS OF THE DIVINE SPEECH: THE GLORIOUS QUR'AN
by Sh. G. F. Haddad
Maybe I have EO on the brain...but it seems to me the Islamic version of the "Essence/Energies-in-God" discussion.
Maybe?
The chief points on which he (al-Ash'ari) opposed the doctrines of the Mu'tazila were:
(1)He held that God had eternal attributes such as knowledge, sight, speech, and that it was by
these that He was knowing, seeing, speaking, whereas the Mu'tazila said that God had no
attributes distinct from His essence.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 3/12/2011 10:51:54 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/12/2011 5:20 PM (GMT -6) | | | From the IB Forum site...
A Muslim brother:
If you want to build a criteria---would it not be better to build it from a full, "authentic" background rather than an incomplete/flawed background?---so read the Quran, understand Islamic philosophy and law then find "common ground" with the teachings of Prophet Jesus (pbuh) that you already have in yr NT---that would work better for you---then you can come to us Muslims with a proper and more complete "criteria"......and with the help of the Guidance of the Quran---this criteria will be applicable/achievable as well.
Me:
It seems that you don't see that I'm using the Quran and what IT says about Isa, Torat and Injeel. The biblical Scriptures are not used "on their own"--basically trying to impose Christian belief and doctrine on Muslims--, but only as a RESPONSE to what was said about Isa's teaching in the Quran.
Let's break down how easy this is. Let's say that I'm an Christian seriously contemplating Islam, ok? Possibly to the point of conversion, ok? And let's say that I have 1) a Quran, 2) Maududi's "The Meaning of the Qur'an", 3) a Hebrew version of the Torah and 4) a Greek New Testament. [I know a little Hebrew and Greek, let's say. Actually, I do. :D] Now when I look at Quranic texts about Isa and what he taught...I keep getting told by the Quran that Jesus "confirmed the Torah" via his bringing of the Injeel. And I get told by the Quran that it behooves a "person of the Book" to understand what this was. So, then I get out Maududi's work in order to see how to look for the authentic Torat and Injeel in the Old and New Testaments respectively. It is regarded as one of the best commentaries on the Quran so I use it. (That's what commentaries are for, right). I go by Maududi's specifications and go to the Hebrew Torah and the Greek New Testament. I just so happen to notice that Deut 6:4-6 and Lev. 19:9-18 completely fit Maududi's criteria for "authentic" Torat. Then I look at Matthew 22:34-40...and see that this passage completely fits Maududi's criteria for authentic Injeel. Moreover, I notice that in the Injeel passage, Jesus/Isa specifically says that "all the Law and Prophets" are summarized in the reaffirmed OT passages. Now, I go BACK to the Quran to read how Allah himself is said to have given Jesus authority as Prophet to reaffirm the Torah and bring the Injeel. Now as a THOUGHTFUL, RATIONAL, INTELLIGENT person who is looking at all this information, how could I not come to the conclusion that even if I went ahead and CONVERTED to Islam, that the Great Commandments would still be relevant to my faith...even as a Muslim? How could I come to any other conclusion? Seriously.
************************************
Now, tell me, Tom. Isn't that about as clear as it can be made? Everyone?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 3/12/2011 4:30:11 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/13/2011 8:35 AM (GMT -6) | | | More...from the other site...
*********************************************
Muslim Brother:
By the way, ---my fav translators of the Quran tend to be Pickthall, Yusuf Ali and M. Asad.(both M.Asad and Yusuf Ali come with tafsir.) Any translation includes the biases of the translator.
Me:
I'm so glad you mentioned that...Muhammad Asad's commentary on Surah 3:1-3...
3 Most of the commentators are of the opinion that ma bayna yadayhi - lit., "that which
is between its hands" - denotes here "the revelations which came before it", i.e., before
the Qur'an. This interpretation is not, however, entirely convincing. Although there is
not the least doubt that in this context the pronominal ma refers to earlier revelations,
and particularly the Bible (as is evident from the parallel use of the above expression in
other Qur'anic passages), the idiomatic phrase ma bayna yadayhi does not, in itself, mean
"that which came before it" - i.e., in time - but, rather (as pointed out by me in surah 2,
note 247), "that which lies open before it". Since, however, the pronoun "it" relates here
to the Qur'an, the metaphorical expression "between its hands" or "before it" cannot possibly
refer to "knowledge" (as it does in 2:255), but must obviously refer to an objective reality
with which the Qur'an is "confronted": that is, something that was coexistent in time with
the revelation of the Qur'an. Now this, taken together (a) with the fact - frequently
stressed in the Qur'an and since established by objective scholarship - that in the course
of the millennia the Bible has been subjected to considerable and often arbitrary alteration,
and (b) with the fact that many of the laws enunciated in the Qur'an differ from the laws
of the Bible, brings us forcibly to the conclusion that the "confirmation" of the latter
by the Qur'an can refer only to the basic truths still discernible in the Bible, and not to
its time-bound legislation or to its present text - in other words, a confirmation of
whatever was extant of its basic teachings at the time of the revelation of the Qur'an: and
it is this that the phrase ma bayna yadayhi expresses in this context as well as in 5:46
and 48 or in 61:6 (where it refers to Jesus' confirming the truth of "whatever there still
remained [i.e., in his lifetime] of the Torah").4 It is to be borne in mind that the Gospel frequently mentioned in the Qur'an is not
identical with what is known today as the Four Gospels, but refers to an original, since
lost, revelation bestowed upon Jesus and known to his contemporaries under its Greek name
of Evangelion ("Good Tiding"), on which the Arabicized form Injil is based. It was probably
the source from which the Synoptic Gospels derived much of their material and some of
the teachings attributed to Jesus. The fact of its having been lost and forgotten is
alluded to in the Qur'an in 5:14. - Regarding my rendering of al-furqan as "the standard
by which to discern the true from the false", see also note 38 on the identical phrase
occurring in 2:53.Let me pull out some points here...1) In the commentary on verse 3, M. Asad specifically states that the "basic truths still discernible in the Bible" or "whatever was extant of its basic teachings at the time of the revelation of the Qur'an" are what is being talked about. This would DEFINITELY be the Shema and the "Love Your Neighbor" passages. Again, you can SKIP the translated BIBLE and go back to the Hebrew text itself. And I guarantee you that the Hebrew text was extant whenver the Quran was created (as was the Greek New Testament)!2) M. Asad specifically states that the Gospel of Jesus was "probably the source from which the Synoptic Gospels derived much of their material and some of the teachings attributed to Jesus." If we look carefully we see that the idea of the Two Great Commandments of Jesus are in 2 of the 4 Gospels. So, if we were being intellectually honest, we'd have to say that there is a good chance that the Two Great Commandments are part of the "source" from whence these Gospel fragments came.NOW...when you put Maududi's commentary TOGETHER WITH M. Asad's commentary...there really seems to be little doubt at this point. I don't see how any intelligent, informed, reasonable Muslim can just ignore the authority of both Maududi and Asad on these issues.Bro, do you have any reason that both of these commentaries should be ignored on this issue? I get the impression that you are a very well read, thoughtful, and conscientious practictioner of faith. Is this making sense, brother?**********************************
Muslim Brother:
You said most Christians are not going to acknowedge that Prophet Mohammed(pbuh) is a Prophet of God, therefore they will not acknowledge that the Quran contains any authentic message from God (The same God they claim to worship)----therefore this whole exercise is from the perspective of convincing Christians that the Quran contains messages that the NT confirms are teachings of Prophet Jesus(pbuh).----As far as Muslims are concerned we have already known for 1400 years that the Quran contains the wisdom teachings of all the Prophets of God, including Jesus Christ(pbuh)---we not only know what they are ---but also how to implement them practically in our daily lives.
Me:
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you there on the bolded part, my brother. The issue is not more about convincing Christians of the validity of the Quran or anything like that. Again, look at my thought project. Even if I--myself--were to seriously think about becoming a Muslim (I think many Muslims would be happy about the prospect of a Christian converting to Islam)...with what I now know, I would still be advocating what I am. Again, we aren't dealing with specifically Christian thought at all here. It's based upon the following things: 1) the Quran 2) Commentaries (Maududi, Asad, etc) 3) Hebrew Torah, and 4) Greek New Testament. No "Bibles", bible translations, or Christian commentaries involved!
Seriously. If you were to give me advice on my possible conversion, and I was talking to you about these things that I've looked up about the relevance of Isa's Great Commandments, what would you tell me, me being a Christian newly converting to Islam? Would you tell me to ignore Maududi's and Asad's perspectives on the Torat and Injeel...and solely focus on the Quran? Woudl you tell to ignore Maududi's and Asad's take in Surah 3:1-3...but take the other stuff? If you would say that, then why would Maududi and Asad go through the trouble of mentioning those things in their commentaries...for Muslims?
Again, this is not mainly about how CHRISTIANS feel about things. It's an assertion that per Quran and commentaries on it, Isa's Great Commandments (found in the Torat and Injeel) are relevant to "true" Muslim faith.
********************************************
"Wherever authors and editors of the Bible have added anything of their own accord, by way of either elaboration or elucidation, it has become very difficult for an ordinary reader to distinguish the original from the explanatory additions. Those with insight into Divine Scripture, however, do have the capacity to distinguish between the original revealed fragments and the later, human interpolations."
--Maulana Maududi
************************************************** ********
The real Taurat comprises those verses which are scattered all over the life story of Prophet Moses, and it is not difficult even today to locate and recognize them.
...
We have no means of recognizing thetas from the works of the authors except this: Wherever the authors say "Jesus said so or taught so and so," there the Injil begins and where they resume the narration, there it ends. According to the Qur'an, only such portions are the Injil and these alone are condensed by it. If these portions are compiled together and compared with the Qur'an, one will find no serious difference between the two, and, if somewhere a trivial difference appears, it can be removed very easily with unbiased thinking.
--Maulana Maududi
*************************************************************
One more for good measure...
Commentary by Zohurul Hoque and Husain Nuri...
3:3-4 The revelation of the Qur’ān was not complete at the time of revelation of this verse, yet Allāh chose to refer to the Qur’ān as kitāb or Book to imply in course of time it would be completed and compiled into a book. It was revealed with ‘truth’, a term that connects not only to its content, but also to its source, process of revelation, coherence and purpose.
As a rare of example of the Qur’ān’s worldview, it verifies the truth in earlier scriptures, particularly in the Tawrāt and the Injīl, vestiges of which are still available in the form of the Torah and the Bible. Although ‘Isā came to confirm Mūsā’s book Tawrāt (3:50; 5:46; 61:6), it must be remembered that the Old Testament is not necessarily the Torah used by the Jews. The Jewish interpretation of Torah has two sections, the Torah Shebiksav (the written Torah) and Torah Sheb’al Peh (the Oral Torah, that eventually was compiled into what is called Talmud). The written Torah has 24 books, only 5 of those books were revealed to Moses, various saints wrote the rest. (YO's Note: Both Deuteronomy and Leviticus are WITHIN those 5 books!!!!)
Similarly, popularly understood four Gospels in the New Testament are not the same Injīl (Evangel or Gospel) revealed by Allāh to ‘Isā. The original Injīl was invariably in Aramaic, the language spoken by Jesus. The precursor of the present day Bible was translated from the original Aramaic into Greek and later translated into English. The current Gospels contain remnants of original Injīl, but for all practical purpose, the original Injīl has long been lost. The scope of this commentary would not permit us to go into the details of early Christianity and compilation of the Bible. It must be understood that when the Qur’ān testifies the Tawrāt or the Injīl were guidance for mankind it is not referring to the present versions.
Ok. That's THREE Muslim commentaries...with NO Bible or Christian commentaries being used.
I rest my case.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 3/13/2011 9:43:42 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 3/13/2011 10:28 AM (GMT -6) | | Dude, don't even get me on the textual history of the Quran and the widespread unwillingness to face this issue by Muslims. When I hear Muslims downplay the OT and NT because of its textual history and then offer the Quran's own textual purity in contrast, it makes it impossible to take them seriously.
I sometimes ask Muslims who adopt this approach why they think a God who would permit his own WORD (in the Torat and Injil) to be lost and corrupted could be trusted to have preserved the Quran from the same fate? The only answer is, "Well, this is God's FINAL word, so it's GOT to be utterly preserved against loss and corruption." Riiiiiighht.
In fact, D, I'm close to giving up on the whole apologetic approach and instead just dealing with whatever existential angst and spiritual hunger a Muslim feels and confront that angst with the simple message of divine love in Christ..and just leave it there. Either the Spirit is doing her part to make the connections with the divine image in persons or she isn't. If she is, then the existential will be the best argument we can offer, and if she isn't, then all our attempts are a waste of time.
Tom
KIXYTΘEMTA | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/13/2011 12:23 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
Dude, don't even get me on the textual history of the Quran and the widespread unwillingness to face this issue by Muslims. When I hear Muslims downplay the OT and NT because of its textual history and then offer the Quran's own textual purity in contrast, it makes it impossible to take them seriously.
I sometimes ask Muslims who adopt this approach why they think a God who would permit his own WORD (in the Torat and Injil) to be lost and corrupted could be trusted to have preserved the Quran from the same fate? The only answer is, "Well, this is God's FINAL word, so it's GOT to be utterly preserved against loss and corruption." Riiiiiighht.
Boy, I see what you are saying! The unwillingness and defensiveness, at times, seems pretty impregnable. Sheesh!
********************************************
Tom:
In fact, D, I'm close to giving up on the whole apologetic approach and instead just dealing with whatever existential angst and spiritual hunger a Muslim feels and confront that angst with the simple message of divine love in Christ..and just leave it there. Either the Spirit is doing her part to make the connections with the divine image in persons or she isn't. If she is, then the existential will be the best argument we can offer, and if she isn't, then all our attempts are a waste of time.
I feel you, homie. At the same time, I ain't givin' up on THIS particular argument. If Muslims are going to try to be informed and intellectually honest with their own authorities, then they'd betta ante up, dangit! I mean, if some Muslims want to be ignorant and defensive (like Christians can get), they are welcome to that. But at LEAST some of these Muslims who want to debate Christians on some scholarly tip need to come clean on this one. I can't wait till I hit the University of St. Thomas Muslim-Christian Dialogue Center. I'm straight gonna be on this!
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/13/2011 4:13 PM (GMT -6) | | I can see the intractability of Muslim perspective...I think. For a person who is believes it that God is an absolute SINGULARITY of personal existence, ie God is ONE personal being...the idea of God being triune, one "person" of which supposedly becomes a finite, created being...would seem kind of...well...outright violation of the idea of God being an absolutely Alone, Transcendent, Unique Uncreated Personal being (God is One.)
This is probably why they react they way they do to anything that even smells like "shirk."
Dang.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 3/13/2011 4:25:04 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/13/2011 4:19 PM (GMT -6) | | But that's it. That's the question. And the ultimate difference.
Is the statement "God IS Love" true or not? Is God an act of self-giving, other-oriented communion...or an absolute monad?
To say that God is an absolute monad would mean that sans creation, God could never exist as consummate, complete LOVE. God would only be a eternal love-yearning being who could not experience truly giving or receiving LOVE without Creation. This would be just like the process view of God where God would NEED Creation to actualize some of who God is. God could not experience Godself as a loving, other-concerned being...without an "other." So the absolute monadic God could not be Love. Without Creation, God could only conceptualize and eternally "yearn" for experiencing Godself as "Lover" or "Compassionate One".
To say that God is a triune being via loving, self-giving, other-oriented self-relational activity of the One God, God the Father. This ONE Uncreated Triune Being COULD be love and an eternal act of self-giving, other-receiving communion absolutely grounded in the ONE GOD, God the Father. (Basically compatible with the Nicene Creed) The Uncreated "Tri-Hypostatic" Subject who CAN be an Eternal "Lover" and "Compassionate One" WITHOUT Creation!
Basically, is it true that God is "Alone, Unique, and Transcendent" in so far as God as personal "singularity" is the PERFECT, ETERNAL ACT OF "LOVING GOD and LOVING THE NEIGHBOR AS ONESELF"?
I'd say yes.
God is ONE...because Love is ONE...and UNCREATED.
So...is the statement "God IS Love" true or not?
That's the dead center issue I'm thinking.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 3/13/2011 4:39:40 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/13/2011 4:34 PM (GMT -6) | | | Whatcha think, y'all? I really do think this is the "deal-breaker" that we keep running into.
Tom, you're the resident Islam expert around here, dude. Whatcha think? Isn't this at least MOST of the problem...and the solution?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 3/13/2011 4:40:41 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/13/2011 4:45 PM (GMT -6) | | | Dayaaaaaam. That just hit me again. If God is NOT triune, then "Love" as an ACTUAL REALITY is directly related to Creation. God could not experience Godself as Loving One or Compassionate One without Creation. This would mean, in effect, that Love is NOT an uncreated, eternal reality because communion and intimacy in love is IMPOSSIBLE for an absolute Monad to experience.
Muslims would HAVE to say that God's self-experience experience of being the "All-Loving One", "All-Compassionate One" is ABSOLUTELY DEPENDENT upon Creation's existence and state. Therefore Love AS LOVE is not an uncreated, eternal reality. Like with process theists, there would be a functional necessary God-world relationship for God to fully be God.
DAAAAYYYYIM.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 3/13/2011 4:48:07 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/13/2011 5:04 PM (GMT -6) | | Just put this on a new thread....
---------------------------
Is" Love" an Eternal, Uncreated Reality?
I guess this is a pretty simple question with good philsophical ramifications.
Is "Love" (as a personal experience of communion, intimacy, and other-oriented benefaction) an eternal, uncreated reality?
What this means is this: Does "Love" as an existent, discrete reality need Creation to exist in order to be actual?
Conceptually, let's say that we "in" the pre-Creation, uncreated state of all reality. Where there is nothing but Allah.
Does Love exist "here"? If so, how? If not, why not?
Fire away, brothers and sisters. 
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 3/13/2011 6:32 PM (GMT -6) | | D: That just hit me again. If God is NOT triune, then "Love" as an ACTUAL REALITY is directly related to Creation. God could not experience Godself as Loving One or Compassionate One without Creation. This would mean, in effect, that Love is NOT an uncreated, eternal reality because communion and intimacy in love is IMPOSSIBLE for an absolute Monad to experience.
Tom: Yep. I was just going round and round with a unitarian over this. He doesn't see love or relationality as definitive of personhood. God is necessary a person because of the RWE factors. But God doesn't love or relate until God creates.
But the only place you'll find Muslims talking seriously about God as love is among the Sufis!
Tom
KIXYTΘEMTA | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/13/2011 10:46 PM (GMT -6) | | Yeah, the Sufis got it down. See Rabia Basri.
But check this out. From a Muslim brother on the other board...
---------------------------
Since the OP asked in an ISLAMIC forum whether love is eternal, uncreated, here's the answer with evidence:
Hadhrat Abu Hurairah (Radhi Allaho anho) related that the Holy Prophet (Sall Allaho alaihe wasallam) said: "Allah created mercy in one hundred parts and distributed to His creation only one part. Because of this one part, there is mutual love amongst creation, so much so that an animal will lift up its hoof from its young one, fearing that it might harm it. Allah has reserved the remaining ninety-nine parts of this mercy to favour His believing servants on the Day of Judgment. " (Bukhari and Muslim)
Remember that mercy encompasses love.
Not only that, how can anything be uncreated when the only uncreated is God.
I am actually very amused how christians make such a big deal of such limited emotion such as love.
And to say that love is uncreated!!!
What, do christians now worship love?
So worshipping a man who took toilet breaks is not enough for christians that they now worship love and think love is all that there is?
Unbelievable!
-----------------------------------------------
Ouch. Sheesh. We ARE trying to say that Love is uncreated. And we do worship Love (God) and think that all is of Love and full of Love.
Damn. We on some crazy different pages.
Isa help us!!! 
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 3/13/2011 11:01:06 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/17/2011 12:31 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom, real quick. Analyze this with your Islam-vision. I ain't talking the "folk Islam". I got that already. I'm talking the other type you mentioned.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus/Isa was a sinless human being from birth created directly by Allah's creative "word" to the Virgin Mary...and was a Servant, Prophet, and Messenger of God who perfectly conformed to the "Great Commandments" (ie variation of the Ten Commandments) as a "living example" of the reality within the "Mother of the Book", the "archetypal source" of Allah's revelations to humans (ie Quran, Torat, Injeel) that is in the Presence of Allah. Jesus was a "self-emptying" mystic who was constantly "filled" with Allah's Presence and Power (ala absolute trust in and love for Allah) and, thus, "embodied" Allah's Wisdom and Truth. In Sufic terms, Jesus was a completely human being in constant experience of "fanaa" and/or "baqaa" like unto Mansur Al-Hallaj.
Jesus's Message: Human beings are to express singular worship of and submission to the One God, Allah by a) thanksgiving, adoration and glorification given solely to Allah and b) works of loving-kindness and compassion to Allah's Creation (including the Family of Humanity). In this, we are also to consecrate ourselves and be holy, compassionate, merciful, and loving because Allah is holy, compassionate, merciful and loving.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anything set off any bells or whistles? Anything ringing of "Son of God" or "Trinity" in there?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 3/17/2011 12:35:50 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/17/2011 12:52 AM (GMT -6) | | | Another thought or idea. Graphic, really...
It is God's Will that we "love our neighbors as ourselves", that we "love one another."
[God's Will applies to believers from "self-denial" and "Love for God"]
Muslim believers (Jesus IS NOT Son of God) <-------------> Christian believers (Jesus IS Son of God)
Basically, it's the reasoning of "A Common Word Between Us and You". But for my taste, I prefer grounding the affair in the "Great Commandments" as taught by Jesus/Isa--the Proclaimer of God/Allah's Will--forms a higher unity that somehow "joins" the mutually exclusive beliefs of Islam and Christianity. You get to the same place. You just don't deal with TWO prophets anymore (Jesus and Muhammad), you only deal with ONE. (Jesus). Like I said before, it's a BONUS that there are hadiths were Muhammad is said to mention some form of "love for your neighbor what you would love for yourself." If honestly acknowledged and engaged by both sides, I think this would be tremendous for those who actually WANT to do interfaith dialogue with each other.
Makes sense?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/17/2011 1:03 AM (GMT -6) | | I also had this thought. And I know I've had it before...I think. Actually, more of a human analogy...for a different reality...maybe...maybe not...
God, the Word Speaker
The "Breath" of God
The "Spoken Word" of God
The Breath of the Speaker sustains and empowers the Spoken Word...even as the Spoken Word actualizes/fulfills the potential of the Breath...even as the Speaker is directly re-presented in his Spoken Word...even as his Spoken Word directly reveals the the Speaker.
It seems simple. All 3 aspects are needed for there to be an actual, singular "Word Speaker". The "triune experience" of physical vocalization of subjective truth.
Just a thought...
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 3/17/2011 1:06:27 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/23/2011 2:17 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
| 143 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 10:39 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|