Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
So you have a better grasp of all that than an All-Knowing God who created humans?
That is backwards; because God created humans, humans cannot create God.
God is transcendent.
God is useful for inspiration for most people in the world.
God does not have roles, only humans have roles.
God does not cause side-effects in human history. Humans cause those.
48 minutes of the Muslim perspective?
To learn about God, no less?
Sorry, but if I felt the urge to learn about God, that is exactly where I would not go to.
Thanks for the laugh.Your oxymoron is noted.
For one thing, he does not have a good grasp of either human nature nor of theology. Nor of religion, for that matter...
Perhaps ironically, it has particularly strong marks of being entirely human-made.
Of more interest to me personally, it is also quite divorced from the main constructive roles that a deity could have: it does not understand transcendence, and it is only barely useful for inspiration, and even then with the most destructive side-effects known in human history.
Uh, no, they are not.Whether you believe what Muslims teach or not, their beliefs are logical.
Ugh, no. What a thought.Seems to me that ALL religion seeks to tame and manage "human nature" out of necessity.
Uh, no, they are not.
They do not even try, really.
Ugh, no. What a thought.
Not that this has anything to do with what I said, mind you. Being of human origin is hardly a flaw in religion, although many people try to convince themselves otherwise.
Who is God married to in heaven so he could have a son in heaven??
No big feat to know MORE than the Qur'an, which is the Word of God?How could anyone know?
I do however know that I have a better grasp of those matters than Islaam, as defined by the Qur'an, does.
It is no big feat, either. I just noticed the parts that are ill informed, unrealistic or contradictory and applied a bit of reason and logic to them.
Anyone can do it if he has access to the text , has even basic awareness of the involved subjects, and has attained a modicum of honesty.
What I meant is that humans cannot LITERALLY create a God or gods...Saying that does not really tell much, if anything. You may want to elaborate or comment to clarify what you mean.
After all, humans have created literally thousands of deities. Muslims and Bahais, of all people, should know that and realize that such a fact is unremarkable.
Whether, why and how Allah from the Qur'an would be any different is something that should be demonstrated. And it has - in the negative, as most ex-Muslims will readily tell you.
It is very interesting and remarkable how former Muslims, perhaps more than any other group, usually turn fed up with both theism and religion entirely. No wonder, either, given what they have been taught to acknowledge as if it were religion and what god-concept they have been told to treat as the one and only.
No, so logical, to anyone who knows about the One True God and how He operates.Muslims do not believe that their religion is the "one and only" although they do believe that their conception of God, the little they are able to know about God, is accurate, as described in the Qur'an. Moreover, they believe that there is only One True God. That is similar to the Baha'i beliefs.
So twisted, so naive.
I do however know that I have a better grasp of those matters than Islaam, as defined by the Qur'an, does.
Maybe, but at the same time most Baha'is would want to be understood as saying that they do in fact believe in the divinity of Christ (from page 67 of this book here):...Baha'is do not believe in the Divinity of Christ....
Bahá’u’lláh Supports Jesus’ Claim to Be God
Bahá’u’lláh refers to Christ as ...Lord of the visible and the invisible... (Gl, p 56) and...the Lord of all being... (ESW, p 100).
Sure he did (from page 64 of this book here)::....Jesus was not God. Jesus never claimed to be God....
--and he also said he was not God:I. Jesus was God.
A. He who has seen Me has seen the Father. (John 14:9)
B. I and My Father are one. (John 10:30)
C. I am He (the Father). (John 13:19)
D. I am in the Father and the Father in Me. (John 14:11)
E. And he who sees Me sees Him who sent Me. (John 12:45)
A. No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who Is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared him. (John 1: 18)
B. I am going to the Father, for My Father is greater than I. (John 14:28)
C. I can of Mine own self do nothing...not My own will, but the will of the Father which
has sent Me. (John 5:30)
D. I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things. (John 8:28)
E. But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son,
but the Father only. (Matt 24:36) (If Jesus was God, Incarnate, He would know all God knows.)
F. And when He had sent them away, He departed into a mountain to pray. (Mk 6:46) (Does Jesus pray to Himself?)
G. My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me? (Mk 15:34)
Jesus was deity manifested in a human body, but He was not deity incarnated in a human body.Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
Tsk tsk...
First of all, it would be correct to say that Jesus is deity incarnated in a human body. He is not "man" in the complete species sense of the intended meaning of that scripture.
As that video noted, one can use the scriptures to MEAN anything they want them to mean, but they have to be taken in their full context and in context with all the other scriptures in the Bible.Fast forward to the Book of Daniel, which was written at a time when the “son of man” phrase had a specific and known meaning. In the context of Daniel 7:13, where one "like a son of man" comes to the Ancient of Days (Almighty God) and is given dominion and sovereign power and universal worship of the sort that God alone possesses, the significance of Jesus' "son of man" usage cannot be overstated. It is functionally equivalent to saying that the one like a son of man is rightful heir and successor to the divine throne. "Son of man" is essentially the same as "Son of God" in this context. And if the person in Daniel 7:13-14 is only someone “like” a son of man, then it certainly implies there must be some differences. Otherwise it would say something like, “A son of man” came before the Ancient of Days.”
The nature of God is unchanging so God does not just suddenly wake up one day and decide to become a man. Moreover, there is absolutely no reason why God would want to become a man or need to become a man.In addition, at the time Numbers 23:19 was written, God had not yet become man (Christ), so the statement does not necessarily preclude a future incarnation.
imho that's an elegant way of putting it, and my bet is that most folks will either accept reality and agree or will disagree so as to chose conflict.Jesus was deity manifested in a human body, but He was not deity incarnated in a human body...
Jesus was never God. That was all a man-made doctrine of the Church. Jesus never claimed to be God. He claimed to be like God or One with God but that does not mean He was God in the flesh. The Bible says that God is Spirit so we know that God is not flesh.“Jesus said that God was greater than He was:”
Jesus was God before he incarnated as a servant (Philippians 2). So Jesus was speaking of the Father in comparison to his temporary servant status. Thus, your example is of no avail.
No, clearly Jesus is differentiating Himself from God in this verse by saying that the only one who is good is God. Otherwise, Jesus would have said: “And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but me, that is, God.”Mark 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
Jesus is asking a rhetorical question. And the answer is that because Jesus is God, then he is good. In fact, Jesus was without sin, because he was incarnated by God, the Holy Spirit.
Sorry, I did not see anything there that says that Jesus was God.Maybe, but at the same time most Baha'is would want to be understood as saying that they do in fact believe in the divinity of Christ (from page 67 of this book here):Sure he did (from page 64 of this book here):
Sorry, but Jesus could not be BOTH God and not God, because those are logically contradictory.--and he also said he was not God:
I disagree. I don’t think that Paul misrepresented who Jesus was.Clearly, Paul and the Church had an agenda, and they misrepresented who Jesus was.
I’m a Baha’i, and I believe in the divinity of Christ.Baha'is do not believe in the Divinity of Christ.