"We are That"

[Ouroboros]

I mean that we Muslims do not anthropomorphise God. In the Quran, it clearly states, "there is none like Him".

Hang on. If you don't anthropomorphize, then why call God a "Him"?

Even the term Allah, which is often loosely translated to God does not actually mean God. It is the name of the deity worthy of our worship and the only true deity. The term Allah does not have a male or female version nor can it be plural. Speaking in terms of arabic of course.

Then it would be more accurate to say that God is an "It", not a "Him", right?

That's what I was pointing out, when you said Abrahamic faiths do such and such. There is a vast difference in the understanding and attributes of God between Christians/Jews and Muslims. Specifically with regards to Christians representing God as a man with a beard etc in their art work.

What's the difference saying that God is a "Him" vs a "Man"? "Him" is a reference to a male person, so by saying "there's none like Him" is to say that God is a man.

 

[LuisDantas]

it makes good sense to me.....
if you don't see the reasoning....the fault lays to you

Do you honestly think of that as a fault?

 

[Thief]

Hang on. If you don't anthropomorphize, then why call God a "Him"?


Then it would be more accurate to say that God is an "It", not a "Him", right?


What's the difference saying that God is a "Him" vs a "Man"? "Him" is a reference to a male person, so by saying "there's none like Him" is to say that God is a man.

how about?....may the Force be with you...

 

[Thief]

Do you honestly think of that as a fault?

yes...
if you can't (or won't) follow
then you can't....or won't

 

[LuisDantas]

You are SO wrong, Thief.

 

[Thief]

not at all....

 

[sun rise]

Anthropomorphizing does not necessarily have to be physical alone but can refer to human-type personality, such as happy, sad, thinking, angry, etc. Therefore, the point becomes how can we know if God has any of these attributes?

All uses of the word "God" tends to be a human projection of an image as you pointed out. In Vendanta and Islamic Sufi formulations there are "states of God" including God Beyond the Beyond, God the Beyond and so forth. When I read these formulations I'm left with a sense that to speak of God is to either speak of an aspect of God or to speak of the paradox of God's nature which is all attributes and no attributes.

 

[metis]

look to the effect.
science will do so readily
I see no 'cause' to refrain when discussing God.

I really don't know what you mean by that, especially the last line.

 

[Ouroboros]

how about?....may the Force be with you...

No need to wish that it may, since it already is......

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

Hang on. If you don't anthropomorphize, then why call God a "Him"?


Then it would be more accurate to say that God is an "It", not a "Him", right?


What's the difference saying that God is a "Him" vs a "Man"? "Him" is a reference to a male person, so by saying "there's none like Him" is to say that God is a man.

This is a misconception, you see, in the English language, the male is the dominant form, so when one translates from Arabic or any other language to English, the term He is used, with the capital letter at the front. This denotes a royal he (Same as "we", not plural, simply royal). To start using terms like "she" or "it" in this context, would denote some sort of gender or structure to Allah. A common example to help you understand (I assume english is not your first language) is the word "mankind", which does not refer only to men but the whole of humanity. It's just that in english, the male is the dominant form and used in this context, does not denote gender.

If you were to read the actual Arabic text and could understand Arabic, there is no gender or form attributed to Allah, hence the word itself, as I explained previously.

I hope that helps.

 

[Ouroboros]

This is a misconception, you see, in the English language, the male is the dominant form, so when one translates from Arabic or any other language to English, the term He is used, with the capital letter at the front. This denotes a royal he (Same as "we", not plural, simply royal). To start using terms like "she" or "it" in this context, would denote some sort of gender or structure to Allah. A common example to help you understand (I assume english is not your first language) is the word "mankind", which does not refer only to men but the whole of humanity. It's just that in english, the male is the dominant form and used in this context, does not denote gender.

Ok. But using a male signifier for royalty would mean that the Queen of England should be addressed as he and him as well.

Besides, thinking of God as "royal" is also a form of anthropomorphizing. The idea of royalty is a human concept and not applicable to non-entities.

If you were to read the actual Arabic text and could understand Arabic, there is no gender or form attributed to Allah, hence the word itself, as I explained previously.

I hope that helps.

Sure. But it's misleading to translate it to "him" in English since it suggests some form of anthropomorphizing. Referring to God as royal is also misleading. As soon as we start to talk about God in these terms, we are applying concepts of human affairs and social structure to the image of God.

Put it this way, a better translation would perhaps be "There's nothing greater than God" instead of "There's nothing greater than Him."

 

[Tomorrows_Child]

Ok. But using a male signifier for royalty would mean that the Queen of England should be addressed as he and him as well.

Besides, thinking of God as "royal" is also a form of anthropomorphizing. The idea of royalty is a human concept and not applicable to non-entities.


Sure. But it's misleading to translate it to "him" in English since it suggests some form of anthropomorphizing. Referring to God as royal is also misleading. As soon as we start to talk about God in these terms, we are applying concepts of human affairs and social structure to the image of God.

Put it this way, a better translation would perhaps be "There's nothing greater than God" instead of "There's nothing greater than Him."

It's not misleading, as I have already said, the royal He is with a capital but that's not the only point, the main point, which you seem to have ignored is that he or the masculine in general, is dominant in english. My example from before, "mankind". It refers to the whole of humanity, not just men. If you want to discuss this point further, it would not be a theological discussion but a literary one.

And referring to something as royal does not anthropomorphise it. I think you have a loose understanding of the term or in your own opinion, royalty is only for humans but the angels revere Allah more than any one or anything else, as do the trees, the animals, the mountains and so on. All creation is in reverence to Allah. Reverence and the idea of royalty may be human to you but in the theological sense it is not.

 

[Ouroboros]

It's not misleading, as I have already said, the royal He is with a capital but that's not the only point, the main point, which you seem to have ignored is that he or the masculine in general, is dominant in english. My example from before, "mankind". It refers to the whole of humanity, not just men. If you want to discuss this point further, it would not be a theological discussion but a literary one.

And referring to something as royal does not anthropomorphise it. I think you have a loose understanding of the term or in your own opinion, royalty is only for humans but the angels revere Allah more than any one or anything else, as do the trees, the animals, the mountains and so on. All creation is in reverence to Allah. Reverence and the idea of royalty may be human to you but in the theological sense it is not.

It still seems like it puts God as a being of some sorts, don't you think? How can you consider something a royalty unless it can respond to the reverence in form of communication, thoughts, insights, memory, and such?

 

[Thief]

I really don't know what you mean by that, especially the last line.

you can consider the artist by his handiwork.
define god, you ask?

look to the creation....if you want to know God

many people here at the forum refrain to seek God
they have no 'cause' to do so

 

[LuisDantas]

If there is no reason to seek something, then it is misleading to say that one is "refraining" from seeking it, don't you think?

Instead, one should say that there is no need nor logical reason to seek it.

 

[Thief]

and it is written.....
None so blind as those who do not see.

 

[metis]

you can consider the artist by his handiwork.
define god, you ask?

look to the creation....if you want to know God

many people here at the forum refrain to seek God
they have no 'cause' to do so

This is the approach taken by both Spinoza and Einstein, and I do find it logical, and I at least somewhat drift in that direction myself. However, the other side of me says that just because something exists doesn't mean that a deity had to make it.

 

[LuisDantas]

None so blind as those who do not see.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Ouroboros]

you can consider the artist by his handiwork.
define god, you ask?

look to the creation....if you want to know God

many people here at the forum refrain to seek God
they have no 'cause' to do so

The good thing is that you don't have to seek God since God is everywhere and we are part of God, so it's no seeking involved, only realization or awakening.

 

[Thief]

This is the approach taken by both Spinoza and Einstein, and I do find it logical, and I at least somewhat drift in that direction myself. However, the other side of me says that just because something exists doesn't mean that a deity had to make it.

with cause and effect in play...
you can 'see' the Creator in His handiwork.

there is far too much complexity in such great diversity to say there is no Intellect behind it.