or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Bible --- Too liberal For Some
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Bible --- Too liberal For Some - Page 8

post #281 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

...

Sura 14:4.

I think this is illustrating the problem of trying to squeeze [R]evelation into Aristotelian forms -- or using Scripture to manufacture propositional truth. It can't be done completely, the forms and chain of being are not powerful enough to encompass God's eternal council.

Systematic theology is fine, but it isn't an end unto itself. Man doesn't live by bread alone, but by every Word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #282 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

I think this is illustrating the problem of trying to squeeze [R]evelation into Aristotelian forms -- or using Scripture to manufacture propositional truth. It can't be done completely, the forms and chain of being are not powerful enough to encompass God's eternal council.

Systematic theology is fine, but it isn't an end unto itself. Man doesn't live by bread alone, but by every Word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.

Que?

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #283 of 346
Wow, the conversation took a truly interesting turn while I was away... I am trying to decide where to jump back in at this point. However a couple of things.

NightCrawler, you have a very interesting POV. I liked this line very much while not fully agreeing with it:

Quote:
That's the mistake you make, God's pov is not from outside the universe, it is both from outside and inside from within every atom, small or big, everything matters. Life and death itself don't matter that much from God's pov, since He created everything and He will recreate everything anyhow, ie. nothing gets lost, energy gets preserved... what matters is the spirit, the intention, the will, the faith and what fruits they bear.

Life does matter to God, but the life that matters most is not the physical one we are all so fond of, it is the Spirit he is concerned with.

segovious:
Quote:
I don't believe that there is more than one existence in the Universe. Things need labels for humans to function but that's as far as it goes...they are not necessary and beyond a certain point they are wrong.

Example: a labrador is a dog. A collie is a dog. they are different on that level. But on the level of dogs they are the same. Both dogs.

Different to cats. But on the level of animals cats and dogs are the same - both animals. But different to rocks. But on the level of 'created things' both the same...and on and on.

In the end at the top of the ladder there is only one group of things. This is what I would call God; the totality.

So by your belief we are all God. We are all good and we are all evil. You and I are just a smaller part of a larger interconnected whole. In the grand scheme of things, not at all important to God, and we should not ascribe to ourselves any importance. Correct?

If so, I disagree with much of that. Not all, but the entire spirit of the argument strikes me as very wrong.

Quote:
Belief in an objective evil that is separate from God is clearly denying the unity of creation (as above) and is also ascribing power to something other than God. shirkis in no way restricted to just worship in the conventional sense...worship is an extension as in the sense a Satanist might worship Satan.

Belief that God is evil would be poorly founded.
Evil as defined by Merriam Webster Dictionary:
1 a : morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked <an evil impulse>

Whereas from the scriptures:
http://niv.scripturetext.com/james/1.htm
13When tempted, no one should say, God is tempting me. For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. 15Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.
16Dont be deceived, my dear brothers. 17Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. 18He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created.

Which goes back to free will. You are responsible for your own actions. The devil did not make you do it, neither did God.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #284 of 346
God wouldn't get nailed for "tempting", but he certainly would be held accountable for "conspiracy to commit tempting". Is it really all that much better?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #285 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Que?


Bascially, from what position would you be able to study objectively your Europeanism? How could you objectively leave behind centuries of latent scholasticism, etc.? Even the very terms high, low, etc., the assumption that God is "out" or "in" mean something different for you, a European, than it would to an Indian.

We are all trying to systematize God, good, bad, etc. in a system that "makes sense" -- but what "makes sense" is very culturally centered/biased. And that bias is hardly chiseled in stone, it varies wildly, East to West, North to South.

Hence the danger of "nailing" God by our mad intellectual skills and plausibility structures -- we can only go so far with the tools we have. You have a recitation/revelation that you believe, I have mine; ultimately those spoken words can't be bent to our whim and whimsy. The answer given to Job (somewhat similar in the case of Ayoub) is ultimately the answer we all have to accept.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #286 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

God wouldn't get nailed for "tempting", but he certainly would be held accountable for "conspiracy to commit tempting". Is it really all that much better?

Conspiracy to commit tempting? How so? By being the one who created the tempter? Or are you saying that he is enabling the tempting in some form?
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #287 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Conspiracy to commit tempting? How so? By being the one who created the tempter? Or are you saying that he is enabling the tempting in some form?

Premise: God is all knowing.

Proposed situation: God created the tempter.

Logical Conclusion: God knows what would happen as a result of creating the tempter. If you somehow ignore all the logical flaws and the contradiction of an all knowing god and free will, God at least knows what the tempter is trying to make the person do. Thus, best case scenario: entrapment. Worst case: conspiracy.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #288 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

The question of the possible existence of a higher power needs to be separated from known religions imo.

Basically they were attempts to address the questions and they succeeded in the main - for their time.

However thousands of years have passed and we need to evolve new mechanisms. We haven't yet and are relying on these outdated frameworks.

That's the problem, not religion per se.

Exactly. I'm a de facto Atheist but I have no issue with the idea of a higher power. I just want to be able to scrutinize it without having my very morality questioned.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #289 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Premise: God is all knowing.

Proposed situation: God created the tempter.

Logical Conclusion: God knows what would happen as a result of creating the tempter. If you somehow ignore all the logical flaws and the contradiction of an all knowing god and free will, God at least knows what the tempter is trying to make the person do. Thus, best case scenario: entrapment. Worst case: conspiracy.

I can see where your logic is coming from. I actually expected a slightly different answer, but this one is actually better than the one I expected. Motive is where this gets hung up, and I cannot speak to that as I don't have the "batphone" to God fully wired in. The only answer I can give would likely not assist much for your scenario.

God created angels. Some angels decided they wanted to take God's place and in that scenario they were cast out of heaven. I believe that this happened after the creation of earth and man as they were cast down to earth. I also believe that this was after the temptation in the garden. I believe that while man has a relationship with God that we have yet to fully understand there is another story going on between God and the fallen angels. We are not fully aware of that story but they are somehow intertwined. (There are interesting stories I have read, fictional accounts, of how this may be happening. But none that I fully put stock in.)

I believe that God could create a being that fully loved him and never doubted his love for them. This is where things go sideways with all conversations/arguments. If he could, why didn't he? Is it because he was bored and wanted a spectacle to occupy him for a time? Was it to teach those angels a lesson for going against him? Or was it to teach a child about the love that he has for it no matter what? I believe it is the last one.

That however does not explain why he "needed" to create something to teach it anything. That part I have not worked out either. Perhaps creation is part of the nature of God and it is something he does like breathing. That may be part of the big picture that I do not even come close to fully comprehending.

Like I said, this likely does not answer your charge at all, nor does it likely answer any questions, but it makes for interesting, albeit mostly fruitless, discussion. I just don't think this part of the question is that important to the overall big picture. It is likely not much of this is but I do feel that I understand your position much better after this and your last post. It is a hard question to answer, and I am not the one to do it with any surety.

Peace.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #290 of 346
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

God created angels. Some angels decided they wanted to take God's place and in that scenario they were cast out of heaven.

So the original creation was flawed, showing the imperfection of God? Does the additional fact that he couldn't lead (control) his own creations back into good also show weakness? If a parent can't control his child, should he cast him out?

Or is all of this just part of a story to help us try to understand something... a fable, of sorts, not to be taken literally?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #291 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

So the original creation was flawed, showing the imperfection of God? Does the additional fact that he couldn't lead (control) his own creations back into good also show weakness? If a parent can't control his child, should he cast him out?

Or is all of this just part of a story to help us try to understand something... a fable, of sorts, not to be taken literally?

If the child were merely acting out then I would say no. This child was attempting to take it all by warfare. The story has 1/3 of all the angels in heaven joining up against God. The leader was described as the most beautiful of all the angels, the angel of worship. This is one reason I don't buy the pictures of Satan as being distorted and ugly.

As I have said, there is more to the story than we are privy to here. Is it possible that the story we have is incomplete with regards to the fall of Satan and his armies? Sure. Is it just a made up fable? I don't think so. But that is one mans opinion. How critical is it to the overall equation. That will be seen. Someday.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #292 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Wow, the conversation took a truly interesting turn while I was away...

You said it. It's been a busy weekend for me and I've also been fighting a persistent cough.

I'll get back to the normal routine tomorrow. BR, I haven't forgotten your question.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #293 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

If the child were merely acting out then I would say no. This child was attempting to take it all by warfare. The story has 1/3 of all the angels in heaven joining up against God. The leader was described as the most beautiful of all the angels, the angel of worship. This is one reason I don't buy the pictures of Satan as being distorted and ugly.

As I have said, there is more to the story than we are privy to here. Is it possible that the story we have is incomplete with regards to the fall of Satan and his armies? Sure. Is it just a made up fable? I don't think so. But that is one mans opinion. How critical is it to the overall equation. That will be seen. Someday.

Did you just say that the angel of worship was the one who was diametrically opposed to God and everything God stands for?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #294 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Did you just say that the angel of worship was the one who was diametrically opposed to God and everything God stands for?

You never heard that part?
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #295 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

You never heard that part?

I knew Lucifer was an important angel in the story...didn't know it went quite that far. Doesn't that seem rather interesting though? The angel of worship was opposed to what God stood for? Ever consider the possibility that that might be a very important metaphor?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #296 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I knew Lucifer was an important angel in the story...didn't know it went quite that far. Doesn't that seem rather interesting though? The angel of worship was opposed to what God stood for? Ever consider the possibility that that might be a very important metaphor?

Well, the issue is not that Lucifer opposes what God stands for. The issue is that Lucifer wants to be God. That is the sin that was his downfall. Trying to take Gods place.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #297 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Well, the issue is not that Lucifer opposes what God stands for. The issue is that Lucifer wants to be God. That is the sin that was his downfall. Trying to take Gods place.

Right, I know that part, but I still think it's fair to say that he does oppose what God stands for.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #298 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Well, the issue is not that Lucifer opposes what God stands for. The issue is that Lucifer wants to be God. That is the sin that was his downfall. Trying to take Gods place.

Just out of interest, where do you derive this belief from? I think you should analyze where they come from, how much comes from the Bible and how much is from elsewhere...

For example: there is no Biblical - Old or New Testament - statement anywhere that Satan resides in Hell. This belief derives exclusively from literature - Dante and Milton in particular. The Bible, on the contrary often describes Satan as being in heaven and having access to God as you yourself admitted earlier in the thread.

The 'War in Heaven' to which you refer above (Satan's fall) occurs ONLY in the Revelation of John and every scholar and a large amount of the more rational theologians, concurs that as the whole of Revelation is a future prophecy of the end of the world then this is also. Christians - typically - have interpreted this part of a future prophecy as referring to the past.

More importantly, as the Christian view of Satan derives originally and principally from Hebrew Scripture then it is to Hebrew Scripture which one must turn for the original view of Satan which is the basis of the Christian view. Not surprisingly, the original Judaic view is very different and has been significantly altered with no reason or basis whatsoever - other than perhaps superstition and folk belief.

Quote:
In the book of Job, ha-satan is the title of an angel submitted to God; he is the divine court's chief prosecutor. In Judaism ha-satan does not make evil, rather points out to God the evil inclinations and actions of humankind. In essence ha-satan has no power unless humans do evil things. After God points out Job's piety, ha-satan asks for permission to test the faith of Job.

In the Torah, satan is mentioned only twice, both times in the Balaam's ass story which is in Numbers 22. The Angel of the LORD is identified as an adversary or a physical block to Balaam's journey in Numbers 22:22. Later in Numbers 22:32 the Angel of the LORD specifically identifies himself by claiming to be like an adversary, again using the term satan.

In the book of 1 Chronicles 21:1, satan incites David to an unlawful census.

In fact, the Book of Isaiah, Job, Ecclesiastes, and Deuteronomy all have passages in which God is credited for exercising sovereign control over both good and evil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan

The serpent in the garden of Eden is nowhere claimed to be Satan - and in fact in this story it is God who lies and the Serpent that tells the truth. God lies and tells Adam and Eve that if they eat of the tree they will die - they will not as it happens and the Serpent tells them this.

More: there are numerous names in the Bible that Christians equate - and sometimes translate as 'Lucifer' or 'Satan' but the problem is that all these names refer to different things; Azazel, Belial, Rex Mundi, the Dragon, Beelzebub, Prince of this World.

Quote:
Originally, only the epithet of "the satan" ("the adversary") was used to denote the character in the Hebrew deity's court that later became known as "the Devil." (The term "satan" was also used to designate human enemies of the Hebrews that Yahweh raised against them.) The article was lost and this title became a proper name: Satan. There is no unambiguous reference to the Devil in the Torah, the Prophets, or the Writings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christi...bout_the_Devil

Actually, the name Lucifer means 'Morning Star' and applies to the star Venus. Early Babylonian thought held that stars were alive...the name was thus applied to the Babylonian King (who clearly cannot also be Lucifer):

Quote:
When the Bible was translated into Latin (the Vulgate), the name Lucifer appeared as a translation of "Morning Star", or the planet Venus, in Isaiah 14:12. Isaiah 14:1-23 is a passage largely concerned with the plight of Babylon, and its king is referred to as "morning star, son of the dawn". This is because the Babylonian king was considered to be of godly status and of symbolic divine parentage (Bel and Ishtar, associated with the planet Venus).

While this information is available to scholars today via translated Babylonian cuneiform text taken from clay tablets, it was not as readily available at the time of the Latin translation of the Bible. Thus, early Christian tradition interpreted the passage as a reference to the moment Satan was thrown from Heaven. Lucifer became another name for Satan and has remained so due to Christian dogma and popular tradition.

So clearly from above, the association with Satan's rebellion is all a misinterpretation!

In order to prove this further, Jesus himself is also called Lucifer in the New Testament....

Quote:
I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star

Revelation 22:16

This term 'morning star' is exactly the same word used in Isaiah for Lucifer (well, not for Lucifer as I said above - but that's how Christians translate it):

Quote:
How you have fallen from heaven,O morning star, son of the dawn!,You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!

Isaiah 14:12

And again in 2 Peter 1:19:

Quote:
And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

In short, Lucifer became associated with the 'Devil' due to Christian folkloric traditions and this occurred after Jerome's Vulgate translation in the 4th century.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #299 of 346
Very interesting read there Sego. Quite enlightening actually. Hehe I made a pun.

Though to be fair, wasn't the interpretation of the creation myth that Adam & Eve would have lived forever had it not been for eating the apple? Technically, if that is the case, then in the myth God didn't tell a lie. He was willfully misleading for certain, but maybe not an outright liar there. Of course, either way it's pretty shady.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #300 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Very interesting read there Sego. Quite enlightening actually. Hehe I made a pun.

Though to be fair, wasn't the interpretation of the creation myth that Adam & Eve would have lived forever had it not been for eating the apple? Technically, if that is the case, then in the myth God didn't tell a lie. He was willfully misleading for certain, but maybe not an outright liar there. Of course, either way it's pretty shady.

I think the punishment for eating it was death so in a way it was true I guess - but it was God who was dishing out the punishment so it's what we're talking about re Good and Evil and God's involvement again!

Actually the passage in question is quite interesting:

Quote:
Now the serpent was craftier than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?" The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it , or you will die'."

"You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasant to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Genesis 3:1-6.

Clearly the Serpent is associated with other creatures God has made - it does not say he is Satan or anything other than a wise animal.

And also when they eat the fruit they know what 'good and evil' are - just like God does.

So although 'Evil' does not exist in the Garden then neither does 'Good' - but they do exist elsewhere because God knows about them...and humans have become 'like God' by eating it...which cannot be a bad thing no? Or is God in a bad situation himself?

Is humanity somehow God's attempt to save Himself?
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #301 of 346
Yeah, reading that myth objectively, I don't see how the hell God looks like the good guy in all of that.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #302 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

I don't believe that there is more than one existence in the Universe. Things need labels for humans to function but that's as far as it goes...they are not necessary and beyond a certain point they are wrong.

Example: a labrador is a dog. A collie is a dog. they are different on that level. But on the level of dogs they are the same. Both dogs.

Different to cats. But on the level of animals cats and dogs are the same - both animals. But different to rocks. But on the level of 'created things' both the same...and on and on.

In the end at the top of the ladder there is only one group of things. This is what I would call God; the totality.

I agree that created things share the trait that they are created by God, but that doesn't deny that they really exist as separate life forms with their own experiences and life.



Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Actually it would mean that in the Islamic sense.

From Wikl:

"In a theological context one commits shirk by associating some lesser being with Allah. This sin is committed if one imagines that there is some other spirit than Allah whom it is suitable to worship. Many Islamic theologians extend the sense of worship to include praying to some other being to intercede with Allah on one's behalf, rather than taking one's case to God Himself..."

Eh, you do realize that you quoted something in favour of my point, do you?



Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Belief in an objective evil that is separate from God is clearly denying the unity of creation (as above) and is also ascribing power to something other than God. shirkis in no way restricted to just worship in the conventional sense...worship is an extension as in the sense a Satanist might worship Satan.

I think we are talking beside each other: I don't think that evil is some power, much less a being, it is merely the description of an inner decision to go against God's message. Killing, stealing, having sex is not evil in itself, someone can kill in emergency situations as a way to protect oneself or the loved ones from a lethal threat, people that are hungry and find no other way can steal to survive, men and women can have sex if it is consentual and within socially accepted frameworks...

the same deeds though can be evil if the intention is a different one, then killing becomes murdering, stealing robbering and having sex raping.

Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

That just destroyed your argument. Nothing has power other than God...the ascribing power to something is what shirk essentially is. Ditto with ascribing 'evil' powers to Satan.

Like I said, I don't think that evil is some power, it is merely a description of an intention. Since everyone is created by God and dependent on the support of God to exist, nothing has power to confound God.




Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

God himself directs these actions according to the Qur'an:



Sura 14:4.

You have to read deeper, sure guidance and leading astray by God happens, but only after the free will decision by us humans to follow either way. That's what revelation is all about, to accept God's message, to believe and then as a reward to receive guidance or to reject God's message, to disbelieve and to decide to fight against God and His messenger and as a reward to receive being led astray.

Even those that are on one or the other path have always the free will to break apart from it, the one being led astray can always feel remorse and ask God for forgivance and if truthfully will be accepted and receive forgivance and guidance. The one being guided by God can always fall out of it by deciding with his free will to disbelieve. It's like sitting in a train, yes it is on rails, but you can exit the train and board another one leading elsewhere.

This is illustrated in the same sura 14 a bit later:


Quote:
[14:22] And the devil will say, after the judgment had been issued, "GOD has promised you the truthful promise, and I promised you, but I broke my promise. I had no power over you; I simply invited you, and you accepted my invitation. Therefore, do not blame me, and blame only yourselves. My complaining cannot help you, nor can your complaining help me. I have disbelieved in your idolizing me. The transgressors have incurred a painful retribution."

[14:23] As for those who believe and lead a righteous life, they will be admitted into gardens with flowing streams. They abide therein forever, in accordance with the will of their Lord. Their greeting therein is: "Peace."

[14:24] Do you not see that GOD has cited the example of the good word as a good tree whose root is firmly fixed, and its branches are high in the sky?

[14:25] It produces its crop every season, as designed by its Lord. GOD thus cites the examples for the people, that they may take heed.

[14:26] And the example of the bad word is that of a bad tree chopped at the soil level; it has no roots to keep it standing.

[14:27] GOD strengthens those who believe with the proven word, in this life and in the Hereafter. And GOD sends the transgressors astray. Everything is in accordance with GOD's will.

[14:28] Have you noted those who responded to GOD's blessings by disbelieving, and thus brought disaster upon their own families?

[14:29] Hell is their destiny, wherein they burn; what a miserable end!

[14:30] They set up rivals to rank with GOD and to divert others from His path. Say, "Enjoy for awhile; your final destiny is Hell."

Nightcrawler
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #303 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post

I agree that created things share the trait that they are created by God, but that doesn't deny that they really exist as separate life forms with their own experiences and life.

It doesn't necessarily but some schools of philosophy such as those of Wahdat al-Wujud argue that it does from sound Islamic principles.

I agree with this school. Tellingly, the main people who disagree are literalists, Islamists, Saudi Salafis and Wahabis.

That should tell someone something.

Quote:
Eh, you do realize that you quoted something in favour of my point, do you?

No.

Maybe you should contemplate it a bit more. Or read al-Ghazzali or something.

Quote:
I think we are talking beside each other: I don't think that evil is some power, much less a being, it is merely the description of an inner decision to go against God's message. Killing, stealing, having sex is not evil in itself, someone can kill in emergency situations as a way to protect oneself or the loved ones from a lethal threat, people that are hungry and find no other way can steal to survive, men and women can have sex if it is consentual and within socially accepted frameworks...

Good, so we are getting somewhere...evil does not exist in itself.

Now we need to deal with why people do things and the degree they do things out of free will or otherwise.

Quote:
the same deeds though can be evil if the intention is a different one, then killing becomes murdering, stealing robbering and having sex raping.

I would say rather that they then become crimes - but I get your point.

Quote:
Like I said, I don't think that evil is some power, it is merely a description of an intention. Since everyone is created by God and dependent on the support of God to exist, nothing has power to confound God.

Can't argue with that..

But really you cannot compare the figure of Satan or even evil in Islam with the counterparts in Christianity.

For a start, Satan is a jinn in Islam not an angel and as such, is capable (potentially) of redemption as jinn clearly can become believers.

On another point, Satan's sin in Islam is refusing to bow to Adam - not leading a rebellion. But in this he has shown himself - and is regarded by many Islamic philosophical schools - as the true monotheist: refusing to worship anything other than God even if God commands him to. So in many ways, Satan is not 'evil' at all...in some ways he is actually 'good'.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #304 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

...

For example: there is no Biblical - Old or New Testament - statement anywhere that Satan resides in Hell. This belief derives exclusively from literature - Dante and Milton in particular. The Bible, on the contrary often describes Satan as being in heaven and having access to God as you yourself admitted earlier in the thread.

...

So clearly from above, the association with Satan's rebellion is all a misinterpretation!

In order to prove this further, Jesus himself is also called Lucifer in the New Testament....

...

I need to clarify some of that -- Satan is identified as the original tempter by Christ (once) and Paul (several times.) The use of Serpent is used interchangeably with "Satan" in Revelation.

Quote:
Jhn 8:44\t \tYe are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Quote:
Rev 12:9\t \tAnd the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

As to residing in hell, there are references to casting the angels down to Tartarus in Peter and Jude. Also, Christ remarks that He "saw Satan fall from heaven" in Luke. But at the same time he has access, like you noted, to the God the Father (from Job). Although at some point he will be bound in hell -- Christ says for certain that the "Prince of this world has been cast out."



From Vine's:

Quote:
Satan:

a Greek form derived from the Aramaic (Heb., Satan), "an adversary," is used
(a) of an angel of Jehovah in Num 22:22 (the first occurrence of the Word in the OT);

(b) of men, e.g., 1Sa 29:4; Psa 38:20; 71:13; four in Ps. 109;

(c) of "Satan," the Devil, some seventeen or eighteen times in the OT; in Zec 3:1, where the name receives its interpretation, "to be (his) adversary," RV (see marg.; AV, "to resist him").

In the NT the word is always used of "Satan," the adversary

(a) of God and Christ, e.g., Mat 4:10; 12:26; Mar 1:13; 3:23, 26; 4:15; Luk 4:8 (in some mss.); 11:18; 22:3; Jhn 13:27;

(b) of His people, e.g., Luk 22:31; Act 5:3; Rom 16:20; 1Cr 5:5; 7:5; 2Cr 2:11; 11:14; 12:7; 1Th 2:18; 1Ti 1:20; 5:15; Rev 2:9, 13 (twice), 24; 3:9;

(c) of mankind, Luk 13:16; Act 26:18; 2Th 2:9; Rev 12:9; 20:7.

His doom, sealed at the Cross is foretold in its stages in Luk 10:18; Rev 20:2, 10. Believers are assured of victory over him, Rom 16:20.

The appellation was given by the Lord to Peter, as a "Satan-like" man, on the occasion when he endeavored to dissuade Him from death, Mat 16:23; Mar 8:33.

"Satan" is not simply the personification of evil influences in the heart, for he tempted Christ, in whose heart no evil thought could ever have arisen (Jhn 14:30, 2Cr 5:21; Hbr 4:15); moreover his personality is asserted in both the OT and the NT, and especially in the latter, whereas if the OT language was intended to be figurative, the NT would have made this evident.
See DEVIL.




It's good to draw the distinction about the morning star business -- too many Christians simply don't read their Bibles -- but then why read it when you have Veggie Tales videos?

Also, let's not forget that a "timeline" of satan's career is probably another case of us imposing a linear understanding of time back upon the text -- attempting to systematize where it isn't helpful.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #305 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

It doesn't necessarily but some schools of philosophy such as those of Wahdat al-Wujud argue that it does from sound Islamic principles.

I agree with this school. Tellingly, the main people who disagree are literalists, Islamists, Saudi Salafis and Wahabis.

That should tell someone something.

I can see how that school of thought came to its conclusion, but I disagree: Only because created life can not exist without God's will doesn't mean that it is not real. In fact I think that because God created it it is real.

And as to the matter who disagrees with wahdat al wujud, both sufis and salafis disagree with it for different reasons.

Personally I'm more a salafi than a sufi by the way.


Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

No.

Maybe you should contemplate it a bit more. Or read al-Ghazzali or something.

"In a theological context one commits shirk by associating some lesser being with Allah. This sin is committed if one imagines that there is some other spirit than Allah whom it is suitable to worship. Many Islamic theologians extend the sense of worship to include praying to some other being to intercede with Allah on one's behalf, rather than taking one's case to God Himself..."

The sin is not the belief of the existence of these lesser beings but by thinking they are suitable for worship and thinking they have interceding means with God.



Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

But really you cannot compare the figure of Satan or even evil in Islam with the counterparts in Christianity.

For a start, Satan is a jinn in Islam not an angel and as such, is capable (potentially) of redemption as jinn clearly can become believers.

What Iblis is and what jinns are and angels is not that clear-cut in the Quran as one might think. It may well be that Iblis was an angel and became a jinn, maybe jinns are a special group of angels or that jinns are fallen angels or that jinns are the descendants of Iblis after his fall...


Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

On another point, Satan's sin in Islam is refusing to bow to Adam - not leading a rebellion. But in this he has shown himself - and is regarded by many Islamic philosophical schools - as the true monotheist: refusing to worship anything other than God even if God commands him to. So in many ways, Satan is not 'evil' at all...in some ways he is actually 'good'.

Iblis was not evil, but he grew in himself a hatred against the newcomer, the human, he became jealous and that was his fall. To reveal this hatred for all, God called the angels to bow before His new creation, after He proved to the angels, that the human was capable to learn and know more than they could, all bowed down, only Iblis did not and said:
Quote:
[38:76] He said, "I am better than he; You created me from fire, and created him from clay."

So it was not the love for God, a radical monotheism or something, it was pride and jealousy that prevented him from obeying.

Nightcrawler
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #306 of 346
Drive by time?

Phrase The Soared!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #307 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Just out of interest, where do you derive this belief from? I think you should analyze where they come from, how much comes from the Bible and how much is from elsewhere...

Actually that is a good question.

Many people use Ezekiel 28 as one set of passages to put forth this view.

I have been doing a lot of research in the past couple of days and 2 pages I have found with differing translations and interpretations are:
http://www.whatthebibleteaches.com/wbt_510.htm
This page puts forth the assertion that Lucifer is associated with the King of Tyre. He is not hte King himself, but is the principality or power behind the scenes. Much like the Price of Persia mentioned in Daniel.

http://assemblyoftrueisrael.com/Docu...ingoftyre.html
This page puts forth a view that the original texts were mis-interpreted, possibly on purpose, to create a connection that does not exist.

Quote:
For example: there is no Biblical - Old or New Testament - statement anywhere that Satan resides in Hell. This belief derives exclusively from literature - Dante and Milton in particular. The Bible, on the contrary often describes Satan as being in heaven and having access to God as you yourself admitted earlier in the thread.

I have never stated that Lucifer resides in Hell. I don't even recall mentioning Hell at all.

Quote:
The 'War in Heaven' to which you refer above (Satan's fall) occurs ONLY in the Revelation of John and every scholar and a large amount of the more rational theologians, concurs that as the whole of Revelation is a future prophecy of the end of the world then this is also. Christians - typically - have interpreted this part of a future prophecy as referring to the past.

As I stated in my previous post. I do not know the order of when things occurred. I don't believe that Lucifer was exiled until much later in the account.

Quote:
More importantly, as the Christian view of Satan derives originally and principally from Hebrew Scripture then it is to Hebrew Scripture which one must turn for the original view of Satan which is the basis of the Christian view. Not surprisingly, the original Judaic view is very different and has been significantly altered with no reason or basis whatsoever - other than perhaps superstition and folk belief.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan

The serpent in the garden of Eden is nowhere claimed to be Satan - and in fact in this story it is God who lies and the Serpent that tells the truth. God lies and tells Adam and Eve that if they eat of the tree they will die - they will not as it happens and the Serpent tells them this.

More: there are numerous names in the Bible that Christians equate - and sometimes translate as 'Lucifer' or 'Satan' but the problem is that all these names refer to different things; Azazel, Belial, Rex Mundi, the Dragon, Beelzebub, Prince of this World.

Read this also recently. However God did not lie. If they ate from the Tree they would die as the wages of sin is death, and in disobeying Gods command willfully is sin they brought death into the world. God held them responsible for their own actions.

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christi...bout_the_Devil

Actually, the name Lucifer means 'Morning Star' and applies to the star Venus. Early Babylonian thought held that stars were alive...the name was thus applied to the Babylonian King (who clearly cannot also be Lucifer):

When the Bible was translated into Latin (the Vulgate), the name Lucifer appeared as a translation of "Morning Star", or the planet Venus, in Isaiah 14:12. Isaiah 14:1-23 is a passage largely concerned with the plight of Babylon, and its king is referred to as "morning star, son of the dawn". This is because the Babylonian king was considered to be of godly status and of symbolic divine parentage (Bel and Ishtar, associated with the planet Venus).

While this information is available to scholars today via translated Babylonian cuneiform text taken from clay tablets, it was not as readily available at the time of the Latin translation of the Bible. Thus, early Christian tradition interpreted the passage as a reference to the moment Satan was thrown from Heaven. Lucifer became another name for Satan and has remained so due to Christian dogma and popular tradition.


So clearly from above, the association with Satan's rebellion is all a misinterpretation!

I am still reading up on this aspect, a very interesting topic indeed.

Quote:
In order to prove this further, Jesus himself is also called Lucifer in the New Testament....

Yes, he is called the Morning Star. Context is also important in translation as has been noted many times.

Quote:
This term 'morning star' is exactly the same word used in Isaiah for Lucifer (well, not for Lucifer as I said above - but that's how Christians translate it):

And again in 2 Peter 1:19:

In short, Lucifer became associated with the 'Devil' due to Christian folkloric traditions and this occurred after Jerome's Vulgate translation in the 4th century.

I have been very busy the past couple of days and so I have not been posting, but I have been reading up on this topic. Some of these interpretations are a bit new to me so I will have to process them and see where I end up. This does not negate the existence of Satan, but it does present a new aspect which is very intriguing...
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #308 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

I have been very busy the past couple of days and so I have not been posting, but I have been reading up on this topic. Some of these interpretations are a bit new to me so I will have to process them and see where I end up. This does not negate the existence of Satan, but it does present a new aspect which is very intriguing...

Yes, it is very interesting.

I often think that the most interesting pieces of the Bible are the little known aspects that receive so little attention. Why is that?

For example, why did Jesus instruct his disciples to arm themselves and if they did not have swords then to buy them as they accompanied him to Gethsemane?

Also I quite like the 'Sons of God' motif in Genesis. It uses the same term later applied to Jesus as a 'Son of God' and clearly describes supernatural beings or beings of a different order - not angels presumably - who interbred with humans.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #309 of 346
Actually, the 'sons of God marrying the daughters of men' is simply a reference to the godly marrying the ungodly.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #310 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Actually, the 'sons of God marrying the daughters of men' is simply a reference to the godly marrying the ungodly.

I think not.

Unless you want to argue that this would produce "mighty men which were of old, men of renown"...

But hey...maybe the unions produced racist bigot scumbags? That might explain the 'mighty men of renown' bit.....
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #311 of 346
No -- and I am getting more and more leery of exegetical forays the older I get -- but this is Christ speaking directly to this.

Quote:
22 Then came the Feast of Dedicationa at Jerusalem. It was winter, 23 and Jesus was in the temple area walking in Solomon’s Colonnade. 24 The Jews gathered around him, saying, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ,b tell us plainly.”
25 Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father’s name speak for me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than allc; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”
31 Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”
33 “We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’d? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37 Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. 38 But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” 39 Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.
40 Then Jesus went back across the Jordan to the place where John had been baptizing in the early days. Here he stayed 41 and many people came to him. They said, “Though John never performed a miraculous sign, all that John said about this man was true.” 42 And in that place many believed in Jesus.i



a\tThat is, Hanukkah
b\tOr Messiah
c\tMany early manuscripts What my Father has given me is greater than all
d\tPsalm 82:6
i\tThe Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 (electronic ed.) (Jn 10:22-11:1). Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #312 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

No -- and I am getting more and more leery of exegetical forays the older I get -- but this is Christ speaking directly to this.

I agree that assuming that something is true based on an internet forum is not a good way to learn your scriptures. It is amazing the things that people can come up with. This topic has my interest as largely it does not affect the overall deity of Jesus the Christ nor his journey to the cross.

Does Satan exist and is he real. I believe so.
Are all the passages associated with him correctly translated? I doubt it.
Are there demons that can cause problems for people? I believe so.
Do I know all there is to know on the topic of Lucifer and his fall from grace? Nope.

Will this topic change my mind overnight? Not likely. It is going to take some time and further study.

14Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. 15Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #313 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

It doesn't necessarily but some schools of philosophy such as those of Wahdat al-Wujud argue that it does from sound Islamic principles.

I agree with this school. Tellingly, the main people who disagree are literalists, Islamists, Saudi Salafis and Wahabis.

That should tell someone something.

I sense that you want to discuss only the Bible in this thread, but I remembered a few verses in the Quran that I deem to be relevant for the question of God and creation, ie. that God and creation are not one and that created things are real... I needed some time to find the specific verses and sura-number, but here they are from sura 21:

Quote:
021.016
YUSUFALI: Not for (idle) sport did We create the heavens and the earth and all that is between!
PICKTHAL: We created not the heaven and the earth and all that is between them in play.
SHAKIR: And We did not create the heaven and the earth and what is between them for sport.

021.017
YUSUFALI: If it had been Our wish to take (just) a pastime, We should surely have taken it from the things nearest to Us, if We would do (such a thing)!
PICKTHAL: If We had wished to find a pastime, We could have found it in Our presence - if We ever did.
SHAKIR: Had We wished to make a diversion, We would have made it from before Ourselves: by no means would We do (it).

021.018
YUSUFALI: Nay, We hurl the Truth against falsehood, and it knocks out its brain, and behold, falsehood doth perish! Ah! woe be to you for the (false) things ye ascribe (to Us).
PICKTHAL: Nay, but We hurl the true against the false, and it doth break its head and lo! it vanisheth. And yours will be woe for that which ye ascribe (unto Him).
SHAKIR: Nay! We cast the truth against the falsehood, so that it breaks its head, and lo! it vanishes; and woe to you for what you describe;

Nightcrawler
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #314 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post

I sense that you want to discuss only the Bible in this thread, but I remembered a few verses in the Quran that I deem to be relevant for the question of God and creation, ie. that God and creation are not one and that created things are real... I needed some time to find the specific verses and sura-number, but here they are from sura 21:

Nightcrawler

I think we may be saying the same thing but coming at it from different angles. How I understand wahdat al-Wujud is this:

As the Qur'an says, everything will pass away except God.

From this, theologically there is God and creation. Essentially creation is the result of God - is an action of God. But it is not equal to God as the sum total of creation will one day disappear.

Therefore there are only really two 'things' in existence. God and creation.

Creation will disappear but God will not. Likewise, at one time, creation did not exist - this is not true of God.

Therefore, on that level of these two things - only God is real because he never did not exist and never will not exist and the second 'thing' is a temporary consequence of His existence and dependent on it.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #315 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

...
Do I know all there is to know on the topic of Lucifer and his fall from grace? Nope.
...

Just to reiterate -- segovius is right as to the term Lucifer. It only appears once in the Bible, and only obliquely refers to Satan.

Quote:
Lucifer.
A term found in the AV of Isa. 14:12, translating the first part of a Hebrew phrase that is literally “shining one, son of dawn”; lucifer is the transliteration of a Latin word meaning “light bearer,” and was used in Latin to refer to the planet Venus, because of its morning brightness; the NIV translates the Hebrew “shining one” as “morning star,” and the NASB renders it “star of the morning”; in context, the term is used of the king of Babylon, but points beyond him, as do the following verses, to Satan; it thus denotes the brilliance of the highest angel before his fall; Lk. 10:18; Rev. 9:1; Isa. 14:12.



Lucifer (lo̅o̅ʹsi-fuhr), the English translation in the KJV (Isa. 14:12) of the Hebrew word meaning ‘light bringer’ or ‘shining one,’ sometimes designating the morning (or day) star, that is, Venus (cf. RSV: ‘Day Star’). The English word ‘Lucifer’ comes from the Latin for ‘light bearer.’ In Isa. 14:12, the King of Babylon, in an apparent reference to Canaanite mythology, is tauntingly called ‘Day Star, son of Dawn’ because he has fallen from his lofty but temporary position of power. In the Christian church, this passage from Isaiah came to be connected with Jesus’ saying in Luke 10:18: ‘I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.’ Thus the connection was made (erroneously) between Lucifer and Satan, and Lucifer was popularly understood as another name for Satan. See also Canaan, Canaanites; Devil; Satan; Stars, Star of Bethlehem.


\tKarleen, P. S. (1987). The handbook to Bible study : With a guide to the Scofield study system. New York: Oxford University Press.

\tAchtemeier, P. J., Harper & Row, P., & Society of Biblical Literature. (1985). Harper's Bible dictionary (1st ed.) (582). San Francisco: Harper & Row.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #316 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

I think we may be saying the same thing but coming at it from different angles. How I understand wahdat al-Wujud is this:

As the Qur'an says, everything will pass away except God.

From this, theologically there is God and creation. Essentially creation is the result of God - is an action of God. But it is not equal to God as the sum total of creation will one day disappear.

Therefore there are only really two 'things' in existence. God and creation.

Creation will disappear but God will not. Likewise, at one time, creation did not exist - this is not true of God.

Therefore, on that level of these two things - only God is real because he never did not exist and never will not exist and the second 'thing' is a temporary consequence of His existence and dependent on it.

Yes, I understand that argument, but I disagree with the conclusion: I don't think that because a thing has only a temporary existence or that it is fully dependent on its creator, that it then is not real.

In fact I think that everything God creates is real because God is real.

At least we know now that we nearly agreed.

Nightcrawler
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #317 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post

Yes, I understand that argument, but I disagree with the conclusion: I don't think that because a thing has only a temporary existence or that it is fully dependent on its creator, that it then is not real.

In fact I think that everything God creates is real because God is real.

At least we know now that we nearly agreed.

Nightcrawler

Well, now it becomes an argument of semantics rather than theology (ie, what you mean by 'real' - presumably you would not equate God with creation value-wise so if creation is real then God must be super-real - unless you argue they are the same) - which is a shame because this is a very important theological issue and both Christianity and Islam have its ramifications as a core foundation.

The issue arising from it (if we forget the semantics) is this:

God exists eternally. In a religious framework you will also exist eternally - in one state or other...therefore your 'being' in that state is not an equivalence of your being in this present one.

This one is a shadow of that. Your 90 years Max on this planet should not really be equated with billions and billions of years (which would be a nanosecond) of eternity or, even more so, some timeless state.

But as I say, it depends on what you mean by 'real' and this is the crux...'real' to me is something different to you..

al-Ghazzali once said that the Qur'an was 'my mistresses' eyebrow' and people got worked up and burnt his books. When they calmed down (they were literalists - it took decades) they said what he said was not real and nonsense. They asked him who it could possibly be his mistress' eyebrow.

He replied "how can it be marks of carbon on the remains of a tree?'.

What is the reality?

It depends on your point of view - there are many; to some the Qur'an is marks of carbon, others a fictional book, other's the literal word of God....and on....

Spirituality (I do not mean 'religion') is, imo, a search for which of many possibilities 'fits' the individual doing the searching. It then becomes 'your personal truth'.

If you think everything God creates is real because He is then this is true. For you.

If others on this thread think we are lunatics talking nonsense about a made-up fiction then this is true. For them.

What is more interesting though is that knowing this, you can 'engineer' your truths and progress through various ones. Trying this and that. Learning, developing...

But that's the point: 'what does this say about reality and truth?'
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #318 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Well, now it becomes an argument of semantics rather than theology (ie, what you mean by 'real' - presumably you would not equate God with creation value-wise so if creation is real then God must be super-real - unless you argue they are the same) - which is a shame because this is a very important theological issue and both Christianity and Islam have its ramifications as a core foundation.

Indeed it is a very important topic, but I don't think we can come to a provable conclusion.

I think that God and His creation have the same reality-value, without saying that both have the same general value.

Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

The issue arising from it (if we forget the semantics) is this:

God exists eternally. In a religious framework you will also exist eternally - in one state or other...therefore your 'being' in that state is not an equivalence of your being in this present one.

This one is a shadow of that. Your 90 years Max on this planet should not really be equated with billions and billions of years (which would be a nanosecond) of eternity or, even more so, some timeless state.

I think no matter of the shortness of 90 years compared with the eternity of the afterlife, it doesn't tangle the question of reality of neither. In fact the short 90 years can decide about the quality of the eternity in afterlife and are therefore just as important.



Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

But as I say, it depends on what you mean by 'real' and this is the crux...'real' to me is something different to you..

al-Ghazzali once said that the Qur'an was 'my mistresses' eyebrow' and people got worked up and burnt his books. When they calmed down (they were literalists - it took decades) they said what he said was not real and nonsense. They asked him who it could possibly be his mistress' eyebrow.

He replied "how can it be marks of carbon on the remains of a tree?'.

Al-Ghazzali is indeed one of the most important islamic thinkers and strangely now that I read up a bit on him on wikipedia, it seems many ideas of him mirror my own.

A century later he got a prominent critic, namely Averroe who defended the metaphysics of the greek against Ghazalli's refutation.

What I espescially like about Ghazali is that he rejected the metaphysics of the greek philosophers but accepted their mathematical achievements. He made the point that so to speak even a liar or sinner or disbeliever can discover some truth, and that it would be a "crime" to reject the truth because it came from the mouth of a sinner/liar/disbeliever.

The other idea that mirrors my own thinking are the ideas of atomism and occasionalism, that the cause and effects we observe in the universe and that we today have described in mathematical theories (like gravitation or fire burning something up..) are God's direct intervention in nature.

So to go back to the topic of reality of creation, it seems it mirrors the discussion Ghazali and Averroes had back then, with you obviously defending the platonic concept of the created things being mere shadows of the ideas they represent, only with the twist of unifying the ideas to God.





Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

What is the reality?

It depends on your point of view - there are many; to some the Qur'an is marks of carbon, others a fictional book, other's the literal word of God....and on....

Spirituality (I do not mean 'religion') is, imo, a search for which of many possibilities 'fits' the individual doing the searching. It then becomes 'your personal truth'.

If you think everything God creates is real because He is then this is true. For you.

If others on this thread think we are lunatics talking nonsense about a made-up fiction then this is true. For them.

What is more interesting though is that knowing this, you can 'engineer' your truths and progress through various ones. Trying this and that. Learning, developing...

But that's the point: 'what does this say about reality and truth?'

That is deep, I have to take time to think about it.

Nightcrawler
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #319 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Have you ever actually read the Qur'an?

Thank goodness someone here is defending the Koran!

Oh, wait, that wasn't the intention?
post #320 of 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimDreamworx View Post

Thank goodness someone here is defending the Koran!

Oh, wait, that wasn't the intention?

What thread are you reading? There has not been a staged assault on the Koran anywhere.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Bible --- Too liberal For Some