/lit/ - Literature

>>17519878
>Mu'tazilism
Cringe. Refuted by Ibn Taymiyya.

>>17519896
Actually be Imam Ahmed

>>17519878
>>17519878
Because in this respect, Islam agrees with Catholicism. That Islam correctly states what can be naturally and rightfully reasoned about God does not mean that all else their books teach is true.

God isn't real. Don't throw away your life and the life of your offspring just because you want to feel special.

>He cannot dwell in a place.
Uh, Islambros... doesn't this contradict the old testament where God is in the tabernacle?

>>17519878
>He cannot dwell in a place or within a being
You've just limited God and put him in a box.

>>17520061
please understand, muhammed didn't have access to the entire old testment some of his plaguirising was innacurate as a result :)

>>17520117
>uh muhammad, where does God live? we're missing that section...
>nowhere. he lives nowhere.

>>17520266
nobody but the mutalizite say this they are a heretical sect. If you actually asked Muhammad SAW he'd say that He is above the heavens over His throne.

>>17519878
Read this.

>>17520339

>Stop me from converting to Islam lads

Since this is /lit/ i gonna say Quran is one of the worst sacred books around her. Really poor insights, really bad written.

>>17520406
Agree. What a piece of shit.

>>17520061
>>17520117
Old testament has been edited and parts have been deleted or rewritten too many times to count.

>>17520406
>>17520418
>Really poor insights, really bad written.

>>17520445
>Old testament has been edited
wow big brain here, you're saying God didn't just hand Abraham the big book of unrelated works by dozens of authors over hundreds of years?

Just read the Enneads

>>17520445
>Old testament has been edited and parts have been deleted or rewritten too many times to count.

So is the quran.


>Really poor insights, really bad written.

Give me something as good the Heart Sutra or Ecclesiastes. Quran cannot compete, that is the truth.

>>17519896
>Ibn Taymiyya
Cringe. This man single-handedly ruined Islam.

>>17519896
Are there any modern Mu'talizites?

What's with the fire?

>>17521167
it looks cool

>>17520521
"Allah, There is no god save Him, the Alive, the Eternal. Neither slumber nor sleep overtaketh Him. Unto Him belongeth whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is in the earth. Who is he that intercedeth with Him save by His leave? He knoweth that which is in front of them and that which is behind them, while they encompass nothing of His knowledge save what He will. His throne includeth the heavens and the earth, and He is never weary of preserving them. He is the Sublime, the Tremendous." 2:255

"Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The similitude of His light is as a niche wherein is a lamp. The lamp is in a glass. The glass is as it were a shining star. (This lamp is) kindled from a blessed tree, an olive neither of the East nor of the West, whose oil would almost glow forth (of itself) though no fire touched it. Light upon light. Allah guideth unto His light whom He will. And Allah speaketh to mankind in allegories, for Allah is Knower of all things."

Chapter: The Resurrection
Al-Qiyamah
recitation and visuals
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1JEthK29MU

Is this a basic assertion of divine simplicity or does it entail something unique to Islam?

>He cannot dwell in a place or within a being
>all-powerful
Kek. At this pace you’re going to define God out of existence due to your need to put God into the box you designed for Him.

>>17519991
>Catholicism
Polytheism.

>>17519878
why do they pray to that big rock thing, then?

>>17519878
Is this the new tradlife LARP on 4chan?
>pic rel.

t.Turk

>>17520445
>Old testament has been edited
Quran is also edited by Uthman.
Worst editor ever. listing chapters from the longest to the shortest...

>>17521222
This is more like the doctrine of absolute divine simplicity—one of God being the ultimate monad. It’s completely illogical for apparent reasons any quasi-rational person could point out like here >>17521902

In order for Monotheism to logically succeed, there needs to be a plurality within God in some sense, and there needs to be a unity within God in another sense. All monotheistic religions have accepted this and rebutted heretics who have tried to defeat this doctrine (in the area of Christianity: Arianism, Islam: Mu'tazilism, ect.) even if they arbitrarily deny it on a surface level.

>>17520445
>Old testament has been edited and parts have been deleted or rewritten too many times to count.
I agree with this as long as you replace “Old testament” with the Koran.

>>17521984
Now i'm only a beginner with the philosophy of religion but I thought all plurality was denied to God in Monotheism. There can be plurality in the effect of his causal power, but ultimately all his parts are identical to Him, thus making Him One. We only say "parts" due to an imperfect understanding of what exactly perfect simplicity would consist of.

>>17520791
Nonsense
>>17517877

>>17522353
>I thought all plurality was denied to God in Monotheism.
Nope, if you go to the start of Monotheism (Judaism and possibly Zoroastrianism) there is a plurality of ‘persons’ or ‘powers’ In the Godhead; in the example of Judaism there’s God’s manifestation on earth (the Shekinah) which was extrapolated to the divine Malakh YHWH (Angel of the LORD), in the Old Testament, plus there’s God’s Spirit that hovered over the primordial waters in Genesis. In Zoroastrianism there’s a sort of dualistic type of God, of darkness and light, meant to eventually manifest itself to the world in the end times.

The doctrine of absolute divine simplicity is a relatively new concept that is contradicted by it’s own traditions and philosophy.

If you actually look into Islam, you'll find out that the Muslim apologists completely exaggerate about lots of things.

Look into the origins of the Quran and you'll immediately start to see problems 10x worse than what Christians have to deal with. The eminent Muslim scholar Yasir Qadhi caused a bunch of controversy a few months back (and eventually left social media because of it) by admitting in a live stream that the "standard narrative" of the Quran's origins has holes in it.

>>17522503
>relatively new concept
Well thats interesting to hear. I'm reading a bit about Aquinas and the book traces this idea of divine simplicty back to Plato. Apparently Plotinus was so committed to it that he did in fact philosophize God out of existence by saying God is even beyond Being. When Jews came to encounter Greek philosophy and Platonism especially, they were so impressed that they thought Plato had read Moses. Doesn't Deuteronomy 6:4 explicitly state that God is only One?

Does anyone have some pictures of Mohammed the famous prophet? I don’t even know what he looked like.

>>17522528
No Plato basically created a bunch of eternal and immaterial forms that people rationalized as being in the mind of God in order to escape polytheism, essentially, Plato has the same plurality as other Monotheistic religions, being obvious in the Neoplatonic traditions that some people even claim caused Trinitarian theology in the 4th century.
>philosophize God out of existence by saying God is even beyond Being
This is the one escape route outside of the plurality of God that occurs in all Monotheistic philosophies, but of course it is logically incoherent as it defines God out of existence as you said, and it is not a relevant route in the Judeo-Christian tradition since the God of the Bible literally claims to be pure Being itself (I am that I am in Exodus 14.)

>Read Moses
Yeah because God being the absolute form of all being was what Moses wrote in the Torah and Plato got it too. The Hellenic and Semitic traditions actually got a long of things right on their own (The Old Testament says the Word of God is an actual power that can do things in Jeremiah 1, tying into the Logos of Greek philosophy, for example,) and hence people even say they copied one another when that’s probably not the case and they just came to the same conclusions in different ways.
>Deuteronomy 6:4
That’s actually one of the hardest verses in the Bible to translate given it has no verbs, with some people translating it as “Hear O Israel: the Lord our God, we have one Lord.” instead of “our Lord is one.” But even in both instances, the Hebrew word for ‘one’ there (Echad) can indicate a compound unity, such as when in Genesis Adam and Eve become one (Echad) flesh in marriage

>>17522585
lot of things*

Excuse my typos I’m phone posting like a loser lol

God is a trinity.
He has one nature, with three distinctions within that nature, each sharing fully in the one nature, and each different only in their relation to the other two.

You know, sort of like TIME.
There is one nature -- Time.
And there are three distinctions within it: past, present, and future.
You wouldn't say the present is one third time, and the future one third time.
That makes no sense.
The past is fully time, the present is fully time, and the future is fully time, and yet there are not three times, but one Time.

So it is with God.

>>17522585
>people rationalized as being in the mind of God in order to escape polytheism,
Well now thats especially interesting because I was just reading that Aquinas solved that issue by proposing that the act of being is prior to form, thus relegating things like Angels and universals to acts of being and solving the problem of having immaterial things which are not divine

>>17521167
Represents holiness in Persian miniatures, it's the equivalent of a halo

>>17522645
Yep, Thomistic philosophy escapes these things through divine simplicity and the distinction between essence and existence. Basically the only being that’s essence is equal to it’s existence according to Aquinas is God, since God is purely His attributes (for example, God is literally the attribute of good or the attribute of wisdom and power, ect.)

The irony is that Aquinas was a Trinitarian who still believed in a form of divine simplicity

>>17522669
>The irony is that Aquinas was a Trinitarian who still believed in a form of divine simplicity
Yeah well we gotta have some faith I guess. Still, pretty impressive theology. I dont know if it was you, but some anon did say that divine simplicity runs into necessary contradictions. The trinity aside, what are the contradictions in Aquinas's take on divine simplicity?

>>17519878
>Stop me from converting to Islam lads
I would never

>>17522685
Did you read the Islamic critique?

>The late historian Alfred Crosby (1931 – 2018), who finds the genesis of the quantitative mind in the West around the 13th century, says even more so than technology, the quantitative mind affected the arts. He gives examples from leading Christian theologians of medieval Europe: The leading of these speculative minds, Italy’s Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274), while talking about God, stipulates “his reasoning and language are almost mathematical.” Aquinas was unsurprisingly a favorite of René Descartes, “a crown prince of rationalist philosophy and virtual inventor of coordinate or analytic geometry” [5]. The French polymath Nicole Oresme (1225 – 1274) “anticipated the great sixteenth and seventeenth century astronomers” [6], in the sense that like the English physicist Isaac Newton (1642 – 1726) way later, he considered the universe to be a clockwork, and thus God as some sort of cosmic mechanic.

>We can easily understand what such conception of the Godhead entails: it reduces Him to an external, and not even necessarily active, force, which can be impersonal. A neo-jahmiyyah [7] apperception of divine names and attributes which are so non-existent and essentially meager that it leaves almost no notion of God at all. It’s thus no wonder, in “Enlightenment” Europe, the deist philosophers privileged this idea of God being a clockmaker, as it fitted well with their contempt and even hate of normative expression of traditional religiosity.

https://peopleoftawhid.org/technology-as-a-mode-of-secular-liberal-theology/

>>17519878
Why did they have to put that giant gaudy clock tower in Mecca?

>>17522685
1+1+1 = 3 yes?
But what about 1x1x1? That equals only 1, no? And yet, are there not three 1's in this equation as well? So why is it different? This is known as the mathematician's paradox.

Furthermore, does 1+1+1 really equal 3? Or does it equal 6? After all, if you add up all the digits in "1+1+1=3" you end up with 6, not 3. This is also known as the Mathematician's paradox.

None of these has yet been solved by science.

>>17519878
read graham harman triple OOO then youll get it bro

>>17522685
>The trinity aside, what are the contradictions in Aquinas's take on divine simplicity?

A basic syllogism

(1) For any proposition P, P is identical to God’s thought (that P). (Theistic Conceptualism as applied to propositions)

Another way to put this is that for any universal form or pattern F, F is identical to God’s conceptual thought (about F).

(2) Necessarily, if x and y are identical, then whatever is true of x is true of y.

(3) The proposition P*, <there are dogs>, is about dogs.

(4) The proposition P**, <there are quarks>, is not about dogs.

(5) So, P* and P** are not identical. (From (2), (3), and (4))

(6) So, God’s thoughts are not identical. (From (5) and (1))

(7) If God’s thoughts are not identical, then God is not absolutely simple.

(8) So, under divine conceptualism, God is not absolutely simple. (From (6) and (7))

From this guy’s blog I found enlightening: https://www.google.com/amp/s/majestyofreason.wordpress.com/2020/03/14/a-plethora-of-prima-facie-problems-for-classical-theism/amp/

>>17520049
>God isn't real
You have to be 18 to post here

>>17522747
TL;DR if God is absolutely simple then His thoughts are equal to Himself and His other thoughts. However God’s thought of ‘Dogs exist’ and His thought of ‘Quarks exist’ are not identical, and hence God and His thoughts can not be absolutely simple.

>>17522702
>Did you read the Islamic critique?
I noted earlier that i'm still new to the Philosophy of Religion. I briefly learned about Tawhid in a college class, but thats the extent of it. The greentexted portion you posted is interesting, but lacking. I'll be sure to read the whole article you linked but I want to jot down some thoughts here first, just to see if I can competently recap what i've been reading about Aquinas.

>and thus God as some sort of cosmic mechanic.
The clock analogy is the beginning of the modern mechanistic view of the universe, as opposed to the teleological view proposed by Aquinas in his Fourth Way. According to Thomistic metaphysics, an efficient cause always has a final cause. According to the Second Way, the first efficient cause is God. Aquinas also poses a series of heiraechical causes, thus indicating that every present existent is subsistent of God's continuous Creative act. Therefore, God is constantly ordering and directing the end of the unvierse. This stands in necessary contradiction to Deism.
Now, God as pure actuality must also be purely good. And the good wants to share and expand itself. That is thus the mode of the Creative act. Rationality is immaterial, and as a combination of intellect and will is naturally drawn to the Good. Since God is the architect of all final ends and the final end of a rational being is to the Good it should follow that God is in fact personal and desires for us to know him.

I see it as very tough to attribute deism and a mechanistic universe to Thomistic thought. Anyway, I'll get on to reading the article. Thank you anon

>>17522768
The problem is your concept of "thought." You're assuming that God thinks of concepts and ideas in the same way that a human does.

>>17522780
His gist is Thomism leads to deism, not that it is

>>17522747
I believe a Thomist would reply that your notion of God's mind rests on a univocal use of terms and that we cannot know the operation or existence of any of God's traits univocally.
Personally I feel like the Thomistic appeal to equiocal and univocal was always a cop out desu, but I need too research the subject further

>>17522794
Can you explain Tawhid to me more? My philosophy professir described it as a total separation of God from Creation. That theories of participation or incarnation are impossible because God cannot enter Creation. Is this accurate?

>>17522791
I guess you can use Isaiah 55:8 in order to go against it

>For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord.

>>17522799
>Personally I feel like the Thomistic appeal to equiocal and univocal was always a cop out desu
Tbqh yeah that’s true, however I still deny absolute divine simplicity and accept a plurality of persons due to the Bible and it’s inherent philosophical tradition. Plus there’s many arguments against divine simplicity as listed in this thread

>>17522799
Ultimately reason is univocal for him, which presages the Enlightenment idea of universal reason

>>17522807
Tawhid is basically like Unitarianism to the highest degree. If God cannot enter creation then He is not all powerful, and Allah can enter creation according to the Islamic tradition as well.

>>17522807
I wrote a thread on that, there are actually two radically different ideas of Tawhid, Ibn Arabi said the one you describe is that of a fool's, whereas Ibn Taymiyyah (who subscribed to it) said Ibn Arabi's idea (panentheism or even pantheism) was disbelief and incompatible with Islam. Each is a different conception of Tawheed, which means "unity". By and large the view you describe prevails because it is more compatible with the Qur'an

>>17522819
He can (and actually does) but he remains seperate under orthodox interpretation

>>17522813
Using Isaiah to prove that God has "thoughts" is just as idiotic as quoting the Psalms to prove that God has a right arm or nostrils or that he rides on the cherubim.

>>17522836
No, I was using the quote from Isaiah to prove any idea of God’s ‘thoughts’ are different from Human thoughts, and hence you can try to rebut the argument against divine simplicity via a mischaracterization of what God’s thoughts are in a Biblical paradigm.

>>17522835
And hence we get to the Christian idea of plurality. God can be transcendent in one way yet can enter into creation in another way, considering God is multi-dimensional in his nature.

>>17522816
>Ultimately reason is univocal for him, which presages the Enlightenment idea of universal reason
I'm not sure i follow. I thought universal reason was held even as early as Plato. Or have I confused terms?

>>17521970
It's one discord spamming their shit 24/7.

>>17522846
The Enlightenment saw that all reason is God’s truth, and since God is truth and created the world with His truth, then the universe should be actually comprehensible since truth is comprehensible.

>>17522845
Yea, I realized that was your intention with that quote, but I'd already posted by grumpy reply. Time for bed.

>>17522845
>God can be transcendent in one way yet can enter into creation in another way
Wouldn’t this be another reason why absolute divine simplicity is wrong since if God couldn’t enter creation He wouldn’t be all powerful?

>>17522702
So I finished this article. It seems more a criticism of technology and industrial society. The reference to Aquinas was passing, but even then it portrayed Aquinas as a victim to it rather than propagator of it.

>>17522874
>a criticism of technology and industrial society.
Ted?

>>17522845
This is what Ibn Arabi holds. He argued Noah was a fool to get angry at idolaters since God is both transcendent and can be immanent in idols, and said those who say God is transcendent but not immanent are morons

>>17522878
It mentioned Ted but said he had the wrong solution to the correctly identified problem

>>17521134
There are some in North Africa, ad many Islamic modernists were/are influenced by Mu'talizites. The most prominent individuals who come to mind that were influenced by Mu'talizites are Muhammad Abduh (and by extension the people he influenced), and Fazlur Rahman Malik (who wrote a pretty good book on the themes of the Qur'an).

>he is a thing
And into the trash it goes
Was doing so well too

>>17522888
>He argued Noah was a fool to get angry at idolaters since God is both transcendent and can be immanent in idols
Well that’s retarded. Obviously God can manifest Himself in creation in material places (such as the Burning Bush, or in a purely Biblical sense, the Ark of the Covenant,) but you don’t worship the bush or the Ark, but instead God’s immanent presence. I know we’re talking about Islam but there’s a clear parallel in this talking point about idols in the Christian tradition as well, 1 Corinthians 8:4-6

>As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Basically Paul is saying that idols don’t exist in actuality, but the LORD God is still immanent through creation as we are in the LORD God and by Him.

>>17522850
Why do they have islamist LARPing discord groups?
LOL.

>>17522723
I hope to Allah this is bait

>>17522914
The Christian idea of the real presence is similar to Ibn Arabi's position on idols

I just want to say I appreciate the posters having an interesting discussion as most of these threads go to complete and utter shit, hope I can pay ya back in the future.

>>17522955
The difference in the Christian tradition is that the actual presence of God in creation incarnated as a man instead of just being a vague presence that would kill you if you looked at it directly. For example, compare this with the passages from the New Testament.

John 1:14
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us [literally, the term here is ‘tabernacled’], (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”

John 1:18
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Hebrews 1:1-3
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.

Philippians 2:6-8
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Colossians 1:19-20
For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.

Tie this with 1 Corinthians 1:24
But to those called by God to salvation, both Jews and Gentiles, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God.

Christ is the Word, and Wisdom, and Power of God, who thought equality with God was not robbery, who existed in the form of God and was the exact representation of God’s being, yet He humbled Himself and dwelt among us so that we may behold His glory, the glory of the only begotten of the Father that has been immanent since before the creation of the world, eventually being dwelled by the fullness of God to reconcile all things to Himself through the Cross.

>>17523047
Yeah it's not a vague presence in Ibn Arabi. The idol is considered God made x

>>17523147
By “vague presence” I mean basically a static presence with no interaction.

>>17520049
How is it throwing your life away? LMAO nigga do you think religious people don’t have careers, jobs or interests outside of their religion?

>>17519878
Kill yourself

>>17519878
Dumbest religion ever. Muhammad was a literal retard kiddy fucker.

>>17519878
this sort of theology was already in neo-platonism and patristic christianity. It's just apophaticism.

>>17519878
The Quran is such a horrendous piece of shit it's almost funny. It literally reads like a parody of the Bible, but I guess if you consider that this was a people who spent their entire life having their brain roasted into a prune by the sun, it makes sense that it caught on. Arabs are actually subhuman

>>17523212
I hope you realize that this sort of venom is only repulsing people away from your position (hatred of the one, true faith) and therefore pushing them towards Islam

>>17521209
And that's all?

Wow, the quran is even worst than i expected.

>>17519878
This is just Classical Theism

>>17523666
Yeah it's Mutazilla theology, actually considered heretical by Sunnis

>god is the conceptual negation of reality
What else can be expected from desert retards

>>17523676
It's Classical Theism, there is nothing particularly Islamic about it. Thomists and Neoplatonists would endorse all claims in the OP. Aristotle would endorse them all except for the personal creation of the world.

>>17522527
It's funny because the Quran is probably in a good position in terms of textual preservation, we have very early manuscripts and the text seems very stable. But Muslim apologists shoot themselves in the foot by claiming that there are no variants whatsoever, and that there are only different pronunciations for recitation, which simply isn't true.

>>17519878
How is any of that original or unique to Islam? Heraclitus was talking about such a concept over a thousand years before Islam was a thing.

>>17519878
That appears to be something you can believe in without being Muslim

>>17523736
The words are a quote from a Mutazillite who are not exactly considered Muslims by Sunnis as they consider classical theology to have more authority than the Qur'an

it's controlled by people who don't even like it who are only interested in using it to consolidate their own authority.

i'd be bathist or bahai or shia or zoroastrian or jewish before i folowed their corrupted philosophy

>>17523760
It isn't, but Islam presents a full system of worship and practice, Heraclitus left us a few scraps of paper full of puns and double-entendres.

>>17521209
That's dry. Khalil Gibran is better.

>>17519878
>>God is unique, nothing is like him; he is neither body, nor individual, nor substance, nor accident. He is beyond time. He cannot dwell in a place or within a being; he is not the object of any creatural attribute or qualification. He is neither conditioned nor determined, neither engendered nor engendering. He is beyond the perception of the senses. The eyes cannot see him, observation cannot attain him, the imagination cannot comprehend him. He is a thing, but he is not like other things; he is omniscient, all-powerful, but his omniscience and his all-mightiness cannot be compared to anything created. He created the world without any pre-established archetype and without an auxiliary.
None of that sounds like this guy.
It doesn't even say anything about God's 16 inch cock.

Real answer:
This is what happens when you ponder the infatuate, every culture has an idea of this thing you described that you call 'God'. Everyone had a different name for it
The Jews called it 'God', tricked everyone into using there definition, and oh by the way under the Jewish definition the Jews are God's chosen people and everyone else are human shaped cattle.

Islam is exactly that, Judaism for non-Jews.
You need only look at the state of Israel for proof.
2 billion muslims, every Imam preaching death to the Jews, state of Israel continues to expand while every muslim leader wants to make a deal. Muslims are happy slaves to the simple philosophical ideas they are allowed to think about.

Jesus was a half Jew who went insane over being a 56% and created christianity by combining all the tricks rabbis use to gain and grow a following with a mix of Indian and Roman philosophy. This is why Jews hate Jesus, he represents everything a Jew would want to be, but instead of ruling the world he's nailed to a cross, even worse it ruins the fantasy that just maybe I might be the messiah when you have Jesus worshiped all over the world as the messiah.

tl;dr god exists, his name is not god, and no organized religion owns a copyright on him.

>>17523736
>>17523760

It's like Momo trying to larp hard the jews, he absorbed the Hellenic philosophy that the Jews copied before him.
You can also confirm the hellenic influences in the quranic "medicine": a mix of arabic tribal knowledge with a greek aftertaste. The semen is generated between the ribs and the backbone.

>>17523783
Arberry translate better in terms of the rhythm and texture

>>17523810
Muhammad ﷺ didn't say this

>>17521209
This is second (maybe third) tier prophetic literature. Isaiah is much, much better (and bombastic if you want).
The jews settled much better the divinity of God with less words: ’ehyeh ’ăšer ’ehyeh
A word play: I am who I am", "I will become what I choose to become", "I am what I am", "I will be what I will be", "I create what(ever) I create", or "I am the Existing One".
Yes, a word play, that's why it pretty brilliant, right?. This is /lit/ we value literary merits.

>>17523831
Pretty sure there's no word play and it has to do with avoiding naming him

>>17523839
> it has to do with avoiding naming him
Exactly!, that's why is brilliant.

The word play is obvious though.

Brb hiding my goats

>>17523846
To you, I don't think many Biblical scholars noted wordplay

>>17523857
???
Bimillennial tradition of discussing this verse in the talmud and rabbis interpreting the sentence to this day.
Hundreds of years analyzing philologically this verse in the academia.
Again.???

You have to hand it to them, the persistence of muslims in being right is admirable, convincing even, even though it makes them look retarded.

>>17523889
Yes?

>>17523807
Take your meds

>>17524200
Read actual history, or just read your own holy books.

>>17519878
This is almost certainly a Muslim larper, but for anyone else: how could we possibly come to know about a God who is so transcendent, who is utterly unlike anything in his created universe? A God fully beyond time, impossible to perceive with the senses or imagination? A God who is, in other words, utterly transcendent and beyond all conceptualization?

The answer is surprisingly simple. We could not possibly come to know such a God on our own, just through thinking logically. Instead, we need a revelation of God, where God himself discloses his existence and at least something of his nature to us. Muslims believe this revelation is contain in the Quran, yet this is plainly impossible. If God is unique and fundamentally unlike anything else, then he cannot possibly be described by language, which works by analogy and is, in any event, a human construction- even the Arabic text of the Quran, however beautiful and poetic it may be, could hardly describe a God who cannot be comprehended by the imagination. Text simply doesn't have that power, it is static and constrained by language. Yes, even the Quran.

No, we need a revelation through something more powerful than language, a revelation in which God reveals his very nature through his own actions. If we finite creatures cannot come to the infinite God then God must come to us as a human being, sharing in all our sufferings and sorrows so that we may learn who God is and how we should serve him. This kind of personal, experiential, relational knowledge is higher and stronger than language. God's revelation is not a book- his revelation is life of Jesus Christ.

God's inmost nature is love, shown in his willingness to suffer and die for us- "for the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many" (Matt 20:28). God's nature is not, fundamentally, ineffable to us because God reveals himself by taking on our flesh in Christ, bridging this divide between God and humanity through the Incarnation- as Paul says, Jesus is "the image of the invisible God" who reveals the nature of God by his total self-sacrifice. We can come to know a person, and have a relationship with the person Jesus, in a far deeper sense than we can "relate" to the completely indescribable, distant deity of Islam.

>>17525159
>The answer is surprisingly simple. We could not possibly come to know such a God on our own, just through thinking logically. Instead, we need a revelation of God, where God himself discloses his existence and at least something of his nature to us. Muslims believe this revelation is contain in the Quran, yet this is plainly impossible. If God is unique and fundamentally unlike anything else, then he cannot possibly be described by language, which works by analogy and is, in any event, a human construction- even the Arabic text of the Quran, however beautiful and poetic it may be, could hardly describe a God who cannot be comprehended by the imagination. Text simply doesn't have that power, it is static and constrained by language. Yes, even the Quran.
I mean that was sort of what the Mu'talizites believed, and the quote in OP is someone explaining the Mu'talizite position. Some Shias and Sufis take a similar approach as well.

>>17523159
It depends how fundamentalist they are. Muslims are the biggest fundamentalist freaks out of all Abrahamic religions. They waste time praying to some fake entity five times a day in the right direction pointing to some black box and forbid themselves from doing normal things because some book tells them to do so but hey, it's totally not schizophrenia. Let's call it religion instead lmao
Changing your lifestyle for some shit that doesn't exist is throwing your life away, yes

>>17519878
>Stop me from converting to Islam lads
Why would you want to convert? Islam is homophobic, transphobic, antisemitic, anti-capitalist any so much more. They force women to become mothers and demonize any women who has sexual freedom, does abortus or is involved in pornography. The religion does not allowed freedom and has a strict hierarchy similiar of the Roman Empire. Not to forget the toxic masculinity that men aren't allowed to be feminine and have to accept manhood, heroism and is too pro-war and pro-fitness. They are too spiritual and strict. Not to forget they want to destroy Israel, the only democracy in the Middle-East.

If you want to be an ultra-conservative bigot, then sure, convert into the awful religion.

>>17525824
The most obvious bait (you)

>>17525602
But how do the Mu'talizites and others believe we can come to a knowledge of the invisible God if not through his Incarnation into a visible human being who shares our nature? This is not a leading question, I am genuinely curious

>>17525602
>Mu'talizites
Aren’t they basically Islam Arians? I mean they believe the word of Allah is the first created thing ever.

>>17526318
Islamic*

>>17525159
>God's inmost nature is love, shown in his willingness to suffer and die for us
Honestly this is one of the most beautiful ideas in any religion to me. Btw I always like to ponder on the Father’s love for the Son in that the Father loves the Son at such a level that He will give Him all authority to Judge while the Father will not Judge. It just shows that God the Father loves the Son in such an absolute sense that even our love for our children is just a infinitesimal representation of the Father’s love for the Son. God the Father will share His glory with God the Son because He loves the Son that much, that He will glorify Him because He loves Him, and since the Father loves the Son, the Son glorifies the Father and does whatever the Father wants to the point where the Son will incarnate and die for the sins of the world, and since the Son does that for the Father the Father glorifies the Son to the point where the Son becomes the Father’s ultimate heir and becomes the center-point between God and His creation as the New Adam, giving Him such a privilege that even the Father doesn’t have.

This is shown in even the most simplistic facts such as Jesus calling the Father His ‘abba’, His Papa, His daddy. It just shows how pure the love is between the Father and the Son in that it even infinitely exceeds all of creation and comprehension in it’s magnitude and quantity.

What's up with all is Islam shill threads as of late? It's super forced.

>>17519878
>>17519878
Historically speaking I think sex demons are something made up by horny Catholic monks who were abstaining from sex 1000 years ago to explain wnt they still had wet dreams of women while in self-isolation. Most of our "demons" were created by horny and bored monks who created them as a creative exercise.


The other demons were invented to explain natural phenomenon and to have a scapegoat to explain mental illnesses and why good uncle Ezriel suddenly murdered his family. In the past they knew nothing about science so they invented explanations to feel better and not be so damn afraid.


The Hebrew tribes were a scattered and superstitious primitive people. Why is their thunder and lightning? Why do people become sick and die? Why are there floods? "Well, let's just agree it's because God is angry or it's the work of the demons and then we'll never have to feel like we don't have a clue and be so afraid of this world.

>>17520339
saved

>>17522357
No this proves what I'm saying. This fucker was responsible for Wahhab and the Wahhabists, and for Qutb and the Qutbists, and for the Taliban and Al Qaeda and ISIS and all that garbage. You're just part of the garbage, since you literally are promoting Osama bin Laden in the other thread. Fuck that shit. FUCK Takfirism.

>>17522528
Panentheism literally debunks the radical separation between a supernatural God and a natural world. It also is the only way a transcendent God can truly be transcendent

>>17527151
Usurious lesbians just stole an election.
Hard reset now.

>>17522723
>when you have one set of one subset of one thing you have one thing
>OH WHAT IS THIS THERE ARE THREE ONES AND THEY MAKE ONLY ONE OH MY GOD I'M GOING INSANEEEE NIGGERMAN HELP ME

>>17528681
what is strange is for all the takfiris' posturing and moralistic indignation over the supposed 'shirk' of sufis, they are the most sinful in regards to limiting exegesis down to a literal basis. e.g, describing god as literally sitting with physical feet above the sky, and heaven as a literal garden. the former is anthropomorphism that is no better than christians saying god can be a man. the latter is just pure brainlet shit and rather than being the 'pure' method of interpretation, it is the limiting of interpretation down to the lowest and dumbest possible level of human intellect, not even intellect - just of the senses.

god is unseen, but man is made in his image. how could man resemble god at all physically? he doesn't, but he shares in his unseen nature. i.e the eternal soul and the spirit/ruhr.

>>17528927
and of course in the scope of his divine and wholly good qualities, like mercy, justice, etc

>>17528927
>e.g, describing god as literally sitting with physical feet above the sky,
bullshit.

>>17526423
>Honestly this is one of the most beautiful ideas in any religion to me
Me too, anon. That the bond of love is so strong as to unite the Father and the Son perfectly, and that God wants nothing more than to pull us humans into this relationship of love that is his own being. That when we love one another we imitate Christ and God dwells in us and we get a little foretaste of "the breadth and length and height and depth of the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge" (Eph 3:18-19). Jesus calling the Father "abba" is so wonderful because as you say, the Aramaic is really "papa" or "daddy" more than a formal term like "Father." This intimate union of love is what God desires for all of us to the point of sacrificing himself to bring us into a relationship of love with himself. It's almost too wonderful for words that God's nature is love itself, pouring itself out ceaselessly in the begetting of his Son and then poured out to us humans