Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think this all ties in in this way. If the inclusion of Mohammed in the shahada is an instrumental part of salvation and Mohammed is a mere mortal, then doesn’t that go as far or further than Christianity which says that Jesus only saves because of his divinity?

Then Christian thinking (if that’s what it is) is essentially circular here. In order for its theology to hold a divine Jesus is necessary, therefore Jesus was divine…and so the theology holds etc and round and round it goes.

Odd.       

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

All of which, as I thought, is in complete contrast with the Christian idea that Christ pre-existed, became incarnate in Jesus, then died and rose again.

Yes - agreed.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Then Christian thinking (if that’s what it is) is essentially circular here. In order for its theology to hold a divine Jesus is necessary, therefore Jesus was divine…and so the theology holds etc and round and round it goes.

Odd.       

I think that the notion that only God can save .i.e. end the alienation that man established between Himself and God is established in Christian thinking by self reflection, the Holy Spirit and self knowledge.

Your epistemology would it seem only establishes the actually of things if they are conjured by what one feels to be a good argument..

Now that’s what I call circular.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

"Love is the energising elixir of the universe, the cause and effect of all harmonies, light's brilliance and the heat in wine and fire, it is the aroma of perfumes and the breath of the Divinity; it is the life in all being. Love is the quickening solvent in maya, and the coalescing agent in union.  It is all that the texts have to say, and the more that remains unspoken. What is Love?  Thou shalt know when thou becomest me." .... Rumi

Sounds beautifully poetic - but still hard to define in practical terms 

E.g. my parents caned me when I was a kid, but I don't doubt their love for me. I never caned my kids and I also feel I love my children. So not really sure where that leaves us in terms of a definition of love.

Maybe my parents' love could be described as a biological strong attachment due to conceiving and giving birth to me and providing for me, combined with a sense of willingness to sacrifice for me and protectiveness towards me and interest in my well-being and a feeling of happiness when I show an interest in their well-being - as that means they didn't waste 20 odd years of their life making various sacrifices to bring me up when they could have been spending their time and money on something that was less arduous and more fun than parenting me. Like travelling or just putting their feet up.

My dad got a job abroad as an engineer from when I was about 7 years old. My maternal grandparents who lived with us had both died by the time I was 12. In effect my mum was working as a doctor and was a single parent most of the time I was growing up. And this may shock many of you  but yes I was an argumentative, annoying, opinionated teenager.

Easiest and sanest thing for my mum to have done was to stick me and my brother in boarding school in somewhere like India (so we retained our Asian culture), rent our home out and go join my dad abroad to live on his ex-pat salary with the house, gardener, cook, driver provided for by the company...yet she didn't. Easiest thing for my dad would be to have his wife with him instead of living apart from her so his kids could have an uninterrupted British education. It's not easy living abroad with no family life and only coming home every few months for a short time to parent teenagers who may have absorbed a little too much of the worst aspects of 80's British culture i.e. being somewhat argumentative, unappreciative, entitled 'rebels without a cause' who resent being told what to do by a largely absent parent who grew up in a different culture. To me what my parents did for us is love. 

And the fact that they inflicted pain on me using a cane when I was a child (pre-teens) is not a sign for me they didn't love me. It would depend on the circumstances but I don't automatically equate pain and punishment as evidence of a lack of love, but many other people would. So it seems there isn't an universally agreed definition of "love" that holds for all time.

If you asked someone else they might say caning me is not compatible with love. Yet I know they loved me - so it leaves me wondering why place much emphasis on the word "love"?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I take it then you are not sure then that acknowledgment of Mohammed and his office is necessary for salvation.

Correct - I'm not sure.

If it is though then obviously a man has been promoted to being integral to salvation has he not? This promotion of a man does have echoes I believe in early Christianity which I will discuss later But would you class the suggestion as impossible within Islam?I understand that no incarnation as in the case of Jesus here is being suggested, leaving Mohammed’s promotion to somehow being promoted to salvific importance in the Islamic context through the Shahada, intriguing.

I would say there are Muslims who are uneasy with the importance given by other Muslims to Prophet Muhammed. 

Sure, Muslims who elevate Prophet Muhammed can say they consider him to still be just a man and he is dead and they are honouring a dead man, but other Muslims worry that some actions and speech in honouring and emulating Prophet Muhammed seem to be dangerously close to idol worship.

As I said early Christians were a mix of trinitarians and non trinitarians some believing that Jesus was just a man promoted to divinity. We discussed earlier this year that God being known or made known raised theological objection from Islam and that would include the incarnation of Christianity. Man cannot know God. The theological counter objection from Christianity would be that that focussed on man and effectively challenges God’s sovereign ability to make himself known even through an incarnation.
I think this all ties in in this way. If the inclusion of Mohammed in the shahada is an instrumental part of salvation and Mohammed is a mere mortal, then doesn’t that go as far or further than Christianity which says that Jesus only saves because of his divinity?

Yes I think there is some similarity in the tension in Islam with respect to Prophet Muhammed as there is between trinitarians and unitarians in Christianity. Muslims may state that he is a Prophet and a man but their honouring of him could be interpreted by some people as him being something more to them than a dead Messenger.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

'To love is to suffer. To avoid suffering, one must not love. But, then one suffers from not loving. Therefore, to love is to suffer, not to love is to suffer, to suffer is to suffer. To be happy is to love, to be happy, then, is to suffer, but suffering makes one unhappy, therefore, to be unhappy one must love, or love to suffer, or suffer from too much happiness, I hope you're getting this down.'
– Love and Death (Woody Allen)

Good one  . Woody Allen is a clever writer.

Even though it's being satirical, I would actually say something similar about faith or belief in any cause or idea - it doesn't have to be religious. I think faith and belief and an ideal or cause worth pursuing should involve struggle. Therefore you could say to commit to a cause is to suffer. To avoid suffering, one must not have committed to the cause. To be happy is to commit to a cause or an ideal, but suffering makes one unhappy, therefore to be unhappy one must commit to a cause, or commit to suffer, or suffer from too much happiness.

You could laugh at it - but it has a grain of truth.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think that the notion that only God can save .i.e. end the alienation that man established between Himself and God is established in Christian thinking by self reflection, the Holy Spirit and self knowledge.

So no divine Jesus is needed for that notion then?

Really?

Your epistemology would it seem only establishes the actually of things if they are conjured by what one feels to be a good argument..

No. My epistemology is that if we are to know the “actuality” of something then we need sound argument to validate the belief. Absent that, it may still be that something exists but we have no basis to say we know that to be the case.

If not for sound argument, what other method would you propose to do the job?   

Now that’s what I call circular.

You probably do. It isn’t though – nothing like it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

So no divine Jesus is needed for that notion then?

Really?

No. My epistemology is that if we are to know the “actuality” of something then we need sound argument to validate the belief. Absent that, it may still be that something exists but we have no basis to say we know that to be the case.

If not for sound argument, what other method would you propose to do the job?   

You probably do. It isn’t though – nothing like it.

I’m sorry I’ve lost you....what notion?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I’m sorry I’ve lost you....what notion?

The notion you were referring to when you said:

I think that the notion that only God can save .i.e. end the alienation ….

etc.

Also by the way if you seriously think self-reflection is a reliable replacement for sound argument to know the actuality of things what then of the person whose self-reflection leads them to beliefs entirely different from yours?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

The notion you were referring to when you said:
 etc.

Also by the way if you seriously think self-reflection is a reliable replacement for sound argument to know the actuality of things what then of the person whose self-reflection leads them to beliefs entirely different from yours?

still not getting you and this probably extends to your original contention of circularity.

The premise of a man being unable to save himself or anyone else means that if we are saved it must be because of something else. Given Christian definitions of salvation the means of salvation must be divine.
A purely human Jesus does not work.
If you say that the Christian definition of salvation is wrong then you have to justify that with your own definition of salvation and how that would be achieved.

I’m not sure you can claim any scheme of salvation is automatically a circular argument though.

[Stranger]

I think that the notion that only God can save .i.e. end the alienation that man established between Himself and God is established in Christian thinking by self reflection, the Holy Spirit and self knowledge.

So, just made up woo, then. Or, probably more accurately, blind acceptance of parts of the buy-bull. In fact, the very alienation would be unjust and all god's fault even if it were true. I didn't choose to alienate myself, it was, apparently, god's unjust, sadistic, and vindictive response to some people eating the wrong fruit a long time ago (or whatever you think that represents).

Once again, I'm astounded that people (even not devout Christians) seem to just swallow this utter bullshit. It seems that people (at least in nominally Christian cultures) are so familiar with the ideas that they just never think about them.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So, just made up woo, then. Or, probably more accurately, blind acceptance of parts of the buy-bull. In fact, the very alienation would be unjust and all god's fault even if it were true. I didn't choose to alienate myself, it was, apparently, god's unjust, sadistic, and vindictive response to some people eating the wrong fruit a long time ago (or whatever you think that represents).

Once again, I'm astounded that people (even not devout Christians) seem to just swallow this utter bullshit. It seems that people (at least in nominally Christian cultures) are so familiar with the ideas that they just never think about them.

Another poster yearning for an alternative consequence free universe.

[Stranger]

Another poster yearning for an alternative consequence free universe.

Another poster with blind, unthinking, irrational faith.   

It is basic justice (i.e. what your god is supposed to follow) that you don't punish people for other people's crimes. This was not (according to your self-contradictory book of fairy tales) some 'natural' consequence (not that an omni god wouldn't have control over those too), but the result of the vindictive god's deliberate actions/judgement.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Another poster with blind, unthinking, irrational faith.   

It is basic justice (i.e. what your god is supposed to follow) that you don't punish people for other people's crimes. This was not (according to your self-contradictory book of fairy tales) some 'natural' consequence (not that an omni god wouldn't have control over those too), but the result of the vindictive god's deliberate actions/judgement.

Basic justice? Your notions instantly have everyone innocent. Can there be talk of justice after that? You can take others consequences for what they/others have done on yourself. That is the very nature of forgiveness. The consequences of our sin is spiritual death and that is what Christ takes on.

Justice is not pretending it didn’t happen so there are therefore no consequences.

Spiritual death is alienation from God and final spiritual death is final alienation.

Sin causes spiritual death.

[ekim]

Sounds beautifully poetic - but still hard to define in practical terms 

E.g. my parents caned me when I was a kid, but I don't doubt their love for me. I never caned my kids and I also feel I love my children. So not really sure where that leaves us in terms of a definition of love.

I believe from the, so called, spiritual point of view it is not something that can be defined but more an inner 'state' of being that can be experienced and is always available, but the outer world provides many distractions which draw the attention away from that state, the greatest of these being those that are self or ego centred. Unfortunately self centredness can by a collective phenomenon like racism, tribalism, nationalism, religion, politics etc. 'Self' sacrifice is often depicted as an example of what is required to maintain that 'love state'.  The 'love state' is often associated with a condition of one-ness or union at a universal level, possibly why some say God is Love and to merge with this is Heaven.  Self centredness eventually leads to disunion and often conflict which morality attempts to resolve by litigation and force.

As regards 'And this may shock many of you but yes I was an argumentative, annoying, opinionated teenager', I was brought up in an era when we were taught that 'Little girls were made of sugar and spice and all things nice',so I don't believe you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

still not getting you and this probably extends to your original contention of circularity.

Which part are you struggling with?

The premise of a man being unable to save himself or anyone else means that if we are saved it must be because of something else. Given Christian definitions of salvation the means of salvation must be divine.

Except of course being “saved” in the religious sense is just theobollocks until and unless you can find a sound argument to justify that notion at all.

A purely human Jesus does not work.

So you need to assert him to be divine for the theology to “work”, and you want the theology to work, therefore…er… he was divine then?

That’s your circular reasoning.

If you say that the Christian definition of salvation is wrong then you have to justify that with your own definition of salvation and how that would be achieved.

Utter bullshit. It’s not that “the Christian definition of salvation is wrong”, it’s that it’s incoherent. Gibberish. White noise. I no more have to justify a different “definition of salvation” than you have to justify a different definition of the noises I assert leprechauns make when they’re making shoes.   

You're just trying to shift the burden of proof here (again).   

I’m not sure you can claim any scheme of salvation is automatically a circular argument though.

Yet another straw man. I have no idea how you’d define “salvation” without collapsing into blind faith assertions, but that’s not my problem remember?

Your circularity concerns something else though: “I really want the theology to be true; I’ve decided that the theology can’t be true without a divine Jesus; therefore Jesus was divine; Jesus was divine…” etc and round and round forever.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Which part are you struggling with?

Except of course being “saved” in the religious sense is just theobollocks until and unless you can find a sound argument to justify that notion at all.

So you need to assert him to be divine for the theology to “work”, and you want the theology to work, therefore…er… he was divine then?

That’s your circular reasoning.

Utter bullshit. It’s not that “the Christian definition of salvation is wrong”, it’s that it’s incoherent. Gibberish. White noise. I no more have to justify a different “definition of salvation” than you have to justify a different definition of the noises leprechauns make when they’re making shoes.   

You're just trying to shift the burden of proof (again) here.   

Yet another straw man. I have no idea how you’d define “salvation” without collapsing into blind faith assertions, but that’s not my problem remember?

Your circularity concerns something else though: “I really want the theology to be true; I’ve decided that the theology can’t be true without a divine Jesus; therefore Jesus was divine; Jesus was divine…” etc and round and round forever.

So. Argumentum Ad It’sallbollocksanyway then.
I can put the lid on it with a clear conscience then.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

So. Argumentum Ad It’sallbollocksanyway then.

Unless you can produce a sound argument to justify any of it, essentially yes – for the reasons I explained to you and you've just run away from again. 

I can put the lid on it with a clear conscience then.

If you think your dishonest evasiveness justifies a clear conscience, yes you can Boris.

[Stranger]

Basic justice? Your notions instantly have everyone innocent.

Until they have personally done something wrong and then any punishment should be proportionate. Your notion has everybody guilty. The bible says that everybody is a 'sinner' and needs 'saving'.  What's more, if everybody is a sinner, that means we have no choice (otherwise some would choose not to sin). That's basically a design flaw. Your unjust and vindictive god is condemning us for being the way it made us.

That isn't justice.

You can take others consequences for what they/others have done on yourself. That is the very nature of forgiveness.

Drivel. If you hit me, or steal from me, I don't have to go to prison or pay the fine for you in order to forgive. If you murder somebody else, I can't just go to court and say "it's all right your honour, Vlad did it, I had nothing to do with it, but I'll go to prison for life so you can let him off".

That really isn't how justice works.

The consequences of our sin is spiritual death and that is what Christ takes on.

Except we have no choice about being 'sinners', as I explained above. Any consequences are the responsibility of the god that designed us and the world.

Omniscient + omnipotent + being the creator of the world = omni-responsible.

These Christian ideas are incoherent nonsense that depict a viscous, vindictive, unjust, and basically evil god that blames us for the flaws in its own creation.

And all that is before we get the to logical impossibility of 'free will' with respect to such a creator. Literally everything we do would be its choice.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Until they have personally done something wrong and then any punishment should be proportionate. Your notion has everybody guilty. The bible says that everybody is a 'sinner' and needs 'saving'.  What's more, if everybody is a sinner, that means we have no choice (otherwise some would choose not to sin). That's basically a design flaw. Your unjust and vindictive god is condemning us for being the way it made us.

That isn't justice.

Drivel. If you hit me, or steal from me, I don't have to go to prison or pay the fine for you in order to forgive. If you murder somebody else, I can't just go to court and say "it's all right your honour, Vlad did it, I had nothing to do with it, but I'll go to prison for life so you can let him off".

That really isn't how justice works.

Except we have no choice about being 'sinners', as I explained above. Any consequences are the responsibility of the god that designed us and the world.

Omniscient + omnipotent + being the creator of the world = omni-responsible.

These Christian ideas are incoherent nonsense that depict a viscous, vindictive, unjust, and basically evil god that blames us for the flaws in its own creation.

And all that is before we get the to logical impossibility of 'free will' with respect to such a creator. Literally everything we do would be its choice.

I think you are mistaking 'sins' as the whole picture. There is also something called contempt of court, chiefly trying to avoid the verdict. Your model completely ignores this aspect of the law.
Sins though damage the perpetrator .  Crime has victims who are innocent. God in Christ's offers to take the consequences of our sins. Thereby the court or God offers to cancel sin but it is more than that because that offers also the way to God. These offers of forgiveness and Of a life with God are still subject to your freewill.

Will you accept them?

And a word about free will. You may be physically programmed for your material life.
But spiritual decision is not material or subject to it.
How can it be? It is not material.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I believe from the, so called, spiritual point of view it is not something that can be defined but more an inner 'state' of being that can be experienced and is always available, but the outer world provides many distractions which draw the attention away from that state, the greatest of these being those that are self or ego centred. Unfortunately self centredness can by a collective phenomenon like racism, tribalism, nationalism, religion, politics etc. 'Self' sacrifice is often depicted as an example of what is required to maintain that 'love state'.  The 'love state' is often associated with a condition of one-ness or union at a universal level, possibly why some say God is Love and to merge with this is Heaven.  Self centredness eventually leads to disunion and often conflict which morality attempts to resolve by litigation and force.

That's an interesting perspective - that racism, tribalism, nationalism, religion, politics etc - in other words attachment to certain collective, social ideas - are examples of self-centredness?  Yet humans seem to be social creatures and would therefore need to organise their society in some way for it to function. And in order to persuade people to work for the collective ahead of their own personal interests would leaders not need to encourage a love of race, tribe, nation, a god, a religion and a political structure?

As regards 'And this may shock many of you but yes I was an argumentative, annoying, opinionated teenager', I was brought up in an era when we were taught that 'Little girls were made of sugar and spice and all things nice',so I don't believe you.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think you are mistaking 'sins' as the whole picture. There is also something called contempt of court, chiefly trying to avoid the verdict. Your model completely ignores this aspect of the law.
Sins though damage the perpetrator .  Crime has victims who are innocent. God in Christ's offers to take the consequences of our sins. Thereby the court or God offers to cancel sin but it is more than that because that offers also the way to God. These offers of forgiveness and Of a life with God are still subject to your freewill.

Will you accept them?

And a word about free will. You may be physically programmed for your material life.
But spiritual decision is not material or subject to it.
How can it be? It is not material.

I would say apart from monotheism and the rejection of the notion of a trinity, these are some of the other big differences between Islam and Christianity. In Islam there is no belief in 'original sin' that all humans are guilty of so there is no belief that this can be automatically cancelled because of believing an alleged sacrifice took place centuries ago. There is only a belief in accountability for your own actions and any bad deeds or intentions that you are personally responsible for. And there is no blanket  offer of forgiveness by becoming a Muslim.

What's a spiritual decision? Belief in Jesus as god? Do you believe people can choose their beliefs?

[Stranger]

I think you are mistaking 'sins' as the whole picture. There is also something called contempt of court, chiefly trying to avoid the verdict. Your model completely ignores this aspect of the law.
Sins though damage the perpetrator .  Crime has victims who are innocent. God in Christ's offers to take the consequences of our sins. Thereby the court or God offers to cancel sin but it is more than that because that offers also the way to God. These offers of forgiveness and Of a life with God are still subject to your freewill.

Transparent evasion. None of this gibbering actually addresses the main points I was making. Namely, not everybody would be a sinner if we had a choice about it. Human nature and the way the world is, are clearly god's responsibility as an omni type creator. And, of course, the logical impossibly of any kind of 'free will' with respect to such a creator regardless.

Will you accept them?

I don't believe there is anything to accept, and even if there were, I wouldn't accept anything from your monstrous, viscous, vindictive, sadistic, and unjust god. It would deserve to be universally hated.

And a word about free will. You may be physically programmed for your material life.
But spiritual decision is not material or subject to it.
How can it be? It is not material.

As I've explained multiple times to Alan, the impossibility has nothing to do with any limitations of being material or physical. It's a logical impossibility, regardless.

[ekim]

That's an interesting perspective - that racism, tribalism, nationalism, religion, politics etc - in other words attachment to certain collective, social ideas - are examples of self-centredness?  Yet humans seem to be social creatures and would therefore need to organise their society in some way for it to function. And in order to persuade people to work for the collective ahead of their own personal interests would leaders not need to encourage a love of race, tribe, nation, a god, a religion and a political structure?

From the 'spiritual' perspective, I believe the idea is to disidentify with what contributes to self/ego centredness and identify with or be in union with an inner state seen as love which is considered to be universal. It is symbolised by the heart. 
 Societies are possibly derived from the pack or flock instinct which is probably for survival purposes.  The drivers or persuaders of societies are those with the strongest and often weaponised  self/egos who have learnt how to manipulate the 'flock-think' of the others.  It seems to be getting worse as mass media communication has got better.  Celebrity status seems to be rampant and internet influencers prolific and the idea of United Nations a dream. 

An hour of meditation is worth more than good deeds done by men and spirits
Consult your heart and you will hear the secret direction of God proclaimed by the  heart’s inward knowledge, which is real faith and divinity. (Muhammad)

Prayer is not verbal.   It is from the heart.   To merge into the heart is prayer.
(Sri Ramana Maharshi )
The contraction of hearts consists in the expansion of Self and the expansion of hearts in the contraction of Self. Bayazid al Bishtami   [9th C Persian Sufi mystic]

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

From the 'spiritual' perspective, I believe the idea is to disidentify with what contributes to self/ego centredness and identify with or be in union with an inner state seen as love which is considered to be universal. It is symbolised by the heart. 
 Societies are possibly derived from the pack or flock instinct which is probably for survival purposes.  The drivers or persuaders of societies are those with the strongest and often weaponised  self/egos who have learnt how to manipulate the 'flock-think' of the others.  It seems to be getting worse as mass media communication has got better.  Celebrity status seems to be rampant and internet influencers prolific and the idea of United Nations a dream. 

An hour of meditation is worth more than good deeds done by men and spirits
Consult your heart and you will hear the secret direction of God proclaimed by the  heart’s inward knowledge, which is real faith and divinity. (Muhammad)

Prayer is not verbal.   It is from the heart.   To merge into the heart is prayer.
(Sri Ramana Maharshi )
The contraction of hearts consists in the expansion of Self and the expansion of hearts in the contraction of Self. Bayazid al Bishtami   [9th C Persian Sufi mystic]

If the focus on self/ego is problematic - that may explain why people focusing on themselves and their identities and needing these identities to be recognised and validated by everyone else is creating conflict.