Does God beget ?

Christians do not make an absolute distinction between the Creator and the creations. 

   That is not true. Christians are not Panthiests and have a strong concept of God being transcendent over the Creation of God.

    At the same time we hold to the incarnation of the Word to be flesh. This is because the Bible says so. And Jesus Christ demonstrated if ever God was to become a man He most clearly manifests what such a Man would be like.

Consequently, they arbitrarily ascribe to God literal human or created characteristics sometimes, and then reject them at other times. 

    The Bible speaks of God's emotion, mind, and will. So we believe that He has emotion, mind, and will. The Bible also alludes to the feathers of God. But we do not usually believe that this is more than allegorical. The same would be true of the hands or feet of God.

  That is unless in the OT it was Christ, the Angel of the Lord, being seen. Jacob wrestled with God. And Moses saw the back of God. Isaiah saw the glory of God as the appearance of a Man. And Ezekiel also saw the glory of God as the appearance of a Man on a throne. These visions must have been of Christ before He was born from the virgin in His incarnation.

 It is enough that the Christians attribute to God a literal location,

    Any statement about the whereabouts of God are taken from what the Bible says. However the doctrine of God's omnipresence is as firmly established among Christians as any other.

    and that they claim God goes thru changes to make it clear that the Christians do not know the difference between the Creator and temporal entities. 

   "The Word became flesh" (John 1:14)   If that is a Christian idea it is one according to what the Bible teaches.

   "... that last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45) is also the teaching of the Bible. So any idea about God going through these events is solidly based on the pure teaching of the Divine Revelation of the Bible.

    As for the Bible not being the revelation from God. We simply trust what the Bible says concerning itself over your human opinion.

JasperStone wrote: Angel wrote: I'm sorry but this is such a poor example (in fact not an example to use) to refute Israfil's point. Rest and exercise is not conradictory nor cancels each other out. They work in complimentary & needing both. Angel, You missed my point and turned it around. I wasn't saying that rest and exercise cancel each other out. I was giving that intentionally as a poor example to match the other poor examples others gave trying to make God's person self contradictory.

sorry.

but that didn't seem so.

Angel wrote: You don't care?? that's suppose to be christian like or should I say Christ like, the same with the "anity" that's not very nice. I believe you have totally missed my point again. Christianity is a religion of man. I don't care if he never joins that system of religion, but I would like him to know Christ. Saying I don't care was not an expression of apathy about him, but an illustration of my priorities.

How is that suppose to be christian like - Christ like. And how is Israfil suppose to experience Christ if he doesn't believe in trinity or never joins the system. you don't make sense.

"religion of man" do you think you could explain, because this sounds like man has created the religion not God.

I had said:  Based upon man's comprehension, a bumblebee cannot fly.

The Moor:  No, that is not the case.  We see bumble bees flying; therefore, we can't doubt that they can fly.  Now, what the theories pertaining to aerodynamics say about insect flight are just that--they are based on theory.  However, observation or reliable reports supercede theory.  Let's not confuse rational judgments with materialistic philosophy

Me:  Yes.  That is very much the case.  Based upon man�s comprehension, a bumblebee cannot fly. 

However, you did reinforce my point�man�s inability to understand something is insufficient reason to reject its validity. 

Yes, we can see bumblebees flying.  But, you introduced a new statement:  Based upon man�s sight, bumblebees can fly.  And, although, you claim to have refuted the first statement, you merely presented a conflict between: 1. a conclusion based upon man�s sight and 2. a conclusion based upon man�s understanding.

You compound your refutation with �therefore we can�t doubt..� as though that is equivalent to �we understand�.  Both give the false impression that physically seeing is equivalent to understanding.  Yet, when we see the sun go down, the sun isn�t moving at all.

Surely, you are aware that theory is based upon both observation AND reliable reports.

The Moor:  I wouldn't say that Hippocrates is the father of medicine.  For sure there were many who understood the science of healing thousands of years before Hippocrates.  But your point is understood.  You are equivocating here, however. 

No, I don�t think my point is understood�at least, not by you.  You have repeated the previous error.  You do not disagree with the reason Hippocrates is recognized as the father of medicine.  You simply disagree with the conclusion, based upon another reason. 

Although, you accuse me of equivocating, it is you who does not address the issue but substitute another.  It is as though you think no one else has seen a bumblebee fly or recognizes that anyone before Hippocrates had any knowledge of medicine!

Christians believe in an anthropomorphic entity that they consider to be God--whether they are referring to Jesus or Jesus' alleged father.  Christians--talking about those who follow mainstream traditional doctrines--believe that God is the literal father of Jesus, that is, Jesus was part (or a part of) God.  John 3:16 has been understood by the Christians, historically speaking, in a literal sense.  If a Christian rejects such an interpretation, then he is rejecting Christianity, for his claim entails ascribing ignorance and deviance to the very people who allegedly preserved and transmitted his religion.  

So?  Whether that stereotype of Christian belief is valid or not, what bearing could it possibly have on the validity of John 3:16? 

The Moor:  Christians do not make an absolute distinction between the Creator and the creations. 

That�s true for two reasons:

1.    Christians do not limit the Creator to a space outside creation. 

2.    Both Christians and Muslims believe in the relationship (connectivity) of the Creator with the creation.  Prayer and obedience are the means by which they seek to improve the connection (relationship).  Both believe that the Creator is active in, not absent from, creation.  �Thy will be done� or �Insha-Allah�.

The Moor:  Consequently, they arbitrarily ascribe to God literal human or created characteristics sometimes, and then reject them at other times. 

Based upon what you have said, I can understand how it might seem that way to you.  Likewise, it is understandable that a student, whose teacher uses a model of the solar system to describe the movement of the planets, might say that his teacher cannot distinguish between the visible model on the desk and the invisible planets in space.  Understandably, he will think the teacher is arbitrarily ascribing traits of the model to the planetary system and rejecting them at other times. 

The Moor: It is enough that the Christians attribute to God a literal location, and that they claim God goes thru changes to make it clear that the Christians do not know the difference between the Creator and temporal entities. 

No. Christians believe that God is everywhere. Psalms 139:8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.  Ironically, you are the one limiting God�s whereabouts�to anywhere BUT a literal location.  You do the same thing with time.  If you could find a Christian who limits God to past, present or future, it would lend some support to your premise that Christians deny that God is eternal.  As it is, you are the one denying that God is eternal when you exclude him from the temporal.  Eternity is all time.  All time is perceived as past, present, future.  To deny one part of the trinity of time is to deny the oneness of time. 

Until I hear a Christian say that God goes through changes, I will have to disagree with your assessment of their belief.  On the contrary, Christians quote scripture stating that God does not change.  Old Testament:  Malachi 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.  New Testament James 1:17   Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

The Moor:  Regarding the Old Testament, Muslims do not accept it as a proof for anything (other than the Bible's own lack of authenticity).  The Bible (both Testaments) has not been relaibly preserved or transmitted, and the rational and internal inconsistencies all the more prove the Bible cannot be a Divine Book.   

Many, if not most, Christians say the same thing about the Quran.  If a Jew, a Christian or a Muslim rejects either the Old Testament, the New Testament or the Quran, he has rejected all three.   Rejection stems from lack of understanding.  Pseudo acceptance stems from pseudo understanding--preference (bias, familiarity, tradition).  Acceptance stems from understanding.

On Bumblebees 

You are mixing things up here.  According to a THEORY bees can't fly.  But bees do fly; ergo, the theory is invalid.  Bees fly--as all other other actions occur--because God willed for them to occur.  That is perfectly understood by those who know that God is One.

Me:  Things are neither mixed up, nor am I mixing them up.  The confusion which you see is yours.  True.  According to theory, based upon man�s understanding, bees cannot fly.  What you call invalid, however, is simply incomplete.  Man�s understanding of aerodynamics is good as far as it goes.  If it were invalid, as you say, we would not have the sophisticated aircraft that we do.

On John 3:16

The Bible claims that God begat an offspring.  The thing that begets divides and separates.  The thing that divides is composed of parts, and the thing composed of parts is not One in the absolute sense.

It is one thing to reject, as invalid, the Old Testament verses in which God commands, �Be fruitful and multiply,� but it is quite another to say that being fruitful diminishes or divides, rather than multiplies.  

Tell me, how is an apple tree any less of an apple tree (diminished, divided) after it bears an apple?  Or, how is a man less than a man if he has sired a child? 

It seems that �one in the absolute sense� is the issue.  You do not take a linear stance (the whole is equal to the sum of its parts) or a non-linear stance (the whole is greater than the sum of its parts).  Rather, you introduce a new perception�the whole is less than the sum of its parts!

On Place

Muslims do not believe that God is "everywhere."  God was and the "wheres" were not.  After creating place, God did not change and begin to dwell inside (or outside) the creations.  God exists without a place.

Okay, let�s go with that.  God was, and the �where�s� were not.  So�when God created a �where� (specified a place midst unspecified space), God created a place offlimits to himself?

To create a �where� or �place� is to designate a particular part of space.  If God is not limited to space at all, how he be limited to a portion of space? 

On Time

God was before time.  I am using "Eternal" in the sense of being "Beginningless" (Qadeem).  God was before time.  God is not in time--or affected by time.  Time is God's creation and is managed and controlled by God.  As with place, time is inapplicable to God.  Christians, on the other hand, say that God BECAME flesh.  Becoming means change--a new state.  Christians say that God was WALKING around.  Walking indicates a state of change.  God is absolutely exalted (in status) from such insulting attributes.

God was not before time.  God and time are both eternal.  God was before the manifestation of time. God created the manifestation of time by blinding us to segments of time--past, present and future, so that we could see the progression (life, movement).  To say that God is not in time is to say that God never was, is not and shall never be. 

Yes, time is God�s �creation� or manifestation.  He made it perceptible for us.  Otherwise, we would not be able to distinguish past, present and future and never learn the way of life (progression).

True, time and place (space) are inapplicable to God.  Likewise, God is inapplicable to time and space.  Time and space are eternal�without beginning.  One must specify (set apart) a portion of time, a portion of space or a portion of God in order to see progression (movement, life, activity) and understand the way. 

Yes.  God BECAME flesh.  God manifested himself so that we could know him.  God fulfilled (fleshed out, manifested, created, reproduced, magnified) himself so that we could see (understand) and know (relate to) him.

Walking indicates movement (progression, life, activity).  When Christians refer to God walking, they refer to living God, one who wills and fulfills his will. 

Maybe not you, but there are Muslims who believe that God is alive�and actively executes his will.   Hence, �Insha-allah�.

On Rejecting the Bible

Rejecting the Bible is not rejecting the Qur'an.  Muslims know that the Bible has been distorted and altered.  Therefore, it can't be a book of Divine Revelation.  Rejecting the Bible is an affirmation of the Qur'an, not a rejection of it.

Likewise, rejecting the Quran is not perceived as rejecting the
Bible.  Christians �know� that the Quran is an alteration and distortion of the Bible.  Therefore, the Quran can�t be a book of Divine Revelation.  Rejecting the Quran is an affirmation of the Bible, not a rejection of it.

Those who reject either the Quran or the Bible do so based upon their own (lack of) understanding of the book they claim to accept.  Rejection stems from lack of understanding.  Pseudo acceptance stems from pseudo understanding--preference (bias, familiarity, tradition).  Acceptance stems from understanding.

These Christians and Muslims do exactly what their prophets warned them against.  Mohammed did not come to destroy the Bible any more than Jesus came to destroy the Old Testament.  Neither criticized the written�both taught that man corrupted the written with his own understanding.  Their message was to keep the written and discard the corrupt understanding.