Does God beget ?

Israfil wrote: Are you guys serious? Having a discourse on whether Bumblebees can fly? Oh by the way the Christians still have been unable to prove what I have written down, unfortunately. This is why I haven't responded lately

I addressed the logic with an example.  The moor missed my point and started addressing the example.

Back to logic.  The fact that someone cannot explain something is neither reason to reject or to accept it.  It is reason, however, to question it. 

You say, "Christian, you can't prove it".  The Christian says, "Muslim, you can't disprove it".  And, each walks away, thinking that he has filled his pockets with the emptiness of the other's pockets.


Edited by Mauri

Jocko: I am not too concerned to "proving" that God begets sons.

  I am happy enough if I can convince someone that the Bible indeed teaches that God begets sons. That is good enough.

Jocko for God sakes man make sense...Why tell us you are not concerned with proving something then say you are happy enough with convincing someone, they both entail the same thing? Jocko admit that this is a subject that you have very little knowledge of and your belief is the result of "what you were taught."

Saying God begets "sons" is a confusing thing to me....

Mauri what logic have you addressed? The bee example was poor....I'm looking for how one can prove the rewalationship between the Christian concept of Father and Son. Again let me remind the thread that Father and Son according to Christianity have the same yet distinct qualities I'm looking for an explanation to why this is so. The statements about God existing out of time are not holding up. The bee examples are not holding up.

Edited by Israfil

 

 Israfil,

  I have just spent over an hour answering truenowhere about the Comforter.

  I know my limits. Perhaps I just cannot answer your difficult questions Israfil. That I accept. Maybe someone else is better able to answer you.

  Maybe no one ever will be able to answer you. Isn't it more important that we find the truth then that we win public debates?

  Of course God transcends time. Yet He has the freedom to enter into time. He knows the future from the past as He demonstrates in prophecy. So He must transcend time.

 I don't know why that is hard for you to accept. Is anything too hard for God? I tell you He desires to be joined with man in an organic union. He remains the Source and the object of our worship. But we enter into Him as a living realm and live in Him and express Him from within.

   God gave me the ability to believe the Bible. I pray He would grant you the same ability.

Edited by Jocko

Mauri said:

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.

 

The Moor says:

Obviously if the theory conflicts with reality, then the theory has faulty underlying principles.

 

Mauri said:

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!

 

The Moor says: Let's explain basic reproduction here: when a man sires a child, it entails that a PART of himself, i.e., his reproductive essence has separated from himself and impregnated a female.  This entails a BEFORE and an AFTER.  The Eternal God does not have a before or an after.  God has no beginning and isn't subject to change.  Secondly, you are assuming that God is a body.  Divisibility and multiplication apply to things that are made up of parts. God isn't made up of anything.   Likewise, when an apple tree produces fruits, it is UNDERGOING  change.  It is growing.  It isn't what it was.  The One Who is Absolutely Perfect (i.e., the Creator) does not develop or undergo change, for development and change indicate dependency and a lack of (absolute) Perfection.

 

Mauri said:

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?

 

The Moor says:

God is NOT A BODY, for a body BY ITS VERY NATURE can't be perfect.  Bodies are dependent upon space.  God isn't dependent on space.  God is not in a portion of space--or in all spaces.  It is not possible for a creation to contain God.  God is not in anything, for being in entails containment and dependency upon that location.

 

Mauri said: God was not before time.  God and time are both eternal. 

 

The Moor says:  Muslims believe (and the judgment of reason dictates) that God is the Creator of everything.  Furthermore, since time is composed of events, then time itself is an event (i.e., a creation).  The same can be said of bodies.  Space and bodies are inseparable, and given that bodies go thru changes, then bodies must be created.  And given that bodies exist in space, then space must be created. 

Mauri said:

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.

 

The Moor says:  The Bible cannot be considered a reliable reference.  There is NO PROOF that the Bible is from God, and its internal inconsistencies, the unbefitting things ascribed to God, and the method by which it was transmitted (and altered) clearly indicate that it can't be from God.