27 Nov 06
Originally posted by snowinscotlandBecause we are human we use our earth day. So for sure both will be 24 hours. What is your point?
That's what I said before:- perhaps the translation lost something.
Rather than talk about a 'day', it should say 'time period'. That way, when two or three different values are applied to a single word, that has very broad and specific common useage, there is no misunderstanding.
If I said to you 'I'll borrow the money for a day' and then 'I'l ...[text shortened]... a day'; which of these words 'day' means 24 hours and which means '50000 years'?
27 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by snowinscotlandAha , I got it.
OK - I'll try to get you there another way.
Question; Does anyone not on earth read these verses?
But we discussed that before. I understand it this way and every Muslim understand it this way because Allah say that his day is not like ours. So if we talk about Quran we know that Allah day is not like ours.
If you ask any Muslim Is Allah day the same as our day he will say no..
It depends on the context..
27 Nov 06
1 edit
I understand what you are saying here.
What I am saying is that like any holy book, any person who believes the book will find an explanation for any part of it that may be questioned by someone who does not believe it. They absolutely HAVE to, or the whole basis for their belief starts to falls down. I've noticed that the older a person grows (in their faith) the quieter they tend to become. They are generally not so vehement as the newly converted. Is this a result of observation of the world around them? They see what the young do not, for sure.
What I am saying is not that the definition of 'day' is wrong, but that the interpretation will vary (look at the three you generally quote - they don't say the same thing).
Edit - Oh and while I'm on the subject, What do you think is the reason for the different Muslim sects, eg sunni / shia etc?
27 Nov 06
Originally posted by snowinscotlandI understand what you mean, and I try to avoid that. I try not to make any explainations (Although it sometimes required).
I understand what you are saying here.
What I am saying is that like any holy book, any person who believes the book [b]will find an explanation for any part of it that may be questioned by someone who does not believe it. They absolutely HAVE to, or the whole basis for their belief starts to falls down. I've noticed that the older a person gro ...[text shortened]... pretation will vary (look at the three you generally quote - they don't say the same thing).[/b]
But here I don't do explaination when I say my day is not like our days. It is simply what is written in the Quran. It is written that GOD day is different. I didn't conclude it.
Also the two verses are different. They don't need any explanation, they are talking about different times.
Any way what should we conclude from all of that? (I'm talking about the Issue of the definition of the "day"😉
27 Nov 06
5 edits
Originally posted by ahosyneyI think you are puttting words in my mouth. What I said was God is a God of love therefore he acts out of a desire to love. It has nothing to do with needing me in particular. In fact, he must deal with the reality that he will be loosing part of his creation to those who have rebelled against him. He does not wish to loose them because he loves them but he must let them go due to the fact that love requires free will and he must let them decide for themselves.
I read your two post about Love.
I can tell that in Islam there is no much different. We are asked to love Allah, because he is our creator. We are asked to worship him because we owe him every thing.
But here is the problem:
Your faith equate you to GOD. Makes the love relationship between you and GOD mutual. Which imply that GOD needs your love.
[b]Note: Try to read the quran. Read the translation and I can help you if you want.[/b]
The whole issue about God requiring blood sacrifice is some what mysterious and I have tried to explain it to you. Leviticus 17:11 says, "For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul." So Christ became this perpetual blood sacrifice for us. Offering a blood sacrifice seems to be symoblic of offering of a life for a life.
Let me ask you something. You say that God can do anything? Can God lie? Is he not holy and incapable of sin? The last time I checked God was a holy God and incapable of sin. Before Adam and Eve fell he told them not to partake of the fruit lest they should die. When they then partook of the fruit despite his warnings, could God have decided that they would live after all and not die? Had he done so he would have broken a spiritual law of somekind, no? He would not only have lied but he would have broken the spritual law that sin brings death and he would have been just as guilty as Adam and Eve. Therefore, how is God to restore us unto himself now that we are to die? It seems to me that blood sacrifice is somehow the vehicle for such an exchange. A life for a life. Sin brings death and the blood brings life. It seems to be a spiritual law of somekind.
As far as me being a weak creature I would agree. In fact, I am completly dependent on what God chooses to provide for me. Granted, it is my responsibility to respond to what he provides for me which includes responding to Christs sacrifice on the cross for my sins.
As far as your other accusation that I give myself greater weight that what I deserve, you are again putting words into my mouth. You say that what we need is mercy and not love? Is there no love in mercy? How can you seperate the two? Did you not read my definition of love? In fact, the Christian faith says that we are saved via grace. It is nothing that we deserve, rather, it is a gift we choose to recieve. Therefore it is mercy plus sacrifice, however, Christs sacrifice was a type of mercy. He was not obliged to do it, rather, he did it out of love and mercy because he knew we needed it to be restored back to him. It is nothing we deserved.
27 Nov 06
3 edits
Originally posted by whodeyI didn't mean you particulary. I was talking in general. I was talking about what your faith implys. I didn't try to put words in your mouth. Sorry if my words made you feel that.
I think you are puttting words in my mouth. What I said was God is a God of love therefore he acts out of a desire to love. It has nothing to do with needing me in particular. In fact, he must deal with the reality that he will be loosing part of his creation to those who have rebelled against him. He does not wish to loose them because he loves them but and mercy because he knew we needed it to be restored back to him. It is nothing we deserved.
I will borrow your example of the last post:
To better illustrate what I am saying I will ask you this question. In a loving relationship what is the one thing that you try to do such as your wife? Do you not try to please her? And if she loves you will she not likewise try to please you? This is the same kind of relationship God wants with us.
Thats your example. If this is really illustrate what you understand about human-GOD relationship, then I'm right in what I said:
1- In this relationship both sides need each other. If one of them doesn't need the other, then it will not be love. But I don't accept that GOD needs my love.
2- Both sides of this relationship are equal, they have the same weight. And of course we agreed that is not correct.
3- You cann't replace love with mercy in this relationship. They imply different meaning. If one of the to sides just show mercy, the relation will be destried.
So I think the human -GOD relationship is different. I cann't think now of a suitable example.
I hope I was clear.
I will give you an example that may be illustrate what I understand from you.
"I'm a robot maker, who have a son. I managed to build an intellegent tobot. This robot is important to me. One day the robot faced some problem. I found out I can save it, or my son, but my son will be hurt if he did, so I choosed my son"
The question is who is much important, the robot, or my son?
If I can to choose why didn't I just save him?
Do I really have a son ? 🙂
I hope my example is clear.
You say that God can do anything? Can God lie?
I don't remember I said that. But it is an important issue.
Let me ask another Question: Can GOD die?
If you say yes, then he is not GOD.
If you say no, then what is difference between die and lie?
There is no difference, both are impossible for GOD. It is not the matter of he is able or not. It is the matter whether it is appropriate for GOD or not?
So the problem in the story in the Bible. But I have a much easier solution.
It is common in Christian theology to represent death is being a way from GOD. If you take this definition you will find out that there is no problem. God send Adam and Eve Away from him to earth. So they are logicly died and the punishment fulfilled.
Let me ask you something. You say that God can do anything? Can God lie? Is he not holy and incapable of sin? The last time I checked God was a holy God and incapable of sin. Before Adam and Eve fell he told them not to partake of the fruit lest they should die. When they then partook of the fruit despite his warnings, could God have decided that they would live after all and not die? Had he done so he would have broken a spiritual law of somekind, no? He would not only have lied but he would have broken the spritual law that sin brings death and he would have been just as guilty as Adam and Eve. Therefore, how is God to restore us unto himself now that we are to die? It seems to me that blood sacrifice is somehow the vehicle for such an exchange. A life for a life. Sin brings death and the blood brings life. It seems to be a spiritual law of somekind
this part of you argument is what I mean by comparing human to GOD. I got the feeling that you assume that GOD behave in simeler way like humans. You said things about GOD I don't dare to say it, like.
Do you think that GOD didn't know what was Adam going to do?
27 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by ahosyneyI see what you are saying now. I only used the example of the marriage relationship to illustrate that God WANTS us (notice I did not say need us) to want him and for us to want to please him just as we want to please our mate whom we love. I think you were reading to much into my illustration.
I didn't mean you particulary. I was talking in general. I was talking about what your faith implys. I didn't try to put words in your mouth. Sorry if my words made you feel that.
I will borrow your example of the last post:
[b]To better illustrate what I am saying I will ask you this question. In a loving relationship what is the one thing that you try e to say it, like.
Do you think that GOD didn't know what was Adam going to do?
Christ, on the other hand, said we are to refer to God as our Father in heaven. How do you feel about that?
Your illustration about the robot is not one I would use. A robot has no free will, rather, it simply responds to the commads of its creator. If this was so, then why would we sin if God is holy? Also what kind of love can the creator of the robot have for the robot? Is it not simply a tool? It has to soul so to speak and no means to have a loving relationship with its creator. Therefore, why would I place any emphasis on saving the robot. I would simply discard it and make another. You also assume that there is another avenue to fix the robot other that having his son make a sacrifice to fix it. What if it is the only way? If you recall, right before going ot the cross Christ asks his Father repeatidly for a way out if there was one. He got no response. That tells me that God either is sadistic and chose not to answer his onw Son's prayers as he was sweating great drops of blood or there was no other way. By Christs own admission he is the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father except through him.
You do ask an interesting question as to whether God could die. You are correct in that Christ was temporarily seperated from his Father once he took on the sin of the world on the cross. This is illustrated when he asked the Father why he had forsaken him. You see the triune God did not die, it was only seperated for a short time. As far as it being appropriate for God to do so I would not venture a guess at what is appropriate for him to do or not do do as long is it does not include sinning. You see Christ never sinned. Death had no right to him even though it took him. In effect, his life was stolen unjustly and therefore death now owes him. Death owes him the lives of those who place their faith in him.
28 Nov 06
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyChrist, on the other hand, said we are to refer to God as our Father in heaven. How do you feel about that?
I see what you are saying now. I only used the example of the marriage relationship to illustrate that God WANTS us (notice I did not say need us) to want him and for us to want to please him just as we want to please our mate whom we love. I think you were reading to much into my illustration.
Christ, on the other hand, said we are to refer to God as ou therefore death now owes him. Death owes him the lives of those who place their faith in him.
I don't know exactly what you mean by that. I think it is an analogy to our relation with GOD. It imply mercy as I told you before. You may explain your idea.
A robot has no free will, rather, it simply responds to the commads of its creator. If this was so, then why would we sin if God is holy?
I represented falling in sin by the problem facing the robot. And forgiving the sin is fixing the problem.
Also what kind of love can the creator of the robot have for the robot?
That is exactly the point. You are a creature of GOD. You are some how special, but you still a creature created for a specific purpose. The love the creator give to you is mercy.
Therefore, why would I place any emphasis on saving the robot. I would simply discard it and make another.
You said what I wanted to tell. That is exactly our case. If GOD can't forgive our sin (Do you think GOD really can't forgive?) why he just didn't replace us, instead of sacrificing his beloved son. Who is more important us, GOD's son? What will we give GOD in return? What I see you don't give GOD anything!!!!
You also assume that there is another avenue to fix the robot other that having his son make a sacrifice to fix it. What if it is the only way?
We discussed this issue before and I showed you evidences from the Bible that there is another way. But you didn't accept them. But the logic say there is another simple way. GOD is the one who made the rules, he can do what ever he want. He can forgive.
Although you assume the sin remains although ADAM and EVE already punished for their sin, and died (If we explained death as being away from GOD) becaues he send them to the earth and lost there place near GOD.
So actually there is no problem with the robot.
If you recall, right before going ot the cross Christ asks his Father repeatidly for a way out if there was one. He got no response. That tells me that God either is sadistic and chose not to answer his onw Son's prayers as he was sweating great drops of blood or there was no other way.
That is very confusing to me. Are they one or two? I know that you will tell me that I have to understand trinity.
Doesn't that tell you that Christ has less power than the Father? Doesn't that tell that they are different?
Doesn't that tell that Jesus Christ is not GOD?
You are correct in that Christ was temporarily seperated from his Father once he took on the sin of the world on the cross.
There is a verse in the Bible (Sorry I don't remember the number now) says that GOD doesn't change. Isn't seperation a change. Can you tell me that before the cross they were the same.
Let me ask you the question with a different form:
"When was Jesus Christ GOD, and when he was a man?"
We need to discuss a lot of issuse here.
30 Nov 06
Originally posted by snowinscotlandActually, this is only true of so-called fundamentalist theology.
What I am saying is that like any holy book, any person who believes the book [b]will find an explanation for any part of it that may be questioned by someone who does not believe it. They absolutely HAVE to, or the whole basis for their belief starts to falls down. [/b]
For many other sects, though the religious texts are acknowledged as central, in practice they aren't really the basis of faith.