Is God a practical joker?

[coberst]

Is God a practical joker?

But love has pitched his mansion in
The place of excrement.—Yeats

The rose in the midst of the thorn and sex in the midst of the anus.--coberst

One might think of God as a great practical joker. S/he creates a species that considers it self to inhabit an area between god and animal. Humans then seek to repress the animal side of its nature and to inflate the imagined god like part of its nature; its aspect that is in various situations considered as soul, or consciousness, or mind, or…

Jonathan Swift is perhaps the most famous of authors to parody the human eccentric behavior in attempting to repress recognition of our animal body. If there is a God s/he must be a very witty practical joker. Can you imagine the delight s/he must enjoy while observing humans contending with the problems relating to the pitching of the love mansion among the eliminating portals of the human body?

Psychoanalysis is about the nature of repression; the essential characteristic of the human psyche.

There is a constant conflict between the conscious and the unconscious. Societies repress the individual and the individual represses the self.

Neurotic behavior, dreams, and various “Freudian slips” provide us with e-mails from the unconscious that elude the conscious repression mechanism. These behavior characteristics are meaningful because they manifest the purpose of the unconscious that remains hidden from consciousness.

The conscious mind strenuously disowns and resists the rumblings of the unconscious. The conscious self disowns and resists its human nature.

Neurosis is the label given to these human phenomena of conflict between the conscious and unconscious self. All of us are neurotic to one degree or another. When this neurosis interferes with “normal” human behavior then, and only then, does it require outside interference by society.

Universal neurosis is the analogy of “original sin” for theological doctrine.

“The most scandalous pieces of Swiftian scatology are three of his later poems—“The Lady’s Dressing Room”, “Strephon and Chloe”, “Cassinus and Peter”—which are variations on the theme:
Oh! Caelia, Caelia, Caelia, %&@*$
Aldous Huxley explicates, saying, “The monosyllabic verb, which the modesties of 1929 will not allow me to print, rhymes with ‘wits’ and ‘fits’.”

Swift’s metaphor for humans as Yahoo’s, which are excrementally filthy, is even more in tune with his overall parodying human eccentricities when it comes to recognizing the nature of the body.

It appears to me that logical positivism, more appropriately called logical empiricism, is philosophy’s attempt to separate completely the human mind from the human body. Logical empiricism travels on the back of a system of symbolic logic whereby a scientifically codified set of symbols is developed which permits ordinary human language to be converted into a system of symbols for the purpose of analyzing conscious thought for its truth value. Anything that does not fit into this ‘symbol system epistemology’ is rejected as meaningless.

As best that I can understand it logical positivism is a philosophy that attempts to define meaning as being confined to empirical observations modified somewhat by rational processes, which does deposit some characteristics to the observed data.

I am a retired electronics engineer and while working I took courses in Symbolic Logic from the philosophy dept of a local university. This was 35 years ago and my thoughts might be a bit foggy but this is as I remember it to be.

Symbolic logic was proposed as a means to readily analyze complex arguments for their validity. There were standard symbols available for application to phrases and sentences. Since this mode of truth telling (logical positivism) comprehended all meaning as being consciously constructed necessary and sufficient definitions, meaning was fairly easily discovered.

Then by manipulating these symbols in prescribed algorithms one could ascertain the validity of the very complex arguments. This made computer generated analysis a piece of cake.

coberstakaDutchuncle

[beroq]

I don't believe in the ancient notion that God has human attributes. This is a pagan idea and has no place in revelaed religions.

[juhuulian]

Man will only be free when the last king es strangled with the entrails of the last priest

[RichardHresko]

I don't believe in the ancient notion that God has human attributes. This is a pagan idea and has no place in revelaed religions.

The notion of a revealed religion explicitly has at its core a God with personal (hence human) attributes. Even the most cursory examination of the revelations contained in Torah, the New Testament, and the Qu'ran shows that much.

[BienvenuJDC]

The notion of a revealed religion explicitly has at its core a God with personal (hence human) attributes. Even the most cursory examination of the revelations contained in Torah, the New Testament, and the Qu'ran shows that much.

I agree 100%. ...and the reason would be so that man could understand such a God...

[beroq]

The notion of a revealed religion explicitly has at its core a God with personal (hence human) attributes. Even the most cursory examination of the revelations contained in Torah, the New Testament, and the Qu'ran shows that much.

In Islam, God has attributes some of which are bestowed upon men in weaker degrees. Some other attributes are merely peculiar to God. Islam does not have an idea of God with merely human attributes such as sleeping, remembering, forgetting, joking etc..


I agree 100%. ...and the reason would be so that man could understand such a God...

Man is capable of understanding God in the things that are revealed, created, and inspired. We believe in many a notion that have no other attributes other than their own peculiar/unique quality.

[RichardHresko]

In Islam, God has attributes some of which are bestowed upon men in weaker degrees. Some other attributes are merely peculiar to God. Islam does not have an idea of God with merely human attributes such as sleeping, remembering, forgetting, joking etc..

In Islam, as in Christianity and Judaism, the essence of God is different from that of his creation. This is a point that Averroes, Avicenna, Aquinas, and the Rambam would all agree. However, the question was whether God possessed ONLY human attributes, but rather whether God had personal attributes at all.

[BienvenuJDC]

Is God a practical joker?


Is God a practical joker?

Have you ever SEEN a platypus?
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/webpictures/platypus.jpg

[beroq]

In Islam, as in Christianity and Judaism, the essence of God is different from that of his creation. This is a point that Averroes, Avicenna, Aquinas, and the Rambam would all agree. However, the question was whether God possessed ONLY human attributes, but rather whether God had personal attributes at all.

God is All-Mercifull and humanbeing is capable of being meciful as well. This does not make a man God, nor does it make God one of His creatures.

The realms are seperated clearly. Islam does not accept a personified God, so does Judaism.


Is God a practical joker?

Have you ever SEEN a platypus?
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/webpictures/platypus.jpg

One of the beautiful creatures of God. It has its own functionality and mission. Nothing is more and nothing is less.

[RichardHresko]

God is All-Mercifull and humanbeing is capable of being meciful as well. This does not make a man God, nor does it make God one of His creatures.

The realms are seperated clearly. Islam does not accept a personified God, so does Judaism.

AS I clearly stated, all three of these religions believe that the essence of God is fundamentally different from that of any of His creatures.

None of the three religions Judaism, Christianity, Islam accept a 'personified' God, but all three accept a loving, caring, All-Merciful God. To be All-Merciful God must be aware and must have intentionality, which is what is meant by Personhood in this context.

In mainstream Christianity Jesus Christ has two natures, human and divine. He is not a personified God, but God made man. These are very different ideas.

[Nightshade]

ok breathe people:D I am seeing a communication problem here. That could be resolved with use of working definitions...:D
Ok there is a difference between anthropomorphism and personhood.
Anthropomorphisim or personification relates to applying human charcteristics and features to something. While Personhood means (from the OED)
The quality or condition of being a person; esp. personal identity, selfhood.
That is being a uniqualy indivdual entity not a person as in a human but a person as in a Being. Do use a dirrect quaranic referance suurat el ikhlas (112) pretty much establishes God as a unique single entity. Therefore not to be mixed or blended into anyone else Singlar as God.

Now having said that Muslims do not belive God has the same kind of feelings and charcteristics as humans. Humor is conciderd an intrisically human charcteristic and far from the Divine.

God works in mysterious ways is generally deemed more acceptable than practicle joker.

Keep smiling people! :D

[RichardHresko]

ok breathe people:D I am seeing a communication problem here. That could be resolved with use of working definitions...:D
Ok there is a difference between anthropomorphism and personhood.
Anthropomorphisim or personification relates to applying human charcteristics and features to something. While Personhood means (from the OED)
That is being a uniqualy indivdual entity not a person as in a human but a person as in a Being. Do use a dirrect quaranic referance suurat el ikhlas (112) pretty much establishes God as a unique single entity. Therefore not to be mixed or blended into anyone else Singlar as God.

Now having said that Muslims do not belive God has the same kind of feelings and charcteristics as humans. Humor is conciderd an intrisically human charcteristic and far from the Divine.

God works in mysterious ways is generally deemed more acceptable than practicle joker.

Keep smiling people! :D

Well put!

I will have to check, but I am pretty sure that Aquinas would also agree that God does not have a sense of humor.

[Uberzensch]

I think this mostly depends on your interpretation of what's going on in the world and whether or not you believe in God.

If you believe in God, and think this world is screwy, then I expect you'd believe he's a joker.

If you believe in God, but think everything happens for a reason or according to a plan, then I imagine you do not se God as a joker.

If you don't believe in God, well, then I think that answers itself!

[billyjack]

you said it uberman. the latterest of the latter doesn't even require an answer. hence the appeal of atheism

[beroq]

Now having said that Muslims do not belive God has the same kind of feelings and charcteristics as humans. Humor is conciderd an intrisically human charcteristic and far from the Divine.

God works in mysterious ways is generally deemed more acceptable than practicle joker.

Keep smiling people! :D

Very well said. Thanks for clarification. And being a Practical Joker certainly pertains to personfication. God is a Being and has His own attributes that is far from attributes given to men which are under the direct effects of externalities.

[Scheherazade]

Humor is conciderd an intrisically human charcteristic and far from the Divine.But aren't we created in God's own image?
And being a Practical Joker certainly pertains to personfication. Isn't it the same thing as saying "God is loving/forgiving etc"? Don't those terms imply personification as well?

;)

[RichardHresko]

But aren't we created in God's own image?Isn't it the same thing as saying "God is loving/forgiving etc"? Don't those terms imply personification as well?

;)

You are right that in this framework we are created in God's image. But this does not necessarily mean that we have all God's attributes nor that God has ours, anymore than a passport photo is interchangeable with ourselves.

An interesting light on this issue of our connectedness to the divine was developed by Gregory Palamas in the 15th Century. He wrote that Christians are invited to participate in the divine action (energeia) in a process referred to as deification. But while we participate in the action we do NOT share the ESSENCE or SUBSTANCE of God, which is beyond human experience.

So while we may come to understand the Personhood of God through His actions, what we are incapable of is an experience of God in his essential Being.

Palamas' thought is firmly based on the Greek Patristic texts that stretch back to the fourth century (and possibly earlier) as well as on Scripture.

[NikolaiI]

An interesting light on this issue of our connectedness to the divine was developed by Gregory Palamas in the 15th Century. He wrote that Christians are invited to participate in the divine action (energeia) in a process referred to as deification. But while we participate in the action we do NOT share the ESSENCE or SUBSTANCE of God, which is beyond human experience.

I disagree. Every soul is potentially divine.


So while we may come to understand the Personhood of God through His actions, what we are incapable of is an experience of God in his essential Being.

God is One, Infinite; infinite peace, bliss, power and knowledge. We can know that.

God alone is real, all else being false, or illusion. At first we do not even know of God. Then we become aware of God, by steps. At first, it seems like we are finite; when we first glimpse God it seems as if we are far away. It seems like we are on the periphery. And this is fine, as far as it goes. But God, that source, which seems so far away, which is the center and source of everything which exists; is also within our hearts. In the beginning we are aware of God only a very little, by steps; we are convinced by reason. Then gradually, gradually, we become aware on a deeper level. It is such a long path.

God is the infinite One, the source. And what are we? We are not separate from God. God created us, and we are part of God, just like my fingers are part of me. My fingers may not know all that I know, but they are part of me. Just like, we are part of God, as well as plants and animals, and all of the universe.

God is the ocean of bliss and peace, and we are part of it, parts and parcel. Just as drops in the ocean are of the same constitution as the whole, so are we, the parts and parcels of God, the same in constitution or quality, as the Whole. Just as a molecule of gold is the same in quality as the bar. We are ignorant of God, the infinite, the source, and our own innate likeness to God, divinity, because of ignorance -- Maya -- desire, and attachment and association with matter.

Further, as God is the source, we are always within God, as God is also within us.

There is a Christian hymn which goes "...since love is Lord of hevean and earth, how can I keep from singing?"

[RichardHresko]

I disagree. Every soul is potentially divine.



God is One, Infinite; infinite peace, bliss, power and knowledge. We can know that....



God is the ocean of bliss and peace, and we are part of it, parts and parcel. Just as drops in the ocean are of the same constitution as the whole, so are we, the parts and parcels of God, the same in constitution or quality, as the Whole. Just as a molecule of gold is the same in quality as the bar. ...

Further, as God is the source, we are always within God, as God is also within us.

There is a Christian hymn which goes "...since love is Lord of hevean and earth, how can I keep from singing?"


This was not offered for agreement or disagreement. It was a statement of the beliefs of Eastern Orthodoxy with respect to the question of the Personhood of God and to what extent humans may participate in His divinity.

In the Christian view (as is true of Judaism, and as Beroq has pointed out, in Islam as well), God is Beyond. Humans are not of the same essence as God. The Creator and creation are not one and the same within this point of view. The Christian view rejects your notion that we are parts of God.

[NikolaiI]

This was not offered for agreement or disagreement. It was a statement of the beliefs of Eastern Orthodoxy with respect to the question of the Personhood of God and to what extent humans may participate in His divinity.

In the Christian view (as is true of Judaism, and as Beroq has pointed out, in Islam as well), God is Beyond. Humans are not of the same essence as God. The Creator and creation are not one and the same within this point of view. The Christian view rejects your notion that we are parts of God.

How can you create something which is not part of you???

There are different types of energy, but all are from God. Prakriti, or nature, is the inferior energy of God. Within nature, or the material universe, we are in ignorance and God and we think that Maya is all. Beyond the inferior energy is the superior energy; the spiritual energy. But both the spiritual world, and its covering, Maya, or God's illusory energy, are part of God. Maya is part of God's energy. All is part of God's energy. All is part of God. How can anything exist in the universe exist outside of God? If God made it, it is part of God's energy.

And don't just say, "as well as in Islam, and Judaism, and Christianity," as if you speak for all the people in the world. Just speak for yourself, on the merit of your own experience, life, and view. I will not say more of the followers of those religions would side with me, if you would kindly also not, as it does not add value to the discussion.


To put it another way, as you might understand, if God breathed life into us, then God's life-breath is in us. That means we are part of God's life breath, of God's life. Unless you are 100% close-minded, I don't see how it is remotely possible for you to miss the truth of my words. Forgive me for being blunt.


And when you repeat something someone else has said, you are presenting it for agreement or disagreement. When I quote George Harrison in saying, "The search for God cannot wait." You may agree or disagree. After quoting someone I can't hide behind the fact that I did not originate the words, I did make the statement, even if I am quoting them.


To put it another way; if God is the source of the Universe, let us say... the center, then where are we? We are not outside the universe, are we? We are connected to the center, to the source, to God. What we are connected to we are part of, and is part of us.

[beroq]

Isn't it the same thing as saying "God is loving/forgiving etc"? Don't those terms imply personification as well?

;)

The phrase "A Practical Joker" is a strong reference to "manhood," which is against the attributes hold by the Divinity, which beyond being practical, amusing, clever etc, attributions which determines/modulates/modifies human qualities/attributions.

God is just; so is mankind; but man can be unjust, as well, while God is never thought of being unjust. Even the very attributes/qualities that we may talk about both in terms of God and mankind have their critical nuances despite the fact that man is part of God and has some Divine attributions with limitations and and a vulnerablity to become spoiled/flawed.

I cannot speak of Christianity and Judaism but I guess I have some basic information as to how God/Allah is conceived in the Islamic tradition.

The Supreme Reality or Allah, (which, it must be noted, is the Arabic word used by Christian Arabs and Arabized Jews, as well as Muslims) is at once God, the superporsonal Reality. Allah is not only Pure Being, but also Beyond-Being, which emphasises the fact that nothing can be said without delimiting His Infinite and Absolute essence, which is beyond all determinations within and beyond our comprehension.

The full Islamic doctrine of nature of God can be seen in the basic "Shadah" (bearing witness to) La ilaha illa'Llah, which begins with the negative prefix lâ, for to assert anything of the Divine Essene or God in His or Its Supreme Reality is to limit It by that very assertion.

Qur'an says: "There's nothing whatsoever like unto Him" (42:2).

So we cannot give attributions like "practical/unpractical" without limiting the Divine Essence.

[blazeofglory]

God is not what you or me understand. God is not what the Bible or Koran describe and they are in point of fact human attributes, imaginings. We are misled, are in the darkness and kill the innocents in th darkness.

Shut your eyes for a while and think that God if he or she or it really exists is all above all these human follies. Beyond our strifes or fights.

[RichardHresko]

1)
How can you create something which is not part of you???

There are different types of energy, but all are from God. Prakriti, or nature, is the inferior energy of God. ... All is part of God's energy. All is part of God. How can anything exist in the universe exist outside of God? If God made it, it is part of God's energy.

2)
And don't just say, "as well as in Islam, and Judaism, and Christianity," as if you speak for all the people in the world. Just speak for yourself, on the merit of your own experience, life, and view. I will not say more of the followers of those religions would side with me, if you would kindly also not, as it does not add value to the discussion.

3)
And when you repeat something someone else has said, you are presenting it for agreement or disagreement. When I quote George Harrison in saying, "The search for God cannot wait." You may agree or disagree. After quoting someone I can't hide behind the fact that I did not originate the words, I did make the statement, even if I am quoting them....


.

Three responses:

1) It is reasonable to speak of the object of creation as being separate from its creator, even in the case of human beings. I am not my posts here. I am not the clay ashtray I made in summer camp when I was eight. Nor are they a part of me. They may express part of my personality and may thus be a reflection of me, but they are not part of me. That is a needless obfuscation.

This being true of human beings, how much more true would it be of a Being who has as his essence being itself?

2) When I am speaking of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism I am speaking of the doctrines of these faiths. If I am in error as to the nature of the doctrine in any of these, then I welcome the correction. Nowhere have I claimed to speak for any particular person, let alone groups of people. In fact, I have not even spoken for myself as a person.

3) There are reasons other than the request for agreement or disagreement for presenting information. In this case, as I made clear in my previous post, the information was presented in the context of a discussion of whether God is a practical joker. Given the context, your agreement or disagreement with the doctrines is irrelevant. Your characterization of this as "hiding," is wrong, and hardly in the spirit of dispassionate discussion of ideas.

[beroq]

God is not what you or me understand. God is not what the Bible or Koran describe and they are in point of fact human attributes, imaginings. We are misled, are in the darkness and kill the innocents in th darkness.

Shut your eyes for a while and think that God if he or she or it really exists is all above all these human follies. Beyond our strifes or fights.

God posseses an Essence that is beyond all categories and definitons, like that darkness which is dark because of the intensity of its luminosity, the black light to which certain Sufis have referred.

Only the sage is able to understand and know, in the fullest sense of these terms, that God is Immanent as well as the Transcendent and to completely grasp the sense of the verse:

Whitsoever ye turn, there is the Face of God" (2:115).

[NikolaiI]

Three responses:

1) It is reasonable to speak of the object of creation as being separate from its creator, even in the case of human beings. I am not my posts here. I am not the clay ashtray I made in summer camp when I was eight. Nor are they a part of me. They may express part of my personality and may thus be a reflection of me, but they are not part of me. That is a needless obfuscation.

This being true of human beings, how much more true would it be of a Being who has as his essence being itself?

2) When I am speaking of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism I am speaking of the doctrines of these faiths. If I am in error as to the nature of the doctrine in any of these, then I welcome the correction. Nowhere have I claimed to speak for any particular person, let alone groups of people. In fact, I have not even spoken for myself as a person.

3) There are reasons other than the request for agreement or disagreement for presenting information. In this case, as I made clear in my previous post, the information was presented in the context of a discussion of whether God is a practical joker. Given the context, your agreement or disagreement with the doctrines is irrelevant. Your characterization of this as "hiding," is wrong, and hardly in the spirit of dispassionate discussion of ideas.

Um...

You said something, I disagree, and you said it is irrelevant. What are you thinking? What kind of a discussion is that?

Your position is beyond absurd.

Look, if God is the source of reality, we are connected to God. If we are connected to God, we are part of God. If we come from God, we are part of God. It is as simple as that. It doesn't matter what others think, but as an (I am assuming) Muslim just also said we are part of God, um.... perhaps you are not as absolutely right as you think.

God is part of creation. Geez, did you not understand the part where God's life is in us? Why are you being so rigid?



And...what you said about your clay pot is not true.

Let me take another direction. Do you think you are separate from your co-workers or peers? A separate individual? Are you separate from the earth?

Now, you take your nourishment from fruits and vegetables and milk, so those things are part of you. Your friends say some idea, which you think about, and it becomes, some very small part of you. You are a reflection of the universe. You are connected to the universe, and you are actually part of the universe. You're not separate from the universe, but you are one infinitesimal part of the whole. As the Beatles sang in Dear Prudence, "you are part of everything."

You are part of that clay ashtray, not because you made it, but because you are connected to, and related to, everything which exists.

[RichardHresko]

Um...

1)
You said something, I disagree, and you said it is irrelevant. What are you thinking? What kind of a discussion is that?

Your position is beyond absurd.


2)
God is part of creation. Geez, did you not understand the part where God's life is in us? Why are you being so rigid?


3)
And...what you said about your clay pot is not true.

Let me take another direction. Do you think you are separate from your co-workers or peers? A separate individual? Are you separate from the earth?

Now, you take your nourishment from fruits and vegetables and milk, so those things are part of you. Your friends say some idea, which you think about, and it becomes, some very small part of you. You are a reflection of the universe. You are connected to the universe, and you are actually part of the universe. You're not separate from the universe, but you are one infinitesimal part of the whole. As the Beatles sang in Dear Prudence, "you are part of everything."

You are part of that clay ashtray, not because you made it, but because you are connected to, and related to, everything which exists.

Three responses:

1) Your remark was (and still is) irrelevant because what is being discussed is not whether what is presented in revealed religion is the truth, but rather what that position is.

That you want to turn this into a discussion what is true does not make my refusal to join you "absurd," any more than your wanting to play hockey while I am playing baseball makes me absurd.

2) I am not interested in discussing whatever truth may or may not exist in your beliefs or those of the Book. I am discussing what the doctrine contains.

3) Your position that God is necessarily connected to His creation and is a part of creation is a false one within the context of the doctrines I have been discussing. See Beroq's post above for a further clarification on this point in the case of Islam. I defer to his superior grasp of Islamic doctrine on this point.

This has nothing to do with whether or not your position is metaphysically true or not.

Once again I am not discussing metaphysical truth here at all. Nor am I espousing any personal beliefs.

If you are unable or unwilling to have a discussion about what a doctrine is irrespective of its apparent truth value to you, then it is a waste of your time to engage me in discussion. I am neither a buyer nor seller of "truths." I merely examine the merchandise and catalog it.

[NikolaiI]

Only the sage is able to understand and know, in the fullest sense of these terms, that God is Immanent as well as the Transcendent and to completely grasp the sense of the verse:

Whitsoever ye turn, there is the Face of God" (2:115).

I really appreciate your posts, Beroq. ;)

This one verse you quote is very meaningful to me. In my revelations I have seen this is true. Wherever one looks, even up, or down, it is still the same, one is not at all further from God. Thank you so much for posting this quote which I find parallels my own revelation.


1) Your remark was (and still is) irrelevant because what is being discussed is not whether what is presented in revealed religion is the truth, but rather what that position is.

Fine. But there are grand misconceptions even here. This is where I said, why do you attempt to speak for Christianity? I have spent many, many hours in the company and fellowship of Christians, discussing God, praising God, and so on. By and large we agree on things about God, such as that He is Infinite, and the Source. One grand misassumption you have made is that all Christians are the same. Or that thers is one doctrine in Christianity. Why would you ever, ever, accept something which you didn't think was true; which didn't meet the requirements of your moral conscience or reason?

There is not one doctrine of Christianity. There are more than one. And there are those in Christianity who would agree with me, and those who would agree with you.

Why would you rather dicussing something that doesn't exist, a doctrine, rather than what does exist?

Doctrine is of such trifling importance as compared to what Christ taught.


Anyway, I was thinking about it more. You said God is Beyond, but I'm not sure you understand this. God is beyond all, there is nothing beyond or without God. But what does this mean? Nothing is beyond God. We are not beyond God. We do not exist somewhere beyond God. So God has one existence, and creation has some separate existence? Exists somewhere else but in God? No. God is the source, and creation exists in and from the source. Therefore creation is part of God, and God is part of creation.

And again, why on Earth would you rather discuss something which is irrelevant (doctrine), not to mention which doesn't even exist, as opposed to what is absolutely essential? Isn't God most important? God is truth, and the most important thing is truth. So understanding God is the most important thing, and a doctrine comes second, and must be scrutinized severely, to see if it is true. Actually it is of no importance, the only importance lying in what is true.

And lastly, Christ taught no doctrine, he taught love.

[RichardHresko]

Fine. But there are grand misconceptions even here. This is where I said, why do you attempt to speak for Christianity? I have spent many, many hours in the company and fellowship of Christians, discussing God, praising God, and so on. By and large we agree on things about God, such as that He is Infinite, and the Source. One grand misassumption you have made is that all Christians are the same. Or that thers is one doctrine in Christianity. Why would you ever, ever, accept something which you didn't think was true; which didn't meet the requirements of your moral conscience or reason?

There is not one doctrine of Christianity. There are more than one. And there are those in Christianity who would agree with me, and those who would agree with you.

Why would you rather dicussing something that doesn't exist, a doctrine, rather than what does exist?

Doctrine is of such trifling importance as compared to what Christ taught.

.

For someone who claims to want a discussion you certainly don't pay attention.

I clearly stated that I was addressing what the position of orthodox Christianity is. I am entitled to speak about that position as long as I get my facts straight as to what that set of doctrines consists of.

The existence of other forms of Christianity was never denied. But it is not what I claimed to talk about. Again your comment is off-base and irrelevant.

Your opinion of what is trifling and what is not has nothing to do with what I am discussing. It is hubristic of you to criticize me because I am not interested in what you think when you are off-point as to the discussion at hand.

Since you either are unable to focus on the topic I am discussing, or incapable of doing anything other than lobby for your flavor of the Truth (and there is no reason why I should care which incapacity you are laboring under) I will heed the advice of Robert A. Heinlein and stop trying to teach you to sing. It's wasting my time and annoying you.

Here I end my attempt at having a discussion with you.

Have fun!

[NikolaiI]

For someone who claims to want a discussion you certainly don't pay attention.

I clearly stated that I was addressing what the position of orthodox Christianity is. I am entitled to speak about that position as long as I get my facts straight as to what that set of doctrines consists of.

The existence of other forms of Christianity was never denied. But it is not what I claimed to talk about. Again your comment is off-base and irrelevant.

Your opinion of what is trifling and what is not has nothing to do with what I am discussing. It is hubristic of you to criticize me because I am not interested in what you think when you are off-point as to the discussion at hand.

Since you either are unable to focus on the topic I am discussing, or incapable of doing anything other than lobby for your flavor of the Truth (and there is no reason why I should care which incapacity you are laboring under) I will heed the advice of Robert A. Heinlein and stop trying to teach you to sing. It's wasting my time and annoying you.

Here I end my attempt at having a discussion with you.

Have fun!

Teach me to sing? Um...sure.

[RichardHresko]

God posseses an Essence that is beyond all categories and definitons, like that darkness which is dark because of the intensity of its luminosity, the black light to which certain Sufis have referred.

Only the sage is able to understand and know, in the fullest sense of these terms, that God is Immanent as well as the Transcendent and to completely grasp the sense of the verse:

Whitsoever ye turn, there is the Face of God" (2:115).

Both Aquinas and Palamas have spoken about the Transcendence of God. Aquinas derived most of his thoughts on this matter from his study of Avicenna. In fact, after the Bible, Augustine, and Aristotle, he references Avicenna the most. In his writings he refers to Avicenna as the Commentator, just as he calls Aristotle the Philosopher and Paul the Apostle.

Both Aquinas and Palamas deny that it is possible, even in a mystical state or revelation, to experience the Transcendent nature of God. That is unknowable to mankind. They do maintain (each slightly differently) that what we can experience of God is his Immanence (though Palamas refers to this as the Action or energeia of God). Aquinas and Palamas might also differ on the degree of participation in the Divine action (Aquinas does not, so far as I am aware comment on this directly, though Palamas is very clear that we share in the action of God and are deified in the process, though we never become one in substance with God, which is impossible under this tradition).

My question is this, as far as you know, in the Islamic tradition is it really considered possible to fully know God in His Transcendence as well as His Immanence? If so, how is Transcendence distinguished from Immanence in the Islamic tradition?

[beroq]

My question is this, as far as you know, in the Islamic tradition is it really considered possible to fully know God in His Transcendence as well as His Immanence? If so, how is Transcendence distinguished from Immanence in the Islamic tradition?

In the Islamic tradition, the Transcendence of God cannot be fully known by men in this material world. The Prophet's (Mohammad PBH) nocturnal ascent is the only example when one had a direct knowledge of God in His Transcendence.

There's one example in the Qur'an when Prophet Moses asks God to show His Face as It is, and God is manifested upon a mountain and in an instant the mountain crumbles away and Moses passes out. He cannot see the Truth as It is. He, as a distingushed Prophet, even cannot bear the manifestation of God apon a mountain.

[RichardHresko]

In the Islamic tradition, the Transcendence of God cannot be fully known by men in this material world. The Prophet's (Mohammad PBH) nocturnal ascent is the only example when one had a direct knowledge of God in His Transcendence.

There's one example in the Qur'an when Prophet Moses asks God to show His Face as It is, and God is manifested upon a mountain and in an instant the mountain crumbles away and Moses passes out. He cannot see the Truth as It is. He, as a distingushed Prophet, even cannot bear the manifestation of God apon a mountain.

Would you be so good as to tell me where to find the standard reference to the nocturnal ascent, and also any references in English that you feel give a reasonably correct view as to how to interpret the event?

Thanks!

[Nightshade]

But aren't we created in God's own image?


Not in the Islamic tradtion, scher (I like that phrase Islamic Tradtion :nod: ) Humans are created in the best possible image for humans and flies are the best possible image for flies, etc. In other words perfectly designed for our diffrent purposes.

Would you be so good as to tell me where to find the standard reference to the nocturnal ascent, and also any references in English that you feel give a reasonably correct view as to how to interpret the event?

Thanks!
Can I ask what you mean by nocturnal ascent my brain is all fogged up. :nod:


In the Islamic tradition, the Transcendence of God cannot be fully known by men in this material world. The Prophet's (Mohammad PBH) nocturnal ascent is the only example when one had a direct knowledge of God in His Transcendence.

There's one example in the Qur'an when Prophet Moses asks God to show His Face as It is, and God is manifested upon a mountain and in an instant the mountain crumbles away and Moses passes out. He cannot see the Truth as It is. He, as a distingushed Prophet, even cannot bear the manifestation of God apon a mountain.
Also Ayah 22 from suurat el khaf
and I thought it was suurat el isra but now that I think about it might have been a hadith followin the isra about th prophet not beiong able to rember God other than as a great light?
oh here we go 42: 11


042.011
YUSUFALI: (He is) the Creator of the heavens and the earth: He has made for you pairs from among yourselves, and pairs among cattle: by this means does He multiply you: there is nothing whatever like unto Him, and He is the One that hears and sees (all things).
PICKTHAL: The Creator of the heavens and the earth. He hath made for you pairs of yourselves, and of the cattle also pairs, whereby He multiplieth you. Naught is as His likeness; and He is the Hearer, the Seer.
SHAKIR: The Originator of the heavens and the earth; He made mates for you from among yourselves, and mates of the cattle too, multiplying you thereby; nothing like a likeness of Him; and He is the Hearing, the Seeing.
emphisis mine

[beroq]

Would you be so good as to tell me where to find the standard reference to the nocturnal ascent, and also any references in English that you feel give a reasonably correct view as to how to interpret the event?

Thanks!

The Nocturnal Ascent is the supreme inner experience of Prophet which happened in Mecca when one night, shortly before immigration to Medina, he was taken by the archangel Gabriel to Jerusalem (Al Aqsa) and from there to the presence of God, where the Transcendental Unity with God has occured. This experience is mentioned in the Quran and from it emereged the inner reality of daily prayers. Thus, the physical and the spiritual aspects of Islam is clearly indicated and an equilibrium is maintained.

This is one the references I found in the Quran regarding the Nocturnal Ascent (Isra' and Mira'j)

Glory be to Him Who took His servant on a journey by night from the Sacred Mosque (Masjid al-Haram) to the Further Mosque (Masjid al-Aqsa), whose surroundings We have blessed, in order to show him some of Our Signs. He is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing. (17:1)

[RichardHresko]

The Nocturnal Ascent is the supreme inner experience of Prophet which happened in Mecca when one night, shortly before immigration to Medina, he was taken by the archangel Gabriel to Jerusalem (Al Aqsa) and from there to the presence of God, where the Transcendental Unity with God has occured. This experience is mentioned in the Quran and from it emereged the inner reality of daily prayers. Thus, the physical and the spiritual aspects of Islam is clearly indicated and an equilibrium is maintained.

This is one the references I found in the Quran regarding the Nocturnal Ascent (Isra' and Mira'j)

Glory be to Him Who took His servant on a journey by night from the Sacred Mosque (Masjid al-Haram) to the Further Mosque (Masjid al-Aqsa), whose surroundings We have blessed, in order to show him some of Our Signs. He is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing. (17:1)

I want to thank both Nightshade and Beroq for giving me some leads here.

I would appreciate some recommendations of background reading for this, since I do not know enough to understand how Islam distinguishes the Immanence and the Transcendental. I can not assume that just because Aquinas borrowed heavily from Avicenna on this point that he would be a reliable guide for me in understanding the original.

Thanks again!

[Scheherazade]

If God is a joker, then the joke is definitely on us!

[Nightshade]

Oks before I was knocked out earlier ( you have to love medicine) I started looking into this, now bare in mind I only have the one text book with me and I havent read that form of arabic in a while, so its a work in progress. Firstly I was looking at From the Miricales of the Prohets and messengers by sheik Mohammed Metwaley el Sharawy.
Anyway there isnt much mentioned in the subject in that book really, so this and what I rember from a lecture we sta through at school.
Basically the isra and Miraj is a double miricale. The isra, is the journey from his bed in Mecca to that mosque in Jeruslem whoes english name escapes me el aqusa. while the MIraj is the ascent, that is where Mohamed was raised to heaven met the dead prophets & messengers, and Jesus. And was brought before God, although I was always vauge as to whether he actually spoke to God or not, what with still being alive and Talking directly to God being Moses' mirical. Actualy there is a whole thing about Muslims praying 5 times a day becuase of Moses' intervention during the mirai and getting the number of prayers lowered from 50 ( I think) to five, becasue the majority of people are not too keen on praying anyway.
umm I know there is more but Im completly fogged up at the moment Ill have to look into it.

[beroq]

I want to thank both Nightshade and Beroq for giving me some leads here.

I would appreciate some recommendations of background reading for this, since I do not know enough to understand how Islam distinguishes the Immanence and the Transcendental. I can not assume that just because Aquinas borrowed heavily from Avicenna on this point that he would be a reliable guide for me in understanding the original.

Thanks again!

An Introduction to Islamic Cosmological Doctrines by Seyyed Hussein Nasr might be of great help for anyone who wish to understand the Islamic tradition in its most sophisticated details.


Oks before I was knocked out earlier ( you have to love medicine) I started looking into this, now bare in mind I only have the one text book with me and I havent read that form of arabic in a while, so its a work in progress. Firstly I was looking at From the Miricales of the Prohets and messengers by sheik Mohammed Metwaley el Sharawy.
Anyway there isnt much mentioned in the subject in that book really, so this and what I rember from a lecture we sta through at school.
Basically the isra and Miraj is a double miricale. The isra, is the journey from his bed in Mecca to that mosque in Jeruslem whoes english name escapes me el aqusa. while the MIraj is the ascent, that is where Mohamed was raised to heaven met the dead prophets & messengers, and Jesus. And was brought before God, although I was always vauge as to whether he actually spoke to God or not, what with still being alive and Talking directly to God being Moses' mirical. Actualy there is a whole thing about Muslims praying 5 times a day becuase of Moses' intervention during the mirai and getting the number of prayers lowered from 50 ( I think) to five, becasue the majority of people are not too keen on praying anyway.
umm I know there is more but Im completly fogged up at the moment Ill have to look into it.

One important aspect of the Miraj is that it happened in the Year of Sorrow, when the Prophet lost his wife, his uncle, and his mission to Taif had been unseccessfull.

This event took place on the 27th day of the month of Rajab.

Allah describes the journey in the Quran:

"Glorified be He Who carried His servant by night from the Inviolable Place of Worship to the Far Distant Place of Worship, the neighborhood whereof We have blessed, that We might show him of Our tokens! Lo! He is the Hearer, the Seer" (Quran 17:1).

Its mention is not just relevant to the specific journey but also for its description of Masjid Al-Aqsa in Jerusalem and its "neighborhood" as blessed.

In one Hadith, the Prophet said: "Journeys should not be undertaken except to three mosques: this my mosque (in Madinah), the Sacred Mosque (in Makkah), and Al-Aqsa mosque" (Bukhari)

This blessed journey is definitely one of great significance for Muslims for its miraculous nature and, among other things, for its establishment of the second crucial pillar in Islam: prayer five times a day.

[billyjack]

Huston Smith's "Islam" is a good, informative, short read.

here's a link to its synopsis. i tried to find an online copy of it but no dice

http://www.google.com/ig?referrer=ign_n#max6

[Nightshade]

Personally one of the most I can't think of the right word to use caccuratly represtitive chapters on Islam I have ever read was the chapter in Robert Winston's Story of God.
course it doesn't mention isra and miraj but its a nice little round up.
:nod: