Apostle Paul and Jesus’ divinity: lost in translation?

[Northwest]

On 12/31/2022 at 11:44 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

Hi it's mostly about their attitude toward muslims & islam which although Jews  legalistic rituals is more closer to islam than Christanity but on the other hand majority of them except few ones of them always have been enemy of Muslims & Islam

@Ashvazdanghe

However, as you mentioned, Islam, like Judaism, is legalistic. Both Islam and Judaism teach that men become righteous through the Law. In other words, one becomes spiritually pure through practicing the Law, following ritual, praying correctly, maintaining dietary stricture, and so on. If this is the case, wouldn’t the Jews, who are much more religiously observant than Christians, be more attuned to Islam rather than less? After all, Jewish legalistic rituals are much closer to those of Islam than Christianity.

On 12/31/2022 at 11:44 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

through denying truth & planning for destruction or at least coruption of Islam by nay means which they have which they have tried to stop people from accepting Islam which means stopping people from following path of  Allah/God which even  some of them have acceppted Islam publicly but they have been denying it in their private  meeting in order to humilate islam & destroy it from within

^ As I mentioned previously, this doesn’t seem exactly logical, at least outwardly. Jews, like Muslims, are better at following the legalistic aspects of faith than Christians, so why would they be so antagonistic toward Islam? Yes, I know that the Jewish establishment rejected Jesus, but I think its rejection had to do with Jesus’ apparent failure to meet its interpretation(s) of the Messiah. Later on some of the Jews opposed Paul’s attitude toward the Law and thus extrapolated this onto Jesus himself.

On 1/4/2023 at 9:40 PM, Son of Placid said:

For those who believe all trinitarians will see hellfire, most Christians do not understand the concept of the trinity, but not to believe it is blasphemy so they go along with it knowing in the back of their minds something is not quite right with it but cannot speak of their inner struggle. You'll get booted from the church, you'll be banned in Christian websites, you will never be considered a Christian again. I know first hand.

@Son of Placid

I never claimed that Trinitarians are destined for Hellfire. My point is that the Trinitarians, like too many religious people in general, truly are “sheep.” (For the record, I think that too many “secular“ people share the same “religious,” sheeplike mentality, with their worship of “experts” on climate change, “woke” nonsense, etc. They worship a religious, cultic ideology instead of reason and science.) Why can’t people such as the Trinitarian @Leslie P stop basing their views and/or actions on fear/guilt and instead follow their inner judgment? They only believe in the Trinity, Jesus’ “divinity,” etc. because they fear consequences for doing otherwise. Can’t they follow reason instead of that which their preachers and parents force them to believe in?

[Ashvazdanghe]

16 hours ago, Northwest said:

However, as you mentioned, Islam, like Judaism, is legalistic. Both Islam and Judaism teach that men become righteous through the Law. In other words, one becomes spiritually pure through practicing the Law, following ritual, praying correctly, maintaining dietary stricture, and so on. If this is the case, wouldn’t the Jews, who are much more religiously observant than Christians, be more attuned to Islam rather than less? After all, Jewish legalistic rituals are much closer to those of Islam than Christianity.

Hi legalisation of faith in Islam is based on purification of soul which is based on Aql (Wisdome) & Niyyah (inttention) as a human body with wisdom & heart which for promoting it you need to do legalistic excercise & good nutrition not chaostic excercise & consuming  harmfull nutrition but on the other hand Judaism is likewise a sloulless body which some binary rules moves that body in similar fshion of a Robot or zombie or ragdoll but on the othe hand  Christanity has some kind of spirituality although denial of wisdome due to wrong mindset & understanding from divinity.

16 hours ago, Northwest said:

^ As I mentioned previously, this doesn’t seem exactly logical, at least outwardly. Jews, like Muslims, are better at following the legalistic aspects of faith than Christians, so why would they be so antagonistic toward Islam? Yes, I know that the Jewish establishment rejected Jesus, but I think its rejection had to do with Jesus’ apparent failure to meet its interpretation(s) of the Messiah. Later on some of the Jews opposed Paul’s attitude toward the Law and thus extrapolated this onto Jesus himself.

Jewish establishment rejected Jesus based on enmity of rabbis establishment with God & any divine law which Paul likewise rabbis have corrupted Christanty from within based on rabbis establishment procedure which later they have tried to do it about Islam too because according  to holy Quran people of book knew prophet Muhammad (pbu) better than their children which Jews & rabbis establishment have followed their total enmity with God & divine prophet & divine laws because they wanted God as a slave who needs their prayrers so therefore will enter them to heaven although of their disobediance from God & grave sins but on the other hand christians have choosen a mild  manner  which they wanted to obey God & abstaining from grave sins although of their wrong understanding from God & mistaking & mixing god with his prophet which leads to having moderate manner in facing with prophet Muhammad (pbu) although of denial of him due to distortions in their teachings .

[Son of Placid]

On 1/16/2023 at 8:17 AM, Northwest said:

I never claimed that Trinitarians are destined for Hellfire. My point is that the Trinitarians, like too many religious people in general, truly are “sheep.” (For the record, I think that too many “secular“ people share the same “religious,” sheeplike mentality, with their worship of “experts” on climate change, “woke” nonsense, etc. They worship a religious, cultic ideology instead of reason and science.) Why can’t people such as the Trinitarian @Leslie P stop basing their views and/or actions on fear/guilt and instead follow their inner judgment? They only believe in the Trinity, Jesus’ “divinity,” etc. because they fear consequences for doing otherwise. Can’t they follow reason instead of that which their preachers and parents force them to believe in?

I never accused you of the claim, Islam does.
Actually, the Quran doesn't speak of a trinity as per se. There is only one God, He can't have a son, Jesus was neither His son, nor is Jesus God. The only reference denied as a threesome was God, Jesus, and Mary. This is probably due to the second Council only deciding on a trinity some 100 years after Muhammad. At that time the Christians were preaching Jesus is God, the Muslims were saying, No way. 
So here we are at a stone wall.
If you believe Jesus is God you are a blasphemer and will go to hell.
If you believe Jesus is not God you are a blasphemer and will go to hell.
These became doctrines.
The great divide is never in the God laws, but always in the man made god laws.
God's laws are not enough? 

[Guest Agnostic Christian much?]

6 hours ago, Son of Placid said:

I never accused you of the claim, Islam does.
Actually, the Quran doesn't speak of a trinity as per se. There is only one God, He can't have a son, Jesus was neither His son, nor is Jesus God. The only reference denied as a threesome was God, Jesus, and Mary. This is probably due to the second Council only deciding on a trinity some 100 years after Muhammad. At that time the Christians were preaching Jesus is God, the Muslims were saying, No way. 
So here we are at a stone wall.
If you believe Jesus is God you are a blasphemer and will go to hell.
If you believe Jesus is not God you are a blasphemer and will go to hell.
These became doctrines.
The great divide is never in the God laws, but always in the man made god laws.
God's laws are not enough? 

I'd have to disagree with you there on your sentiment that the Quran doesn't speak of Trinity. Depending on the Translation you're reading and your knowledge of Classical Arabic many Translators would translate this particular term ثَلَـٰثَةٌ ۚ transliterated as Thalaatha or Salaasa with a lisp the following passage in The Quran,

 

Surah 4:171 (Muhammad Asad AKA Leopold Weiss an Australian Hungarian Jew Convert whose translation of The Quran is translated under Judeo-Christian standards)

O FOLLOWERS of the Gospel! Do not overstep the bounds [of truth] in your religious beliefs, and do not say of God anything but the truth. The Christ Jesus, son of Mary, was but God's Apostle - [the fulfilment of] His promise which He had conveyed unto Mary - and a soul created by Him. Believe, then, in God and His apostles, and do not say, "[God is] a Trinity". Desist [from this assertion] for your own good. God is but One God; utterly remote is He, in His glory, from having a son: unto Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is on earth; and none is as worthy of trust as God.

 

Surah 4:171 (Dr. Mustafa Khattab Translation, The Clear Quran Translation)

O People of the Book! Do not go to extremes regarding your faith; say nothing about Allah except the truth.1 The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was no more than a messenger of Allah and the fulfilment of His Word through Mary and a spirit ˹created by a command˺ from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers and do not say, “Trinity.” Stop!—for your own good. Allah is only One God. Glory be to Him! He is far above having a son! To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And Allah is sufficient as a Trustee of Affairs.

 

The Arabic term ثَلَـٰثَةٌ ۚ in the context of Surah 4:171 and Surah 5:73 can mean either Three or Trinity depending on how the Translator wishes to translate it.

 

Your understanding of Trinity in the Quran depicting as Allah, Jesus, and Mary is not quite accurate given what Scholars from Islamic to Biblical have discussed revolving around this Quranic passage 5:116

 

Surah 5:116 (Muhammad Asad AKA Leopold Weiss Translation)

And when Allâh said, `O Jesus, son of Mary! did you say to the people, "Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allâh?"´ He (-Jesus) replied, `Glory to You! it was not possible and proper for me to say thing to which I had no right. If I had said, You would indeed have known it, (for) You know all that is in my mind but I do not know what is in Yours. It is You alone Who truly know all things unseen.

 

You can read furthermore through this website which is an interesting study to partake in.

https://discover-the-truth.com/2013/08/15/trinity-mary-worshipped-as-a-god/

 

Aside from the groaning website name, the website is stating the works of most notably George Sale, and William Cook Taylor who reference the Mariamites.

 

I believe Epiphanius of Salamis addressed the Mariamite and Collyridian controversy issue in one of his letters whom were most notable throughout Arabia after their exile from The Early Churches. So Muhammad throughout his dialogue with the Christians in The Quran when addressing their understanding of the Trinity is truly a perplexing, but a fascinating historical view of the Heretical Christian Sects of Arabia. So much so that some Christians feel sorry for Muhammad that he encountered the likes of such Christians being referenced all throughout The Quran, never encountering a single Orthodox Christian in his local environment of Al-Hejaz that The Holy Spirit is part of The Trinity, and never understanding the personal relationship that God had with Jesus. But most Christians would conclude that Muhammad wrote the Koran and formed his beliefs based upon his local environment in 5th-6th century Al-Hejaz to which he was exposed. The fact that historically, Trinity has always been defined as Father, Son and Holy Spirit based on Early Church Father teachings long before Muhammad.

 

You wish to talk about God's laws not enough for Humanity. How about the schismatic and legalism issues between Christians whether the Mosaic Law of the Jews & The Israelites should be followed or not?

 

According to Paul at Galatians 3:13 (King James Version),

"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:"

 

What does Paul mean when he says Jesus redeemed the Jews and all of Humanity from the Mosaic Law which Paul believes it as a curse to Humanity as a whole? This is equivalent to saying the Sharia Law of Islam is a curse for the Muslim Community through Muwiyah ibne Abu Sufyan and Yazid ibne Muawiyah. Thus, Hussain ibne Ali the grandson of Muhammad was brutally martyred in Karbala to redeem The Muslim Community in order to fulfill the Sharia Law of Islam. No Muslim would buy such an obvious Pauline claim.

 

Is the Legalism aspect when following God's Laws to the Letter a curse for Humanity? The problem is following the Spirit of God's Laws correct? How do we follow the Spirit of God's Laws if the Legalism aspect of following God's Laws to the Letter is not only wrong but a curse for Humanity?

 

According to the original Koine Greek text of Galatians 3:13 the term ἐξηγόρασεν transliterated as exēgorasen means "redeemed" in English according to the BibleHub Website

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/galatians/3-13.htm

 

But is Paul's verse in Galatians 3:13 in line with Matthew 5:17-20 (King James Version),

"17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

 

What does Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew mean when he says "Fulfill" the Law and not "Abolish" the Law aka The Mosaic of The Jews & Israelites? Why would Jesus after Matthew 5:17 quotes in Matthew 5:19 furthermore saying "whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of Heaven".

 

According to the original Koine Greek Text of Matthew 5:17, the term πληρῶσαι transliterated as plērōsai which means "to fulfill"

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/5-17.htm

 

Now according to Most English Dictionaries when understanding Synonymous Terms "Fulfill" and "Redeem" are synonymous terms.

https://www.powerthesaurus.org/fulfill+redeem/synonyms

https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/fulfill

https://thesaurus.plus/related/fulfill/redeem

 

So why would the Gospel of Matthew quote Jesus saying he came to fulfill the Law? If Paul is claiming at Galatians 3:13 that following the Mosaic Law  of The Israelites to the Letter is a curse for Humanity, then why would Jesus be saying practice and teach the commands which are in the Mosaic Law which cannot be followed in anyway unless you follow the Mosaic Law to the Letter? How can anyone begin to follow the Spirit of God's Law when it demands you must first follow God's Laws to the Letter?

 

This is an irreconcilable issue between Jesus and Paul. So much so that Christianity suffers from the schism between The Petrines (Followers of Peter) and The Paulines (Followers of Paul).

[Northwest]

On 1/19/2023 at 12:15 AM, Guest Agnostic Christian much? said:

You wish to talk about God's laws not enough for Humanity. How about the schismatic and legalism issues between Christians whether the Mosaic Law of the Jews & The Israelites should be followed or not?

According to Jewish tradition, Gentiles were not obligated to follow the full Torah, but only the Seven Laws of Noah. There was a debate among Jewish Christians as to whether the full Torah should be enjoined on the Gentiles instead of the Seven Laws. Paul seemed to believe that only the Seven Laws were required of Gentiles, and that Jesus’ death, signified by the destruction of the Temple, abolished the need for animal sacrifices at the appointed time(s).

On 1/19/2023 at 12:15 AM, Guest Agnostic Christian much? said:

According to Paul at Galatians 3:13 (King James Version),

"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:"

I think the “curse” of the Law refers to the punishment that the Law brings upon a sinner, rather than the Law itself. Paul was referring to the fact that the Law in and of itself does not necessarily purify the heart. Jesus’ example spiritually purifies the heart of the sinner by making the Law concrete, by embodying the inner meaning of the Law. In Matthew 23:2–3 Jesus first bids his disciples to observe the Law as mandated by the scribes and Pharisees, but then upbraids the Jewish authorities (v. 23) for neglecting “judgment, mercy, and faith,” the “weightier matters” of the Law. The scribes and Pharisees are said to appear righteous for show (v. 4) while being inwardly impure (v. 28). This also explains why Jesus in Matthew 5:18–20 avers that the disciples must be spiritually purer than the Jewish authorities in order to merit the Kingdom of Heaven, in addition to following the “legalistic” aspects of the Torah.

On 1/19/2023 at 12:15 AM, Guest Agnostic Christian much? said:

What does Paul mean when he says Jesus redeemed the Jews and all of Humanity from the Mosaic Law which Paul believes it as a curse to Humanity as a whole? This is equivalent to saying the Sharia Law of Islam is a curse for the Muslim Community through Muwiyah ibne Abu Sufyan and Yazid ibne Muawiyah. Thus, Hussain ibne Ali the grandson of Muhammad was brutally martyred in Karbala to redeem The Muslim Community in order to fulfill the Sharia Law of Islam. No Muslim would buy such an obvious Pauline claim.

See above.

On 1/19/2023 at 12:15 AM, Guest Agnostic Christian much? said:

So why would the Gospel of Matthew quote Jesus saying he came to fulfill the Law? If Paul is claiming at Galatians 3:13 that following the Mosaic Law  of The Israelites to the Letter is a curse for Humanity, then why would Jesus be saying practice and teach the commands which are in the Mosaic Law which cannot be followed in anyway unless you follow the Mosaic Law to the Letter? How can anyone begin to follow the Spirit of God's Law when it demands you must first follow God's Laws to the Letter?

If following the Law purifies the heart, why have the Orthodox Jews, who are much more legalistically observant than Christians, mostly rejected Jesus?

[Abu Hadi]

On 1/5/2023 at 6:25 AM, Northwest said:

@Son of Placid, @Abu Hadi: I think that the major problem with institutionalised religion is: 1) an absence of logic and 2) a liberal dosage of coercion. The institutionalised religions often force people to rely solely on specialists rather than apply independent reasoning. As a result, people like @Leslie P are only allowed to rely on the specialists’ interpretations of Scripture rather than apply their own logical capabilities. In return, the specialists tell people that if they come to the “wrong” conclusions about core doctrines, they are damned, endangering their salvation, and so on. I didn’t need a specialist or Scripture to conclude on my own that the Trinity is illogical, or that God cannot become Man: I simply ignored the fear-based coercion of the specialists, applied basic logic, and came to my own conclusion. The problem is that institutionalised religion forbids people from taking my approach. As I Deist, I firmly believe that one can believe in God without being a prisoner of organised religion. Mankind could progress far more than it has if it were to adopt a sane, logical framework with which to evaluate metaphysical claims. Organised religion must not put logic in a “box,” so to speak.

Pascal’s wager is arguably the weakest possible defence. After all, the Trinitarians use the same reasoning to argue against the strict monotheists.

I spent about 6 years of my life as a secularist / agnostic / deist  (basically different words for the same thing. Someone who believes in God, but doesn't believe fully in any one organized religion). 

The problem I found with this is that if you believe in this, there are only two logical conclusions that you can come to, both of which are bad / wrong / destructive. 

1. God created us, then left us to our own devices to 'figure it out on our own'. This is what Deists and many secularists believe (although with secularists, there are many variations of this). Part of this belief is that God gave us logic and other intellectual tools to be able to 'figure it out' without the help of organized religion. 

This sounds nice, and for a long time I really wanted to believe that, because it would allow someone to be a theist (which is a logical conclusion which 99% of people accept) and at the same time be 'free' to do whatever tickles your fancy. At the same time, like many things that 'sound nice' when you read the fine print, i.e. really start to think about it, it starts to sound less and less nice. The main problem with this is that it is based on the premise that God gave all human beings the necessary tools to figure 'it' out independently of other human beings or at least independently of organized religion and revealed scriptures and prophets. If that premise were indeed correct, then all those who believe in that would be basically balanced, happy people who were productive, contributed to society, and didn't harm others. Their conclusions would be coherent and teachable to others, not just in their basic form (i.e. the Golden Rule which all religions believe in) but in the details about how to live on a day to day basis. The reason is because everything  one human being can understand, others have the capacity to understand. This system would be both internally consistent (i.e. not self contradictory) and externally consistent and coherent (would not directly contradict any well known and well established facts that most people agree on, scientifically and otherwise).

Now go and ask 5 different people who are 'Deists / Secularists / Humanists' about specifics regarding how to live a happy fulfilling life in accordance with what God wants for us. You will get two categories of answers. (I know because I have tried this many times). The first category would be the politicians answer. They will give you some vague principles (like the Golden Rule) which are universally agreed upon and then stop, no specifics. The second category would be the detailed answer, which will be wildly different for each of the five. By your username, NorthWest, if this denotes where you live, geographically in the US, you are already very familiar with this. There are almost an infinite number of 'ways to live' and one might work for one person, or partially work for them, for a limited amount of time, but not for someone else. So the 'advice' they give you doesn't translate to your life, and there is a good chance that this 'lifestyle' doesn't even work for them, since people of this type or usually very selective in what details of their life they will actually share with you. 

In between my time as  Christian and my reversion to Islam (which was about 6 years), I tried many of these 'lifestyles'. None of them really gave my inner peace and satisfaction. They were, at best, a temporary distraction and always led to the same place, spiritually and psychologically, i.e. a deep hole and sense of inner chaos and dissatisfaction. In America, they teach us that when this happens just buy more things, go on a vacation, get a new partner, move to a different city, get a new job, etc. I tried all of these things and none of them worked, i.e. none of them took away that spiritual hole. This 'movement' that is encouraged by society is good for the economy, but not good for the society, most of the time. 

So  the conclusion I came to is that 'our own devices'; belief in God, logic, our basic innate nature to love and be loved, etc, is necessary but not sufficient to lead us to the truth regarding these issues. We need another component to attain this spiritual , psychological fulfillment that we all seek. That is guidance directly from God, explicit guidance that came to us via Prophets and the Divine Books. 

2. God does not love us, want to guide us. So he created us, without the necessary tools, knowing that we would fail. This is the pessimists view of God. This is bad / wrong for obvious reasons. Also, there is no evidence that this is the case, and in fact there is alot of evidence to the contrary. If you look back on your life, you will find at least a few people that changed your life in a significant way, for the positive. God created those people to help you. Also, everything in this entire universe, from the temperature on the surface of the earth, free oxygen, the water cycle, flowing rivers, the growing plants, etc, etc, (I could go on and on for many pages) is designed for our benefit and to help us live a happy and healthy life. If you believe in God, and that God created all that, all those things are direct proof that God wants us to be guided and be happy and attain success and fulfillment, not the opposite. 

 

 

Edited January 27 by Abu Hadi

[Northwest]

@Abu Hadi

I greatly appreciate your thoughtful, detailed response. A few points of mine:

3 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

 

1. God created us, then left us to our own devices to 'figure it out on our own'. This is what Deists and many secularists believe (although with secularists, there are many variations of this). Part of this belief is that God gave us logic and other intellectual tools to be able to 'figure it out' without the help of organized religion. ...

The main problem with this is that it is based on the premise that God gave all human beings the necessary tools to figure 'it' out independently of other human beings or at least independently of organized religion and revealed scriptures and prophets. If that premise were indeed correct, then all those who believe in that would be basically balanced, happy people who were productive, contributed to society, and didn't harm others. Their conclusions would be coherent and teachable to others, not just in their basic form (i.e. the Golden Rule which all religions believe in) but in the details about how to live on a day to day basis. ...

My response to this: there are plenty of religious people who are productive, contribute to their respective societies, and do their best to follow the Golden Rule, but from a monotheistic perspective their beliefs may not necessarily be true. When I formerly resided in the U.S.—the Southeast, to be exact—or the “Northwestern” quadrant of the globe, I knew my share of Trinitarian Christians who were certainly satisfied and stable people, but their religious rituals and dogmas may or may not have been true. Nevertheless, they felt that their religion addressed their deepest spiritual needs, along with their subjective desires, experiences, upbringing, and so on.

In like manner, I too feel an inner, “religious“ need for a spiritual grounding on which to base my life. But an organised religion naturally tends to discourage its adherents from critically examining its tenets. For example, Trinitarian Christianity uses revelation as a pretext to suppress the application of reason, claiming that certain doctrines cannot be rationally understood by limited creatures. To a lesser degree, as far as I can see, the same basic limitation also exists in Islam and Judaism. So I question whether it is reasonable for any of the three Abrahamic faiths to claim that one or the other is deficient or false, or to make a similar claim about non-Abrahamic faiths.

For example, plenty of Trinitarian Christians secretly harbour doubts about the Trinity, but their belief-system regards unitarianism as heresy and blasphemy. So the fear of Hellfire prevents the Trinitarians from following their inner doubts and adhering to strict logic. This aspect of organised religion, and how it has been abused throughout history, is more than enough for one to be wary of organised religion. The use of fear to suppress independent inquiry and logic also explains why Trinitarian Christians are discouraged from seeking sources outside their tradition, so they are not allowed to critically examine the Trinity by relying on Islamic or Jewish sources.

In relation to this, I must refer to an earlier quote of yours:

On 1/4/2023 at 11:13 PM, Abu Hadi said:

If it turns out that there is no Trinity and only One God and everyone will find out after the die then...God would be offended by that and you don't want to offend God, since it is God alone who determines your fate for all eternity.

I have a big problem with this generalisation. It exemplifies Pascal’s wager and relies on fear. My problem with this line of reasoning is that it mirrors the Trinitarians’: if the Trinity is true, then by denying the Trinity you will have mocked God, be damned, etc. You can’t use this same line of reasoning to credibly argue against the Trinitarians. This is where I have trouble with organised religion: the reliance on fear as a mode of argumentation. As mentioned previously, it is also inconsistent, in that the Trinitarians employ the same paradigm.

As I mentioned, I identify most closely with a form of Deism that is also unitarian, in that it views the Creator as One rather than a Multiplicity, e.g., Trinity.

3 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

In between my time as  Christian and my reversion to Islam (which was about 6 years), I tried many of these 'lifestyles'. None of them really gave my inner peace and satisfaction. They were, at best, a temporary distraction and always led to the same place, spiritually and psychologically, i.e. a deep hole and sense of inner chaos and dissatisfaction. In America, they teach us that when this happens just buy more things, go on a vacation, get a new partner, move to a different city, get a new job, etc. I tried all of these things and none of them worked, i.e. none of them took away that spiritual hole. This 'movement' that is encouraged by society is good for the economy, but not good for the society, most of the time.

I am a little confused here. You yourself stated that, based on our surroundings, we can conclude that the Creator established this realm so that we may be successful, not just in a spiritual sense, but also in a material. Obviously, practical success in this world involves activities such as seeking out jobs, internships, relationships, locations, and so on. All this involves movement, even if one does so as a practicing religious believer. But you also mention that all this movement is usually not so good for society, though it helps the economy. As a believing (Shia) Muslim, what kind of economic order or level of movement do you envision, besides obvious solutions such as banning riba, speculation, intoxicants, and so on?

3 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

So  the conclusion I came to is that 'our own devices'; belief in God, logic, our basic innate nature to love and be loved, etc, is necessary but not sufficient to lead us to the truth regarding these issues. We need another component to attain this spiritual, psychological fulfillment that we all seek. That is guidance directly from God, explicit guidance that came to us via Prophets and the Divine Books.

I am actually somewhat in agreement here. But as mentioned, the proverbial Devil is in the details, e.g., the interpretation of the Divine Revelation, which varies within and among the three branches of Abrahamic monotheism, to not mention within and among other faiths. (To be clear, I wish to clarify that I am far closer to the first of your two conclusions than the second; otherwise, I would not be here today, for life would have been meaningless from the start.)

On 1/18/2023 at 5:59 PM, Son of Placid said:

If you believe Jesus is God you are a blasphemer and will go to hell.
If you believe Jesus is not God you are a blasphemer and will go to hell.
These became doctrines.
The great divide is never in the God laws, but always in the man made god laws.
God's laws are not enough? 

@Son of Placid

This returns me to my original question: why is it so hard for some believers to let go of illogical beliefs such as the Trinity? Even in the face of damnation, can’t the Trinitarians be more willing to follow their individual judgment instead of the preachers’ or scholars’? If not for the fear of Hellfire and/or social ostracism, many Trinitarians would have become unitarians by now, if not much earlier in history. The fact that the religious Establishment in Christendom, until recently, used political power to persecute and even execute unitarians (e.g., Arius) makes me very critical of organised religion and religious establishments in general.

Also, if one looks at the history, one cannot blame emperors such as Constantine for enforcing Trinitarianism at the point of a sword. In many cases it was the clerics who held more political power than the emperors and even pressured them to persecute people such as Arius, the Jews, the Muslims, etc. In the Middle Ages, between the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the start of the Renaissance, the Church was typically stronger than the secular power, and it enforced Trinitarianism upon the secular arm. Centralised nation-states did not exist during the Middle Ages, given the prevalence of feudalism.

Edited January 27 by Northwest

[Son of Placid]

7 minutes ago, Northwest said:

why is it so hard for some believers to let go of illogical beliefs such as the Trinity?

I have a feeling that you and I have studied more than the average church going believer.
For the most part, Christians are taught by their preachers. They go there to satisfy their one hour God need, but don't always live by faith, don't do daily devotions, and don't follow the true teachings of Jesus. 7 day Christians are hard to find.
In this case, they don't think of trinity any more than they think of asking God's reaction to daily situations.
 

On 1/18/2023 at 4:15 PM, Guest Agnostic Christian much? said:

I'd have to disagree with you there on your sentiment that the Quran doesn't speak of Trinity.

Sorry, I got my councils mixed up. The trinity was enforced in 381. That's when "Christians" killed the most Christians. best be Catholic.
The Quran does not mention Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They were figuring the "three" meant God, Jesus, and Mary. 

On 1/18/2023 at 4:15 PM, Guest Agnostic Christian much? said:

Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law.   

 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 

For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

The curse of the law is the abundance of man made god laws.
The Pharisees and teachers at the time were those responsible for the man made god laws. They spent more time drawing up new laws than teaching theology.

Jesus was speaking of the law of the Prophets, not of the Pharisees. He really didn't think much of them.

[Abu Hadi]

16 hours ago, Northwest said:

@Abu Hadi

I greatly appreciate your thoughtful, detailed response. A few points of mine:

My response to this: there are plenty of religious people who are productive, contribute to their respective societies, and do their best to follow the Golden Rule, but from a monotheistic perspective their beliefs may not necessarily be true. When I formerly resided in the U.S.—the Southeast, to be exact—or the “Northwestern” quadrant of the globe, I knew my share of Trinitarian Christians who were certainly satisfied and stable people, but their religious rituals and dogmas may or may not have been true. Nevertheless, they felt that their religion addressed their deepest spiritual needs, along with their subjective desires, experiences, upbringing, and so on.

 

Like I said in my previous posts, they find inner peace and satisfaction because most of Christian practices (practices, not theology, I think this is where the misunderstanding is) are derived from true, God given principles. For example, practices such as 'Love your neighbor as yourself', giving to the poor and the needy, being polite and kind, etc, etc, these all have a positive effect on one's character and on society. 

I would even go so far as to say that, at least from what I have seen, the modern practice of Christianity (practice, not theology, again sorry to keep saying this) is closer to the teachings of Islam than the modern practice of most Muslims (Muslims, i.e. the people who claim to follow Islam, not Islam itself) which is mostly based on a particular culture and called 'Islam'. The problem with Christianity is in the theology and some of the former and current dogmas attached to this theology, which most Christians are only slightly aware of, because the Church actively covers up this theology by not discussing it, or it's implications. This is why Christians (and Jews) are referred to in Islam as 'Ahl Al Kitab', people of the Book, and not as 'Mushrik', idol worshippers or 'kaafir',* in the sense of those who are ungrateful for the blessings God gave them or those who deny God altogether. It is because they have a Book (The Bible) which was originally from God, although parts of it were changed by certain people (again the subject of this thread) and doctrines like 'Trinity' which are not monotheistic are not part of the everyday life of the vast majority of Christians and most are only vaguely aware of them. 

* the term 'kaafir' is also used by some Muslims to refer to all Non Muslims. So Christians are 'kaafir' according to that meaning, but the real, actual meaning of 'kaafir' is those who 'cover up' the signs and blessings that God gave them, i.e. those who are ungrateful to God and deny or lie about God. 

This is why I left the Church, not because of any of the practices of Christians. I have said this before, I was treated with much more respect and kindness by my former 'Church family' than I ever was by the Muslim community. So in short, its the theology (the topic of this thread), not the practices, for the most part. 

16 hours ago, Northwest said:

In like manner, I too feel an inner, “religious“ need for a spiritual grounding on which to base my life. But an organised religion naturally tends to discourage its adherents from critically examining its tenets. For example, Trinitarian Christianity uses revelation as a pretext to suppress the application of reason, claiming that certain doctrines cannot be rationally understood by limited creatures. To a lesser degree, as far as I can see, the same basic limitation also exists in Islam and Judaism. So I question whether it is reasonable for any of the three Abrahamic faiths to claim that one or the other is deficient or false, or to make a similar claim about non-Abrahamic faiths.

 

What are the basic limitations in Islam ? Please talk about Islam and not what Muslims do, which many times has nothing to do with Islam. 

16 hours ago, Northwest said:

 

In relation to this, I must refer to an earlier quote of yours:

I have a big problem with this generalisation. It exemplifies Pascal’s wager and relies on fear. My problem with this line of reasoning is that it mirrors the Trinitarians’: if the Trinity is true, then by denying the Trinity you will have mocked God, be damned, etc. You can’t use this same line of reasoning to credibly argue against the Trinitarians. This is where I have trouble with organised religion: the reliance on fear as a mode of argumentation. As mentioned previously, it is also inconsistent, in that the Trinitarians employ the same paradigm.

 

I think you misunderstood my statement. Let me clarify. I have had this discussion with many Trinitarian Christians, including members of my immediate family. I think my summary of this was too brief. Let me expand on that. 

I am assuming we both believe in objective reality, i.e. that reality is what it is, regardless of how we feel about it. For example, and I have used this one before, Gravity doesn't care if you believe in it or not or how you feel about it. If you jump off a cliff you will fall to the ground at a high speed and get injured or killed, regardless if you want this to happen or not. 

It is not a perfect analogy, since when applied to God, most of us believe that God has likes and dislikes, has feelings (not like we do but God gets angry, gets happy, etc). God is not some cold detached reality. At the same time, God exists the way that He(s.w.a) exists, regardless of how we feel about it. It is part of objective reality which we cannot change and have no control over. This reality existed long before we were born and it will exist long after we die. Either God is one of Trinity or God is One with no Partners or Equals or Rivals, i.e. Monotheism. One of these is true, the other is false. Period. If you believe in objective reality, then that is the inevitable conclusion.

God gave us the faculty of reason. We can deduce or induce what objective reality is from putting together clues and signs without someone telling us directly or implanting the knowledge in our head at birth (i.e. instinct). We can use this same process to know whether God is a Trinity or not. We can know what the objective reality is. If we fail to use the great gift of reason that God gave us, then we will be responsible for the consequences of this. For example, if you are driving down the road and you see a 'Road closed' sign, barricades, etc, and there is construction on the bridge and the bridge is not there, i.e. there is a gap in the road then you fall thru this gap and get severely injured then you will be injured or you might die. you not looking at the signs and ignoring the barricades will not save you from the consequences of your decision to keep driving. The consequences will happen, regardless of how you feel about them, and there will be noone to blame but yourself. This was my point. 

In Islam, we believe that the all the Prophets had dual roles (and the Quran states this many times) of a giver of good news and a warner (bashir wa natheer, in Arabic). They were exactly both of those things, and not just a giver of good news (i.e. heaven, love, etc). The role of the warner can be summarized by what I said above. God gave you a brain, a mind, and placed signs all around you regarding the correct beliefs about Him(s.w.a) and who his true Messengers were and what their Message was. If you disregard all that and spend your life, up till the moment of death (and noone knows when this will happen) ignoring and disregarding this and acting to the contrary, there is consequences for that and they will happen, regardless of how you feel about it. 

16 hours ago, Northwest said:

I am a little confused here. You yourself stated that, based on our surroundings, we can conclude that the Creator established this realm so that we may be successful, not just in a spiritual sense, but also in a material. Obviously, practical success in this world involves activities such as seeking out jobs, internships, relationships, locations, and so on. All this involves movement, even if one does so as a practicing religious believer. But you also mention that all this movement is usually not so good for society, though it helps the economy. As a believing (Shia) Muslim, what kind of economic order or level of movement do you envision, besides obvious solutions such as banning riba, speculation, intoxicants, and so on?

 

I think you misunderstood my point. Let me clarify. What I was saying is that in American society, 'things' are often pushed onto people as a solution for their spiritual, emotional , psychological issues and problems. Since the spirit or soul is a non material entity, it cannot be 'solved' by material things. That was the point. Yes, we need to work, have relationships, look for opportunities, etc, but this will not 'solve' our spiritual problems. It will solve our material problems, to a point. If we are homeless, getting a house will solve our housing problem. If we are hungry, getting food will solve that material problem. If we are lonely, getting a partner will solve part of that problem, to an extent. Getting a bigger house, a better job, a more 'beautiful' spouse will not solve our immaterial, i.e. spiritual problems. The origin of these problems (the spiritual ones) is our connection and relationship to God, Our Creator. This problem (which is the root of all our other problems, but this is another topic) can only be solved by 'seeking' our Creator. This topic, in Islam is called 'Zuhud' or 'Spiritual Wayfaring', actively seeking to have a closer relationship with God thru using the pathways that were shown to us by the Prophets and Imams. 

We are a material being and a spiritual being joined in one entity (i.e. me) in this world. The material things, such as money, food, clothing, houses, partners, etc, are only there to facilitate our spiritual journey by keeping the material part of us alive and healthy. We should not make these material things our goal, but rather the means to reach our spiritual goals. This was the point. We must also realize that there is an active campaign by those who seek only 'this world' and material things to propose material solutions to spiritual problems in order to make themselves wealthy. As Muslims, we disavow this as a solution. 

Edited January 28 by Abu Hadi