Evidence for God from Science

Aviatrix,

The Qur'an does not say God needs a wife to have a son. Adam pbuh was created without one, certainly. It says that God is exalted above such necessities of man in order to create what He will.

Not exactly.

And they make the jinn associates with Allah, while He created them, and they falsely attribute to Him sons and daughters without knowledge; glory be to Him, and highly exalted is He above what they ascribe (to Him). Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth! How could He have a son when He has no consort, and He (Himself) created everything, and He is the Knower of all things. S. 6:100-101 Shakir

The truth is that - exalted be the Majesty of our Lord - HE has taken unto Himself neither wife nor son, S. 72:3 Sher Ali

You said:

It says that God is exalted above such necessities of man in order to create what He will.

You are saying that God does not have a son by intercourse. Christians would certainly agree with that.

Don't the following ayas imply that Allah thinks that Christians believe that Allah had sex with Mary and out popped a little son of God named Jesus?

"They say (the Christians): "Allah hath begotten a son!" Glory be to Him! He is self-sufficient! His are all things in heaven and on earth! No warrant have ye for this!" (Surah 10:68)

And they say: "(God) Most Gracious has begotten offspring." Glory to Him! They are (but) servants raised to honour. Surah 21.26

They say: "Allah hath begotten a son" :Glory be to Him.-Nay, to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and on earth: everything renders worship to Him. To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth: When He decreeth a matter, He saith to it: "Be," and it is. Surah 2:116-117

Commentary in my Qur'an:

"Begetting a son is a physical act depending on the needs of men's animal nature. God Most High is independent of all needs, and it is derogatory to Him to attribute such an act to Him. It is merely a relic of pagan and anthropomorphic materialist superstitions."

"It is a derogation from the glory of God—in fact it is blasphemy—to say that God begets sons, like a man or an animal. The Christian doctrine is here emphatically repudiated. If words have any meaning, it would mean an attribution to God of a material nature, and of the lower animal functions of sex."

Shalom

Aviatrix,

The Qur'an is the word of God. There is similarity to the way the author of John uses this phrase and the understanding in Islam. But we don't understand "the Word" of God to have any power on its own, consciousness, awareness, omniscience and omnipresence and power over the world like we say God has. I can't say I fully understand the idea of "uncreated Word" but it's probably similar to your understand with the exception that it does not make it God. The Word doesn't create; God creates. The Word was with God I agree, but not that the word was God. And if that doesn't make sense, it's my fault and I'm sorry.

Let's try this and maybe you will understand.

God created by speaking, according to scripture. So you could say God's Word is His will, His substance."

Think of how God created the universe. He created all things by His spoken word. "and God said…"

Psalm 33:6, 6. By the word of the Lord, the heavens were made, and with the breath of His mouth, all their host. (Hebrew Scriptures)

So God made all things through His Word—His spoken Word. In Genesis 1 the emphasis is on God's spoken word; in John 1, the emphasis on the Word "himself" — a divine "entity," with God and yet God.

Why did God speak when He created the universe? Why didn't He just do it without uttering a sound? To whom was He speaking? Did He use a language? It seems clear that there was a creative, dynamic force to His words, a power and energy in His command, a tangible release of His divine life. God speaks and it is so. God's Word is an extension of His nature, an expression of His will.

Tanakh:

Psalm 107: 19. And they cried out to the Lord in their distress; from their straits He saved them. 20. He sent His word and healed them, and extricated them from their pit.

Isaiah 55:10 For, just as the rain and the snow fall from the heavens, and it does not return there, unless it has satiated the earth and fructified it and furthered its growth, and has given seed to the sower and bread to the eater, 11. so shall be My word that emanates from My mouth; it shall not return to Me empty, unless it has done what I desire and has made prosperous the one to whom I sent it.

Psalm 147: 15. He sends His commandment to the earth; His word runs swiftly.16. He gives snow like wool; He scatters hoarfrost like ashes.17. He hurls His ice like crumbs; before His cold, who can stand? 18. He sends His word and melts them; He blows His wind; water runs.

We know God through His Word.

One of the important Rabbinic thoughts was "the Word," called Memra' in Aramaic. It comes from the Hebrew and Aramaic root, "to say." When God said the material world came into existence. The Memra concept is used hundreds of times in the Aramaic Targums. They Aramaic Targums arose because many Jewish people no longer understood Hebrew.

A Jewish person who understood Aramaic, using Genesis 3:8 as an example, would have heard and understood: "And they heard the sound of the Word of the LORD God walking in the midst of the garden." So the Targum made an adjustment: It was not the Lord who was walking in the garden, it was the Memra' (Word) of the Lord. This Word was not just an "it,"; this Word was a him.

With that in mind let's look at John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.

Let's look at this verse and substitute the word "Memra" for "Word."1 In the beginning was the Memra, and the Memra was with God, and the Memra was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.

John would have been familiar with the word Memra, but he wrote his gospel in Greek. The Greek word for "Word" is "logos.

John 1 14 And the Word (Memra) became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

Shalom

Messiance Jew, Michael L. Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Baker Publishing Group, quoted with written permission.

It seems to me to be a sad fundamental error when people like yourself pick up the Qur'an and take a verse and say:

Doesn't this imply that God thinks that Christians do such-and-such?

The answer is always no.

And as tempting as it is, I'm not going to sit here and debate with you what the Qur'an means on this forum because I don't think that kind of discussion will be tolerated (as per the rules/guidelines.) Perhaps for you, but not for me. If you consider it free game to attack me, then so be it, and I guess I'll just have to shut up and take it. So I hope you won't do that, because it's kind of lame really to waste your time and effort criticizing a religion and a scripture you don't even believe in. (My personal opinion... I don't mean offense.)

You have to really read something into the text that isn't there to pull out "the Qur'an says Christians think God had sex with Mary..." Astaghfirullah, that's not in there. Muslims don't think Christians think that or say that, it's not anywhere in Islam that Christians believe that, and frankly I think it's a little gross and blasphemous just to talk about it. Both of us, being sensible people, knowing that neither of us believes that foolishness, should let the discussion drop. I'm hoping...

Next, I do appreciate your posting those articles, I read the one you pasted and skimmed the one that you linked. (I don't think that line of discusion was particularly meaningful and I'm really tired so I didn't dwell on it.) The one by the Messianic Jew, I have some comments on, but I just want you to understand I was trying to point out similarities...

It would be easier for me if you could summarize what you were trying to achieve by pasting the article. I still maintain that there are similarities in the way Muslims and Christians view the Word of God--not that it's the same in both religions, but it is similar, stemming from the same place I think.

Again thanks for the courtesy.

Oh I changed my mind....

I tried to lay down and was thinking about that commentary and why it bothered you... it says the verse repudiates the Christian doctrine while you and I agree that the Christian doctrine does not suggest a physical act of procreation for the conception of Jesus peace be upon him.

Right?

So I checked one commentary I have, Yusuf Ali--that's the one you quoted. Generally I like this commentary, but I'm not sure where he gets his information. I have another Qur'an with summaries (it claims) of At-Tabari, Ibn Kathir, and Al-Qurtubi with comments by Al-Bukhari. There is absolutely no mention of Christianity specifically here, or Christian doctrine. In fact, they even suggest this verse is talking about pagans, who ascribe sons to God, physically. When I pulled up Ibn Kathir, what I found was references (as before) to all three, that Jews, Christians, and pagans do this. It does not actually mention anything biological going on.

The best way I think to explain it is that the commentators had this opinion of Christianity (centuries ago, mind you.) And again I left my book on Justin in the car so I can't go there yet. However, to be clear, this verse is not specifically dealing with Christian doctrine. It's refuting the idea of a son, yes, biologically, yes. It does not necessarily imply that Christian doctrine in 2006 suggests such.

Remember that the Qur'an is refuting all sorts of incorrect beliefs, not just the ones you are familiar with. And it doesn't exactly name any group here.

So I want to share this hadith from Al-Bukhari
The Prophet (saws) said: Allah said, "The son of Adam tells lies against Me though he has no right to do so, and he abuses Me though he has no right to do so. As for his telling lies against Me, he claism that I canot re-create him as I created him before; and as for his abusing Me: it is his statement that I have a son (or offspring) No! Glorified is Me! I am far from taking a wife or son (or offspring)."

It's not a physical issue here. The thing is that why would God do that, when having a son means that not all praise would be for God? (I.e., it would be for the son as well, or wife.) So if God took any partner, that would be the case. Be mindful that the pagan Arabs claimed Allah had sons, daughters, wives, you name it.

Aviatrix wrote:It seems to me to be a sad fundamental error when people like yourself pick up the Qur'an and take a verse and say:

Doesn't this imply that God thinks that Christians do such-and-such?

I don't "pick up the Qur'an and take a verse...." I've read the Qur'an in three different English translations. I have a copy of a Hadith collection. I talk to Muslims. I had a couple of Muslims help me understand what some of the verses say. I have spent years studying Islam.

It looks from your next post that you understand why I come to the conclusion that I have.

Besides that I have Muslims continually telling me that they believe that Christians believe that Jesus is the biological son of God. Where are they getting this idea except from the Qur'an?

If you consider it free game to attack me, then so be it, and I guess I'll just have to shut up and take it.

I have no intention of attacking you. That is not my style. Disagreeing with someone is not attacking them.

I will address your next post later.

Shalom

Whew, sorry if I went a little off the handle, there.

You're right, at first I totally wasn't getting what the problem was and when I went to try to sleep it was nagging my mind until I pulled out the commentaries myself. Then it clicked.

So I just want to say that not every Muslim is necessarily right in his belief. Not even the commentaries may be right. I mean, I wouldn't say Christians today think that Jesus peace be upon him is God's biological son (astaghfirullah). I'd be hard pressed to find anyone who said that, actually. So do Muslims have this wrong perception? Quite likely. Is it from the Qur'an? Not necessarily.

Besides that I have Muslims continually telling me that they believe that Christians believe that Jesus is the biological son of God. Where are they getting this idea except from the Qur'an?

A few things are possible. One is that some "Christians" through history have held this belief. You might call them heretics, but nevertheless these verses which do not specifically mention Christians could deal with those sects, plus other religions which say similar things that also aren't mentioned (namely paganisms.)

Anoter possibility is that people just misunderstand the Qur'an. The commentary, while a tremendous resource in understanding the Qur'an, isn't perfect. Nobody considers the tafseer infallible, and there is no specific mention (that I've been able to find) of Christians alone in reference to this verse.

So if a Muslim tells you that Christians believe Jesus peace be upon him is the biological son of God, you can correct him, and say Christians don't believe that.

If he tells you then that the Qur'an says it, tell him that he is likely misunderstanding the Qur'an. That is my opinion. (You could also tell him that the Qur'an is wrong, but we know where that goes... and after this explanation, I hope it wouldn't be necessary.)

Peace

Thank you for your patience.

Aviatrix wrote:Whew, sorry if I went a little off the handle, there.

You're right, at first I totally wasn't getting what the problem was and when I went to try to sleep it was nagging my mind until I pulled out the commentaries myself. Then it clicked.

So I just want to say that not every Muslim is necessarily right in his belief. Not even the commentaries may be right. I mean, I wouldn't say Christians today think that Jesus peace be upon him is God's biological son (astaghfirullah). I'd be hard pressed to find anyone who said that, actually. So do Muslims have this wrong perception? Quite likely. Is it from the Qur'an? Not necessarily.

Christians have never believed that Jesus is the biological son of God. Let me clarify--Christianity does not teach that Jesus is the biological son of God. Misinformed Christians are a different matter. I researched Church history for this information and I could find no sect of Christianity that ever believed that.

So, if the Qur'an is addressing "some" errant Christians it should have said so.

The same could be said of this verse:

And they say: "The Most Beneficent (Allaah) has begotten a son (or offspring or children) [as the Jews say: 'Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allaah, and the Christians say that He has begotten a son ['Isa (Christ)], and the pagan Arabs say that He has begotten daughters (angels, etc.)]." (Maryam 19:88)

Doesn't this imply biological sons? BTW, the Jews have never called Ezra a son of God in any sense.

I am aware that pagan Arabs said that Allah has begotten daughters (angels, etc.)

Are you aware of this verse?

Job 38:4 "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. 5 Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? 6 To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone, 7 when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God [beney 'elohim] shouted for joy? (NKJV)

God is calling his angels "sons of God."

Also,

6 I will say to the north, 'Give them up!' And to the south, 'Do not keep them back!' Bring My sons from afar, And My daughters from the ends of the earth— 7 Everyone who is called by My name, Whom I have created for My glory; I have formed him, yes, I have made him.” Isaiah 43:6-7

Yahweh has sons and daughters in the figurative sense.

Besides that I have Muslims continually telling me that they believe that Christians believe that Jesus is the biological son of God. Where are they getting this idea except from the Qur'an?

A few things are possible. One is that some "Christians" through history have held this belief. You might call them heretics, but nevertheless these verses which do not specifically mention Christians could deal with those sects, plus other religions which say similar things that also aren't mentioned (namely paganisms.)

No, see my comment on Church history above.

Anoter possibility is that people just misunderstand the Qur'an. The commentary, while a tremendous resource in understanding the Qur'an, isn't perfect. Nobody considers the tafseer infallible, and there is no specific mention (that I've been able to find) of Christians alone in reference to this verse.

OK.

So if a Muslim tells you that Christians believe Jesus peace be upon him is the biological son of God, you can correct him, and say Christians don't believe that.

Been there, done that.

If he tells you then that the Qur'an says it, tell him that he is likely misunderstanding the Qur'an. That is my opinion. (You could also tell him that the Qur'an is wrong, but we know where that goes... and after this explanation, I hope it wouldn't be necessary.)

The closest that anyone can come to telling a Muslim that the Qur'an is wrong is, "Perhaps the Qur'an has been misinterpreted, but if it says that Christians believe that Jesus is the biological son of God, then it is mistaken." That doesn't go over well.

With all of this said I asked an Arabic speaking Muslim and two Arabic speaking Christians to comment on

"They say (the Christians): "Allah hath begotten a son!" Glory be to Him! He is self-sufficient! His are all things in heaven and on earth! No warrant have ye for this!" (Surah 10:68)

They all agreed but this is the interpretation of one of them:

"qol houwa allahu ahadon, allahou assamad, lam yaled walam youlad..."

lam yaled= he didn't give birth to a child
lam youlad: he wasn't born

"These two denote sexual relationship...giving birth in the physical, material sense..."

OK, so we can agree that Allah does not have sons or daughters in the biological sense but what about the figurative/relationship sense?

My Muslim friends tell me that Allah does not have a son in any sense. If so, that leaves us with a problem. How can Allah not have a son in the figurative sense when Yahweh says that He does?

6 I will say to the north, 'Give them up!' And to the south, 'Do not keep them back!' Bring My sons from afar, And My daughters from the ends of the earth— 7 Everyone who is called by My name, Whom I have created for My glory; I have formed him, yes, I have made him.” Isaiah 43:6-7

Psalms 2:7, “I will declare the decree: The LORD has said to Me, 'You are My Son, Today I have begotten You. (Greek translation)

Psalms 2:7, "Let me tell of the decree: the LORD said to me, 'You are My Son,' I have fathered you this day."(Hebrew translation from the Tanakh)

Job 38:4 "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. 5 Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? 6 To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone, 7 when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God [beney 'elohim] shouted for joy? (NKJV)

1 "When Israel was a child, I loved him,
and out of Egypt I called my son. Hosea 11

Yahweh calls Israel His son.

Finally, I would appreciate it if you could find the Justin quote so I can look it over.

Thanks.

Shalom

Aviatrix wrote:

OK, so we can agree that Allah does not have sons or daughters in the biological sense but what about the figurative/relationship sense?

It's in the last line of that surah, actually, the answer to your question. walam yakun lahu kufuwan ahad. And there is nothing like him. Sons and/or daughters in a figurative sense would be "like God" and this verse rejects that.

No, they wouldn't be "like God" in the sense of deity. It is one of relationship. Even the Jews will tell you that. In fact, they have told me that. Calling God, Father, and God calling Israel or David a son is one of relationship. Father and son relationship. It is figurative.

The "children" of God you're reading about seem to me to not be separate deities worthy of worship at all. Is that right?

They are not deities. No one is worthy of worship but God Almighty.

John 1: 12 But as many as received Him (Jesus), to them He (Jesus) gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name (Jesus' name): 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Do you think that the verse above makes Christians "gods?"

I believe there's also an understanding in Jewish theology (could be wrong here) that all prophets are "sons of God" figuratively, not any exclusively. The issue with Ezra... argh, have to go, continue later.

I honestly don't know whether Jews call all prophets sons of God.

But you say that Allah does not have sons in the figurative sense. Right?

I'm going to open another subject and I hope you will join in.

How are you doing with the Justin thing?

Shalom

My new topic is here:

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 0207#40207

OK, so we can agree that Allah does not have sons or daughters in the biological sense but what about the figurative/relationship sense?

It's in the last line of that surah, actually, the answer to your question. wa lam yakun lahu kufuwan ahad. And there is nothing like him. Sons and/or daughters in a figurative sense would be "like God" and this verse rejects that.

The "children" of God you're reading about seem to me to not be separate deities worthy of worship at all. Is that right? I believe there's also an understanding in Jewish theology (could be wrong here) that all prophets are "sons of God" figuratively, not any exclusively.

It's also immensely important to note that this Surah is Meccan, one of the earliest in fact, directed first at the Quraysh. It's commonly used against Christians because it is such a clear definition of the Islamic understanding of tawheed or oneness of God.

So why does "Allah" have no sons but "YHWH" have sons, is your question? My answer is that "YHWH" has no sons, "Elohim" has no sons, or any other name of God you wish to use. At best you can call them metaphors, the descriptions of children, but this understanding has been distorted through the years. The Qur'an, I believe, was revealed to clarify any misunderstandings, to abolish any excuse for people to worship anything besides the One God. Islam's monotheism is very strict, you see?


On to Justin... boy are you gonna laugh. I laughed when I picked it up. Because the first line says "without sexual union." However, he goes on to describe "sons of Zeus" and godly beings that were worshipped by pagans in comparison the Christian notion.

Here it is:

In saying that the Logos, who is the first offspring of God, was born for us without sexual union, as Jesus Christ our teacher, and that he was crucified and died and after rising again ascended into heaven, we introduce nothing new beyond [what you say of] those whom you call sons of Zeus. You know how many sons of Zeus the writers whom you honor speak of--Hermes, the hermeneutic Logos and teacher of all; Asclepius, who was also a healer and after being struck by lightning ascended into heaven, as did Dionysius, who was torn in pieces; Herakles, who to escape his torments threw himself into the fire; the Dioscuri born of Leda; and Persues [born] of Danae; and Bellarophon who; though of human parentage, rode the horse Pegasus [to the heavens]. Need I mention Ariadne and those who, like her, are said to have been placed among the stars? And what about your deceased emperors... But the son of God who is called Jesus, even if only an ordinary human, is worthy to be called son of God because of his wisdom. And if we say, as we said before, that he, peculiarly in comparison to an ordinary birth, was born from God as the Logos of God, such should be ordinary to you who call ermes the angelic [or premonitory] Logos proceeding from God.

I can't even remember where I was going with this. It struck me when I read it that Justin is appealing to pagans that the Christian idea of a god who has a son, a son who ascends to heaven after a tormenting death, is not unique, and that is perfectly similar to their own pagan beliefs about.. yeah.

Whether he means biological son, I can't prove that based on this quote, so I'll drop the argument. I'm also not familiar enough with these Greek myths to say definitively whether the pagans though of these gods as being biological children of Zeus. I will say that was my impression, but being as that is, it's not something worth arguing or trying to prove to you. So I won't.

Last thing, about Uzair, you can say no Jews believed that, but you can't exactly prove it. There's of course a claim somewhere that there was a sect of Jews that said this. I read a "response" article on answering-islam about this, and they think that the Qur'an should have specified "some Jews" instead of just "Jews" but I don't know of the Qur'an to make distinctions like that anywhere, although you can imply it I suppose if you wish. It's probably off-topic though, just to warn you...

Anyway, I hope I answered your post well enough... I'll drop the Justin thing entirely since I consider it largely inconclusive. Sorry to have wasted your time on it in the first place.

Peace

Aviatrix,

Last thing, about Uzair, you can say no Jews believed that, but you can't exactly prove it. There's of course a claim somewhere that there was a sect of Jews that said this. I read a "response" article on answering-islam about this, and they think that the Qur'an should have specified "some Jews" instead of just "Jews" but I don't know of the Qur'an to make distinctions like that anywhere, although you can imply it I suppose if you wish. It's probably off-topic though, just to warn you...

I read the answering-islam response to this subject and I agree with them that the Qur'an should have identified them instead of saying "the Jews" in general. Otherwise it is confusing.

I took this subject to the Jews to see what they said and they said that there were no Jews in their history who called Uzair the son of God.

Why should I believe them?

Because they have nothing to lose by telling the truth.

Why?

Quite frankly most Jews don't care what Muslims or Christians believe.

The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is the saying from their mouth; (In this) they are intimate; what the Unbelievers of the old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the truth. [Qur'an 9:30]

Why would Allah be so upset with the Jews that he would put a curse on them for allegedly saying that the Jews call Uzair a son of God in the figurative sense?

Doesn't it seem to you that the curse was because allegedly the Jews were saying that Allah was sexually involved with Uzair's mother?

Shalom

Well, do you believe God knows what people say, or doesn't He?

I believe God knows what they say, even if nobody else knows. So it isn't alleged to me, if God has witnessed it, because God would know.

Aviatrix wrote:Well, do you believe God knows what people say, or doesn't He?

I believe God knows what they say, even if nobody else knows. So it isn't alleged to me, if God has witnessed it, because God would know.

Yes, God would know.

It seems the topic has strayed far from the original post, but I would like to comment on it.
Why cant Jesus be the literal son of God and the biological Son of God? I believe that he is. His mother is mary, and his father is God. That doesnt necessarily mean that God had sex with mary, but I believe that God is the literal father of Christs body. That doesnt mean that Christ was created, because he existed as a spirit prior to coming to earth.

By the way, Im mormon.

Sargon

Byblos wrote:

Christian2 wrote:How can Jesus be the literal son of God and not the biological son of God?

Immaculate conception?

The immaculate conception is Mary, not Jesus.

Then you are not a Christian...you are merely someone who likes some of the things Christ says. Just defining the term